You can put my absence over the last couple of weeks down to a combination of a lack of time and a lack of effort…so anyway, I’m back, and I missed me so I’m going to assume that you did too. But enough about me.
The title on this post “welcome to winter” makes me wonder, how much colder can it get? Today, the next couple of days, and even the last few days are quite balmy compared to the cold temperatures we have been experiencing of late. We had that extraordinary run of temperatures down in the negatives at the start of May, including the day on which it got as low an -6.9°C. In fact, I count 18 days which had a negative overnight temperature and 21 days which were below Canberra’s May average overnight low of 3.2°C. The days were also quite cold, with 16 days having a maximum temperature at or below the May average maximum of 15.5°C.
So, in many ways, it felt like winter came quite early this year. No surprise then, to see this:
Canberra has recorded the coldest autumn in 27 years, while the month of May has been the coldest since 1975 according to meteorologists from The Weather Channel.
The average minimum temperature over autumn of 5.7 degrees is a full degree below the historical average, and daytime maximums have also been half a degree cooler than average.
(h/t Canberra Times’ Hamish Boland-Rudder)
While it is true that weather is not climate is not weather, at some point the average of the weather becomes the climate, and while it is also true that we are only now coming out of a La Nina cycle which one would expect would bring some colder temperatures, the fact remains that we just had a pretty cold autumn, which does fly in the face of the current “the world is getting so hot that we have to tax the air” line emanating from the government.
In the aforementioned article, Ms. Roze from The Weather Channel does go on to say that our winter will probably not be colder than average, in fact she expects it to be ever so slightly warmer than average based on current ocean temperature (read: end of La Nina) trends.
This all goes to prove something which has been blatantly obvious for longer than I care to count. The notion that humans have caused warming of the planet through carbon dioxide emissions, when it is so clear that natural cycles produce such great variations in the temperature from one year to the next, is downright arrogant. Even more so when you consider that, historically, carbon dioxide levels have followed temperature, not led it. It is even more arrogant, even ludicrous, to suggest that a tax on this carbon dioxide will reduce the temperature.
Oh, and did I mention that the government’s climate expert chief architect of socialist reform Ross Garnaut played the government’s hand yesterday. The carbon dioxide tax is not about the temperature at all, rather it is a giant redistributionist scheme:
Under his plan to distribute carbon tax revenue, Professor Garnaut recommended 55 per cent be given to households, about $6.3 billion under a $26-a-tonne carbon price that raised $11.5bn. Thirty-five per cent of compensation ($3.9bn) would be devoted to business assistance and 10 per cent ($1.5bn) to innovation, of which $750 million is already contained in the forward estimates.
So, 90% of the tax will be given back to the people, and only ten percent of it goes in to the stuff which the government claims will help to keep the temperature under control…make that five percent, because five percent is already in the forward estimates and is presumably coming from somewhere else in the great money cycle of the government, which leaves five percent of the tax unaccounted for. That almost certainly means that it goes towards “administration”, better known as “flying politicians and public servants to pointless conferences about mythical-man-made-warming on carbon dioxide emitting aeroplanes”.
And if you still need convincing that this tax has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with social change (to borrow a line from Jim Ball), we can go back to the article:
the tax-free threshold for low-income earners would rise almost $9000 to $25,000 under recommendations now being considered by the Gillard government.
Julia Gillard’s chief climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, who handed his final report to the government yesterday, has called for compensation to be provided only to those on incomes up to $80,000, while higher income earners would have their tax rates or thresholds altered to ensure they did not receive any benefits from the increase in the tax-free threshold.
(h/t The Australian’s Sid Maher).
Or to put it simply, the “poor”, those earning under $80,000, pay less tax and get more handouts from the government, while the “rich”, those earning over $80,000, foot the bill. It’s called socialism, and it doesn’t work. It stifles productivity through the entitlement mentality, meaning that less wealth gets produced overall, resulting in less tax revenue and the collapse of the whole system.
If the government really feels the urge to play with the tax system, then something they can do which would have a positive impact is the abolition of automatic income tax deductions. That way, rather than having your income tax automatically deducted so that you don’t really notice that it’s gone, you get to keep the money and do with it as you please throughout the year, increasing the amount of money which is flowing through the free market and the amount of productivity which it creates. At the end of the financial year, you simply fill out your tax return as normal, and pay whatever amount of tax you owe. It would be advisable for you to set some or all of this money aside during the year in a savings account or similar, much like many people do for their other bills…but this allows you to earn extra income from interest, which is derived from the money the banks make in investing your money in the free market economy.
This would, of course, also abolish the tax refund, but this is a good thing because that “refund” is really your money which the government has been hanging on to for the better part of a year. This would also have the benefit of making the government more accountable, as they would no longer have rivers of gold pouring in to their coffers every week. Instead, they would have to budget around when money would actually arrive for them to spend, much like the rest of us do. Ultimately, they would probably receive more tax revenue as a result of increased private sector activity due to this scheme, but rather than being able to waste it as soon as it comes in, they would have to carefully plan how to spend it…who knows, it might even make them spend it on stuff we actually want. Now that would be a change.
At long, long last, Canberra has been saved from the wrath of Chief Turnip Jon Stanhope. Stanhope resigned today, leaving the cyclonic one in his wake.
ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope is retiring.
Australia’s longest serving government leader, who turned 60 last month, was elected to the top post in November 2001.
Which would make his tenure ten years…so not the longest, but anyway, we continue…
Mr Stanhope described the jobs as a privilege.
“I would like to thank the people of Canberra for the opportunity they’ve given me to represent them,” he told reporters on Monday.
“I consider it a privilege to have been granted this role.”
He also thanked his successor Katy Gallagher for her unstinting support and friendship.
“I quite simply could not have more faith in Katy’s capacity,” he says.
Mr Stanhope thanked voters in his ACT electorate on Ginninderra, in northern Canberra, where he lives with his wife Robyn.
“I particularly acknowledge and express my deep gratitude to the people of Belconnen and my electorate of Ginninderra, the community which Robyn and I have lived for the last 37 years and where we brought up our children,” he says.
The same people he told to be quiet when he was talking to them at Belconnen Mall because they were silly and didn’t understand the issues? Well I suppose they did vote for him…I will never understand why.
Anyway, the article just gets stranger from there. We start with Stanhope’s bizarre dreams (and you thought mine were odd).
“I’m confident that with the splendid leadership which Katy can provide, the territory … will ultimately achieve if not statehood, constitutional equality with the states.”
Will never happen, and rightly so. We are a territory of the federal government based on land which originally belonged to New South Wales. A decent chunk of our land is controlled through a love/hate relationship between the federal government’s National Capital Authority and our own Legislative Assembly. Realistically we should have one or two local councils running our territory rather than the psuedo-state government that we do have…maybe then we wouldn’t have a grossly oversized public service of the ACT Government, assisting them to do wasteful jobs which should never have been done by them anyway.
And then the article continues…apparently Jon wants to hang on to the one thing which worked well for him during his time at the top.
Mr Stanhope acknowledged many Canberrans were still coming to terms with the 2003 bushfires, which killed four people and destroyed about 500 homes.
“The government, I believe, responded well in the face of this crisis,” he says.
On the day…well no, they were slow to act when they knew the threat was coming. We had the whole debacle of them driving to the Nolan Gallery to save paintings long before they even bothered to tell Canberrans that something might be wrong. The media were on the ball that day, the emergency services did what they could, but the government was found wanting. Still, on the back of the publicity which Jon Stanhope got for jumping out of a helicopter and saving a drowning man around that time, and his supposed decisiveness on the day (we only found out later how big a lie that was), he was popular for quite some time.
Stanhope’s government has been riddled with budgetary mismanagement, incredible delays, his trademark “consultation” process where he talks to nobody and makes his own decision (decisiveness is good, pretending to consult and then blaming everyone else for the eventual mess is not), and a gazillion public artworks which are completely unnecessary and an eyesore to boot.
On Facebook, 2CC have asked “Should we commission a piece of art to honour the work of ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope?”. My answer sums up what I think of Stanhope’s reign of terror. “No, we should pull down all the ones he put up and send him the bill for their removal, and perhaps for their original construction as well.”
I’m not really looking forward to having Cyclone Katy as Chief Minister (the turnip badge is reserved for Stanhope)…but at least now that we have the inexplicably popular Stanhope out of the way, Canberra might, maybe, perhaps, if we’re lucky, see fit to elect Zed Seselja and his far more competent team to clean up the mess next year. One can hope.
I was very pleased today to hear the news that American special forces have killed Osama Bin Laden, the dreadful man behind the September 11 attacks, among other atrocities. US President Barack Obama made the announcement a couple hours ago.
My congratulations and thanks go out to Mr. Obama, the brave men and women who were responsible for making this happen, and former President George W. Bush who set the wheels in motion for this very important mission.
Not surprisingly, a large crowd gathered outside the White House to celebrate when the news broke.
Fox News put together a nearly six minute report on Bin Laden, his acts, and the effort to capture him. It’s well worth a look.
This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
Hear hear!
Under the circumstances, I think this song is appropriate. Weird Al Yankovich’s KOMP Morning Show’s “Bin Laden Bomb Song”. Seeing as I didn’t get around to awarding a Musician Of The Week award yesterday, it can go to Weird Al Yankovich the crew from the then-KOMP Morning Show (see revision in comment #4 below).
In honour of those who have served and defended this country, and our allies, against our enemies and those who wish to do us harm.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.
Back in 2009 I mentioned a story which has, to-date, still received virtually no coverage over here. The story of left-wing organisation ACORN’s activities which led to irregularities in the voter registration process, which in turn helped with the election of Barack Obama.
The good news this week is that the increasingly discredited and broke ACORN has pleaded guilty, as Francis McCabe from the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.
The grass-roots community organizing group ACORN once drew the ire of conservative groups and the attention of national media.
And when ACORN faced charges in Las Vegas of voter registration malfeasance in 2008, a flock of political spin doctors and lawyers rushed to its defense.
But three years later, with ACORN’s two co-defendants already having taken plea deals and the organization essentially defunct and in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the case received little attention as a lawyer on behalf of ACORN pleaded guilty Wednesday.
After months of negotiations and some legal wrangling, mostly because of a federal court-appointed bankruptcy trustee not wanting to deal with the criminal case, ACORN entered a guilty plea to one count of felony compensation for registration of voters. Its criminal defense attorney, Lisa Rasmussen, entered the plea.
In negotiations with the Nevada attorney general’s office 12 other felony counts were dropped against the organization and prosecutors will not argue at the Aug. 10 sentencing hearing.
ACORN faces a maximum $5,000 fine. According to court records, when the national organization closed it’s doors in April 2010, the organization had real assets totaling less than $4,000 and “liabilities of more than $4 million.”
Prosecutor Patrick Ferguson said he was satisfied with the outcome of the case and said the reason he agreed not to speak at the sentencing hearing was “we’re not looking to take money away from other creditors, but a message had to be sent.”
[..]
Another defendant in the case, Amy Busefink, who in November pleaded no contest to two counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters, a gross misdemeanor, is appealing to the Nevada Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
[..]
The field operative who created and ran the incentive program, Christopher Edwards, is serving three years of probation after pleading guilty to two gross misdemeanors.
Busefink is a longtime employee of Project Vote, a national grass-roots organization that registers voters and which worked in partnership with ACORN in 2008. Busefink oversaw Edwards, who was sentenced to a year of probation in January.
ACORN officials had maintained Edwards was ordered not to run the incentive program.
The program, called Blackjack or 21-Plus, rewarded employees with $5 extra per shift if they brought in 21 or more completed voter registration cards.
The 40-year-old organization, which once counted President Barack Obama among its ranks in Chicago, came under fire in recent years for its voter registration tactics.
This vile and deceptive organisation has received its just desserts for failing to play by the rules. This Amy Busefink woman can jump up and down all she likes, but I think she’ll find that she’s clutching at straws after a while, considering that everyone else involved has found themselves in plenty of trouble, and it’s just a matter until she does too.
By now, no doubt, you’ve come across this in the media. Julia Gillard pronouncing “hyperbole” as “hyperbowl”.
As George Negus points out in that clip, hyperbole is “A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect”. Well, to use a Kevin Rudd phrase-of-choice, let me say this, Julia Gillard’s mispronunciation was a deliberate bit of hyperbole, an exaggeration designed to gain the attention of the media and distract them, however briefly, from the many ongoing problems with her government, while at the same time attempting to increase the public’s sympathy for her by making it look like the media is picking on her.
From a media front, it’s working. As for the public, I’d like to think that most Australians are smarter than that.
It is becoming very tedious seeing government after government after government pretend to be very concerned about cigarettes, and implementing all of these measures to supposedly cut the smoking rate, when all that they are really doing is either punishing the smoker or the cigarette companies with higher fees and taxes, achieving very little, and reaping massive tax windfalls at the same time.
This time, they’re at it again, although they’re trying to punish the retailers as well, and the “logic” behind it is becoming more than a tad strained.
The federal government wants all cigarette packaging to be olive green, because research shows that is the least attractive colour for smokers, the health minister says.
Under proposed legislation aimed at reducing smoking rates in Australia, all logos will be removed from cigarette packaging, and tobacco companies will be required to print their brand name in a specific font.
[..]
“We’ve done a lot of research to ensure that we make the cigarette packs as unattractive as possible…,” Ms Roxon said.
“Apparently dark olive is the least attractive colour for any smokers and in particular for young people.”
Does Ms. Roxon really think that I’m stupid enough to believe that people will stop smoking because the packaging is not pretty? Those health warnings are pretty grotesque, more grotesque than some olive green cardboard, and people still smoke, so why does she think that olive green packaging will do what has not been done to date?
Realistically, this is just another swipe at the retailers, especially the smaller ones. The whole “you’re not allowed to display the packages, they have to be hidden” and now added on “when the cupboard is opened so that you can get a packet out for a customer, other customers must only see a heap of olive green and not be able to tell that these are cigarette packets” only serves to make it harder for smaller retailers to sell the cigarettes. People won’t stop buying them, they’ll just move to the larger retailers because they won’t know that the smaller retailers are selling them…and in the case of the corner shop where people duck in for a packet of smokes, a bottle of milk and the newspaper, having this business move to the service station up the road could very easily put them out of business.
But that’s OK, because that will look good on government statistics as they’ll come out in twelve months and tell us how “30% less retailers now stock cigarettes”. They’ll proudly announce their “successes” while ignoring the fact that they just damaged yet another industry and put people out of work.
And then there’s Nicola’s other bizarre statement.
“This is about taking away the last opportunity that tobacco companies have in Australia, to try to market their products by making them look luxurious, or pretending that they might be light and better for your health.”
Oh come on Nicola, nobody actually believes that cigarettes are good for your health, or that light cigarettes are better for you than other cigarettes. People know this, and they choose to smoke, something which I should remind you is a perfectly legal activity.
It really is about time that the government either leave people alone who are doing something which is perfectly legal, or they prove that they are concerned about cigarettes by banning them outright, and offering nicotine patches to smokers to alleviate them of their need to smoke.
Is it possible that President Obama finally gets it? I never thought there’d come a day when I’d say that, but having read his recent leaked letter to former President George W. Bush, it certainly looks like it to me.
President Barack H. Obama
The White House
Dear George,
The Gulf oil spill opened my eyes.
As with Hurricane Katrina, it happened suddenly. I barked out orders. I pounded my desk. But the oil kept flowing. Worse, the nation watched it all on television and said: “Why doesn’t the President do something? Doesn’t he care?” From then on, I fully understood both the expectations and the limitations of this job.
I ran on “hope and change.” I said I would bring the sides together. The American people, I told Republicans who opposed my stimulus plan, have spoken. And “I won.”
So without any of the bipartisan support you received for your tax cuts, my stimulus passed, and I confidently predicted it would prevent unemployment from reaching 8 percent. It climbed to 10.2 percent.
Without a single Republican vote, we passed “ObamaCare.” But half of the states’ attorneys general filed suit to stop it. And a year after its passage, most Americans want it repealed.
My party lost its House majority and its Senate supermajority. Voters wanted smaller government. Turns out voters wanted to retain the “Bush tax rates” — even for the rich — which I campaigned against. Again, the American people had spoken.
The morning starts, as you know, with an intelligence briefing. My goodness, does America have enemies — hateful, violent, vicious enemies all over the world who are determined to destroy this nation! Our job is to prevent them from succeeding — all of them, all of the time.
I labeled you a cowboy, promised humility and offered enemy countries an “outstretched hand” for their “unclenched fist.” But calling the Global War on Terror an “overseas contingency operation” not only failed to deter the Islamofascists from wanting to kill us, it suggested a weakness that only strengthened their resolve.
Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas and the mullahs who run Iran, I learned, couldn’t care less that I’m a person of color, born to a Muslim father from Kenya, and who lived in Indonesia. They hate us still.
Guantanamo Bay exists for a reason. It imprisons the worst of the worst. No other country will take these terrorists, and many former detainees have returned to the fight.
Gitmo is among many of your “Bush era” terror-fighting policies that I not only retained but, in some cases, even expanded. What once seemed reckless and wrongheaded, I now see as prudent attempts to strike that difficult balance between safety and freedom.
I came into this job eight years after September 11, 2001. I cannot imagine 3,000 Americans killed on my watch. I cannot imagine polls showing that 90 percent of us anticipated another attack within 12 months of the first, perhaps with chemical or biological weapons. I can imagine how you must have blamed yourself during those long, dark days, and spent every waking hour asking, “What can I do so this never happens again?”
This brings me to the Iraq War, a mission I once called “dumb.”
Seventy-six percent of Americans, at the time, supported your decision. You obtained approval from Congress. By contrast, 47 percent support my actions in Libya, less support than for any military action taken in the last 40 years. Unlike you, I did not seek approval from Congress even though I once said the Constitution requires it.
Thanks to the Iraq War, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi surrendered his WMD. He poses no direct threat to America and cannot use these terrible weapons on his own people. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons on his own people and shot at our planes patrolling the no-fly zones. All 16 of our intelligence agencies thought he possessed stockpiles of WMD, a prospect that threatened to make the 9/11 carnage look small.
I even opposed the “surge” in Iraq and predicted its failure. I now see this unpopular decision for what it was — one of the most courageous decisions ever made by any of the 43 Americans who have sat behind this desk.
I vividly recall shaking my head during the speech you made to make the case for the “dumb” war. A disapproving New York Times wrote: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision. … Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world …”
Now I understand why, in 2008, you signed National Security Presidential Directive-58, Advancing the Freedom Agenda: “To protect America, we must defeat the ideology of hatred by spreading the hope of freedom. Over the past seven years, this is exactly what the administration has done.”
It began with newly liberated Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives by leaving their homes to vote for the first time. Your Freedom Agenda ignited the promising, historic “hope and change” we are now witnessing all throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
You were right. I was wrong. The nation — and the world — owes you a huge debt of gratitude.
Let’s do lunch and then sneak in a round of golf. The “near beer” is on me.
With respect and appreciation,
Barack
Could it be that Obama finally gets it?
No.
It’s April 1.
Thanks to KABC host and Mark Levin Show guest host Larry Elder for the letter which, rather than being written by Obama, was written by Larry Elder who, incidentally, would without doubt make a much better President than Obama.
Just for clarification, Obama is the 44th President. I assume that Elder either meant to write “the 44 Americans who have sat behind this desk” or “the 43 Americans who have sat behind this desk before me”. Oh, and the intelligence agencies were right about Saddam Hussein having WMDs, even if the mainstream media likes to act surprised every time we find more of ’em. Elder didn’t say that we didn’t find WMDs, but the conclusion is there to be drawn if you read it in the “WMDs are a myth” mindset.
The election is done and dusted, Barry O’Farrell is the new Premier of New South Wales as I think we all knew he would be.
The only way that I can really sum this up is that this is a night for the Liberal/National coalition to be proud, proud of the fact that they have gained the trust of a massive majority of New South Wales voters, proud of the fact that they have gained the trust of people in electorates that they could never have imaged that they would ever win.
This is also a night for the people of New South Wales to be proud, proud of the fact that they have given themselves the hope of something better than the endless soap opera of scandals and incompetence that they have endured for far too long.
For Labor, this is a night of despair for more than one reason. Partially because they lost the election, but more so because they have tarnished their name and really lost their way, and have finally been told by the people of New South Wales that enough is enough. Despair because their bizarre back-room antics have cost them some of their best people.
Kristina Keneally, despite her faults, believed in what she was doing and, I think, tried to get her way without pushing too hard and suffering the same fate as her predecessors, a public humiliation by the Labor Party henchmen. Kristina even seemed to believe that she had a chance of winning this election, or at least coming closer than she did…as delusional as that was, it was clear when she gave her concession speech that she is hurt, not just by the loss, but by the way her party’s actions have betrayed her.
Kristina will stay on as the member for Heffron, but has made the very wise move to step down as leader of the Labor Party. This is in no way an indication of her abilities as leader…in fact I think that if she hadn’t been constrained by the party backroom, she could have been far more effective than she was…rather this is an indication that she is better than all of the ripping and shredding and destruction that is about to occur in the ranks of New South Wales Labor. Kristina will be able to work as an effective local member without having to deal with the daily scandals which will surely come out of Sussex Street for the next few years as the party regroups.
Nathan Rees, the former Premier who was knifed by his party when he stood up to them for what he believed, is in a tight battle to retain the seat of Toongabbie. Nathan is apparently a good local member, and if he wins, I will be happy for him. If he loses, I’ll feel sorry for Nathan as it will really be his party which cost him the election, but I’ll be happy for his electorate who will have chosen their representative. Either way, Nathan, mate, run as an independent next time. Being associated with the party which betrayed you does you no favours.
Closer to my home, some good news from this election for the people of Monaro with the ousting of Steve Whan, a local member who would often tell his constituents one thing and then do the opposite in parliament. John Barilaro, the National Party candidate, will be a much better local member than Steve Whan ever was, and I congratulate John on his victory.
Overall, this is a night to be proud, both for the coalition, and for the people of New South Wales. Tonight is for celebration, and tomorrow is the start of four year of very hard work, as Barry O’Farrell and his team work to get New South Wales back on track.
On a national scale, this election has important repercussions as Barry is not as sold on the idea of giving more power to the federal government as NSW Labor were, and this could place many of the Gillard government’s national/state government “partnership” ideas in some jeopardy. This, overall, is probably a good thing as these plans will ultimately give too much power to the federal government and remove power from the state governments which are, ultimately, supposed to be a bit closer to the people.
Also, as this election was partially fought on the subject of the federal Labor party’s carbon tax and Barry’s fervent opposition to it, it is important for federal Labor to realise that New South Wales has loudly said “no” to the carbon tax, and many people in other states agree. I think what we will see from this is Julia Gillard clinging to power as hard as she can, because she knows that if she went to an election now, she would probably be defeated, even if narrowly.
Congratulations to Barry O’Farrell and the Liberal/National coalition. Take tonight to celebrate. You have much of which to be proud. The work starts tomorrow, and with your continued hard work, you and the people of New South Wales will be much prouder by the time the next election comes around than you were as you went in to this election. Labor have a lot of hard work to do as well. They must sort themselves out and mount some form of credible opposition…I doubt it will be complete by the time of the next election, but hopefully they will be well on their way.
Four years of hard work and lots of effort starts now.
It’s pretty clear that Barry O’Farrell and the coalition will win the NSW election tonight, which is absolutely wonderful, however my prediction for the primary vote in the lower house is:
I’m pleased to be able to report that a good friend of this blog, Padders over at The Right Aussie, who was over in Japan late last week when the earthquake struck, is back home safe and well, as he notes on his blog.
I was not caught up in the earthquake drama – except for the final night at the hotel near the airport, which shaked, rattled and rolled about half a dozen times through the night from the aftershocks.
My travel schedule fortuitously had me leaving the country on the day I planned to leave, and on the flight I was booked on. I did not need to change any travel plans.
I was in Nara – about 6 hours by car, south of Tokyo – with a tour group when the quake and tsunami happened, and I never felt a thing. The first I heard of something was when I received a text message from mum.
I got back to the hotel in Kyoto that night to saturation coverage of what unfolded on 12 of the 13 channels.
I’ve been watching the unfolding issues with the affected nuclear power stations with some interest, especially the way some elements of the media (I nearly said “most” but I’ll reserve judgement) are painting it as a much bigger problem than it really is…truth be told, there is a serious element of danger in this situation, but when you look at the details of what is happening there and not just the headlines, these plants have copped a battering and yet are not exceeding legal limits for radiation levels. Assuming that the Japanese continue to keep the situation under relative control, this will prove once and for all that nuclear is a safe and viable option for the rest of the world, especially given that the power plants in question are based on a design which is over 20 years old. Modern designs for nuclear power plants are even safer.
I bring this up because in many ways I feel that the media, while covering the disasters in Japan quite well, are doing the Japanese people, especially their tourism sector, a severe disservice by making it seem like much more of the country is destroyed than is actually the case. Padders makes a similar point:
On the way back to Australia, in the lounge in Singapore Airport, I read in the Weekend Australian words to the effect that the quake had caused destruction all over Japan. This is just heifer dust. In Kyoto, everything was perfectly normal. Trains and buses were running and people were going about their business in their usual happy, determined manner. You would not know anything was wrong.
Of course, many things are horribly devastated in northern Japan, and, in many cases, probably permanently so. It will take many years for things to return to normal.
This episode has not deterred me from returning to this amazing country.
And nor should it deter others. The Japanese people will need our support to rebuild their fine country, and keeping their tourism sector ticking over will be an important part of that recovery.
Anyway, I’m glad to hear that Padders is safe and well. I was not one of the people who emailed him to check however, as I had completely forgotten that he was over there. I somehow got the dates mixed up and didn’t think he was going to be over there for another week or so.
You can read more of Padders’ account of what happened from his perspective over at The Right Aussie.
Mmmm I know, praise for Julia Gillard on this blog…unusual isn’t it.
Seriously though, I was quite impressed with her speech to the US Congress this morning. She portrayed her nation and herself very well and delivered a speech befitting of a close ally of the United States.
The speech can be seen on the ABC News website however for reasons best known to the ABC, there is no easy way for me to embed the video here, so you’ll just have to click the link if you want to see more than just the moon-landing bit which seems to be grabbing most of the media attention at the expense of the more interesting and substantial bits of the speech.
Julia did her country proud today, and it got me thinking, she might be an utterly hopeless administrator, but she is very good at representing the country. Perhaps the best role for her would be that of Governor-General, a role in which she has no real power, but can represent our country positively to the rest of the world.
Tony Abbott for PM and Julia for GG: it’s a good combination in my books.
I don’t know what it is about Deniliquin, but every time I come here I end up hearing about some bizarre story, and I don’t know what it is about PETA (“People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” by name anyway, no guarantees that they stand for anything along those lines) but every time I hear about them, they’re doing something nutty. Today is no exception, except that today the story is so nutty that I thought I’d woken up in another universe and not just another town.
Animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, claims scientists will soon make livestock farming redundant.
PETA is funding United States researchers to produce animal meats in a laboratory, using tissue culture.
Scientists have already successfully grown the first stages of animal muscle, but need to work out how to get it to look and taste like conventional farmed product.
Uh huh, so they haven’t actually made meat in a Petri dish, they’ve made imitation meat which doesn’t yet imitate meat in taste, appearance or texture…so far it’s about as close as me handing you a plate of bacon and telling you that it’s a cup of coffee.
This stuff will never really be meat as it never really came off an animal, but little details like that don’t matter to collective nutbar groups like PETA, after all, they’re “doing it for the environment”.
Asia-Pacific campaign manager Ashley Fruno says lab meats will be better for the planet.
“Well, at the time, I think we’re still a couple of years away from seeing it be publicly available, but everyone at PETA is rooting for science to produce an eco-friendly methadone for their meat heroin, simply because it’s kinder to animals, it’s better for the environment, and it can be disease free, which makes it better for human health.”
And presumably it does away for the need for humans to keep all of those evil methane-expelling, global-warming-causing herds of cattle around, so I wonder what will become of the cows? Perhaps they will frolic in the magic forrest…seriously, what do PETA propose that we do with the superfluous cattle? They wouldn’t propose killing them (would they?), so do we let them run free…gee, that seems like a downright silly idea, cows have less road sense than kangaroos.
And then there’s that strange comparison of meat eater and drug addicts. I wonder if PETA think that non-human meat-eating animals are also akin to drug addicts?
Anyway, farmers have treated the idea with the contempt which it deserves, put PETA back in their padded box and shipped them back to the nut house.
Greg Brown, the president of the Australian Cattle Council, says the environment would suffer if livestock farming ceased.
“She was heard to say it would be great for the environment, it would be a disaster for the environment, because we’d have all this uneaten vegetation which would be destroying the environment by ultimately getting burnt and putting all that stuff into the atmosphere, it’s just absurd.”
(h/t ABC Rural for the article and 2QN’s Paul Dix who brought the story to my attention).
Notice: this post contains mild coarse language. Normally this blog doesn’t, but given the story in question, it is necessary in order to provide context
That beat up last night was an utter disgrace and has done nothing but drag the family of fallen soldier Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney through the media spotlight all over again for no good reason.
Mark Riley, as a political reporter, could probably have found any number of legitimate reasons to criticise Tony Abbott for various things, but instead he has taken a comment that Tony made about the circumstances surrounding the death of this particular soldier, so far out of context that he has made it look callous.
Mark Riley’s version of events is that Tony Abbott’s response to the tragic death of a soldier was “shit happens”. Mark Riley is wrong, and he knows it because he has the video of the full exchange and chose not to show the few seconds before and after.
The footage shows Mr Abbott discussing a gunfight that occurred in August last year that claimed the life of Lance Corporal Jared MacKinney.
The Liberal leader is talking in Tarin Kowt six weeks later with the commander of Australia’s Middle East forces, John Cantwell, and US commander Jim Creighton.
Colonel Creighton says of the digger’s death: “Was it tragic? Absolutely. But we’re all in the knowledge that all the stuff (firepower support) you see here and more was available on the day.”
In response, Mr Abbott says: “It’s pretty obvious that, well, sometimes shit happens, doesn’t it.”
Immediately, Major General Cantwell replies: “It certainly does, yeah.”
(h/t Julian Drape for The Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Associated Press)
The context here is obvious. Tony Abbott was not commenting on the death itself, but on the circumstances which led to the death. He went to Tarin Kowt to find out more about the circumstances which led to the death from the people who were there, amidst claims that the soldiers on the ground lacked the necessary fire power to defend themselves.
Tony’s comment is clearly an acknowledgement that, despite the best efforts of our soldiers, occasionally they will be injured or killed in a war zone. It’s not a nice thing, but when it happens, our duty then becomes to fall behind the soldier and the family of the soldier in providing our full support.
There was nothing callous or disrespectful about what Tony Abbott said. This becomes even more obvious when you understand the setting.
Tony was in Tarin Kowt without journalists in the room. A defence cameraman was there to capture his visit. Under the circumstances, Tony probably didn’t see a need to be guarded in his responses because the media weren’t there to take him out of context. He was being frank and honest in his dealings with our troops.
If he did anything wrong, it was that he treated a Defence camera as if it didn’t belong to the media, although even then I think Tony had a reasonable expectation that his words wouldn’t be taken as far out of context as they were, especially given the sensitive subject matter.
There is a general code of decency which I suppose comes down to personal ethics among journalists, which says that you don’t score political points or grab a headline at the expense of a fallen soldier’s family…alas that is what Mark Riley did. This whole circus, started by Riley, has put the family back in the spotlight.
What Mark Riley hoped to achieve is beyond me. Whilst it is perfectly reasonable for him to lodge a Freedom Of Information request to get a copy of the video, he should have seen that there was no honest story in it when he received it after four months. Sadly what I suspect happened here is that, Riley, deprived of on-air time during the flood and cyclone crises, saw an opportunity to make a headline for himself. If I was one of the many news anchors across the country for whom Riley wrote an intro script for his report claiming that Tony Abbott had been “caught on tape making an insensitive remark about one of our fallen soldiers” then I would be very angry with Riley for misleading me and writing a blatant falsehood for me to read.
The poor family, who have been caught up in all of this, have been gracious about it which is commendable…if I were them, I’d be screaming loudly at Seven News and Mark Riley. The family have said that they know that Tony Abbott was taken out of context. From the Sydney Morning Herald article linked above:
Lance Corporal MacKinney’s widow later thanked Mr Abbott for calling her to discuss the issue.
“Tony and I spoke at length and I fully accept that he was quoted out of context in the television news,” Ms MacKinney said in a statement.
“As far as we, Jared’s family, are concerned there is no issue, the matter is over, and we will be making no further comment.”
I will also commend the opposition here for not entering the fray. They have stayed right out of this mess and have not attempted to score political points from it. Clearly they recognise that Seven News took Tony Abbott out of context and that it would be wrong to further extend the pain of the MacKinney family by fanning the flames.
One thing which makes me very sad is that Mark Riley knows that he took the comment out of context, and should surely know, given the media circus which has followed his report, that he was wrong to take the comment out of context. But no, Mark Riley is giving interviews today defending his stance. He should be apologising instead of gloating…but then again, I have come to expect this type of gutter journalism from Riley who always seems to be much more interested in finding a joke in the day’s events than in actual reporting.
Being taken out of context is a part of political life, and Tony Abbott like all seasoned politicians, is used to that, but even he was taken aback by the viciousness and dishonesty of the attack from Mark Riley yesterday, a fact which is evidenced by his speechless reaction. It really looked to me as if Tony was trying to not explode in anger at Mark Riley…and I do have to wonder if Tony getting angry was Mark Riley’s ultimate aim.
Mark Riley’s act was despicable, enough said. I’ll leave the last word to Tony Abbott who spoke, somewhat reluctantly, to 2GB’s Alan Jones this morning about the issue. Just before I hand over to Alan and Tony though, it was interesting to hear Alan say “shit happens” when newsreaders on his station had been saying “a colloquial expression for stuff happens”.
[audio:http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110209-aj2-tonyabbott.mp3] Download MP3
(Audio courtesy of Radio 2GB)