My coughing fits are too much for me now, I’m going try to get some sleep instead. I’m recording the budget, and The Bill which I missed on Saturday and is being repeated tonight.
I’ll try to catch up with it all (well, the budget at least) in the wee hours and have a poll about it for you tomorrow.
May the night be pleasant, and Mr. Swan be nicer than expected.
Samuel
2 comments May 12th, 2009 at 05:52pm
The three possibilities which spring to mind regarding the federal government’s supposed $58 billion deficit
1. It’s accurate, strategically leaked in an effort to get the horror headline out of the way, and Wayne Swan will focus on favourable points tonight.
2. It’s inaccurate, strategically leaked, the deficit is lower, but that’s about the only good news and Wayne Swan will milk it for all it’s worth.
3. Channel Seven made it up in an effort to get some publicity for themselves, and the government can’t be bothered calling it “wrong” because the budget deficit isn’t anywhere near that figure.
My instincts tell me to rule out number three, and lean towards number one.
A quick calculation: $58 billion deficit in a country with a population of 21,714,000 = $2671.09 per person. A strange thought just crossed my mind…imagine if the federal government had a “reverse stimulus package” and confiscated $2671.09 from each person in the country…the dollar figure would have to be higher because they could only easily do that with taxpayers, but regardless, the howling and screaming would be deafening, as would be the noise of people filing for bankruptcy, and I’d be one of them. Such a thing would never happen, but it is somewhat easier to digest such large numbers when they are broken down to the per-person figure.
Incidentally, Wayne Swan would have to be pleased about Four Corners airing a controversial (and one-sided) investigation into Rugby League players’ indiscretions with people of the opposite sex. If last week’s newspaper headlines and this morning’s talkback is anything to go by, it will drown discussion of the budget until late this afternoon at least.
Samuel
May 12th, 2009 at 03:31am
A colleague quoted Voltaire at me last night (and yes, I do mean “at me”…this was too sudden and unexpected to be a “to me” moment):
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
He was referring to my on-air comments during the week about Wayne Swan’s looming budget taking the wrong approach to the economic crisis, if the leaks in the papers are to be believed, and using an economist and another (same party, different parliament) politician to prove my point.
It reminds me of another Voltaire quote:
“Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills.”
At its base, what I see hear is that the dead are beyond earthly punishment. Good news for him, not so for me…who knows what Wayne might slip in to the budget in order to spite me…some sort of 100% income tax perhaps?
If Wayne’s budget is anywhere near as awful as I expect it to be, then rest assured that I will publish here an interview between Alan Jones and Wayne Swan, where Wayne, showing his ignorance to economics and his inability to think on his feet, declared that traffic jams cause inflation.
I think I’ll upload it in advance.
Samuel
1 comment May 11th, 2009 at 11:44am
Regardless of what you think of our elected leaders, threatening (or worse) to kill them just isn’t on, as Timothy Ryan Gutierrez just found out:
A Texas man has pleaded guilty to threatening to kill President Barack Obama and blow up the Mall of America in Minneapolis.
Timothy Ryan Gutierrez pleaded guilty on Monday to a charge of making threats by e-mail. In exchange for his plea, prosecutors have dropped a charge of threatening to use an explosive.
His attorney says the 21-year-old Gutierrez could face up to a year and a half in prison when he is sentenced July 31.
The total time in jail could add up to about two years if he receives the full sentence as he has been in custody since January, but I just don’t think it’s long enough to act as a proper deterrent.
Like them or loathe them, our elected officials need to be protected from these nutcases in order to maintain some sense of democracy, and to protect the people who have the courage to actually go through with the whole “standing for election and doing the job of running the country” thing. Personally, I’d say this should receive a five year sentence at a minimum.
On another note, I wasn’t aware that “threatening to use an explosive” is a criminal act unto itself. Surely there has to be some malice involved for it to be a criminal offence? Otherwise wouldn’t a lot of our miners be criminals?
I’m too tired to work that one out right now, so if anybody would like to clarify it for me, that would be wonderful.
Samuel
May 7th, 2009 at 07:14pm
The interview from the 1WAY FM morning show with KXNT reporter Julianne Thomas regarding the voter registration fraud charges in the US is now online on the 1WAY FM podcast feed and is included below for your convenience.
Unfortunately due to an equipment failure the interview with economist Savanth Sebastian from CommSec will not be podcasted.
[audio:http://mediapoint.org.au/podcasts/0000016236.mp3]
Download MP3
Samuel
May 6th, 2009 at 12:33pm
No surprises from the Reserve Bank today. Interest rates are unchanged at 3.00 per cent.
Samuel
1 comment May 5th, 2009 at 02:36pm
Two police officers are leaving the New South Wales Police Force each day, but Tony Kelly (who?) thinks it’s great news:
The State Government has confirmed New South Wales police officers are leaving the force at a rate of two a day, but describes the figure as low.
[..]
The state’s Police Minister Tony Kelly says the state has a low rate of attrition.“The figure is correct, there are 50 leaving a month, but that’s down from 90 a month and it’s a lower rate than the rest of the public service,” he said.
1. Your comparison is not fair Tony. The rest of the public service does not have a similar number of staff to the police force.
2. In the police force, a healthy turnover isn’t a healthy turnover. Whilst new recruits are a wonderful thing, merely replacing experienced staff who are quitting, not retiring, with inexperienced staff is not a plan for success.
3. Tony, is the New South Wales government really in such a bad shape that you’re proud of these numbers? Oh, never mind, I forgot who I was talking to for a minute…you’re lucky that the entire public service hasn’t quit fifteen times over. After all, ministers doing just that (great role models) is precisely how you got your job.
Samuel
May 4th, 2009 at 12:29pm
I note that Rush Limbaugh, the most listened to radio host in America, heard by approximately 13.5 million people on 590 radio stations, has made his way on to Time Magazine’s “Time 100” list of the world’s most influential people, apparently in position number 38 (although I can’t find an in-order list of the people, just category listings).
Rush’s entry in the listing is written by fellow broadcaster Glenn Beck:
When Rush wants to talk to America, all he has to do is grab his microphone.
He attracts more listeners with just his voice than the rest of us could ever imagine. He is simply on another level.
[..]
Rush, 58, saved the spoken-word radio format from obscurity and paved the way for thousands of broadcasters, including myself. His career serves as the most successful stimulus package in radio history. All without a government dime.Knowing firsthand just how hard it is to hold an audience’s attention for a few hours makes it that much more amazing to have seen Rush do it for more than 20 years. To say that he has set the standard for success in broadcasting would truly be an understatement.
Barack and Michelle Obama also made the list (the former I understand, the latter, other than people furnishing their wardrobes based on what she wears, I don’t), and I find it interesting that Sarah Palin made the list, but John McCain did not. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Sarah needs to run for president again.
Time’s full list (complete with category headings) can be found on their website.
Samuel
3 comments May 3rd, 2009 at 06:02am
Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada spills the beans…
Everyone knows President Barack Obama can deliver a great speech, including the president himself, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The paperback version of Reid’s book, “The Good Fight,” is coming out May 5 with an epilogue called “The Obama Era.” Reid said he was impressed when Obama, then a freshman senator from Illinois, delivered a speech about President George W. Bush’s war policy.
Reid, D-Nev., writes: “‘That speech was phenomenal, Barack,’ I told him. And I will never forget his response. Without the barest hint of braggadocio or conceit, and with what I would describe as deep humility, he said quietly: ‘I have a gift, Harry.'”
If that’s Harry’s definition of humility, I wonder what he thinks egotistical behaviour is?
Samuel
May 2nd, 2009 at 03:36pm
The government want me to spend it on a stockpile of supplies to last for two weeks, so that I can then lock myself away from those killer pigs and their flu.
A federal government pandemic plan suggests Australians should be stockpiling enough supplies to last two weeks, on the back of an increase in the swine flu alert level.
The World Health Organisation raised its flu alert level on Wednesday to phase five out of six, signalling a pandemic is imminent.
Under a federal government pandemic plan, a phase five alert level is the trigger for Australians to stock up on enough food, water, household supplies and basic medicines to stay in their homes for 14 days.
Thankfully though, the government is ignoring its own advice. Apparently chaos is not high on their agenda (unless it keeps our minds away from government scandals, I presume)
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Ageing has called for calm, saying while its own manual may say people should be preparing, but they don’t want a run at the shops.
I’m sure the shops wouldn’t mind. I think it’s been a while since they sold out of everything simultaneously and had a chance to increase prices ten-fold due to demand.
Samuel
May 1st, 2009 at 02:08pm
This took me by surprise…and for a poll like this to take me by surprise, it must be surprising!
For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate.
Overall, the GOP gained two points this week, while the Democrats lost a point in support. Still, it’s important to note that the GOP’s improved position comes primarily from falling Democratic support. Democrats are currently at their lowest level of support in the past year while Republicans are at the high water mark.
[..]
Democrats began the year holding a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February and the Republicans actually took a two-point lead for a single week in the middle of March. Since then, the results have ranged from dead even to a four point lead for the Democrats.
These numbers tend to bounce a fair bit, but it will be interesting to see what these numbers do over time. I might have to add these numbers to the monthly poll roundup that I’ve decided to run from now on.
Samuel
2 comments April 30th, 2009 at 01:30pm
A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world.
Quite the correction there. Incidentally seven in about a week works out at 364 over the course of a year. Normal flu claims over 100,000 people each year worldwide.
As I said earlier, I’m not in the least bit concerned.
Samuel
1 comment April 30th, 2009 at 11:05am
US President Barack Obama has racked up his hundredth day in office, and whilst the polls aren’t looking good for him, I’m not willing to declare it all doom and gloom for his administration just yet.
Whilst it is true that his approval rating is the second lowest for the hundred day mark of any president in the last 40 years (56% according to Gallup, Bill Clinton was the only one with a lower score on 55%), and whilst it is true that the trend line is going down, it is also important to note that Mr. Obama received 52.9% of the popular vote in the election, compared to 45.7% for John McCain. Every major poll has Obama’s approval rating above 52.9%, which indicates to me that he still has enough support to win an election.
So, a look at the polling data. Two days after the election when Rasmussen started maintaining a presidential approval rating for Barack Obama, he had:
Strongly approve: 40%
Total approve: 52%
Total disapprove: 44%
Strongly disapprove: 32%
By inauguration day (January 20, see above link) he had improved his strong approval rating slightly, and halved his strong disapproval rating:
Strongly approve: 41%
Total approve: 67%
Total disapprove: 32%
Strongly disapprove: 16%
Today (29 April US time, the date of the 100th day) the approval rating is still slightly higher than post-election, but the strongly approve rating is down. The disapproval ratings are both slightly lower than post-election.
Strongly approve: 35%
Total approve: 55%
Total disapprove: 43%
Strongly disapprove: 31%
I personally don’t see the point in graphing the days before Obama was inaugurated as he really had no control over anything in that time, but the first hundred days on the other hand are worth graphing:
Data courtesy Rasmussen Reports, LLC
Approval is down, disapproval is up, but as I said earlier, we’re really only getting back to election day levels. If the graph proves anything, it’s that post-election Obamamania (some people would call it the “honeymoon period”) is dieing off, and sensible scrutiny is starting to set in. I suppose the fact that Obama’s approval rating at this point in his presidency is the second lowest in forty years should be some cause for concern, but as his approval rating is still higher than his election score, I don’t think it’s cause for panic in the administration just yet.
The statistic that I find more interesting than the raw approval numbers is what Rasmussen call the “Presidential Approval Index” where they subtract the strongly disapprove figure from the strongly approve figure. It is arguably more useful as a daily tracking poll than the raw approval index:
Data courtesy Rasmussen Reports, LLC
I’m thinking that it might be worthwhile revisiting the approval numbers on a monthly basis. Clearly there is no point in looking at them again in two days time when the end of April numbers come in, but perhaps we’ll do this again at the end of May…or I might have to run a “poll alert” if the approve/disapprove lines cross before then.
Samuel
April 30th, 2009 at 06:06am
I note that common sense won out in a recent defamation case in the US:
A federal appeals court had some advice Friday for anyone whose reputation gets trashed on talk radio: Don’t bother suing for slander, because no one reasonably expects objective facts from the typical talk show host.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco offered no solace to an Oregon couple who sued Tom Martino, host of a nationally syndicated consumer-advice show. In a 2004 call from a customer of the couple’s recreational vehicle outlet who complained about the store’s failure to repair a defective personal watercraft, Martino told her, “They’re just lying to you.”
That’s not slander, the court said, because slander and its written counterpart, libel, are false statements of fact that damage someone’s reputation. An assertion that might otherwise sound factual – that the retailer lied – would be interpreted as opinion by any reasonable talk show listener, the court said.
Martino’s program “contains many of the elements that would reduce the audience’s expectation of learning an objective fact: drama, hyperbolic language, an opinionated and arrogant host, and heated controversy,” the three-judge panel said, upholding a judge’s dismissal of the suit.
Besides, the court said, Martino was obviously relying on the caller’s version of the facts and had no apparent reason to question it. That means he was just giving his own opinion of someone else’s account, and wasn’t making factual claims of his own, the panel said, citing a past ruling that allowed similar reliance on news articles.
Independently of this story, a similar thing happened to me last week. I was talking to someone about the upcoming demolition of the Belconnen Bus Interchange and they started probing me for information because, a few days earlier, they had gone to the ACTION information shopfront in Civic for information, only to be told by the bloke manning the booth that they “don’t have any information about it”…clearly nonsense considering that the information has been on their website for some time. My reaction to this story was “well, he’s [the person at the ACTION booth] either an idiot or he lied to you”.
I am forced to wonder whether ACTION, or the person manning the booth, would be mounting a defamation case against me today if this had played out in a broadcast situation…or if in fact they will consider coming after me now that I have written this? Whilst I don’t consider my comment to be defamatory in the slightest, I have to admit that I don’t trust the Australian court system to come to the same conclusion.
Samuel
April 28th, 2009 at 07:16am
Another boat load of asylum seekers has been intercepted of the West Australian coast, and Federal Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus is delighted:
Mr Debus said the successful interception demonstrated the effectiveness of Border Protection Command’s surveillance.
“Our surveillance is strong and targeted and officers from Customs and Border Protection and the Royal Australian Navy are working together to protect Australia from unauthorised arrivals.
Great, three groups of people monitoring our borders and swooping on the people they spot coming near. I would therefore assume that one of these groups spotted the illegal boat…
An oil rig tender vessel had tipped off the Customs and Border Protection hotline about the vessel.
The sighting was then confirmed by a Customs and Border Protection Command Dash 8 aircraft.
Three groups of people, getting paid a bucketload of taxpayer dollars, and it’s an oil rig tender vessel which spots the illegal boat? If this is what Mr. Debus calls effective, perhaps he should check his dictionary:
ef·fec·tive
adj.
1.
a. Having an intended or expected effect.
Perhaps it is effective…if Mr. Debus expects boat to be spotted by third parties rather than the people who are being paid to conduct the surveillance.
It’s no wonder that the boats are flooding in to Australian territory with people like Bob Debus in charge of our border security.
(Apparently using the words “flood” and “boat” in the same sentence makes me part of the “nutjobosphere”…that’s fine by me, because it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right!)
Samuel
9 comments April 25th, 2009 at 08:15pm
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||