Simon Benson from The Daily Telegraph got his hands on a draft policy discussion paper from the Coalition, and wrote about it in today’s Daily Telegraph. The plan is for more dams, especially up north, for nation building and risk mitigation.
At first glance, I’m very impressed. Using all of the water which falls in the tropics has been something I have supported for many years. I have generally suggested pumping water down south, but I suppose it makes sense to dam the rivers in the north and use some of that water up there and send some of the water south (where more dams can help with distribution).
UP to 100 dams could be built across the country to prevent floods, fuel power stations and irrigate a food boom to feed 120 million people across the Asia Pacific region, under plans being considered by Opposition leader Tony Abbott.
In the second high-level policy leak in a week, The Daily Telegraph has obtained a copy of the Coalition’s draft policy discussion paper for water management of Australia.
Included in the list of dam projects, which the Coalition will consider, is a $500 million plan to raise Warragamba Dam in Sydney, and new dams for NSW in the Hunter Valley, Central Highlands and along the Lachlan River.
The last major new dam built in NSW was Splitrock – in northern NSW in 1987.
The majority of the dams would be in northern Australia, where they would be used to irrigate arid zones for agriculture and more than double Australia’s food production.
Claiming the environmental lobby had been to blame for the lack of new water infrastructure, the report from the Coalition’s water taskforce endorses a major dam-building program to “help feed 120 million people and beyond over the coming decades”.
[..]
One of the projects involves transporting water from the Kimberley region, 1500km to Perth, using canals, pipelines and ocean super tankers or large synthetic bags towed behind tug boats.
This is what I call a useful nation building project. Unlike the Rudd/Gillard government’s overpriced school halls, lethal pink batts, or out-of-date-by-the-time-it’s-built National Broadband Network, this plan has tangible long-term benefits for both the growth of the nation, and the reduction of risk from natural disasters.
It has been my belief for a very long time that the interior sections of the country can be reclaimed and used for agriculture and domestic inhabitation if water can be pumped in to those areas. I also believe that having water in those areas will increase the evaporation and precipitation cycle in those areas. I believe that some of the desert areas can be turned in to useful land…not all, but a decent chunk.
We can increase our productivity, increase our ability to export food, and minimise the downtime and expense caused by floods through this type of plan. The $30 billion price tag would be well and truly offset, and probably completely paid for, by the long-term economic advantages. When governments talk about nation building, this is the type of forward-thinking project that should be talking about.
I applaud the Federal Coalition for considering this type of visionary plan.
I was very disappointed yesterday to see politicians from all sides unanimously support a bill which paves the way for a constitutional referendum, aimed at adding a statement about the inhabitation of Australia prior to British settlement.
PARLIAMENT has taken another stride toward reconciliation on the fifth anniversary of the national apology to the stolen generation, as campaigners urged MPs on both sides not to give up.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott put aside politics on Wednesday as the lower house passed legislation to create an Act of Recognition of indigenous people.
[..]
The legislation, which contains a two-year sunset clause, is to pave the way for constitutional change while giving time to build community support.
[..]
In September, the government shelved plans to hold a referendum on the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people because of a lack of public awareness.
It introduced the Act of Recognition as a stepping stone towards constitutional change.
The constitution has a very simple and important role. It is there to set up the basic rules by which our society is ordered, to outline the powers which can and can not be granted to the various branches and levels of government, and to outline the remedies available to the people in order to keep the government in check. It is not there to act as an historical record of the comings and goings of people from the country.
The constitution can, to a limited degree, explain things or values which give context to the rules which it sets out, but it should not act as a sounding board for documentation of truth or opinion of events which have transpired.
At the level of the basic format of a constitution, that is why I oppose what happened in Parliament yesterday, but I also have a specific reason for opposing this specific proposed change to the constitution.
Having a constitution which acknowledges “traditional owners” of the land or “prior inhabitants” or anything along those lines gives immediate rise to the very real possibility of Aboriginal people being given more rights or more legal status than other Australians, and would pave the way for racially preferential legislation to be passed in their favour.
It is bad enough that, under current legislation, there is a limited ability for government to treat Aboriginal people more preferentially than other Australians (such as Centrelink payments specifically granted to Aboriginal people due to their racial background), but this will be able to get much worse if the proposed changes to the constitution are approved by the public.
It is not accident that this legislation passed on the anniversary of Kevin Rudd’s dangerous apology to the so-called “stolen generation”. I noted back then that it was a bad idea which would have dire consequences, and we have seen some small-scale examples of the potential fallout since then. It bothers me greatly that Tony Abbott, a usually sensible man, still fails to see the problems with this whole idea.
Hopefully the rest of the population are smarter than our federal politicians and see through this whole thing. Hopefully they will vote against this dangerous change to the constitution.
National guidelines issued late last year by a federal bureaucratic organisation called the National Transport Commission have concluded that being overweight makes you unfit to to a job which requires a lot of sitting down. That sounds silly enough on its own, but the main concern of the National Transport Commission seems not to be that being overweight increases the risk of heart attacks or diabetes (although they are slightly concerned about that, which on the latter point seems pretty silly seeing as the vast majority of diabetics are very good at managing their condition), but rather that being overweight is likely to make someone fall asleep. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up (unless you’re a federal bureaucrat, it seems).
The Daily Telegraph had a story on this today because the New South Wales government has sadly decided to follow along with the bizarre federal guidelines, and plans to suspend overweight train drivers.
Under changes to national rail safety standards, all safety-critical CityRail workers – including drivers – will now have to keep their body mass index (BMI) under 40 or face being declared temporarily unfit for work.
[..]
Drivers with a BMI over 40 are now required to undergo a sleep study while workers with a BMI between 35 and 40 and who have other risk factors, such as type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure, will also have to undergo further testing before being allowed to return to the job.
The article goes on to state that being overweight is the leading cause of sleep apnoea…not that there’s a direct connection between the two things, just that there’s an increased chance.
It seems like a pretty flimsy reason to suspend someone from a job which they’ve been doing without a problem. In fact, it sounds like discrimination, and I’d love to see how this policy would stack up against anti-discrimination laws.
At this point you might be thinking I’m making mountains out of molehills and that it’s a sensible idea to ensure that train drivers are able to safely drive trains. When I heard the story, I thought a similar thing but for a different reason. I thought “surely there has to be more to this…surely they wouldn’t suspend drivers just because of their weight, surely there would have to be another factor involved before they would suspend someone”, so I had a closer look at the National Transport Commission’s guidelines, and it turns out that they’re even tougher than the Daily Telegraph article makes them sound.
The presence of the following risk factors should also increase the suspicion of sleep apnoea, even in the absence of self-reported sleepiness:
• a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40
• a BMI ≥ 35 and either
− diabetes type 2; or
− high blood pressure requiring 2 or more medications for control.
BMI should therefore be calculated routinely as part of the periodic health assessment for Safety Critical Workers (refer to Figure 22). Sleep apnoea may be present without the above features; however, the standard identifies these risk factors as a basis for further investigation and classification as Fit for Duty Subject to Review (refer to Table 17).
Note the phrase “even in the absence of self-reported sleepiness”…effectively what this is saying is that, even if a person shows absolutely no signs of dozing off while working, if they are overweight, they have to be subjected to an entirely unwarranted sleep apnoea risk assessment and suspended from duty until the risk assessment is carried out. Given that NSW rail systems are run by government-owned corporations, this means that taxpayer dollars have to be spent on:
1) The wages of an unnecessarily suspended train driver and the wages of someone covering their shifts
2) The medical people who are engaged to carry out these assessments (which in this case involves keeping a train driver in a medical facility overnight to watch them sleep)
3) The countless bureaucrats who have to administer this whole scheme
All because a train driver is overweight.
If that’s not bad enough, the guidelines continue by declaring that people who are overweight are just as dangerous as:
• those who experience moderate to severe excessive daytime sleepiness (ESS score of 16–24)
(see below)
• those with a history of frequent self-reported sleepiness while driving or working
• those for whom work performance reports indicate excessive sleepiness
• those who have had a motor vehicle crash or other incident caused by inattention or sleepiness.
Workers with these high-risk features have a significantly increased risk of sleepiness-related incidents.
They should be referred to a sleep disorders specialist to assess if sleep apnoea or another medical condition is causing their excessive daytime sleepiness. These workers should be classed as Temporarily Unfit for Duty until the disorder is investigated, treated effectively and fitness for duty status determined.
I accept that being overweight does make people more likely to have various medical conditions, but I absolutely reject the idea that just because someone is overweight they should be immediately suspected of having all of these conditions until they cane prove that they don’t, or that they should be labelled as being as dangerous as people who actually show some symptoms of a problem.
It bothers me that train drivers are being subjected to this nonsense, and it bothers me that dozens of government bureaucrats who comes up with, and will have to enforce, these silly guidelines.
But what bothers me the most is the next logical step. If train drivers, who drive vehicles which can only travel on very narrow passageways called train tracks and are therefore at a relatively low-risk of maiming or killing members of the general public when compared to other forms of transport which can go virtually anywhere, are subject to these guidelines, how long will it be before these guidelines are expanded to cover drivers of other vehicles, such as cars, which are certainly much more likely to be involved in a serious collision if the driver suffers some sort of medical problem while driving?
First they came for the train drivers…I might not be a train driver, but I won’t stay silent as this is an illogical decision, and it’s very likely that it will have consequences for the rest of the population if people don’t make a noise about it. I shudder to think of the economic impacts if road authorities decide to take overweight drivers off the road until they can prove that they don’t have a medical problem.
This, in my view, is one situation where the presumption of innocence until guilt can be proven is being subverted, and the ramifications could be a serious and unwarranted reduction in freedom and liberty for everyone, not just train drivers.
The following is, for the most part, a copy of a comment I posted on The RiotACT in response to the story about a discussion paper from the Federal Liberal Party about having lower taxes in, and moving bits of the federal public service to, regional areas and specifically northern Australia. The comment seemed substantial enough to warrant a blog post of its own here.
Once upon a time it made sense to have a bureaucracy which was centralised to the place where parliament was located. These days, in the age of electronic communications, there really is no need to have so much of the public service located in one place.
Yes, moving large parts of the public service out of Canberra may have detrimental short-term effects on Canberra’s economy, but the public service does not exist to keep Canberra economy ticking over, rather it exists to serve the interest of all Australians and, as such, should be willing to serve Australia’s interests in whatever location is of most benefit. That said, given that the federal government is largely responsible for Canberra’s economy having such reliance on the public service, the federal government should give due consideration to Canberra when planning changes which would impact on Canberra’s economy. Canberra’s interests should not be the only consideration, but they should at least be considered.
I do firmly believe that the nation’s interests are best served by a distributed public service. We have large populations in coastal areas which are, in some cases, overpopulated and under-served by infrastructure, while we also have massive sections of the country which are either underpopulated or uninhabited, but could very easily cater to the needs of part of our population, and should probably be built-up now if we are to expand in to them as the population grows so as to avoid further stretching the resources of existing overpopulated areas.
It would be silly to expect the private sector to build these areas up on their own. Economic incentives will help to attract the private sector, but the whole process will be much faster and much smoother if some public servants move in to these areas as well, and increase the market demand in the areas in the process. I would see no problem with granting public servants in these areas the same economic incentives (tax cuts etc) as private sector people/businesses who set up in these areas.
Some parts of the public service probably should keep a presence in Canberra, but hypothetically speaking (and without figuring out which acronym the various departments use as names this week) it does seem silly to base Immigration and Customs so far from a coastline; Indigenous Affairs so far away from the majority of their clients; Air Services Australia and CASA so far away from major airports (with apologies to Stephen Byron whose airport serves a purpose but is not as big as our major coastal airports) etc.
Apart from the idea of basing some departments in locations which are closer to the people with which they work the most, it seems logical to me to not have a centralised public service simply for cultural reasons. It happens in every industry that if the majority of your time is spent dealing with people in your industry, your mindset becomes based around your industry. A centralised public service lends itself to this in that, by having so many public servants and departments in one place, it is easy to think more about government than about the people whom the government is supposed to serve. Having a less centralised public service would, in my view, make it easier for the public service to work in a more efficient manner for the benefit of the general population.
It also strikes me as ironic that by decentralising the public service, the NBN would be an even less necessary proposition than it already is, as the extra population in regional areas combined with departmental data needs would result in a demand for high-speed internet services in regional areas which would be very attractive to the private sector.
Admittedly the whole idea would inconvenience some public servants, and the costs of moving people may be difficult in the short-term given the government’s current financial state, but the long-term benefits would far outweigh the short-term costs, and surely the long-term benefit of the nation is what our public servants should embrace.
Last week, it was hot. No doubt about it. And on the back of that heat there were a number of stories in the media about “record heat” and how it’s never been hotter, and it’s just going to keep getting hotter. It was the usual collection of summer news stories presented in a handful of new ways.
The first story to catch my attention was a story about it being so hot that the Bureau of Meteorology had to add a new colour to their temperature maps for all of these newly reached temperatures. I immediately realised that these colours were really just re-classifying temperatures which have previously been classified under a different colour, but I didn’t recognise the full extent of the trickery involved in the colour-fiddle. I’ll explain that in a moment.
As the days went by and more stories popped up along the “record heat” lines, I started to see a few discrepancies which were disproving earlier stories. This was bugging me all weekend, but I didn’t have time to investigate the stories properly…this afternoon however, I do have time, and I’m glad because my suspicions have been vindicated.
As I said at the top, it has been hot, although after a mild and wet summer last year, this year’s summer probably feels warmer than it really is. That’s anecdotal though. The facts are in the numbers.
On that note, back to that map from the Bureau Of Meteorology.
(Temperature map for the 8th of January)
This map was plastered across much of the media, with the general line from most of the media being along the lines that “it’s so hot that the weather bureau have been forced to add two new colours to the temperature map to display these hot temperatures”.
Heat drives bureau back to the drawing board
The Bureau of Meteorology has been forced to introduce new colours to some of its charts because of recent extreme heat in Central Australia.
Australia’s record-breaking heat wave has sent temperatures soaring, melting road tar and setting off hundreds of wildfires – as well as searing new colours onto weather maps.
Record highs? Recent extreme heat? Hmmmm, perhaps we should look a bit further down the ABC article:
Shades of deep purple and magenta have been added to the forecast map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius.
The temperature range was previously capped at 50C.
Yes, that’s right, it’s a forecast map, not an historical map. While the ABC article does state this, it’s not the impression given by their opening remark. The same can be said for most of the other media outlets that ran this story.
The map doesn’t report temperatures, it predicts temperatures. It was not changed because the temperatures had gone above the existing scale (which, incidentally, topped out at 50+, not a flat 50) but because one of the Bureau’s computers had predicted a hot day.
So, that map, which was used by much of the media to convince everyone that new records had been reached in a large section of South Australia, actually said no such thing…not that the Bureau were in any hurry to correct the record.
Hot on the heels of that, the Bureau had some more climate confusion for everyone: A measure called an “area-average high temperature”. Basically what that means is that they take the hottest temperature of the day at every weather station in the country and then, with a bit of mathematical work to assign temperatures from weather stations to the areas around them, they work out what the average temperature across the country was. They reached a conclusion that we had the hottest day ever, with an average maximum of 40.33 degrees.
Assistant Director of Climate Information Services, Neil Plummer, said the heatwave had broken national records. This is consistent with the trend of an increase in extreme heat events associated with climate change.
“On Monday the average maximum daily temperature record for Australia was broken at 40.33°C. The previous record, 40.17°C on 21 December 1972, was held for 40 years. The daily average maximum temperature yesterday (8 January 2013) is a close third at 40.11°C.”
It’s an interesting statistic, but when you consider how it’s calculated, it’s not a particularly useful metric as, due to the increasing population over the years, more and more inland temperature gauges have popped up (even in places like Western Sydney which is always significantly hotter than Coastal Sydney), and as technology has improved, more of them are now full-time gauges, whereas there was a time when a lot of temperature gauges, especially inland ones, would only work at certain times of the day and could therefore miss the actual hottest point of the day and report on a slightly cooler point of the day instead.
Naturally, with more inland gauges, more hot temperatures are reported, which skews the measurement towards higher temperatures. It may only be slight increases in the calculated measurement, but when you’re talking about averages of large amounts of data, small changes make quite a difference.
This measurement broke some records from the 1970s, which is interesting because it doesn’t quite tally with records for actual temperatures: Canberra: 42.2 (1 Feb 1968). The highest so far this year was 40.1 on the 5th of January. Sydney (coastal): 45.3 (14 Jan 1939). The highest so far this year was 42.3 on the 8th of January. Penrith, in Sydney’s west: 46.0 (15 Jan 2001). The highest so far this year was 42.0 on the 8th of January. Melbourne: 46.4 (7 Feb 2009). The highest so far this year was 41.1 on the 4th of January. Adelaide: 45.7 (28 Jan 2009). The highest so far this year was 45.0 on the 4th of January. Alice Springs: 45.2 (3 Jan 1960). The highest so far this year was 44.4 on the 12th of January. Cairns: 40.5 (20 Dec 1995). The highest so far this year was 33.8 on the 3rd of January. Dubbo: 45.0 on the 12th of January, exceeding the previous record of 44.5 (15 Feb 2004). Bendigo: 45.4 (7 Feb 2009). The highest so far this year was 41.0 on the 7th of January. Mildura: 46.9 (3 Jan 1990). The highest so far this year was 44.2 on the 4th of January. Coober Pedy (in the Bureau’s purple hot spot): 47.1 (25 Jan 2011). The highest so far thus year was 46.3 on the 7th of January. Hobart: 41.8 on the 4th of January, exceeding the previous record of 40.8 (4 Jan 1976).
The interesting thing about those temperatures is that none of the records were set in 1972 when the former area-average record was set, and only two of the twelve towns in that fairly representative selection of places which were apparently very hot over the last couple weeks actually set a record this year, and even they didn’t set a record on the day which the Bureau claims is our hottest on record, based on their calculation. Two of those towns had their hottest day of the year-to-date on the 7th of January this year, but that is hardly significant given that we’ve only had two weeks of this year, and it’s definitely not a record.
In order for not even one of those places to have set a record at the time the area-average maximum calculation set a record, either an absolutely outstanding number of places set a record on those days or the calculation has to be giving too much emphasis to some places which are significantly hotter than other places.
So, did a large number of places set records on the 7th of January, the day on which we apparently broke that area-average maximum temperature record? No. Only one place set a record on that day: Leonora in Western Australia which recorded 47.8 degrees, and even that is not a new record as it previously reached the same temperature on the 1st of January 1957.
(The document which the Bureau published which contains this information is being updated daily. At the time of writing, the version which I used was on the Bureau’s website at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs43c.pdf however, as this document will be changed in short-order by the Bureau to add data from today and future days, I have archived this document here so that my reference material is available for perusal in the form which I saw it).
In that case, mathematically speaking, the Bureau’s area-average maximum temperature calculation has to be giving too much emphasis to places which are regularly hotter than others in order for it to have set a new record. In other words, it’s bunkum, it’s bogus data, and it’s junk science.
There is a little bit more evidence of the fact that this summer is not hotter than ever before, and I touched on it very briefly near the start of this post. That temperature graph which supposedly topped out at 50 degrees, did in fact not top out at 50 degrees. I noted earlier that the top colour was for “50+” and that temperatures in excess of 50 degrees have been seen in Australia before.
In a somewhat peculiar (due to its emphasis on recent heat despite noting multiple older and hotter temperatures), but accurate, story which was also picked up by the media, WeatherZone advised that we saw our hottest temperature in 15 years. This story published on the 13th of January, added to the cavalcade of stories about “record heat” and gave the media some more information with which to continue to advise that global warming was running rampant.
Yesterday (Saturday) Moomba in the far northeast of South Australia recorded a maximum temperature of 49.6 degrees, which makes it the highest temperature recorded in Australia in 15 years.
True enough, although it should be noted that this record is missing from the Bureau’s list of records set over the last week or so, which I noted a short time ago, as this is one of those weather stations which have been added in recent years, having been commissioned in 1995. The Bureau’s document only notes stations which have existed for at least 30 years.
This is the hottest recorded day in 15 years, which means that every day between:
February 1998, in the Western Australian Pilbara, where Nyang reached 49.8 degrees.
and Saturday the 12th of January 2013 when the Moomba Airport record was set, has been colder. Not exactly compatible with the theory of warming temperatures, but entirely compatible with the truth that global temperatures have barely moved in the last decade or so.
Anyway, I’m drifting away from the Bureau’s hot spot graph which I was talking about. The WeatherZone article by meteorologist Brett Dutschke also notes that:
Moomba’s 49.6 degrees is also the highest temperature recorded in SA since Oodnadatta reached 50.3 degrees 53 years ago, in January 1960.
Australia’s record is held by Oodnadatta, 50.7 degrees, also in January 1960.
On more than one occasion temperatures in Australia have exceeded 50 degrees, and on every one of those occasions a black “50+” colour has sufficed. Of course, this map from the Bureau was predicting temperatures in the 52 to 54 degree range on the 8th of January, and if such temperatures had come to pass, then the new colours might have been useful, but we didn’t even come close to breaking an existing record which managed to fit on the old colour scale, let alone see a temperature in the new colour range.
Yet again, the Bureau’s predictions of warming doom have failed to come to pass. Yet again, the data shows us that, far from seeing an alarming rate of warming, we are seeing a continuation of the usual cycle of cold, medium and hot years and that, this year, we happen to be experiencing a peak which is to be expected after the recent mild years. Not to mention that on the global front, places like China are more than compensating for our alleged warming with a bit of a cold snap where they’ve seen temperatures as low as -40.
As usual it seems that the spinning of the numbers by the Bureau and the cherry-picking of that spun data by various sections of the media, bares little if any relation to the facts:
The planet is not warming at an alarming pace
Global temperatures have been virtually stagnant for over a decade
Australia is not experiencing an abnormally hot summer
The facts speak for themselves. It’s just a shame that many people will never hear them from most of the media or the government agencies who have been put in charge of monitoring the climate.
I don’t have a problem with B-Triples on the Hume Hwy. As long as overtaking them isn’t an issue, which it’s not on a double-lane dual-carriage road, it’s fine.
Where it gets a bit hairy is on roads like the Newell Highway in Western New South Wales where it’s a single-carriage road with one lane in each direction. That made me nervous a few times, and yet, have a think about it, when was the last time you heard about a B-Triple accident?
I wouldn’t put them on roads with steep bits and sharp corners like the Great Western Highway or the Kings Highway, but the Hume should be fine.
And it has to be said, the way these horrible events play out in the media is part of the problem too. An unfortunate example of this is the way that the day-to-day small-scale shootings from robberies and various personal disputes which would normally get local attention only, are automatically given national and international attention in the days after a mass-shooting. This, it could be argued, gives disturbed people an opportunity for notoriety by having the media link, without due cause, their act to the mass-shooting.
I don’t often defer to actors for their opinions, however Morgan Freeman has made a very good point about all of this in recent hours. His point, which I’ll let him explain in detail, is that we should be focussing on the victims and not the murderous lunatics as the notoriety which these murderers receive helps to fuel other murderous nuts. He says we should think of the victims instead of thinking of increasing regulations on guns as we would see less copycat killings if the murderers didn’t become famous for “going out in a blaze of glory”. I think Morgan has a very valid point.
You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why.
It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine?
Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.
It is a natural part of human curiosity that we want to know why events like this happen, and to that end it probably is important that we get to know who is responsible for this type of atrocity, but it is also important that we don’t make a martyr out of someone by plastering their name and face over every news bulletin for days and even weeks. The victims are much more important.
To that end, again courtesy of The Examiner, here are the names of the victims of this latest tragedy.
– Charlotte Bacon, born February 22, 2006, female
– Daniel Barden, born September 25, 2005, male
– Rachel Davino, born August 17, 1983, female.
– Olivia Engel, born August 18, 2006, female
– Josephine Gay, born December 11, 2005, female
– Ana M. Marquez-Greene, born April 4, 2006, female
– Dylan Hockley, born March 8, 2006, male
– Dawn Hocksprung, born June 28, 1965, female
– Madeleine F. Hsu, born July 10, 2006, female
– Catherine V. Hubbard, born June 8, 2006, female
– Chase Kowalski, born October 31, 2005, male
– Jesse Lewis, born June 30, 2006, male
– James Mattioli , born March 22, 2006, male
– Grace McDonnell, born December 4, 2005, female
– Anne Marie Murphy, born July 25, 1960, female
– Emilie Parker, born May 12, 2006, female
– Jack Pinto, born May 6, 2006, male
– Noah Pozner, born November 20, 2006, male
– Caroline Previdi, born September 7, 2006, female
– Jessica Rekos, born May 10, 2006, female
– Avielle Richman, born October 17, 2006, female
– Lauren Russeau, born June 1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
An email to 2UE’s John Kerr. Respectfully, I think it is too early to debate US gun laws. This email does not do that. If you wish to engage me in debate on the subject, please note that I will not reply until later in the week. Nothing can be gained out of debating this at this moment when the emotion of the horrifying shooting largely obscures logic.
Good morning John,
The shooting in the Connecticut school is truly horrifying, and it is disturbing that anyone would ever be of a mind to inflict harm on innocent children, or the adults who were harmed for that matter. Many families will never be the same, and that is a terrible tragedy.
This is clearly the work of a mad man, possibly even an evil man. It is horrifying and I am very sad for everyone who is involved.
I must say though, I am quite disgusted by the people in the US who are using this tragedy to try and score political points on the gun control debate. That may be an important debate, but surely they could at least let the families get their heads around the tragedy, and allow law enforcement officials to figure out what exactly happened, and why, before passing judgement on what laws they think should or should not change.
The debate about gun laws is one better held when the emotion of what has happened has subsided, so that any decisions which are made, are based on facts and not a natural emotional knee-jerk reaction. Evidence of that, to my mind, is the fact that Connecticut has some of the stricter gun laws in America, and this is mostly being overlooked at the moment by people who are engaging in debate on the subject.
And for the people in this country who believe that a blanket ban is an obvious answer which should have been implemented years ago, I believe it is important to recognise the cultural differences between Australia and the US. Our laws work here for the most part because our country was founded peacefully and we therefore do not have as defensive a mindset. The mindset in the US is very different, and while something may need to be done, simply applying our laws to their country will probably do more harm than good as people will, for lack of a better term, cling to their guns, and violently so, if their government tries to outlaw guns. I should also note that, while we don’t have mass-shootings here, when people want guns in Australia, they find them, as evidenced by the spate of drive-by shootings in Sydney in recent years. It worries me that people in this country immediately decry American laws without giving any thought as to why they have them in place. I think that the views expressed in this country would have more effect on the US debate if more thought was given to those views.
Out of respect for the families of the fallen, I will not engage in a detailed debate of the intricacies of the US gun laws this morning, however if this is still of interest next weekend when the emotion of this awful event has subsidied, I would like to discuss this with you and get your input.
It’s funny how it almost seems like an eternity since the 2008 US election but it doesn’t seem like that long since the 2008 ACT Election. That could very well be simply due to the fact that in terms of awfulness, the Obama administration well and truly beats the Katy Gallagher government. That said, in some ways I think the 2008 election was one of the best things to ever happen to the US. That might seem like a contradiction, but I’ll explain.
In 2008 the US, much like many other western nations, was in the grip of a bit of a shift to the left of politics. Eight years of a Republican administration which saw a fair chunk of spending certainly didn’t help the Republican cause, and there was the global warming nonsense which was probably at the peak of its scare campaign as the data was almost at the tipping point of proving just how silly that whole thing was…none-the-less, it was one of the big reasons for the push to the left.
Of course there was also a financial crisis happening. A Financial crisis which was almost entirely set in motion by Democrat policies (The Community Reinvestment Act etc) which forced banks to lend money to people who simply could not afford it, and set in motion a series of events which led to the destabilisation of the derivatives market and the eventual collapse of large sections of the financial system.
That, plus the cult of Obama, helped Obama and the Democrats sweep to victory in 2008 with a radical socialist agenda which wasn’t fully advertised during the campaign, but was clearly visible in Obama’s history and was ignored by most of the media and even more of Obama’s supporters.
So, why was this one of the best things to ever happen to the US? Obviously it’s not because of the enormous damage which Obama and the Democrats have done to the US economy or the massive debt which they have clocked up. No, the reason it’s good is that it reinvigorated the principles upon which the US was built: that is free markets, small and constitutionally-limited conservative government, and the ability of individuals to succeed or fail on their own merits without the government interfering in the process.
In 2008, Mitt Romney ran for the Republican nomination for President. He was probably the most conservative of the bunch to do so. In 2012, he was one of the more moderate candidates, but he did something interesting and, rather than using the traditional Republican playbook of recent times and starting out conservative and then moderating, he started out on a fairly moderate footing by highlighting his time as Governor of Massachusetts, and then after securing the nomination went and explained his conservative ideas to the nation, and selected one of the heroes of the conservative cause as his running mate, congressman Paul Ryan.
In the intervening four years between 2008 and 2012, conservatives saw where Obama was taking the country and stood up for their beliefs, realising that if they didn’t, then America would not be the same country any more. Conservatives re-engaged in the political process and gave the Democrats and the left a big kicking in the 2010 mid-term elections. This slowed down the Obama administration and forced them to show their socialist ideals even more than they had previously. This vindicated the conservatives and energised them even more. This gave rise to a conservative campaign on the Republican side…one that wants to reduce the size and scope of government and return freedom to people.
Now, it’s November 2012 and the election is here. Conservatives are more energised than they have been in years. They want to take their country back…and I’ll say with confidence that I think they will succeed.
Most of the national polls suggest that the race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama is neck-and-neck. I certainly believe that some of the races are that close, but on the national popular vote at least, I don’t think it is close at all. Most of the national polls are basing their figures on a polling method which over-samples Democrats. The reason for this is that they are using 2008 turnout figures, ignoring the fact that 2010 was vastly different, and every poll of voter enthusiasm shows that Republicans lead by miles.
The polls may say 50%-50% or 49%-49%, but I suspect that it’s closer to 53%-47% or 54%-46%. I’d be tempted to say the latter as I believe one of the biggest issues in this election campaign apart from Obama’s mishandling of the Economy and amazing deficit spending, is his utter dereliction of duty when it came to the Benghazi embassy attack. The battle between US troops and terrorist forces raged for hours, and yet Obama and his officials refused to provide support, even though they could see the whole thing unfold in real time. This was the October surprise…not Hurricane Sandy which was (as should happen) mostly handled by the states and had very little to do with Obama.
So, my prediction:
A Presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to win. These votes, for those who aren’t familiar with the system, are distributed based on which candidate wins in each state, with each state holding a certain number of these votes. It’s slightly more complicated than that, but that’s the basic gist of it.
I expect Mitt Romney will receive between 295 and 300 Electoral College Votes, and will therefore win easily. If I have to pick an exact number, I’ll go with 295.
I expect some of the early-to-report states such as New York will go to Obama, however I expect Mitt Romney to pick up the majority of the swing states. I also expect Pennsylvania will be early-to-report and will go to Romney. I expect the swing states to be close battles and for them to take a while to report an outcome, but I think Romney will win most of them. In particular, I’m predicting that Romney will win Ohio (albeit by a very narrow margin), New Hampshire (by a tad more), Floria, Virginia, Indiana, and I even rate him and chance in New Jersey and Wisconsin. Nevada is harder to call, but I expect Romney to do well there even if he doesn’t win.
I expect the early count to go Obama’s way, but as more of the swing states and the safe Republican states like Texas report in, I expect Romney to close the gap and then take the lead. I expect that it will be safe to call the race for Romney at some time between 11pm-12am Eastern (3pm-4pm Canberra time).
As for the house and senate races, I expect significant Republican gains in both. The Republicans should increase their lead in the House, and I expect them to gain ground in the Senate. It will be a tight race in the Senate and I’m confident of Republicans getting to 49 seats…I am however expecting them to get to 50 seats with Paul Ryan as Vice-President and therefore the head honcho (I forget the correct term) of the Senate giving Republicans control, and I’m not ruling out the possibility of Republicans getting 51 or 52 seats.
Back to Nevada for a moment, this is where I expect some really good results for Republicans in the House and Senate races. Romney might not win the state, but other Republicans should so well. I have high hopes for House candidates Danny Tarkanian and Joe Heck, and I think Senate candidate Dean Heller will oust incumbent Democrat Shelley Berkley and could very well be the Senator which makes it a Republican majority.
I have seen some interesting bits of analysis from others of how this will all turn out. Both campaigns were overly enthusiastic on the weekend, both claiming that they can get 350 Electoral College votes. That, of course, is fantasy land stuff, but is good for revving up the base and is a good “get out the vote” tactic.
In terms of real analysis, Curtis Sliwa, conservative talk show host in New York, is picking a 297 Electoral College victory for Romney. His map of this is available on the Electoral College mapping too 270 To Win. In terms of professional punditry, this is the most sensible analysis I have seen.
It’s a stark contrast to the highly amusing segment of NBC Today yesterday where their chief political correspondent Chuck Todd started with a map of the swing states which had Obama in front, and he then started moving the rest of the states out of Romney’s column and in to Obama’s column to show us all how high the numbers can go, and presumably what his delusional little mind really thinks will happen. It was funny, if nothing else.
In the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone thinks it will be a serious landslide with Romney winning 315 – 223. He expects Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to be among Romney victories.
The other really interesting bit of analysis is from the University of Colorado. Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry have put together a model which takes economic data and turns it in to an Electoral College prediction. When given the economic data for every Presidential election since 1980, it correctly calculates the outcome. Given data from this year, it is predicting that Romney will win 330 Electoral College votes. I think this is overly optimistic, but if it were to happen, it would not be unreasonable to also expect a massive majority to Republicans in the House and Senate as well.
Anyway, I expect that it will be a very interesting day. My plan, because I’m working this morning, is to keep an eye on Fox News and election data, and when possible keep an ear on talk radio. After work, which will be in the early afternoon, I will make my way home and continue this, except with the addition of some of the free-to-air TV coverage.
Fox News will be covering the election from 10am until 6pm Canberra time, with further coverage and analysis afterwards. Bret Baier will be one of the main anchors, which is fantastic as Bret is an awesome news anchor who manages to cut to the chase of a story very quickly and easily.
On free-to-air, 7two and ABC24 will be covering it from 10:30am until the early evening. Nine and SBS have coverage planned for the afternoon.
I will also be covering the election on this blog and on Twitter. I’ll also have some extra stuff for my Facebook friends. To that end, I’ve fixed the Twitter feed in the sidebar of the blog, and I will do my best to keep you up to date with my analysis throughout the day.
It will be a very interesting day, and I can only say that it will be an absolutely glorious sight if the maps for the the House, Senate and Presidential races show giant seas of red. I certainly hope they do, for the sake of America and the world.
With the ACT election now only a day away, the time has come for me to issue my how-to-vote blog post. As usual, this is not endorsed or authorised by any party or candidate. I should also note that, as I live in the electorate of Molongolo, I am focussing on Molongolo, however I do have some advice for people in other areas.
At the most simple level, I believe that the Labor/Greens government in the ACT has been a disaster. Much of this is down to the ongoing waste and bumbling which is inherent in ACT Labor, but a fair amount of blame must also be heaped on to the Greens who have managed to get their bizarre enviro-statist socialist ways on more than a few occasions, not that Labor have really made any sort of reasonable effort to oppose them.
The ACT Government no longer focuses on core local issues and services, and instead seeks to extend its reach to all manner of other things at the expense of ACT rate payers. This needs to stop. The Canberra Liberals have shown that they have a sane and sensible plan to return the focus of the ACT Government to those services for which it should be responsible such as roads, rates, rubbish (yep, I had to get that phrase in there), health, local ovals and the like.
It is for this reason, and for the reason that Labor has a strong following in Canberra, that I support the message of “vote all Liberal and only Liberal” as it will take a concerted effort to get the current horrid bunch out of power, and those of us who believe in limited, targeted government are going to have to vote carefully to make it happen.
In Molongolo I see four candidates who I would very much like to see win or retain a seat. In alphabetical order they are Steve Doszpot, Jeremy Hanson, Giulia Jones, and Elizabeth Lee. My advice is to rank these four in your order of preference from 1 to 4.
The way I voted for these four, and why:
1. Elizabeth Lee – I have had the great pleasure of getting to know and work with Elizabeth. She has shown great organizational skills and an ability to surround herself with people with whom she works well and can achieve a lot. She is also very passionate about core local services and understands that the ACT Government’s role is a local one with a few state-like responsibilities thrown in. I suspect that we disagree on a few national political issues, but as Elizabeth understands that these are things which should not enter the realm of local politics (something which Labor and the Greens clearly do not understand), I am proud to be able to support Elizabeth.
2. Jeremy Hanson – An incumbent MLA who has demonstrated a great understanding of what is wrong with the ACT Government and how to fix it, especially in the health sector. I gladly gave Jeremy my first preference in 2008 and have been very impressed with his work. I believe that it is important to have one of the “experienced hands” in my top two, and Jeremy is someone I have absolutely no reservation in supporting.
3. Giulia Jones – I have been impressed by Giulia’s energy and enthusiasm over the course of a few campaigns. We have a basic ideological agreement on the role of government and the problems in the current government, along with similar ideological views on things which are and are not within the remit of local government. Giulia also cares about delivering local services efficiently and well. I strongly hope that Giulia finally gets a seat in the Legislative Assembly and helps to shape a sane direction for the ACT Government. I have the utmost confidence that she will.
4. Steve Doszpot – Another incumbent MLA. Steve has a large amount of executive experience and understands what needs to change in the ACT Government. I have a great deal of respect for Steve and his part in shaping the Canberra Liberals plan for Canberra. I hope to see him in charge of a department or two after the election.
I have split my top four and following three for a couple reasons. Firstly, the people mentioned above have my strongest support. Secondly, under the Hare-Clark system which is used in ACT elections, your vote is likely to help your first three or four choices. Beyond that, it may still have some impact, but it will be negligible. As such, I suggest placing the above candidates on whatever of the first four positions you like, and then placing the next three in 5th to 7th, once again in your preferred order.
How I placed them:
5. James Milligan – James has a great deal of private sector experience which is fantastic for a politician as it brings a mindset of efficiency and working within one’s means while still striving to do the best job possible. The fact that James is still willing to serve the local community after not winning a grueling battle for a federal seat tops it off by showing me that he is persistent in achieving things which he sets out to achieve.
I then had a hard time splitting the next two but ended up with:
6. Tom Sefton – Tom seems to be strongly committed to local services and has a good track record of helping the community in various ways.
7. Murray Gordon – Murray seems like a very capable candidate, but his experience seems to be more suited to international policy than local policy from what I have seen. I’m sure that, if elected, he would do a great job, but I would much rather see him run for federal seat.
In the other electorates, I highly recommend the following candidates followed by the rest of the Liberal candidates.
Brindabella
1. Zed Seselja – The party leader who has the vision and leadership skills to provide ACT residents with the stability, sanity and solid planning that they deserve from a Chief Minister.
2. Val Jeffery – If anyone in the ACT cares more about the delivery of local services, especially to the communities which are often forgotten by the ACT Government, than Val does, I’m yet to meet them.
3. Brendan Smyth – Brendan is definitely an old hand and knows the ACT Government inside out, especially “Urban Services” (I still call it that, even if Labor do not). Brendan is one of the people who should be able to diffuse any obstructionism from the ACT Publuc Service.
Ginninderra
In no particular order Alistair Coe and Vicki Dunne. Vicki has a long track record of helping people with problems with all manner of government services, and Alistair has proven himself to be a very capable and effective MLA.
If you’ve noticed that I’ve referred to the fact that I have voted, it’s because I have. I pre-polled earlier in the week in the knowledge that I will be busy on election day…very busy indeed. Hopefully after the day is done, election night will be a cause for celebration.
I hope that this summary of my thoughts on the candidates helps you to make a wise choice on election day, and helps the ACT to gain a useful government.
An email to 2GB’s Luke Grant, who is filling in for Ray Hadley today
Good morning Luke,
How sad it is that instead of talking about things that affect people every day like the state of the economy; the carbon dioxide tax, how tax dollars are wasted on public service over-management; how our farmers are treated by wholesalers etc, we are talking about nonsense which reflects the poor quality of parliament such as Peter Slipper, Craig Thomson, imaginary sexism, racism, mysoginy, and how allegedly awful Tony Abbott is for using a common phrase which just happened to be said by Alan Jones in an entirely different context.
Disgraceful! We need an election to restore some sort of usefulness to this federal parliament. What a joke it is.
It is not often that things uttered by The Greens astound me as I am quite used to them saying the most absurd things, but I have found myself in that position today, although to be fair, their comrades in the Labor Party have helped to produce my state of astoundment (yes, it’s a word, even if spellcheck doesn’t know it).
Yesterday the ACT Government announced that a large sun receptacle will be placed in Royalla, in Canberra’s deep south (I would normally call it the deep dark south, but that wouldn’t bode well for solar power now would it?). It will produce power which The Greens believe is lovely and cheap.
Royalla will produce 20 megawatts of power each day, enough to power about 4400 homes at a price of 18.6c per kilowatt-hour, about three times the cost of energy produced using coal-fired power.
“The reverse auction tariff price of 18.6c/kilowatt-hour also reflects just how quickly the price of solar energy is falling, and that the more we invest in renewable energy, the cheaper it becomes.” said Shane Rattenbury, ACT Greens Energy spokesperson.
(via ACT Greens who do not receive a tip of my hat, period.)
So, if three times the cost of good old reliable coal power is “cheaper”, how many more taxpayer dollars do we have to throw at this stuff before the cost at the retail side is something which won’t break the bank?
Speaking of taxpayer dollars, it looks like this 18.6c/kilowatt-hour price has been reached by throwing a significant taxpayer-funded subsidy at the project. Back to Simon Corbell in The Canberra Times:
Mr Corbell said the cost would be passed onto consumers and be capped at no more than $13 per year to each Canberra household.
So in other words, the more power you use, the more money this taxpayer subsidy will have to throw at the Spanish sun receptacle company so that your power bill doesn’t go up by more than $13 per year…and with the coast of the solar power being triple that of normal power, and with very few people (probably none, actually) having $6.50 annual electricity bills, the cost of this subsidy will blow out quickly. (Just an explanatory note about the math, if a bill is currently $6.50 and it triples, then it becomes $19.50 which is $13.00 more than the original $6.50 bill).
And yes, that’s right, the company building the sun station is Spanish, so I do have to wonder who gets the carbon credits if the ridiculous carbon dioxide tax stays in place?
And then there’s the other bizarre part of this whole thing. This power plant can power 4,400 homes. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2011 census, Canberra has 145,229 homes, so this power plant can only power 3% of Canberra’s homes and yet all of them are going to pay for it whether they receive power from the plant or not. This means that 97% of Canberra’s homes are going to be subsidising the power supply for that 3%. Based on that, to give you a better indication of how much more this solar power will cost, if only that 3% were paying for the solar power and the $13 cap over the 100% was adjusted so as to receive the same revenue from just the 3%, then it would be an annual cap of $433.33 extra per household per year, and even then it would be subsidised by the taxpayer for an unknown amount.
It is truly astounding that the ACT Government is forcing people to pay extra through both their power bills and their taxes for an unnecessary and uncompetitive solar power plant, all in the name of reducing carbon dioxide emissions which they incorrectly believe are warming the planet. It’s ludicrous, but I can see why the Spanish folks are coming all this way…it’s a giant cash cow and it’s not their taxpayers that have to foot the bill.
Tony Abbott delivered a rousing and encouraging speech on the subject of freedom of speech today. He made a number of important points, but in my view the most important thing he said is that he will repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, if elected as Prime Minister. Section 18C is, of course, the section which Andrew Bolt was deemed to have breached for daring to suggest that some people with tenuous links to Aboriginal heritage might not really be entitled to claim governments benefits afforded to Aboriginal people.
Tony Abbott addressing the Institute of Public Affairs today
The Coalition will repeal section 18C in its present form.
[..]
Expression or advocacy should never be unlawful merely because it is offensive. It ought to be inconceivable that a commentator offering an opinion should fall foul of the law just because offence was taken or might be expected to be taken. This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Bolt. It’s a matter of an expansive or a repressive view of the right to free speech.
If you have the time to spare, I would strongly suggest reading it as it outlines why Tony Abbott believes in, and will defend, freedom of speech.
Now, to be clear, I would go further than Mr. Abbott insofar as I would push for a level of freedom of speech akin to that bestowed upon Americans by the United States of America’s constitution, but I applaud Tony Abbott for taking significant steps in the right direction.
On a personal note, it was a great pleasure to meet exiled radio broadcaster Michael Smith. We had a brief exchange, but I made my support for his plight quite clear, and he assured me that he will return to the airwaves eventually. The sooner the better in my view.
It was also wonderful to briefly greet both Tony Abbott and Phillip Ruddock. It is not the first time I have met either of them as I met Tony Abbott at the Convoy Of No Confidence rally against the Gillard government’s appalling carbon dioxide tax, and met Phillip Ruddock at his brief media interview for the swearing in of Justice Susan Kiefel to the High Court. Even so, it was wonderful to share a moment with them again.
Samuel with Tony Abbott
Samuel with Phillip Ruddock
Thanks must go to the wonderful people at the Institute Of Public Affairs for providing the forum and support for this wonderful event (and yes, I am aware that as a member of the IPA I am, in effect, thanking myself to a small extent…but really this is aimed at the staff) and also the staff of the Amora Jamison Hotel for setting up the venue and being so welcoming…and for the lovely coffee!
Freedom of speech is in trouble in this country, so it is good to know that those of us who believe in it are not alone in our beliefs, and we have the backing of some people in or near positions which can make a significant difference.
Update Thursday August 9: Video of the full speech is now available. Tony Abbott starts speaking at the seven minute mark.
As you may have worked out from the lack of activity on this blog in recent weeks, things have been a tad busy at my end, and this last week was no exception. It has, unfortunately, not become uncommon of late for me to miss a story of great interest to me during the week and then find out about it on the weekend through a snippet of footage on The Bolt Report. This says something about how much news I am missing during the week due to my own busy schedule, and also says something about the types of stories which much of the media ignores (against my better judgement, I am sometimes forced to rely on the mainstream media for days on end for a glimpse of what is happening in the world…so I know what stories they think are important, but I miss the bigger picture).
The example this weekend is that during the week Tony Abbott was in Washington D.C. and met with the excellent people at The Heritage Foundation. He was their keynote speaker. The speech itself was quite exemplary in demonstrating Tony Abbott’s quite thorough understanding of the goings-ons in the relationship between Australia and the United States, and his vision for how we, as a nation, will interact with the world in the coming years. Yet this, as far as I can tell, was not what received media attention over here, but rather an observation which Tony made about Australia’s defence spending and the unfortunate cuts which the federal Labor government is making to the defence budget…an observation which Tony made in response to a media question, an observation which was entirely factual and in thorough support of our armed services, and yet an observation which was seemingly reported on through the prism of Julia Gillard’s spin about it being “negativity” or some such nonsense.
I can understand to an extent why most of what Tony Abbott had to say went unreported as it doesn’t play in to the mainstream media’s narrative about Tony Abbott being dumb. To the contrary, the entire speech and his answers to questions showed the truth of the matter…that Tony is in fact very intelligent and has a solid grasp on matters both domestically and internationally.
If you haven’t already seen it (and let’s face it, the vast majority of Australians have not seen it, which is a shame), then I would urge you to watch this video of Tony Abbott’s address to The Heritage Foundation on the relationship between Australia and the United States of America, as well as the following questions on matters such as impending elections in the Asia-Pacific region, the Arab Spring, and Australian matters including defence spending, the carbon dioxide tax and Tony Abbott’s alternative policy.
It goes without saying that it disturbs me greatly that many Australians are not often provided with the opportunity by much of the media to see that Tony Abbott is in fact a very intelligent man and has a great understanding of domestic and global affairs. This is one of the main reasons why I am taking the time tonight to post this video, as I hope that it will ensure that a few more people will see Tony Abbott for the man he really is, and will help to dispel the myth of Tony being an unacceptable proposition as Prime Minister. Whether people vote for him or not, it is important that they do at least understand and acknowledge that he is by far a more sensible person than most of the senior members of the federal Labor party, and any claims by the media to the contrary are pure fantasy.
Congratulations and many happy returns today to Nattie, who celebrates her 84th birthday (12 to us humans).
The majestic older Puppy-Dog-In-Charge has started her day in a leisurely manner, and I expect that she will spend the rest of the day in much the same way.
