Tony Abbott's comments about women's virginity being a "gift" had barely had a chance to be read by friend and foe alike, than the media's attention had turned to another more pressing issue. Referred to by some politicians as the greatest moral challenge of our age, climate change was back on the front page once more.
The only constant in life is change, so some have been known to say. In January 2010, change was on everyone's lips. Why? Glaciergate. We shall come to that soon enough. First, in searching for answers as to why Armageddon was almost upon us, the findings were of exponential interest.
We live in the age of mammals, the Cenozoic Era. This has been divided into various epochs, the Paleocene, Eocene, and Oligocene Epochs, and the Miocene, Piliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs. Sixty-five million years ago, during the Paleocene Epoch, it was much warmer than it is today. Glaciers began forming in Antarctica only thirty-five million years ago, around when Goondwanaland split, with Australia and South Africa separating from Anatrctica.
Ten million years or so after that, grasslands began to form. As grasses began to develop, surplus grains were stockpiled, ending the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Homo erectus came on the scene under two million years ago.
Over the last 10,000 years there have been periods commonly referred to as 'neoglaciation,' 'climate optimum,' and 'Little Ice Age,' until today things appear to be warming up.
This summary comes from an article written by celebrated mathematical physicist John Baez entitled 'Temperature' (see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/).
A lot of what Baez says is prefaced with statements such as "subject for debate," "exaggerated importance," "questionable importance," and other such terms that make one question the validity and/or importance of global warming as a threat to humankind. Such caveats may simply be a form of insurance.
Even so, Baez's article gives a broad overview of the past sixty-five million years, leading him to conclude that temperatures have, on average, risen one degree celsius in the last 125 years. "But it's happening fast," he warns.
So fast, according to climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, that, when interviewed for Allianz (see http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/energy_co2/) he said:
"we need to act decisively now. It is a race against time. As US President Obama has put it, 'delay is no longer an option.'"
Rahmstorf believes the greatest threat to actively countering alleged climate change is what he refers to as "climate change deniers." These deniers, in his opinion, are very rarely ever climate scientists but rather meteorologists, geologists, and, God forbid, laypeople, who, to paraphrase his comments, really have no idea what they are talking about. "Not familiar with the data" are the words he uses.
The data. Now it's understandable that the average layperson could be excused for questioning the data when confronted, as the writer was, at lunch prior to Christmas '09, with what one could generously describe as 'advertising' from www.suprememastertv.com. In a food court near work, having picked up lunch from a nearby deli and having taken a seat at a table nearby, a lunch companion read aloud text from the 'advertising' material on the table. It read:
"...if the ice all melts, if the poles all melt away, and then if the sea is warm, then the gas might be released from the ocean, and we might be poisoned."
It was a quote taken from Supreme Master Ching Hai, allegedly a "world renowned humanitarian, artist and spiritual teacher, announcing such dangers at a Paris Seminar on Christmas Day 2007."
The next column on the 'advertising' material began with a warning that read "United Nations Report - Meat Eating is a Major Cause of Global Warming...Be Veg! Go Green! Save The Planet."
The "data" was the very same as that that had apparently been 'dumped' by the University of East Anglia (UEA). As a result, anyone could be forgiven for being a little wary as to the validity of the data on which such warming concerns were formulated.
Times Online said that "scientists at the University of East Anglia" had admitted to "throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."
Welcome to 'Climategate'.
'Climategate' seemed to be only the beginning. Come 2010 and 'Glaciergate' had arrived. Some sceptics had been suspicious for some time of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but now such suspicions appeared to be 'bearing fruit.' Were the Himalayan Glaciers really likely to melt by 2035, as the IPCC had declared in a 2007 report? It was not until 2010 that it was found and then commonly reported that the 2035 timeframe came from a report in New Scientist Magazine in the 1990's. The interviewee who provided the 'news' admitted to its speculative content.
And then came 'Disastergate.' From reading the papers, it appeared it was possible climate change may not be at the centre of the increasing incidence and damage caused by natural disasters after all. And forty percent of the Amazon Rainforest may not be wiped out by global warming, as was first claimed by the IPCC. The IPCC, Friends of the Earth, The World Wildlife Fund for Nature, and others, had always been thought to have the best interests of laypersons at heart. Could it be that they actually had an agenda of their own, a viewpoint that was more political than factual? Surely this could not be true - could it?
Throughout all this, the feral camels in Australia's desert were laughing. They had just been told that they would be exonerated by climate scientists because they were not 'domesticated.' Yes, even though feral camels emit more carbon than all other carbon-emitting animals except for cattle and buffalo, they were free and clear as their carbon was not included under the Kyoto Protocol.
The feral camels were having a party in the desert. But they had better be careful not to celebrate too soon. It was opposition policy to cull the camels Kyoto cleared. One thing was for sure - Australia's feral camels, whilst not being able to vote, would nonetheless be watching the result of the upcoming federal election with interest.
In a speech over the weekend prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year, Tony Abbott had been quoted in The Weekend Australian on January 30-31 describing the existing federal government as "perhaps the most overhyped political outfit in Australian history." Meanwhile Labor politicians were trying to ram home to the public their belief Abbott was lecturing morality to the voters. Politics was getting personal again. The attacks were heating up, along with the climate.
Forty-eight hours later and the first Newspoll of the parliamentary session was on the front page of the day's paper and in the middle of many voters' breakfast tables that morning. Jaws dropped! It showed Tony Abbott and the Coalition in front of Labor on primary votes, forty-one percent to forty percent. The Opposition were narrowing the gap on two-party preferred as well, only four percent behind.
Abbott would attribute the result to the government's ability to take the voters for granted, and, of course, to their "great big new tax on everything," the ETS.
At least it seemed that, in the lead up to an election that would become a spin doctor's delight, the voters were faced with a credible choice...at last.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tony's Weekly...
Sport always seemed to be at the top of most Australian's minds in summer. The cricket was ever-present and the Australian Open tennis attracted crowds to please the organiser's, Tennis Australia. Politics had to wait to regain its position as the media focus for daily news.
Tony Abbott couldn't wait. He had agreed to an interview with The Australian Women's Weekly, with a readership the envy of most women's magazines. Even the newspaper reported the story's appearance and select quotes from Abbott. He had been open and honest and discussed women's issues. But who would have thought that an interview with The Weekly and his thoughts on sex would threaten to return Abbott's campaign to the starting line?
Abbott had been reported as saying that a woman's virginity was a "gift." The talkback radio stations ran hot with the news for days.
Had Abbott, a man with three daughter one could be forgiven for describing as 'attractive,' said this merely to gain publicity prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year? Or was it to maintain his position 'front and centre' in Australian politics? Some believe that all publicity is good publicity and that there's nothing worse when in a leadership role, and a political one at that, not to have the media talking about you. But the view that gained most coverage was from those who could be heard saying: 'Tony, what were you thinking?'
Mind you, anyone with three daughters as Abbott had could be forgiven for wanting to keep a pretty close watch on who they were seeing and when. A father can sometimes be overprotective of the ones he loves, especially in the eyes of others.
The eyes of others are sometimes anything but objective. A bit of personal research never goes astray in such circumstances. And in picking up and reading The Australian Women's Weekly after its publication, one quickly came across the article on Abbott and his family.
Some had described the article as 'fascinating' and 'very personal,' especially in reference to the section including the word "gift", quoted in the papers from shore to shore. It read:
"Sex before marriage? 'It happens,' he says, before adding, 'I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question...it is the greatest gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.'"
Hmm, how best to interpret a comment such as this? One could be forgiven for thinking he what he meant was that sex is something that should be meaningful, so don't sleep around with just anyone. Others may disagree, but the media's use of the word virginity is a classic example of guaranteeing the greatest possible reaction to a comment considered even by an experienced politician as somewhat innocent.
But consider this article, entitled 'Hypocrite' Abbott panned for virginity stance,' from January 27, published in The Age and attributed to Michelle Gratton and Geoff Strong:
"Comedian Fiona Scott-Norman said that if one were to look in the dictionary under 'hypocrite', there would be a picture of Mr Abbott. ''Yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, 'Vatican roulette' playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age.
''The irony is that the one thing guaranteed to make 'young people' do something is for a pompous tosspot like Tony to tell them not to.''
"Latrobe University sex education expert Associate Professor Anne Mitchell said Mr Abbott's pronouncement was nonsense."
As Editor-in-Chief Helen McCabe says in her editorial, "honesty can be a bit of a handicap."
Ain't that the truth?
Even the honesty of one's own daughter can sometimes serve as an embarrassment to a father in the public eye. The comment attributed to Abbott's daughter, Frances, that her Dad was a "lame, gay, churchie loser" was interesting and humorous to say the least. She immediately stole my attention and became a "cult hero", as The Weekly suggested some had described her, for her erudite and creative turn of phrase.
There's no-one like family to make sure a public figure feeling his feet in a new leadership role keeps them firmly on the ground.
Tony Abbott couldn't wait. He had agreed to an interview with The Australian Women's Weekly, with a readership the envy of most women's magazines. Even the newspaper reported the story's appearance and select quotes from Abbott. He had been open and honest and discussed women's issues. But who would have thought that an interview with The Weekly and his thoughts on sex would threaten to return Abbott's campaign to the starting line?
Abbott had been reported as saying that a woman's virginity was a "gift." The talkback radio stations ran hot with the news for days.
Had Abbott, a man with three daughter one could be forgiven for describing as 'attractive,' said this merely to gain publicity prior to the opening of the first parliamentary session for the year? Or was it to maintain his position 'front and centre' in Australian politics? Some believe that all publicity is good publicity and that there's nothing worse when in a leadership role, and a political one at that, not to have the media talking about you. But the view that gained most coverage was from those who could be heard saying: 'Tony, what were you thinking?'
Mind you, anyone with three daughters as Abbott had could be forgiven for wanting to keep a pretty close watch on who they were seeing and when. A father can sometimes be overprotective of the ones he loves, especially in the eyes of others.
The eyes of others are sometimes anything but objective. A bit of personal research never goes astray in such circumstances. And in picking up and reading The Australian Women's Weekly after its publication, one quickly came across the article on Abbott and his family.
Some had described the article as 'fascinating' and 'very personal,' especially in reference to the section including the word "gift", quoted in the papers from shore to shore. It read:
"Sex before marriage? 'It happens,' he says, before adding, 'I think I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question...it is the greatest gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.'"
Hmm, how best to interpret a comment such as this? One could be forgiven for thinking he what he meant was that sex is something that should be meaningful, so don't sleep around with just anyone. Others may disagree, but the media's use of the word virginity is a classic example of guaranteeing the greatest possible reaction to a comment considered even by an experienced politician as somewhat innocent.
But consider this article, entitled 'Hypocrite' Abbott panned for virginity stance,' from January 27, published in The Age and attributed to Michelle Gratton and Geoff Strong:
"Comedian Fiona Scott-Norman said that if one were to look in the dictionary under 'hypocrite', there would be a picture of Mr Abbott. ''Yet another self-acknowledged one-time drug-taking, 'Vatican roulette' playing, shagabout, white, middle-aged male telling young women not to do what he did when he was their age.
''The irony is that the one thing guaranteed to make 'young people' do something is for a pompous tosspot like Tony to tell them not to.''
"Latrobe University sex education expert Associate Professor Anne Mitchell said Mr Abbott's pronouncement was nonsense."
As Editor-in-Chief Helen McCabe says in her editorial, "honesty can be a bit of a handicap."
Ain't that the truth?
Even the honesty of one's own daughter can sometimes serve as an embarrassment to a father in the public eye. The comment attributed to Abbott's daughter, Frances, that her Dad was a "lame, gay, churchie loser" was interesting and humorous to say the least. She immediately stole my attention and became a "cult hero", as The Weekly suggested some had described her, for her erudite and creative turn of phrase.
There's no-one like family to make sure a public figure feeling his feet in a new leadership role keeps them firmly on the ground.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Wild Rivers, Exciting Times...
Just prior to the return to parliament, Tony Abbott had decided to publicly air his decision to introduce a private member's bill to the lower house on its return to work and Kevin Rudd's return from holidays for the 2010 calendar year.
Rudd had been absent from our screens and papers for a while, soaking up the summer sun in Kirribilli, a suburb in Sydney's lower north shore. Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's residence in the town in which over 4million Australians resided, was one of the best pieces of real estate anywhere in the country.
Meanwhile, Abbott was discussing issues pertaining to the First Australians, the indigenous community. The Wild Rivers Legislation, passed by the Queensland Government in 2005, with the scope increased to cover other rivers in 2009, was the source of Abbott's concern.
The legislation was designed to gazette development within a declared 'buffer zone' of the rivers covered in the legislation. However, in securing Green preferences for the 2009 State Election, by declaring the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Rivers in Cape York as 'wild rivers,' the Premier, Anna Bligh, also secured the opposition of Noel Pearson, the respected indigenous leader and Director of the the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Crippling economic activity in the Cape York area was sure to gain the ire of a man with the interests of his people at heart.
And so this brought Tony Abbott into the fray, with his member's bill designed to proclaim the need for State legislation to be "struck down." The invitation had been given to Kevin Rudd to back Abbott's bold move so the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to finally address, even if belatedly, the problems the Wild Rivers Legislation was creating for the future of indigenous communities in Cape York.
Abbott stated in The Australian on January 12 that:
"a national government which fails to become involved in a serious problem of a State Government's making, where it has ample capacity to do so, becomes complicit in the original error."
Believe it or not, Abbott had actually spent time in Cape York, as The Australian was keen to bring to our attention, including 10 days in the peninsula in August 2009, "in the Peninsula Top End as a school truancy officer in...Aurukun, and 3 weeks as a volunteer teacher's aide in Coen in 2008."
Unique amongst politicians? Perhaps so. If not unique, certainly worthy of praise.
Although the private member's bill seemed socially responsible and designed to improve the economic opportunities available to the Cape York indigenous community, Abbott's bill would also fit comfortably with his view of there being a need to re-establish a more 'official' chain of command pertaining to Commonwealth-State Relations, as he explains in some detail in his book, 'Battlelines.'
Was Abbott using the private member's bill as a 'guinea pig' or 'trial balloon' via which he could espouse the need for change to the federation? Only time would tell.
But time waited for no-one. As the latest Newspoll was released, showing Rudd's satisfaction rating having declined six percent and Abbott's having jumped four percent, it was clear the Liberal heartland now felt more comfortable in declaring their support for the Coalition.
Soon after Newspoll results were published, the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been 'owned' by Ted Kennedy since 1962 was lost. Kennedy had recently passed away and the seat was seen as a 'sure thing' for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
However, Obama had not countered on the swinging voters swinging to the right of centre, resulting in the Democrats not only losing the seat but also the balance of power they had enjoyed in the Senate since Obama's election a year earlier.
Was there a message in this for Kevin Rudd? Could an election half a world away be a sign of things to come closer to home? If nothing else, it was certainly a sign that incumbents need not take the electorate for granted. Terms such as 'taking a tumble' in reference to Rudd's personal rating and 'recapturing the Liberal base' in reference to Abbott's effectiveness since his election as Opposition Leader, were not terms Rudd would be pleased to see or hear on an ongoing basis.
The Government was seen by some commentators to be in need of a change of strategy. And now!
Rudd had been absent from our screens and papers for a while, soaking up the summer sun in Kirribilli, a suburb in Sydney's lower north shore. Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister's residence in the town in which over 4million Australians resided, was one of the best pieces of real estate anywhere in the country.
Meanwhile, Abbott was discussing issues pertaining to the First Australians, the indigenous community. The Wild Rivers Legislation, passed by the Queensland Government in 2005, with the scope increased to cover other rivers in 2009, was the source of Abbott's concern.
The legislation was designed to gazette development within a declared 'buffer zone' of the rivers covered in the legislation. However, in securing Green preferences for the 2009 State Election, by declaring the Archer, Lockhart and Stewart Rivers in Cape York as 'wild rivers,' the Premier, Anna Bligh, also secured the opposition of Noel Pearson, the respected indigenous leader and Director of the the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. Crippling economic activity in the Cape York area was sure to gain the ire of a man with the interests of his people at heart.
And so this brought Tony Abbott into the fray, with his member's bill designed to proclaim the need for State legislation to be "struck down." The invitation had been given to Kevin Rudd to back Abbott's bold move so the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to finally address, even if belatedly, the problems the Wild Rivers Legislation was creating for the future of indigenous communities in Cape York.
Abbott stated in The Australian on January 12 that:
"a national government which fails to become involved in a serious problem of a State Government's making, where it has ample capacity to do so, becomes complicit in the original error."
Believe it or not, Abbott had actually spent time in Cape York, as The Australian was keen to bring to our attention, including 10 days in the peninsula in August 2009, "in the Peninsula Top End as a school truancy officer in...Aurukun, and 3 weeks as a volunteer teacher's aide in Coen in 2008."
Unique amongst politicians? Perhaps so. If not unique, certainly worthy of praise.
Although the private member's bill seemed socially responsible and designed to improve the economic opportunities available to the Cape York indigenous community, Abbott's bill would also fit comfortably with his view of there being a need to re-establish a more 'official' chain of command pertaining to Commonwealth-State Relations, as he explains in some detail in his book, 'Battlelines.'
Was Abbott using the private member's bill as a 'guinea pig' or 'trial balloon' via which he could espouse the need for change to the federation? Only time would tell.
But time waited for no-one. As the latest Newspoll was released, showing Rudd's satisfaction rating having declined six percent and Abbott's having jumped four percent, it was clear the Liberal heartland now felt more comfortable in declaring their support for the Coalition.
Soon after Newspoll results were published, the Massachusetts Senate seat that had been 'owned' by Ted Kennedy since 1962 was lost. Kennedy had recently passed away and the seat was seen as a 'sure thing' for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
However, Obama had not countered on the swinging voters swinging to the right of centre, resulting in the Democrats not only losing the seat but also the balance of power they had enjoyed in the Senate since Obama's election a year earlier.
Was there a message in this for Kevin Rudd? Could an election half a world away be a sign of things to come closer to home? If nothing else, it was certainly a sign that incumbents need not take the electorate for granted. Terms such as 'taking a tumble' in reference to Rudd's personal rating and 'recapturing the Liberal base' in reference to Abbott's effectiveness since his election as Opposition Leader, were not terms Rudd would be pleased to see or hear on an ongoing basis.
The Government was seen by some commentators to be in need of a change of strategy. And now!
Australia Day honours...
The new Australian of the Year was Professor Patrick McGorry, a renowned Youth Psychiatrist, who had received numerous awards of note throughout what had to this point been an acclaimed and distinguished career in the field of mental health.
McGorry had, within hours of being awarded his latest honour, made public comment relating to the way in which 'asylum-seekers' to some, 'illegal immigrants' to others, but to all, those seeking refuge in Australia for one reason or another, were being detained.
Christmas Island was the main detention centre within Australia, off the west coast from the mainland. McGorry's view was that detention centres were "factories for mental illness." His view was that asylum-seekers who had yet to be granted refugee status, should have their status processed whilst living within the community at large, with access to Medicare benefits and the like.
Only 24 hours later, after his comment had received more press coverage than he himself had received for his Australia Day Council acclamation, McGorry was perhaps too keen to atone for his 'error' and, at a citizenship ceremony in Cenberra attended by the Prime Minister, he found the perfect opportunity to apologise for his 'wayward' comment. McGorry was anxious, it seemed, to have Rudd understand he had meant it as a sign of support for the present government.
Rudd seemed less than concerned, but behind the scenes he may well have been seething at the Australia Day Council's latest choice for Australian of the Year. 'Only another 364 days to go with this wanker', he most likely thought, although by all reports it was quite possible his language could have been more colourful.
Either way, if McGorry's comment had been, as he suggested, a show of support, a critical comment from him would surely be duly noted.
But McGorry had brought to the fore an issue that would see a lot of air-time over the coming months. There was no doubt 'asylum-seekers' were seen by some as 'queue-jumpers,' given a direct invitation to join those that had waited years for the privilege of proving themselves 'worthy.'
Was there room for a refugee program? Yes. Were all 'asylum-seekers' seeking refuge as a result of a home lost, a war ravaged, an inability to return to their homeland? Probably not.
But no matter your belief on emotive issues such as these, border protection and immigration were sure to be areas of concern in the Federal Election to be held most likely later in the year.
Amongst all the emotion, there was one constant amongst all those that wanted to come to Australia to establish a new life, be they immigrants, refugees or otherwise. It was a country that would be sure to provide security and freedom, one of only six continuous democracies the world over, and one that had never seen major conflict on its shores.
On Australia Day, this was cause for celebration.
McGorry had, within hours of being awarded his latest honour, made public comment relating to the way in which 'asylum-seekers' to some, 'illegal immigrants' to others, but to all, those seeking refuge in Australia for one reason or another, were being detained.
Christmas Island was the main detention centre within Australia, off the west coast from the mainland. McGorry's view was that detention centres were "factories for mental illness." His view was that asylum-seekers who had yet to be granted refugee status, should have their status processed whilst living within the community at large, with access to Medicare benefits and the like.
Only 24 hours later, after his comment had received more press coverage than he himself had received for his Australia Day Council acclamation, McGorry was perhaps too keen to atone for his 'error' and, at a citizenship ceremony in Cenberra attended by the Prime Minister, he found the perfect opportunity to apologise for his 'wayward' comment. McGorry was anxious, it seemed, to have Rudd understand he had meant it as a sign of support for the present government.
Rudd seemed less than concerned, but behind the scenes he may well have been seething at the Australia Day Council's latest choice for Australian of the Year. 'Only another 364 days to go with this wanker', he most likely thought, although by all reports it was quite possible his language could have been more colourful.
Either way, if McGorry's comment had been, as he suggested, a show of support, a critical comment from him would surely be duly noted.
But McGorry had brought to the fore an issue that would see a lot of air-time over the coming months. There was no doubt 'asylum-seekers' were seen by some as 'queue-jumpers,' given a direct invitation to join those that had waited years for the privilege of proving themselves 'worthy.'
Was there room for a refugee program? Yes. Were all 'asylum-seekers' seeking refuge as a result of a home lost, a war ravaged, an inability to return to their homeland? Probably not.
But no matter your belief on emotive issues such as these, border protection and immigration were sure to be areas of concern in the Federal Election to be held most likely later in the year.
Amongst all the emotion, there was one constant amongst all those that wanted to come to Australia to establish a new life, be they immigrants, refugees or otherwise. It was a country that would be sure to provide security and freedom, one of only six continuous democracies the world over, and one that had never seen major conflict on its shores.
On Australia Day, this was cause for celebration.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Kevin's Kerfuffle...
Change was and remains the one true certainty in life. But one thing that rarely changed was the New Year's Eve celebrations in Sydney. This year, Rhoda Roberts was Creative Director. The theme on the night, 'Awakening the Spirit', appeared true to her heart. It was little wonder she was able to 'sell' the night so effectively on TV in the days leading up to the big event.
5,000kg of explosive devices, 6 barges, 11,000 shells and 25,000 shooting comets. The night was guaranteed to 'awaken the spirit', and more besides.
Small children may well have been lucky enough to be allowed to stay awake to watch the 9 o'clock fireworks, but their spirit was more likely to be heightened by their parents reading them a new book soon to be published.
'Jasper & Abby and The Great Australia Day Kerfuffle', had been written by none other than Kevin Rudd. Former US President Jimmy Carter, better known to some of us as a peanut farmer and known to others not at all, had also had a children's book published, so Rudd would be in fine company.
With assistance from his friend Rhys Muldoon, a children's TV host, the book would surely make the voters see Rudd had a softer side, and they would love him all the more for it. Wouldn't they?
At the time of the announcement that publication was imminent, Prue McSween, social commentator extraodinaire, said, in her inimitable style, that the pictures in the book better be "bloody good" as the words, if Rudd's, were bound to cure any child suffering from insomnia.
In all honesty though, publishing a children's book seemed sweet enough, and to criticise Kevin for the work he and Muldoon had put into the publication would be unfair and unwise. This could well be why his political opponents remained silent on the subject. The reviews would soon be out, the enjoyment a surety for many.
Whilst the Prime Minister was planning his children’s book in the New Year, the first week or so seemed to be taken up with media pronouncements of government waste and mismanagement. There had been an article prior to the Copenhagen summit about the Australian delegation numbering as many as 114, including the Prime Minister’s official photographer and baggage handler. A blog on the Herald Sun’s website included comments expressing the situation as "Rudd’s Copenhagen Circus," "a farce," a "waste of money," an example of "snouts in the trough," a glorification of their (the Government’s) own self-importance, and "hypocrisy."
The summit itself had catered for 15,000 delegates but registered 45,000. Temperatures in Copenhagen were freezing. Were the 30,000 delegates registered but not catered for to be left out in the cold?
All this gave Tony Abbott an early Christmas present. His line that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the ETS by another name) was "a great big new tax on everything" was being aired daily through all channels of the media. Now he was also able to air concern at the impending increase in the size of Kevin Rudd’s carbon footprint, not to mention the other 113 delegates to be flown over to save the world from itself.
If this was not enough, the New Year saw things only get worse. The first week of the New Year saw an article about the H1N1 vaccine, ordered by the Rudd Government the year before at the height of the alleged swine flu ‘pandemic.'
only 5.1 million of the 21 million vaccines ordered had been used at that time and Australia in summer was not likely to see a high preponderance of the flu nor have any ongoing need for its use, at least not the 16 million that remained. The order had cost $120 million in all. It seemed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL) was making a pretty penny from the deal. Mind you, the taxpayer would always be liable for funding government expenditure. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last where obvious government failings hit the taxpayers’ back pocket.
A month or so in and swine flu was back on the evening news. A night before the first annual commemoration of the Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires, the evening news reported, with great alarm and concern, that there was likely to be another swine flu epidemic as school had now gone back and winter was just around the corner... well, only 4 months away, to be sure. It was hard not to feel that the alert had come from the Federal Government’s Department of Health, as a way of reducing the number of unused strains of the vaccine and ensuring taxpayers were made to feel their hard-earned taxable income had been used for the greater good of the community after all.
Was this view somewhat cynical? You be the judge. From the land of the 'working family,' a term we will re-visit later, it seemed like Kevin had a kerfuffle of his own to deal with that was in no way related to children's books.
Welcome to the New Year.
5,000kg of explosive devices, 6 barges, 11,000 shells and 25,000 shooting comets. The night was guaranteed to 'awaken the spirit', and more besides.
Small children may well have been lucky enough to be allowed to stay awake to watch the 9 o'clock fireworks, but their spirit was more likely to be heightened by their parents reading them a new book soon to be published.
'Jasper & Abby and The Great Australia Day Kerfuffle', had been written by none other than Kevin Rudd. Former US President Jimmy Carter, better known to some of us as a peanut farmer and known to others not at all, had also had a children's book published, so Rudd would be in fine company.
With assistance from his friend Rhys Muldoon, a children's TV host, the book would surely make the voters see Rudd had a softer side, and they would love him all the more for it. Wouldn't they?
At the time of the announcement that publication was imminent, Prue McSween, social commentator extraodinaire, said, in her inimitable style, that the pictures in the book better be "bloody good" as the words, if Rudd's, were bound to cure any child suffering from insomnia.
In all honesty though, publishing a children's book seemed sweet enough, and to criticise Kevin for the work he and Muldoon had put into the publication would be unfair and unwise. This could well be why his political opponents remained silent on the subject. The reviews would soon be out, the enjoyment a surety for many.
Whilst the Prime Minister was planning his children’s book in the New Year, the first week or so seemed to be taken up with media pronouncements of government waste and mismanagement. There had been an article prior to the Copenhagen summit about the Australian delegation numbering as many as 114, including the Prime Minister’s official photographer and baggage handler. A blog on the Herald Sun’s website included comments expressing the situation as "Rudd’s Copenhagen Circus," "a farce," a "waste of money," an example of "snouts in the trough," a glorification of their (the Government’s) own self-importance, and "hypocrisy."
The summit itself had catered for 15,000 delegates but registered 45,000. Temperatures in Copenhagen were freezing. Were the 30,000 delegates registered but not catered for to be left out in the cold?
All this gave Tony Abbott an early Christmas present. His line that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (the ETS by another name) was "a great big new tax on everything" was being aired daily through all channels of the media. Now he was also able to air concern at the impending increase in the size of Kevin Rudd’s carbon footprint, not to mention the other 113 delegates to be flown over to save the world from itself.
If this was not enough, the New Year saw things only get worse. The first week of the New Year saw an article about the H1N1 vaccine, ordered by the Rudd Government the year before at the height of the alleged swine flu ‘pandemic.'
only 5.1 million of the 21 million vaccines ordered had been used at that time and Australia in summer was not likely to see a high preponderance of the flu nor have any ongoing need for its use, at least not the 16 million that remained. The order had cost $120 million in all. It seemed the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory (CSL) was making a pretty penny from the deal. Mind you, the taxpayer would always be liable for funding government expenditure. It was not the first time, nor would it be the last where obvious government failings hit the taxpayers’ back pocket.
A month or so in and swine flu was back on the evening news. A night before the first annual commemoration of the Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ bushfires, the evening news reported, with great alarm and concern, that there was likely to be another swine flu epidemic as school had now gone back and winter was just around the corner... well, only 4 months away, to be sure. It was hard not to feel that the alert had come from the Federal Government’s Department of Health, as a way of reducing the number of unused strains of the vaccine and ensuring taxpayers were made to feel their hard-earned taxable income had been used for the greater good of the community after all.
Was this view somewhat cynical? You be the judge. From the land of the 'working family,' a term we will re-visit later, it seemed like Kevin had a kerfuffle of his own to deal with that was in no way related to children's books.
Welcome to the New Year.
Christmas Presents
Christmas 2009 was upon us and it seemed sure to be a long, hot summer. TV, radio and newspaper journalists all seemed to be saying it was a sure sign global warming was here to stay. Although they did not use that term. 'Climate change' was the term of choice.
Another term of choice was 'climate change deniers', which seemed to have superceded 'climate change sceptics'. Had this issue become the new religion of our time? Time would show this was most unlikely, but this was an unknown quantity around Christmas. Kevin Rudd's view that climate change was "the moral challenge of our age" was still popular amongst many. But issues have a way of falling from grace rather quickly, it seems.
At the time of the Copenhagen Summit, Kevin Rudd's view remained as popular as ever. Copenhagen was to be the ground-breaking summit of world leaders that would not only ensconce Rudd as 'Kevin 747' but would also prove him to be a Prime Minister of quality, concern, leadership, diplomacy, and a true 'arrival' on the world stage. Or at least that was the plan.
Back home, leadership spills were taking place and by-elections were being held. The Coalition seemed to be coming together again under an Abbott/Joyce umbrella. The Centre Unity faction of the NSW ALP was organising backroom coups run by faceless men with a female puppet the end result. Albeit a young, fresh-faced, female puppet, who would prove over time to be popular with the people.
In South Australia, a premier sometimes referred to as 'metrosexual,' Mike Rann, was fighting off allegations of late night parking 'trysts' that seemed to be diverting his attention from the issue at hand - getting re-elected.
Meanwhile in the Northern Territory, the government was alleged to be diverting millions to be spent on indigenous health and welfare projects to shore up support in regional Labor electorates.
Although things were to change by April 2010, at Christmas time, the Abbott/Joyce team were the only ones smiling. Joyce's role as Finance Spokesman for Abbott's Coalition was like placing a round peg in a square hole - it just didn't seem to be a good fit.
As Abbott appeared on the beach in 'budgie-smugglers,' the cartoonists and social commentators were having a field day - not since Harold Holt had a federal leader been so attuned to beach culture. A blessing or a curse for Abbott?
Coming home from work on December 1st to see the news on in the family room, David Speers was on screen, looking somewhat quizzically at the camera. His eyes were raised, his brow furrowed as if he was wondering to himself how 42 Liberal Party colleagues could possibly have considered Tony Abbott to be the man to hold the best alternative for the Party's chances at the next election. It was clear that many 'scribes' considered Abbott's view on the ETS and climate change in general to be impractical and reactionary.
As Abbott stood before the press gallery and the many voters at home in their living rooms, he could be heard saying he wanted to apologise for all his errors of the past as he asked the public to judge him on his actions from that moment on. Humble and humorous, was one way of seeing it.
One thing was certain as a result of Abbott's elevation to the leadership of the opposition - Rudd's ETS was in trouble. Abbott's view that the ETS was simply a "great big new tax on everything" was a line that would prove to be most effective.
Graham Young in The Australian on January 1st, 2010, said:
"the Government has been put on notice...If it (the contest) is about whether Rudd has got a bit too pompous, narcissistic and self-satisfied, then the straight-shooting gadfly (Abbott) may do suprisingly well. Particularly if voters don't think he can win."
One thing was for certain as 2010 arrived. Climate change of the political kind was real. The year ahead would tell the story of just how much change the general public was willing to accept - and how soon?
Another term of choice was 'climate change deniers', which seemed to have superceded 'climate change sceptics'. Had this issue become the new religion of our time? Time would show this was most unlikely, but this was an unknown quantity around Christmas. Kevin Rudd's view that climate change was "the moral challenge of our age" was still popular amongst many. But issues have a way of falling from grace rather quickly, it seems.
At the time of the Copenhagen Summit, Kevin Rudd's view remained as popular as ever. Copenhagen was to be the ground-breaking summit of world leaders that would not only ensconce Rudd as 'Kevin 747' but would also prove him to be a Prime Minister of quality, concern, leadership, diplomacy, and a true 'arrival' on the world stage. Or at least that was the plan.
Back home, leadership spills were taking place and by-elections were being held. The Coalition seemed to be coming together again under an Abbott/Joyce umbrella. The Centre Unity faction of the NSW ALP was organising backroom coups run by faceless men with a female puppet the end result. Albeit a young, fresh-faced, female puppet, who would prove over time to be popular with the people.
In South Australia, a premier sometimes referred to as 'metrosexual,' Mike Rann, was fighting off allegations of late night parking 'trysts' that seemed to be diverting his attention from the issue at hand - getting re-elected.
Meanwhile in the Northern Territory, the government was alleged to be diverting millions to be spent on indigenous health and welfare projects to shore up support in regional Labor electorates.
Although things were to change by April 2010, at Christmas time, the Abbott/Joyce team were the only ones smiling. Joyce's role as Finance Spokesman for Abbott's Coalition was like placing a round peg in a square hole - it just didn't seem to be a good fit.
As Abbott appeared on the beach in 'budgie-smugglers,' the cartoonists and social commentators were having a field day - not since Harold Holt had a federal leader been so attuned to beach culture. A blessing or a curse for Abbott?
Coming home from work on December 1st to see the news on in the family room, David Speers was on screen, looking somewhat quizzically at the camera. His eyes were raised, his brow furrowed as if he was wondering to himself how 42 Liberal Party colleagues could possibly have considered Tony Abbott to be the man to hold the best alternative for the Party's chances at the next election. It was clear that many 'scribes' considered Abbott's view on the ETS and climate change in general to be impractical and reactionary.
As Abbott stood before the press gallery and the many voters at home in their living rooms, he could be heard saying he wanted to apologise for all his errors of the past as he asked the public to judge him on his actions from that moment on. Humble and humorous, was one way of seeing it.
One thing was certain as a result of Abbott's elevation to the leadership of the opposition - Rudd's ETS was in trouble. Abbott's view that the ETS was simply a "great big new tax on everything" was a line that would prove to be most effective.
Graham Young in The Australian on January 1st, 2010, said:
"the Government has been put on notice...If it (the contest) is about whether Rudd has got a bit too pompous, narcissistic and self-satisfied, then the straight-shooting gadfly (Abbott) may do suprisingly well. Particularly if voters don't think he can win."
One thing was for certain as 2010 arrived. Climate change of the political kind was real. The year ahead would tell the story of just how much change the general public was willing to accept - and how soon?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)