Just another little threat from the thuggish Gillard Government:
ACT Labor has unveiled a plan to move sick children more quickly through the Canberra Hospital’s emergency department (ED).
The Federal Government has committed $5 million to build a dedicated waiting, triage and treatment area for children…
ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy says the deal is tied to Labor returning to power…“We haven’t seen anything from the local Liberal opposition about their health plan.
Aren’t Labor sweet when they are desperate?
(Thanks to reader Marcus.)
Fairfax’s Lenore Taylor, a warmist, reports:
THE carbon tax has helped to drive a sharp fall in the emissions intensity of Australia’s power generation as coal-fired stations are closed, moth-balled or sell less electricity.
As Victoria’s Yallourn brown-coal-fired power station became the latest to announce a production cut, experts said falling demand for electricity, more renewables such as wind farms and solar, and the carbon price were all pushing Australia’s coal-fired stations out of the market, making generation cleaner.
But wait a minute…
The very last paragraph of her story notes:
In June, the Australian Energy Market Operator said demand in the national electricity market was 5.7 per cent lower than forecast because of increased energy efficiency, solar photovoltaics and a decline in energy-hungry manufacturing.
Hmm. The fall could in part be a sign of the manufacturing wipeout.
But double-wait. Check the above graphic, from the Australian Energy Market Operator. Good heavens. The big drop actually occurred before the carbon tax kicked in. And since the tax started, the energy intensity has actually crept up.
Indeed, AEMO says:
Falling demand, the seasonal use of hydroelectricity, the impact of the units coming offline at Yallourn following the Gippsland floods are among the factors which influenced a change in the Carbon Emissions Intensity Index (CEII). Note this index was originally designed as an input to settle electricity contracts. It was never intended to be a definitive measure of greenhouse emissions for anything else.
And let’s not forget why power consumption might fall as a function of the carbon tax. It’s because electricity becomes just too damn expensive to use, especially for the poor. Great success, that.
Meanwhile the world has failed to heat for 16 years now.
Excuse me, but wasn’t I told this kind of thing was unlawful? That is was the kind of “eugenics” thinking behind the Nazis’ “Nuremberg race laws”?
Is there any obvious reason Anthony Mundine will be spared what I went through?
ALWAYS a beacon for controversy, boxer Anthony Mundine has used the launch of his long-awaited rematch with Daniel Geale as an opportunity to question his opponent’s heritage.
When asked today about the fact that Geale, a Tasmanian of indigenous heritage and the current IBF and WBA middleweight champion, wore an Aboriginal flag on his trunks, Mundine said: “I thought they wiped all the Aborigines from Tasmania out…“He’s got a white woman, he’s got white kids. I keep it real, all day every day.”
I’d give you my own thoughts, but I’m too scared to break the law against free speech.
(Thanks to readers Peter, Trevor, Ashley and others.)
The economy will suffer a bit, the budget much more:
AUSTRALIA’S budget revenues have been hit by the commodity price slide but growth was being supported by investment in mining and new housing, a top executive at the Treasury said.
The head of Treasury’s macro-economic division, Dr David Gruen, told the Senate Economics Committee today that “there is no doubt that commodity prices have come down by more than we thought at budget”.
Slowing growth in China, the country’s biggest trading partner, has led to sharp falls in key industrial commodity prices in recent times, buffeting Australian exports
Good growth for most countries, but weaker than once expected from China:
CHINA’S gross domestic product rose 7.4 per cent from a year earlier in the third quarter, its slowest pace of expansion since the first quarter of 2009, data from the National Bureau of Statistics showed today.
We’ll feeling the pain already:
MOUNT Gibson Iron will lay off about 270 workers, slow mining and cut pay for senior managers to curb costs and help it ride out a fall in commodity prices.
And the Government’s Budget will feel far more pain:
BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto will be the only resource companies making payments of the new mining tax when the first instalment falls due on Monday, and they will be doing so out of a sense of obligation because of their role in designing the tax.
The payments will be based on the companies’ estimates of their full-year liability, which will be significantly less than the gross amount of more than $5 billion assumed in the May budget.
Company sources say the liability could have been calculated at zero, or even yielding a net credit, but the two resource giants felt beholden to make some payment since they had such a large role in brokering the deal over the tax.Swiss-based mining giant Xstrata will not be making any payment.
I find it hard to believe the two big miners will pay tax they don’t need to. The shareholders should rebel, if true.
Kevin Rudd makes hay:
KEVIN Rudd has seized on revelations that mining tax revenue will fall short, expressing “hope” that Julia Gillard’s watered-down version of his resources super profits tax will reap sufficient rewards for Australians…
.Mr Rudd said the big miners “know how to throw their weight around” but “at the end of the day, people expect a fair return for resources owned by them, and something extra when the resources companies benefit from massive increases in global commodity prices”.
“On the level of receipts, I always wait for the budget papers to see if we’ve been able to earn the level of revenue projected. I hope that that will be the case since the amendments made to the tax, to the new minerals resource rent tax regime,” he told ABC radio…The campaign by big miners against Mr Rudd’s RSPT was a key factor in his downfall at the hands of the Labor caucus. Ms Gillard renegotiated the mining tax with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata, replacing the much more aggressive RSPT.
Now they really are fleeing a threat to their liberty:
A GROUP of asylum seekers intent on travelling to Australia turned pirate and took over a fishing vessel off Sri Lanka - apparently throwing the crew overboard and causing them to drown.
Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Australia, Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe, said three crewmen had died while a badly injured survivor from the boat had been rescued by the Sri Lanka Navy and taken to hospital…
The gang are believed to have attacked the fishing boats crew with swords and are now believed to be still on the way to Australia.
Other reports say the three men reported drowned may still be on the boat.
I had no idea this complaint had been made, but do remember being offended by what was yet another cheap Fairfax trick to smear me:
Adjudication No. 1551: Tom Lalor/smh.com.au (October 2012)
18 Oct 2012
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint that an article on The Sydney Morning Herald’s website on 12 April 2012 inaccurately and unfairly implied that Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt had a link with racism. The article was headed “Bolt link to racist reviews of book” and had an image of Mr Bolt’ captioned, “Racist link ... Andrew Bolt”. It noted that Mr Bolt’s blog had provided a link to a series of comments about a book on a US-based book retailer’s website.
The complainant, Tom Lalor, said the combination of the headline and the picture caption inaccurately implied that Mr Bolt was linked in some way to the making of the comments and was condoning or supporting racist views expressed in them. He queried whether any of the comments were actually racist although some people might consider some of them to be so. In any event, he said it was inaccurate and unfair to imply that Mr Bolt was encouraging or supporting the people who made them. He also said the coverage was unbalanced because the newspaper had not sought Mr Bolt’s views before publication.The newspaper responded that the term “link” was clearly a reference to the hyperlink to the comments which was provided in Mr Bolt’s blog, not to any personal connection between him and them. The newspaper pointed to a number of comments which it considered racist and that it had published a letter from Mr Bolt on the day after the article. The letter disagreed with the assertions about racist comments, especially the comments on the website at the time when he provided the link, and explained why he provided it. It also pointed out that the print version of the article (which was also on the website but in a different section from the version read by Mr Lalor) avoided the alleged implication by using the headline “Racist slurs in Bolt link spark fury” and the simple caption “Andrew Bolt”.The Press Council has concluded that the headline and caption in the online article read by Mr Lalor were unfair because they were likely to be interpreted by many readers as stating that Mr Bolt was associated with, or at least condoned, the publication of racist views. If this assertion was to be made, it should have been clearly identified as an opinion and would then have had to comply with the Council’s principles on such expressions. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld on that ground. The problem could have been avoided by using the same words as in the other published version of the article.The Council has concluded that if the headline and caption had been appropriate the article itself was not of such a kind as required contact with Mr Bolt prior to publication. His reason for providing the hyperlink was given in his blog and quoted in the article. Accordingly, the complaint relating to failure to contact Mr Bolt before publication is upheld solely because of the addition of the headline and caption, not the content of the article itself. If the headline and caption had been consistent with the article in this way, there would have been no need to contact him.
The Council notes the newspaper’s appropriate action in promptly publishing Mr Bolt’s letter.
Don’t jump to conclusions:
No, just wait to read the second paragraph:
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis...
In the early hours of this morning I wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria Ken D. LAY APM to report what I believe is at least one serious indictable offence committed in the state of Victoria.
At about 0940 today 17 October 2012 I telephoned the Chief Commissioner of Police’s office and had a 9 minute conversation with Acting Inspector Karl Curran. I explained some of the background to my report.
At about 1.40 PM today I received an email from the Chief Commissioner of Police’s staff informing me that my report had been received by Victoria Police. The Chief Commissioner has given responsibility for the transmission of the report to his Chief of Staff Acting Superintendent Cindy MILLEN. Superintendent MILLEN has passed the report directly to the detectives who run the Victoria Police Crime Department.
The Australian notes:
POLICE in Victoria are assessing new information about a union fraud scandal that led to Julia Gillard and her then boyfriend, disgraced Australian Workers Union boss Bruce Wilson, leaving their jobs amid criminal investigations in two states 17 years ago.
Chief Commissioner Ken Lay’s office has directed that the new material, including a statement from former union bagman Ralph Blewitt, be reviewed by detectives pending any decision on whether to reopen an investigation that ended in 1996.
(Thanks to readers AC and Peter.)
Well, not always, actually…
(Thanks to reader Jules.)
How many more years of no warming before global warmists admit their theory is broken?
New data released two weeks ago shows the pause in global warming has now lasted 16 years.
This is despite man’s carbon dioxide emissions – blamed by warmists for causing the world to overheat – soaring nearly 50 per cent over the past two decades.
More emissions, but no warming. This is not what was meant to happen.
“The data confirms the existence of a ‘pause’ in the warming,” confirmed Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology .
Leading global warming scientists agree, even if they disagree on what the pause means.
“The hiatus was not unexpected,” said Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
“Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily…
“Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily…
“In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required.”
Wow. So 16 years of no statistically significant warming (just 0.08 degrees per decade) is too short a time to doubt man is dangerously overheating the planet.
But 17 years will be. Can’t wait.
But the global warming theory itself is based on just 16 years of warming – from 1980 to 1996.
It wasn’t too soon then for warmists to demand carbon taxes, solar panels, wind farms and power bills through the roof.
What’s more, the leaked Climategate emails show the Climatic Research Unit’s head, Professor Phil Jones, already discussing the pause with other warmist scientists in 2009, reassuring them: “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”
Yet with the pause now lasting 16 years, Jones is still pleading for more time to see if his theory holds out.
This lack of warming does not disprove the theory that man is heating the world dangerously.
But nothing the world’s climate is doing confirms it, either.
The moderators, chosen from Left-leaning media outlets, have been generous with their time ... to the Democrats in all three debates:
According to the CNN debate clock, President Obama spoke at greater length than Mitt Romney during both debates, as did Vice President Biden during his debate with Paul Ryan. In the first debate, Obama spoke for 3 minutes, 14 seconds more than Romney — which means he got 8 percent more talking time than Romney. In last night’s debate, Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Obama talked for 52 percent of the time when either man had the floor, while Romney talked for 47 percent.
During the vice presidential debate, the gap wasn’t as wide: Biden spoke for 1 minute, 22 seconds more than Ryan. Still, that gave Biden 3 percent more speaking time than Ryan.
Bias will out under pressure, which is why the Republicans really should try harder for a balance of moderators:
In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.(Second debate moderator Candy) Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.
No difference with the media here. Remember, Romney is the poll leader, yet...:
Fair and balanced? Five interviews, none positive for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. ABC radio’s AM, yesterday:
LISA Millar: Kathy Schiereck ... knows how she’ll be voting next month.Schiereck: I just don’t trust Romney. I don’t even like the way he walks. . .Millar: Kathy Schiereck wishes the President had done more ... but she’s ready to give him another term ... Kathy Schiereck’s boss, Thomas Koukoulas, will be watching ... Are you one of these Democrats who are worried that Romney is closing in the polls?Koukoulas: No, I don’t, I’m not worried ...Millar: Both candidates have spent days off the campaign trail practising.(Sound of cameras snapping)Reporter: How’re you feeling about tonight?Barack Obama: I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day.Millar: Obama campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs expects viewers to notice an immediate difference ... Pew pollster Carroll Doherty says there are risks and opportunities for both of them.Doherty: Voters still have some doubts about Romney’s specifics. So I think Obama will draw this issue out.Millar: Expect a very different debate from last time - 90 minutes that could shape the final weeks of this campaign.
Jane Cowan on the ABC’s AM this morning outdoes even Millar, filing a report on Mitt Romney’s alleged “women problem”, as defined by tweets mocking a comment on “binders of women”. That’s apparently the big take-out from yesterday’s debate. Not Libya, not the economy, not the polls. Oh, and apparently the only “aggression” in the debate she mentions was that of ... yes, Romney.
In her written report, Cowan even misses completely the deceit in Obama’s response that he said from day one the attack in Benghazi was an act on terror. Correct, says Cowan, failing to add that Obama and his team for days afterwards sought to portray the attack as a protest against an anti-Islamic film that spun out of control.
The story you didn’t get from the ABC:
The story you didn’t get from the ABC:
On September 20 — eight days after Obama claims to have called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” — Jay Carney affirmed to reporters that the White House had never called it “a terrorist attack.”
From the gaggle on Air Force One, en route to Miami, 9/20/2012:Q: Can you — have you called it a terrorist attack before? Have you said that?MR. CARNEY: I haven’t, but — I mean, people attacked our embassy. It’s an act of terror by definition.Q: Yes, I just hadn’t heard you —MR. CARNEY: It doesn’t have to do with what date it occurred.Q: No, I just hadn’t heard the White House say that this was an act of terrorism or a terrorist attack. And I just —MR. CARNEY: I don’t think the fact that we hadn’t is not — as our NCTC Director testified yesterday, a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Here, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney actually affirmed Gov. Romney’s position that the White House did not call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Carney also said the now infamous video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi” the day before.
Paul Sheehan notes the test the Attorney-General spectacularly failed:
Test: how long does it take to deduce whether the following text messages are sexual and in poor taste?
‘’Did you lose your maidenhood again?’’‘’Your virtual hymen.’’‘’We say a person is a c**t when many guys like c**ts!’’‘’They look like a mussel removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat!’’It takes about eight seconds to read these messages. Confronted with dozens of similar messages it would have taken less than a minute to realise that the former speaker of the house, Peter Slipper, sent numerous lurid, unsolicited sexual messages to a staff member. Which means the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has a problem.On Tuesday night, it emerged during a Senate estimates hearing that the Attorney-General was briefed on June 9 about the hundreds of dubious or distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his staffer James Ashby.Four days later, on June 13, Roxon instructed the Solicitor-General to seek to have Ashby’s case struck out. She also gave instructions to seek a waiver for the government to be allowed to use the texts to have Ashby sacked…
Two days later, despite her knowledge of the scale and nature of the texts sent by Slipper, the Attorney-General held a press conference and said this: ‘’The Commonwealth strongly believes that this process has been one which is really for an ulterior purpose … the Commonwealth has obtained a vast amount of material … It will be clearly shown … that there were in fact clear intentions to harm Mr Slipper and to bring his reputation into disrepute and to assist his political opponents and that was the purpose for the bringing of this claim.’’
She read those texts and thought Ashby had no case? Was just playing politics?
Global warmism is about seeming, not achieving. So Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt’s audit of the Government global warming schemes comes up with nothing to surprise a sceptic - or a student of Labor’s waste:
Mr Hunt has analysed 37 climate change programs—including the carbon tax, the home insulation program, the green car innovation fund, cash for clunkers and the citizens’ assembly—and says eight of the schemes were never even established.
A further 14 programs had been scrapped early, replaced, reduced or frozen, and Mr Hunt said 40 per cent of the programs “failed to deliver on stated objectives”.“We have already seen eight major changes to the carbon tax package in the first 100 days, including the scrapping of the $2 billion contract for closure program,” Mr Hunt says in a draft of the speech provided to The Australian.
ONE person is the no-buts winner from Julia Gillard’s furious speech last week vilifying Tony Abbott as a woman-hater.
It’s not the Prime Minister, of course, whose rant offended so many men and demeaned many women.
But it’s also not Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, whose gain in votes still comes with the pain of a bum rap.
No, the biggest winner is Kevin Rudd, who has had his re-election pitch - both to Labor and the voters - handed to him by Gillard on a broken plate.
The pitch: end this division. End this abuse. I can heal Labor. Heal Australia.
Freaky. No sooner had I pressed the send button on that column than Rudd went on Latelineto prove great minds think alike - or something like that. It’s almost as if he knew what I was writing...:
KEVIN RUDD: I think the Australian people would much rather our nation came together than was constantly pulling itself apart. There is a great, I think, yearning in the country, and I travel around as much as any other member of parliament, for us to craft a common vision for the country’s future and if we can’t have a common vision for the country’s future at least a policy based division on what that future might be… There’s a certain terrible familiarity between whack, whack, whack and whack. Of course it takes two to Tango in this…
TONY JONES: How do you think the gender wars have been playing with the public?KEVIN RUDD: Well, I believe that the Australian public, and the Queensland public are as one. They are more deeply concerned about the bread and butter, back to basics issues that confront families ...TONY JONES: You were called chaotic, a dysfunctional decision maker, a person who put his own self interest ahead of the Labor movement, someone who does not hold Labor values, a populist, a manipulator, a false Messiah and by one intemperate backbencher a psychopath, can you simply shrug off this kind of thing…KEVIN RUDD: I think the challenge for all of us, whether it’s in the Labor Party or beyond it, in the Liberal Party and the national political, let’s call it establishment, is to actually lift ourselves above the ruck for a bit… This sort of stuff frankly doesn’t really add up to a row of beans. And the sooner we get past, shall I say, the personal, deeply personal attacks on all sides of politics the better…
I think the country expects us to rise to that level and leadership is required of all of us.. I think we’ve got a challenge here and abroad to make our democracies work to invigorate them with some basic civility and ideas and a debate about policies for the future which are not going to cause our citizens to collapse in despair.
As I say in the column, this kind of pitch - which Gillard has by her missteps and vindictiveness created - will work powerfully for Rudd both within Labor and with voters.
The Australian is sick of the culture of spin - or in this case of organised lying:
The story that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott lacked the “guts” to discuss his policy of turning back asylum-seeker boats when he met with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was fiction, yet it was reported unverified and then reported over and over again. The journalists who swallowed it might claim it had been confirmed by two sources: Julia Gillard and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen. No one, however, appeared to check with anyone who might have been at the meeting in Jakarta to discover if it was true.
The accusation that Abbott failed to mention the turn-around of boats is indeed fiction, yet the Government states it as fact.
Significant in this debate are the following:
- Indonesia’s President treated Abbott almost as a head of state.- In contrast, he stayed in Jakarta for routine health checks rather than join Julia Gillard at the Bali commemoration.- Yudhoyono, who knows about Abbott’s return-the-boats policy, raised no objection to them, certainly not publicly.- The policy was discussed at length at a meeting between Abbott’s immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, and Yudhoyono’s foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa.- Natalegawa, who has previously expressed opposition to the policy, declined to do so this time.
The message seems very clear. Yudhoyono knows about Abbott’s plan and is prepared to consider it, and probably work with it if offered the right package. Indeed, it is in Indonesia’s own interests to shut down the people smuggling. Yudhoyono is also sending clear signals that while he could work with Abbott, his relationship with Gillard is almost dysfunctional.
And no wonder. Gillard’s latest insult: to drag Yudhoyono into a cheap-shot debate by making false claims about his meeting with Abbott, purely to score domestic political points. Don’t forget: Yudhonoyo will know perfectly well that Gillard tells an untruth when she attacks Abbott’s alleged “failure to raise with the President of Indonesia something that he beats his chest about when he’s home”. He will make conclusions about Gillard’s trustworthiness.
Note, on the other hand, that Abbott is resisting the temptation to publicly say precisely who said what to whom in that meeting, maintaining a respectful relationship with the head of a very important neighbour - a relationship Gillard is prepared to trash.