Sunday, February 17, 2013

Sun 17th Feb Todays News


Happy birthday and many happy returns Lovely Lina Shiloh,Michelle DoPhath CarolineLouis Pham and Christopher Jattan. Born on the same day, across the years, as my genius brother, John. If you feel the urge to invent something, let me encourage you. The stars align.
===

Thomas Jefferson

===

Events

[edit]Births

[edit]Deaths


[edit]Holidays and observances


===

Return of Rudd can’t save ALP

Piers Akerman – Saturday, February 16, 2013 (11:21pm)

The NSW Labor Party, both Left and Right wings, are now firmly behind Kevin Rudd, a senior Labor figure told me on Valentine’s Day.

===

More Sparta than Barbie

Miranda Devine – Saturday, February 16, 2013 (11:22pm)

TO UNDERSTAND the extent of the muscle-building culture in Australia, just walk into any of the 19 Australian Sports Nutrition stores around the country. 

===

Gillard can make women suspect Abbott, but not vote for her

Andrew BoltFEBRUARY172013(9:08am)

So much for Julia Gillard’s misogyny smear. She’s damaged Abbott with that lie, but still won’t get the women’s vote:
In the nation’s first female-only Galaxy poll, ...just one in three women - 36 per cent - [are] preparing to vote Labor.

But the Galaxy results also found high levels of concern among women about Mr Abbott, with 44 per cent concerned “he says no to everything” and 39 per cent concerned about his views on abortion…
{But] the survey found 44 per cent of women firmly reject the PM’s claim that Mr Abbott is a misogynist. Just 25 per cent agreed Mr Abbott was a misogynist, a figure that included 44 per cent of female Labor voters and 9 per cent of female Coalition voters.

Women were divided over whether Ms Gillard was a good role model, with 44 per cent saying yes and 43 per cent calling her a “disappointment”. A majority of women aged over 50 regard the Prime Minister as a “disappointing” role model but support for Ms Gillard is stronger among younger women, with 46 per cent backing her as “good”.
image
What’s Gillard’s problem with women voters?

===

Rudd twists the knife as Gillard camp stumbles

Andrew BoltFEBRUARY172013(8:44am)

Kevin Rudd’s war with the flailing Julia Gillard steps up significantly today.
Adelaide’s Sunday Mail reports:
KEVIN Rudd will crash Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s party in Adelaide this week, staging his own ambush visit on the same day she flies in senior ministers for a community Cabinet meeting.
The Sunday Mail has learnt the former prime minister is the star attraction at an inter-faith religious dialogue in the seat of Makin with Labor MP Tony Zappia on Wednesday…
Angry Gillard supporters are disgusted the “Rudd circus” will detract from the Prime Minister’s attempts to raise Labor’s profile in Australia’s most marginal Liberal-held seat, Boothby in the southern suburbs…
Accusing Mr Rudd of running a campaign of destabilisation against the Prime Minister, Gillard supporters are also up in arms over revelations Mr Rudd was spotted chatting to the Liberals’ George Brandis before the Coalition used Senate estimates to make mischief over a police investigation into the video leaked during last year’s leadership contests.
At the hearings Senator Brandis suggested a mystery “colleague” had provided him with Freedom of Information documents about the police investigation.
If Gillard supporters leaked these complaints, they really are stupid - or panicked.
As Rudd said on Sky News this morning, the Zappia event was not an ambush but organised last year, before Gillard’s community meeting. It’s now been delayed to give Gillard more attention..
Talk about a way to underline that Rudd is popular and Gillard not, that he would be treated as the headline act if both appeared in the same city on the same day.
As for the other allegation, there is no proof, just this complaint - and Rudd denies it.
I don’t know if he is innocent, but the allegation suggests Gillard’s camp is desperately trying to revive the line of attack it used successfully against Rudd in last year’s leadership showdown - that he’s disloyal and whiteanting, and this is what is dragging down Labor’s vote.
Won’t work. Rudd this time around has been much more careful. There is no way Gillard’s blunders and catastrophic poll performance since can be blamed on anyone but herself. For anyone in Labor to attempt again to nuke Rudd is to risk destroying the party’s very last hope.
But Rudd on Sky is growing bolder and speaking more as the next Prime Minister.
He again points out the problem with Swan’s mining tax raising no money, and says this is the key point about it.
He refuses to deny Swan misled him when he was Prime Minister about the tax and negotiations with the miners.
And in speaking of the next G20 meeting - to be in Brisbane - he says “if I were to put at the top of what I’d like to see come out if it...”
That doesn’t sound like a backbencher speaking.
UPDATE
Labor supporters - and Gillard ones particularly - are blaming everyone but the woman who is the true author of their misfortune:
Labor supporters are rightly dismayed by the fortunes of the federal government.
The support base is rippling with white-hot anger at journalists for focusing on inane elements of what increasingly appears to be a leadership struggle of mutually assured destruction between the Prime Minister and her predecessor.
But hard-headed government supporters are also willing to apportion some responsibility to the Labor MPs who, fearing a lemming-like conga line over the electoral abyss on September 14, are venting more openly than ever about the bastardry of Labor dissidence, about Rudd’s alleged treachery, about Gillard’s manifold tactical mistakes and about what they now see as Wayne Swan’s incompetence and lacklustre salesmanship.
Helpful. Not.
True. Yes. 

===

The public defends freedom, the “Human Rights Council” doesn’t

Andrew BoltFEBRUARY172013(8:30am)

Last week the head of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, struggled to nominateanything her commission had done to protect our free speech - now under such attack from the Gillard Government.
Senator BRANDIS:  Professor Triggs, ... it cannot have escaped you or the members of the commission that in the last 12 or 18 months or so in Australia we have had a very, very vigorous debate about freedom of speech. We could probably trace its origins, at least in the recent past, to the decision in the Bolt case, and then we had the Finkelstein report, which took—in my view—an expressly illiberal view of freedom of the press. It mounted a very specific and direct critique of classical liberal values and favoured a collectivist view of values. Then we had the draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill. We have had the two national newspapers, the Australian and the Financial Review, in their editorial columns and in their opinion pages, agitating this issue on an almost weekly basis. Frankly—and this is not a personal criticism of you, Professor Triggs—the Human Rights Commission, as far as I can see, has been largely missing in action from this profoundly important national debate about one of the most important human rights: freedom of speech and expression.
Prof. Triggs : Senator Brandis, I think that you are looking at only one side of this coin, if I may put it that way. In other words, the other side of the coin is: how do the rules on racial vilification and limitations of freedom of speech impact on that right? Because the public debate has focused, as you say, stimulated by the Bolt case and by the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill and the Hon. Mr Spigelman’s speech—
Senator BRANDIS: And the Finkelstein report.
Prof. Triggs : we have had an emphasis on the proper limitations of freedom of speech. I think it would be fair to say that we have been very much in action over the last few months on this question, but we have not been emphasising the right to freedom of speech; we have been emphasising the way in which the balance in relation to it is established either under the current legislation or under the bill that is now proposed for the future.
This morning, on Channel Seven, Triggs was more frank than she was before the Senate about her support for even tougher restrictions on free speech. She said she supported the Government’s plans - since abandoned - to make it unlawful to “offend” someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or (I assume) the other attributes the Government listed, from political opinion to social origin. But, she said regretfully, we had to listen to the public and the public was against this limitation of their rights.
It says something very serious that the public is defending its most basic of human rights against the opposition of the Human Rights Council.
The council should change its name. It doesn’t defend human rights but threatens.

===

Believing the worst of Israel: Carr and The Age

Andrew BoltFEBRUARY172013(7:21am)

Knowing a little more three days later, let’s review the Age report three days ago of the death of “Prisoner X”: 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is under pressure to answer questions over allegations that an Australian citizen committed suicide while being held in solitary confinement in the country’s highest-security prison. 
Fact check: ”Benjamin Netanyahu is under pressure to answer question” rather personalises the issue by focussing on a hate figure of the Left, but let’s move on…
The man known as “Prisoner X” was held in conditions of such strict secrecy in Israel’s Ayalon Prison that not even the jail’s staff knew his name or the crime he was alleged to have committed, the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent program said on Tuesday.
It named “Prisoner X” as 34-year-old Ben Zygier and said it appeared the former Melbourne man had been recruited by the Israeli spy agency Mossad before his disappearance in early 2010. He had moved to Israel 10 years before that, changing his name to Ben Alon and marrying a local woman with whom he had two children, the program said....
The Israeli Government has gone to extreme lengths to suppress the story since news of Prisoner X’s arrest first appeared in 2010, with a judge issuing a gag order that prevented any mention of the case, or even the fact that there was a gag order, the ABC reported.
At the time, the revelation that a prisoner was being held in total seclusion in a private wing of Ayalon Prison for an undisclosed crime prompted human rights groups to launch a campaign to force Israel to reveal his identity.
“He is simply a person without a name and without an identity who has been placed in total and utter isolation from the outside world,” a prison official was quoted as saying at the time...
Fact check: Zygier’s family was notified immediately on his arrest and hired a lawyer to defend him.  Israel also briefed Australian diplomats on Zygier’s arrest 10 months before his death and informed them of his alleged ‘’serious offences under Israeli national security legislation’’.
“It is insupportable that, in a democratic country, authorities can arrest people in complete secrecy and disappear them from public view without the public even knowing such an arrest took place,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel wrote in June 2010. 
Fact check: ”Complete secrecy” is false, and “disappear them” an exaggeration. True, the public at large did not know of Zygier’s arrest. But his own family did, as did anyone they may have told, including lawyers.
Human Rights Watch has also raised the alarm at the secrecy surrounding Mr Zygier’s arrest, incarceration and death, warning that Israel was required to notify another country if it takes one of its citizens into detention and if that citizen dies in detention. 
Fact check: A false allegation by implication. That indeed occurred. Foreign Minister Bob Carr has conceded Australia was indeed notified of Zygier’s arrest 10 months befre his death.
It should notify the person promptly of any charges against them, ensure they had access to a lawyer and to someone outside detention, said Human Rights Watch’s senior Middle East researcher, Bill van Esveld, who is based in Jerusalem. 
Fact check: Another false allegation by implication.  Zygier had a lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, who met him in jail and was preparing a plea bargain.
“If the allegations are correct and Israel denied knowledge of his detention, then that is a ‘disappearance’ under international law,” Mr van Esveld said. 
Fact check: False allegation by implication. Israel did not deny knowledge of Zygier’s arrest. It informed his family and the Australian Government.
He noted that while Palestinian prisoners were regularly detained without charge and often denied access to a lawyer for an unacceptable period of time, it was rare for Israeli prisoners to experience this kind of treatment. 
Fact check: False allegation. Zygier was not denied a lawyer.
Foreign Minister Bob Carr described the allegations as troubling.
“It’s never been raised with me. I’m not reluctant to seek an explanation from the Israeli government about what happened to Mr Allen and about what their view of it is,” he told the ABC…
A spokesman for Senator Carr said on Wednesday that the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv was unaware that Mr Zygier was detained in Israel until contacted by his family in 2010 when he died. 
Fact check: Zygier’s arrest may not have been raised with Carr, but his department had indeed been told.  Carr has since admitted “The Israeli government ... advised the Australian government”. His predecessor as Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, has refused to say if he’d known of Zygier’s arrest.
“Even if Prisoner X has now been identified, his crime, however, remains a mystery, although it has been widely speculated that it would have involved treachery to warrant such extreme measures.”
The family asked for assistance to repatriate his body but did not ask for anything else... 
Observation: The silence of Zygier’s unfortunate family suggests much.
The Australian government is now looking at the material raised by Foreign Correspondent to determine whether it warrants further action, such as making a representation to Israel.
“It’s common but not universal that countries do let us know [that they have detained an Australian national],” the spokesman said.
Fact check: Again, a false allegation by implication. The Australian Government had been told, and the real problem was the Australian Government’s poor internal communications.
Or perhaps the problem was with Carr himself. It is plain that he has been antagonistic towards Israel and only too ready to believe the worst of it. That has been obvious again in his initial reation to this case.
It also seems to be obvious that a similar attitude to Israel informed this Age report.

===

Study: most engineers and earth scientists are sceptics

Andrew BoltFEBRUARY172013(12:06am)

 Global warming - general
It’s the new consensus.
A new peer-reviewed study of more than 1000 engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, Canada, shows most are sceptical of claims that man is heating the world dangerously.
A third think man-made global warming is simply a scam:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
Note: the paper is written by women from the University of Alberta and Vienna University of Economics and Business who are clearly warmists, referring several times to “deniers”.
Their paper is in part financed by soft-left outfits such as the Canadian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Science and Humanities Research Council.
They suggest sceptics may just have ulterior motives for their beliefs, such as “identity threats” and vested interests.
They leave unexamined the ulterior motives of the believers, despite highly suggestive lines of inquiry buried in lines like this: “Adherents of [the standard warmist view] in our study [are] significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government.” Of course. 
So this study of members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta is in no way a sceptic’s set-up. The very reverse, which makes its peer-reviewed findings so much more powerful.
The authors do concede they are working with just 1077 responses from the 40,000 professionals they asked - professional experts in petroleum and related industries - but say those who replied are in many ways representative, “similar to the general APEGA membership when compared on professional designation, age, and gender”.
And they divide as follows:
Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto
The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) ... express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk…
Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming 
The second largest group (24%) ...  believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth… They are most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent’. They are least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled… Significantly, they are more likely to criticize others as unknowledgeable and to describe climate scientists and environmentalists as hysterical…
Frame 3: Economic responsibility 
Ten percent of respondents ... diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk;;. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate… They express much stronger and more negative emotions than any other group, especially that climate science is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless, and impossible.
Frame 4: Fatalists 
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling. 
Frame 5: Regulation activists 
The last group (5%) ...diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.... They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate… Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility…
Let me add up some of those figures:
- 36 per cent of engineers and earth scientists - disproportionately young, junior women in the public service - think man-made warming is dangerous and we should try to stop it.
- 34 per cent of engineers and earth scientists think man-made global warming is a hoax.
- 56 per cent say the science is not settled. The debate is not over.
- 51 per cent, a majority, think man-made warming will have little or no impact on their lives.
- 56 per cent say man-made global warming is between a zero danger and merely moderate one. 
The researchers are forced to conclude: 
We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, non-governmental, and corporate organizations. 
Indeed, the more senior and experienced you are, the less likely you are to fall for global warming hysteria, although the researchers put it more negatively:
... adherents of those frames that are more defensive and oppose regulation (‘nature is overwhelming’, ‘economic responsibility’)significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry. Adherents of these two frames comprise 33.7% of our respondents overall, but 63.3% of top managers in the oil and gas industry as opposed to 19.1% supporting regulation.
But the bottom line: warmists tend to be young, inexperienced and in the minority among engineers and earth scientists. The consensus is with the sceptics, older and wiser.
UPDATE
Previous challenges to claims that warmists represent the consensus include this survey:
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists…
The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change.
The AMS study found: 
Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”
(Thanks to readers Cam3 and QuestionsIT.)

===

A psychologist walked around a room while teaching stress management to an audience. As she raised a glass of water, everyone expected they'd be asked the "half empty or half full" question. Instead, with a smile on her face, she inquired: "How heavy is this glass of water?"
Answers called out ranged from 8 oz. to 20 oz.
She replied, "The absolute weight doesn't matter. It depends on how long I hold it. If I hold it for a minute, it's not a problem. If I hold it for an hour, I'll have an ache in my arm. If I hold it for a day, my arm will feel numb and paralyzed. In each case, the weight of the glass doesn't change, but the longer I hold it, the heavier it becomes." She continued, "The stresses and worries in life are like that glass of water. Think about them for a while and nothing happens. Think about them a bit longer and they begin to hurt. And if you think about them all day long, you will feel paralyzed – incapable of doing anything."
It’s important to remember to let go of your stresses. As early in the evening as you can, put all your burdens down. Don't carry them through the evening and into the night. Remember to put the glass down! -author unknown 

===

Kedron Brook Bakery, cnr Wellington and Torrance Sts, Wooloowin. Later the Bruce Pie clothing manufacturers, parts of this building still exist. - Lost Brisbane
===

===

===

Oh Baby! In less than a day at the same hospital in northern Israel, 4 sets of twins were born:
1 Jewish
1 Christian
1 Muslim 
and 1 Druze

Give them a LIKE for a happy, healthy and peaceful future!

(Photo: Roni Albert / Channel 2 News)

===

Here's a shot of the Premier outlining our plans to secure WA's future at today's campaign launch event. 
===

===

===

Quick Pix: Lana Turner
http://independentfilmnewsandmedia.com/quick-pix-lana-turner/
===

The babka towers over other deserts (in both size and taste)!
===

===

Muir Beach Residents at sunset...
===

===

===
Aid is important. I have friends in all of those places .. but the politics that prevents the ALP supporting QLD in a time of need is despicable - ed

===

===

===

This image shows the famous early-type spiral galaxy Messier 104, widely known as the "Sombrero" galaxy because of its particular shape.http://oak.ctx.ly/r/2ejm
===

===

Meet VDJ Dennis. Local Fairfieldian music head — at Ambassador Lounge.
===

4.30am and Dong Tam Dragon/ Snake are still working hard at making their animal for Twilight Parade
===

While Gillard and her ministers throw allegations around that Tony Abbott might have punched a wall 36 years ago, Federal Labor Health Minister Tanya Plibersek's husband, Michael Coutts-Trotter's past is on the record. Very few of the general voting public would know who Plibersek's husband is - let alone know of his past criminal activity. Coutts-Trotter was a heroin addict and drug importer and ...dealer. 27 years ago he copped a nine year jail sentence, for his efforts. Gillard should throw the dirt files away or a lot worse could be heaped on her and her grubby government's criminal past and links with crime.
It is on the record that the Federal Minister for Health's Plibersek’s husband received a 9-year gaol sentence for conspiracy to import and sell drugs. He was convicted in 1986. Only 12 years later he was appointed Chief of Staff to the NSW Treasurer in the days of the Carr NSW government having no experience apart from some training in journalism .

He was, also under Labor, the Director-General of Education & Training (Labor must consider drug dealing a good background for the head of education) and earlier still, Director-General of Dept of Commerce.

Of course, it is harder to be bad in Finance than it is in Education. - ed
===
Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and whose hope is the Lord. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, which spreads out its roots by the river, and will not fear when heat comes; but its leaf will be green, and will not be anxious in the year of drought, nor will cease from yielding fruit.—Jeremiah 17:7–8

Years ago, while I was on vacation with Wendy in the breathtaking Canadian Rockies, we spent time soaking in the splendor of our heavenly Father’s creation. As we wandered along the bank of a river, we stumbled upon a majestic tree anchored by the water’s edge. Its trunk was sturdy and strong, and its branches stretched out to form a perfect canopy above it.

The tree was constantly nourished by the river and in contrast to the other trees that were further away from the river, its leaves were refreshingly green and luscious. Looking at that tree, I couldn’t help but recall the blessed man described in Jeremiah 17, and I remember saying to myself then, “I am like this tree, in Jesus’ name!”

Beloved, when you depend on and place your trust in Jesus instead of yourself, your qualifications, your looks or even your circumstances, you will be like this beautiful and majestic tree! Jesus will cause you to be a picture of robust strength, vitality and good success. So keep looking to Jesus, and you will see His unceasing blessings in your life!
http://josephprince.com/

===

===

===

Media still blame GOP for Obama - ed
===

===

===

4 TMN
===
"People often say that MOTIVATION doesn't last. Well, neither does bathing-that's why we recommend it daily."- Zig Ziglar
===
You are beautiful, not by the standards of this world. You are beautiful simply because God made you in his image


Post a Comment