It's that time of year when Australians close the back door to keep the drafts out, pop the telly on, find a cold beer in the fridge and settle back in their favourite comfy chair to watch the footy.
And what a season it will be.
On one hand we have a team that has won the past four grand finals - skilled, cocky and sure of themselves. Their captain has kicked countless goals on the run. He's been without fear getting in and under to get the ball out to his midfielders. Their backs have been solid and reliable with the ability to turn defence into attack.
Yet our team has been building quietly for a few years now. We've picked up a couple of excellent young draft picks, we've got a talented midfield that is young, fit and with the one key attribute every winning team needs - they can read the footy; they have vision on the run, they can see when to drive it straight through the corridor or to hold play up, waiting for the rush of onballers to come streaming past to carry the footy forward.
And our defence is a unit. Big, rangy, tough. Willing to run back into a pack with the flight of the ball. No fear.
And me? Well I play centre half forward. I've kicked a couple of bags full and I can bust a pack, giving our crumbers the chance to snap one on either foot. I say modestly I'm pretty good when we've got the wind behind us and we're in front. But I'm even better when it's wet and windy, the scores are close and we've got a sniff.
And I'm young and still developing.
Compare that to the team we're up against. Highly experienced but getting a bit slow. They can still pick up plenty of touches but their decision making is not as good as it was. They keep turning the ball over and our strong young side makes them pay, driving the footy deep into our forward line.
Yep. The footy season is back and I can't wait for that one day in September (or maybe October. Or November. Or December). Our chance to take the flag. Whatever the conditions, we'll be there. Standing strong. Focused. Skilled.
Better for the experience of the season and with that little extra vision and fitness to bring us home in front at the final siren.
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Santoro gone gone and gone
Anyone would think Santo Santoro had done something wrong. First he was dropped from the Ministry. Now he's leaving parliament.
This bloody game of smear and spear now has another major casualty. And its another Lib.
When will they ever learn!
This bloody game of smear and spear now has another major casualty. And its another Lib.
When will they ever learn!
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Santoro has to resign
I'm scratching my head here.
Ian Campbell is forced to resign because he had a meeting with Brian Burke.
Yet Santo Santoro buys $6,000 worth of shares in Brisbane biotech company CBio a month before he becomes Minister for Aging, then doesn't declare them, then divests them, then gives the proceeds to charity...
And it's ok for him to keep his job?
It reminds me of the episode "Five Votes Down" from The West Wing's first series. Toby has "accidentally" made $125,000 from some tech stocks that rose after his childhood mate gave a speech that lifted the price:
SAM
I got it!
MANDY
What?
SAM
Counsel’s office releases a statement through C.J. using the strongest possible language we make it very clear that there’s been no wrongdoing of any kind.
TOBY
Yes.
SAM
But to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Toby has agreed to reduce his salary for one year to one dollar, and immediately cash out his stock issue thereby relieving the taxpayer of the burden.
Toby looks shocked.
BARTLET
Done.
TOBY
Wait.
LEO
Good, Sam.
SAM
Thank you.
TOBY
No, no, it’s not good. Actually, it stinks.
BARTLET
Toby, you’re a great writer, do you know that?
TOBY
Well, thank you very much sir.
BARTLET
Here, give me a hug.
TOBY
[looks pained] Leo!
BARTLET
Come on. Give us a hug. [hugs Toby] There you go
....
SAM
[to Toby] So, how do you feel there, big guy?
TOBY
[dryly] Like I just got screwed with my pants on.
SAM
Excellent.
Ian Campbell is forced to resign because he had a meeting with Brian Burke.
Yet Santo Santoro buys $6,000 worth of shares in Brisbane biotech company CBio a month before he becomes Minister for Aging, then doesn't declare them, then divests them, then gives the proceeds to charity...
And it's ok for him to keep his job?
It reminds me of the episode "Five Votes Down" from The West Wing's first series. Toby has "accidentally" made $125,000 from some tech stocks that rose after his childhood mate gave a speech that lifted the price:
SAM
I got it!
MANDY
What?
SAM
Counsel’s office releases a statement through C.J. using the strongest possible language we make it very clear that there’s been no wrongdoing of any kind.
TOBY
Yes.
SAM
But to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Toby has agreed to reduce his salary for one year to one dollar, and immediately cash out his stock issue thereby relieving the taxpayer of the burden.
Toby looks shocked.
BARTLET
Done.
TOBY
Wait.
LEO
Good, Sam.
SAM
Thank you.
TOBY
No, no, it’s not good. Actually, it stinks.
BARTLET
Toby, you’re a great writer, do you know that?
TOBY
Well, thank you very much sir.
BARTLET
Here, give me a hug.
TOBY
[looks pained] Leo!
BARTLET
Come on. Give us a hug. [hugs Toby] There you go
....
SAM
[to Toby] So, how do you feel there, big guy?
TOBY
[dryly] Like I just got screwed with my pants on.
SAM
Excellent.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Policy, policy, policy and more...
Policy.
I know I keep harping on it, but the Australian people expect more from their political leaders than just trite populism, smears and empty promises.
They want hard facts, clearly differentiated policy positions and a strong alternative government.
It's not about polls or popularity. I don't intend to be "popular", I intend to show policy leadership.
I know I keep harping on it, but the Australian people expect more from their political leaders than just trite populism, smears and empty promises.
They want hard facts, clearly differentiated policy positions and a strong alternative government.
It's not about polls or popularity. I don't intend to be "popular", I intend to show policy leadership.
The Phillip Adams View of History
I cannot believe the hide of Phillip Adams'.
To suggest John Howard has:
1. Shonked the intelligence prior to the war in Iraq
2. Ignored the human cost of the war
3. Defended the presidency of George W. Bush
4. Vilified the entire Democratic Party in the US
5. Failed to understand and act on the facts about global warming
6. Backed nuclear power without any thought to the consequences (environmental OR economic)
7. Waged war on asylum seekers
8. Accused asylum seekers of drowning their babies
9. Then remained indifferent to hundreds of drowned refugees
10. Opened a chain of Pacific prisons
11. Added razor wire to mainland concentration camps
12. Then trumpeted Australian values of tolerance, mateship and a fair go
13. Left David Hicks in Guantanamo for 5 years
14. Then pretended to intervene on Hicks' behalf
15. Had mercenaries trained in Dubai to attack the wharfies
16. Ensured the referendum on an independent Australia (aka The Republic) failed
17. Ignored the "Bringing Them Home" report on the stolen generation
18. Attacked the "black armband view" of Australian history
19. Refused to say "Sorry"
20. Attacked the ABC
21. Attacked the union movement
22. Attacked voluntary euthanasia
23. Stonewalled poor Peter Costello
24. Refused to debate me on television on the war in Iraq
25. Refused to debate me on in Parliament on the war in Iraq
...is to ignore the inexorable truth about the Prime Minister:
a. John Howard is highly moral and outlines the correct position on every issue
b. John Howard and his government are not past their prime
c. John Howard is a very clever politician and understands the Australian people implicitly
Shame on you Phillip Adams.
To suggest John Howard has:
1. Shonked the intelligence prior to the war in Iraq
2. Ignored the human cost of the war
3. Defended the presidency of George W. Bush
4. Vilified the entire Democratic Party in the US
5. Failed to understand and act on the facts about global warming
6. Backed nuclear power without any thought to the consequences (environmental OR economic)
7. Waged war on asylum seekers
8. Accused asylum seekers of drowning their babies
9. Then remained indifferent to hundreds of drowned refugees
10. Opened a chain of Pacific prisons
11. Added razor wire to mainland concentration camps
12. Then trumpeted Australian values of tolerance, mateship and a fair go
13. Left David Hicks in Guantanamo for 5 years
14. Then pretended to intervene on Hicks' behalf
15. Had mercenaries trained in Dubai to attack the wharfies
16. Ensured the referendum on an independent Australia (aka The Republic) failed
17. Ignored the "Bringing Them Home" report on the stolen generation
18. Attacked the "black armband view" of Australian history
19. Refused to say "Sorry"
20. Attacked the ABC
21. Attacked the union movement
22. Attacked voluntary euthanasia
23. Stonewalled poor Peter Costello
24. Refused to debate me on television on the war in Iraq
25. Refused to debate me on in Parliament on the war in Iraq
...is to ignore the inexorable truth about the Prime Minister:
a. John Howard is highly moral and outlines the correct position on every issue
b. John Howard and his government are not past their prime
c. John Howard is a very clever politician and understands the Australian people implicitly
Shame on you Phillip Adams.
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Qantas commitment
I do worry.
I worry about this government's ability to get the best possible outcomes for the Australian people.
And so it is with the Qantas sale. Can we be assured there is an absolute, legally enforceable commitment from the new owners to honour the undertakings in the takeover agreement?
What happens if the consortium doesn't honour these "codified" pledges? What happens if they pull the plug on regional air commitments? What if they pull the plug on Australian-based maintenance facilities?
What happens then? Do we say "Gosh. We lost them. Oh well". Do the Australian people receive compensation? Can we legally enforce their return?
My challenge to John Howard and Peter Costello is this: Show the Australian people an iron-clad guarantee on ongoing Qantas services and maintenance. Show us how the Government will enforce this commitment.
The Australian people deserve no less.
I worry about this government's ability to get the best possible outcomes for the Australian people.
And so it is with the Qantas sale. Can we be assured there is an absolute, legally enforceable commitment from the new owners to honour the undertakings in the takeover agreement?
What happens if the consortium doesn't honour these "codified" pledges? What happens if they pull the plug on regional air commitments? What if they pull the plug on Australian-based maintenance facilities?
What happens then? Do we say "Gosh. We lost them. Oh well". Do the Australian people receive compensation? Can we legally enforce their return?
My challenge to John Howard and Peter Costello is this: Show the Australian people an iron-clad guarantee on ongoing Qantas services and maintenance. Show us how the Government will enforce this commitment.
The Australian people deserve no less.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
It's Time
Now I'm not suggesting we all gather around and sing a rousing song, but it was pretty good for its time (pardon the pun)
Howard the Bikie
Wayne Swan's image of John Howard as a "political bikie" is both frightening and funny.
Frightening because it accurately portrays the attitude the PM is displaying towards opponents and colleagues alike. Australia doesn't need this kind of political thuggery.
Funny, because of the thought of John Howard on a chopper, barely able to reach the handlebars.
Surely our great cartoonists will have a field day with that one.
Frightening because it accurately portrays the attitude the PM is displaying towards opponents and colleagues alike. Australia doesn't need this kind of political thuggery.
Funny, because of the thought of John Howard on a chopper, barely able to reach the handlebars.
Surely our great cartoonists will have a field day with that one.
The Polls of Polarisation
When you examine the latest Newspoll results, one thing is clear: John Howard is polarising the electorate. You are either "for him or agin him".
The number of uncommitteds is at record low levels when looking at his performance. 61% of conservative voters support a nuclear power industry. Yet only 35% of progressive voters are in favour.
Howard continues trying to foist controversial and unwanted measures on the Australian people. Look at the poll on climate change - 93% of people think that its effect on Australia is a problem. 76% think it a major problem.
And what is Howard's answer? Nuclear power that Australians do not want. Only 25% of people would support a nuclear power plant in their area. Even 53% of Coalition voters don't want one in their backyard.
Polemical, divisive politics. John Howard is adept at it. Yet, for all his great "reading" of the voters, he cannot hear the whistle of the train called the Australian people hurtling along his track.
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Campbell Resigns
I like Ian Campbell. Seriously. He has a good heart and he worked hard in the Environment portfolio, particularly around issues such as whaling.
The fact that he has been forced to resign because of the moral imbroglio brought on by Howard and Costello's attack on me is testament to the snarling, vitriolic politics this country does not deserve.
If Howard and Costello hadn't attacked me, do you think Ian Campbell would have had to resign?
Ian Campbell has become "collateral damage" in the conservatives' push to be too politically "clever". And the Australian people know that if you push "clever" too far, you become a smart arse. And smart arses tend to end up...
...on their arse.
Poll on Burke meetings
A quick, unscientific poll has been put up by the Sydney Morning Herald. I leave it for you to judge.
Do you think the meetings (with Burke) have damaged Rudd?
Yes, a lot - 19%
Yes, a bit - 28%
Not at all - 54%
Total Votes: 2524
Do you think the meetings (with Burke) have damaged Rudd?
Yes, a lot - 19%
Yes, a bit - 28%
Not at all - 54%
Total Votes: 2524
Dick Howard
Ouch!
I get a laugh out of Jon Stewart's Daily Show. The humour is biting and none more so than his examination of the similarities between John Howard and Dick Cheney.
Satire is part of the game when it comes to politics. I've copped my share ( the Tin Tin references for instance) and will continue to in the future. It's all good fun - you can't have a glass jaw when you become leader of a political party in any country.
The conservatives' hypocrisy
"Anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised" said Peter Costello on Thursday.
Really Mr Treasurer.
Now we learn Senator Ian Campbell met with Burke on 8 June last year to discuss the redevelopment of racecourses down by the Swan River.
Oh, and it turns out ex-Minister Geoff Prosser paid for Burke's lobbying services as well.
What is going on?
As I said over the last couple of days, I made a mistake by meeting with Burke and I leave people to make their judgement on that decision.
But I cannot stand accused of the rampant hypocrisy displayed by the conservatives. By Peter Costello's own words, Ian Campbell is politically compromised.
Should Campbell resign, judged by Costello's standards? Or maybe it doesn't matter because he's a Lib.
Should the conservatives examine their own belly button fluff before indulging in muck raking?
As I said yesterday, "the public are always keen to examine the mud thrower, as much as on whom it lands".
Really Mr Treasurer.
Now we learn Senator Ian Campbell met with Burke on 8 June last year to discuss the redevelopment of racecourses down by the Swan River.
Oh, and it turns out ex-Minister Geoff Prosser paid for Burke's lobbying services as well.
What is going on?
As I said over the last couple of days, I made a mistake by meeting with Burke and I leave people to make their judgement on that decision.
But I cannot stand accused of the rampant hypocrisy displayed by the conservatives. By Peter Costello's own words, Ian Campbell is politically compromised.
Should Campbell resign, judged by Costello's standards? Or maybe it doesn't matter because he's a Lib.
Should the conservatives examine their own belly button fluff before indulging in muck raking?
As I said yesterday, "the public are always keen to examine the mud thrower, as much as on whom it lands".
Friday, 2 March 2007
50 Posts
Well, I've hit my 50th blog post and it's been an illuminating experience indeed.
I thank all those people who have responded so positively to my musings. Your support and feedback is much appreciated.
I thank all those people who have responded so positively to my musings. Your support and feedback is much appreciated.
Of Burke and wills
In politics, it's sometimes important to not talk with people. Sometimes in life you look back with hindsight and say "I wish I didn't do that".
That's the way it is with Brian Burke. We met three times during 2005 - they were informal casual affairs, not the conspiratorial gatherings Costello et al were blathering on about yesterday. I did not try and enlist Burke as my "numbers man". Did I know what he was up to at the time? No.
I realise this is Australian politics - a blow thrown is usually a blow landed. However the public are always keen to examine the mud thrower, as much as on whom it lands. People don't like politicians who behave like childish playground bullies.
I can and will substantially defend my position and my actions. And it is a battle of wills, a battle that will continue until the next federal election. A battle that I intend to win.
That's the way it is with Brian Burke. We met three times during 2005 - they were informal casual affairs, not the conspiratorial gatherings Costello et al were blathering on about yesterday. I did not try and enlist Burke as my "numbers man". Did I know what he was up to at the time? No.
I realise this is Australian politics - a blow thrown is usually a blow landed. However the public are always keen to examine the mud thrower, as much as on whom it lands. People don't like politicians who behave like childish playground bullies.
I can and will substantially defend my position and my actions. And it is a battle of wills, a battle that will continue until the next federal election. A battle that I intend to win.
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Inappropriate public spending
I looked out the window of my office in Canberra this morning and noticed a helicopter towing a banner. It was moving slowing across the Parliamentary Triangle and on to Kingston and Fyshwick.
Nothing particularly unusual about that, except that the banner said "Happy Birthday Navy".
And that struck me as odd. Why would the government spend money on fuel, design, construction, not to mention resource hours on a happy birthday sign for the Navy?
Don't get me wrong, the Navy plays a critically important role in Australia's defence. But spending vital Defence dollars on this form of celebration seems completely inappropriate.
Nothing particularly unusual about that, except that the banner said "Happy Birthday Navy".
And that struck me as odd. Why would the government spend money on fuel, design, construction, not to mention resource hours on a happy birthday sign for the Navy?
Don't get me wrong, the Navy plays a critically important role in Australia's defence. But spending vital Defence dollars on this form of celebration seems completely inappropriate.
The Naughty Corner
What an infantile lot these conservatives are.
When we're engaging in the extremely important education debate, putting forward initiatives that will see our young people better educated and our country better able to lead the world in maths and science, how does the Education Minister respond? (and it's page 47 for all of the Hansard aficionados out there)
"Naughty boy! You stole the idea didn't you"
"You will have to go to the naughty corner won't you"
Aside from the fact our policy initiatives were not stolen from anyone, is this the kind of government we want? One that will trivialise when faced with strong alternative policies? A government that would rather make themselves look silly than provide professional and responsive leadership?
Stand up. This country deserves much much better.
When we're engaging in the extremely important education debate, putting forward initiatives that will see our young people better educated and our country better able to lead the world in maths and science, how does the Education Minister respond? (and it's page 47 for all of the Hansard aficionados out there)
"Naughty boy! You stole the idea didn't you"
"You will have to go to the naughty corner won't you"
Aside from the fact our policy initiatives were not stolen from anyone, is this the kind of government we want? One that will trivialise when faced with strong alternative policies? A government that would rather make themselves look silly than provide professional and responsive leadership?
Stand up. This country deserves much much better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
