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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
