February 2007 Archives

Some local residents enjoying a free meal.

If only our local member knew. He'd soon put an end to that!

Pretty, aren't they?

An afterthought ... Do you think they're as pretty as Maxine?

The move to replace old style incandescent light globes with compact fluorescent units as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a step in the right direction. It's even better when globes are supplied free of charge, as they were to us, through a NSW greenhouse gas trading scheme.

I've always found it strange that the debate on emission reduction has focused on power generation methods when it's quite possible to have significant reductions simply by using energy more efficiently. I look forward to the day when electric hot water systems are phased out in favour of solar / gas units. That change would make it possible to shut down a coal fired power station or two.

A word of warning, though. Don't put your shiny new compact fluoro light globe in a socket controlled by a conventional light dimmer. The globe won't like it!

Hearing Peter Beattie resurrect the idea, first proposed 70 years ago, of diverting rivers in Queensland's north to augment flows in the Murray Darling river system took me back to my yoof in the late 60s. Then, the idea of using large engineering projects to 'tame nature' were common.

The nearly completed Snowy Mountains hydro project was the inspiration for other, sometimes wacky, schemes being proposed. One of the more silly ones was a proposal to use an atomic explosion to create an artificial harbour in the country's north-west. Madness!

The environment was seen as a limitless resource that could be altered at will for human advantage.

We now know that these grandiose schemes often result in unintended environmental consequences. It could be land degradation due to salination, the destruction of animal habitat, or accelerating climate change due to the creation of greenhouse gasses during construction and operation. It's fair to say that all these projects have an environmental downside.

As a engineer, I'm not against sensible engineering projects, as long as a favourable cost / benefit ratio can be demonstrated. I suspect that Beattie's proposals would have been built by now if the benefit was there.

On the "7.30 Report" last night. Neither scored a knock-out, but Gillard landed more punches, in my opinion.

It's a long argument, but Gillard's theme is best summed up by the following ...

Most AWAs are not individually negotiated on the basis of how can ... [management] structure it for you. They are given to workers. You want the job, sign the AWA. You want the promotion, sign the AWA. You want to keep your job, sign the AWA.

countered by Hockey ...

So I think if people have the capacity to negotiate to buy a house, to buy a car, if people have the individual capacity to raise children, why don't they have the individual capacity to be able to negotiate employment terms and conditions ...

Everyone knows that "Work Choices" is designed to cut wages and conditions of the weakest section of the community, ie, those that don't have unique experience or skills. Hockey's assertion that these people negotiate their employment conditions on the same footing as buying a car is absurd.

From Gerard Henderson's column in today's SMH ...

If Howard was undiplomatic in commenting on US domestic policies then the same can be said for Obama's response. Obama told reporters in Iowa that if Howard's comments were anything other than "empty rhetoric" he would commit 20,000 additional troops to the war. This is rhetoric in itself.

Australia has about 1500 men and women in Iraq. On a comparative population basis, an Australian force of 21,500 in Iraq would equate to some 320,000 Americans - almost double the US deployment.

In itself, this is true. But it also shows to have the same level of commitment as the US, Australia would need to deploy over 10,000 troops.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate just on the rhetoric, Gerry.

And it's not about global climate change ...

"I would also note that we [the US] have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1400.

"So if he is ... to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

It took John Howard's undiplomatic meddling in US domestic politics to provoke a US politician to draw attention to Australia's small contribution to the Iraqi war effort.

This small level of military involvement is 'the elephant in the room' that neither side of local politics wants to notice. The conservatives aren't about to admit that Australia's contribution doesn't match their rhetoric, and those against the war (thankfully) aren't going to draw attention to a fact that may well provoke the establishment into committing more troops.

Until now, the US has gratefully acknowledged any support provided by coalition partners. We now know that some in the US government have indeed noticed the difference between the tough talking of Howard, Downer and Co, and their willingness to commit Australian military resources.

But I wouldn't be too pleased if I lived in Melbourne.

The AFL has been determined to get all games televised in NSW and Queensland, particularly on Friday nights after Channel Nine duped them last time round. So determined, in fact, that one of the conditions of the new broadcasting rights agreement was that all games played would be televised, near live, in the 'non football' states.

Of course, Seven and Ten had no intent of showing all games on their channels, and probably signed up thinking that Fox would gladly take up the slack. But Fox, knowing that the free to air networks would have trouble offloading the games to other networks, and that the AFL could veto any deal that wasn't to their satisfaction, played tough.

And It paid off, as Fox ended up with a game that used to be shown 'free to air' in Melbourne.

If I were a Victorian footy fan, I'd be spewing!

For this AFL fan in Sydney, it's not ideal. All I was really hoping for was a delayed telecast of the Friday night game on 'free to air' at a reasonable hour. Say, starting at 9.30pm. But, as it happens, nothing's going to change. Friday night games that don't involve the Swans will be replayed on Seven or Ten at 11.30pm, just like they were on Nine last year.

What is good, though, and unlike last year, is that the Friday night game will be live on Fox. Looks like this Foxless footyfan will be spending Friday nights at the local or wearing out his welcome with Fox equipped friends.