Global changes in temperature...

A couple of years ago, I was definitely the odd one out when it came to the whole story of "climate change" and "global warming". However, the worm seems to have turned and while there is still an overwhelming weight of opinion on the side of climate change in the media, that consensus has definitely gone and much more questioning is now happening.

If you think about global warming and carbon dioxide and emissions trading schemes there are two very basic distinctions to make.

Firstly; do you believe in global warming or not?

No - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Yes - continue...

Secondly; do you believe that global warming is anthroprogrenic (man made) or part of the earth's natural cycles?

Natural - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Man made - continue...

Thirdly; if humans are warming the globe, are our emissions causing lots of warming, or just a little bit?

Little bit - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Lots - continue...

Forthly; If we are warming the globe by a lot what are the ramifications? Will we have increased food production and more trees or droughts and flooding rains?

I think that's the one that's a little bit hard to answer.


I want to once again put myself out there as a sceptic. While belief seems to be a strong word, I do accept that there has been some warming of the globe happening over the past couple of centuries. However, I do have a few small queries about the consensus view pushed forward by the media. Some of my doubts are:

This global warming seems to have happened over a period of a couple of hundred years, not just in the last 50, which isn't really in keeping with the whole anthroprogenic theory.

There hasn't been any increase for a few years now, the actual peak temperature was when, 1998?

There's been no accounting for the impact of sun spots on the earth's temperature cycle, something we're going to know a lot more about in the next few years as the current sunspot cycle finishes, with an accompanying reduction in solar radiation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increases in atmospheric CO2 don't result in equivalent direct increases to global temperature. Double the CO2 you don't double the temperature, you only get an increase of 1 to 2 degrees.

Previous examples of extreme global warming (in the record of things such as ice cores) seems to indicate that previous spikes in CO2 have FOLLOWED spikes in temperature

Previous examples of warming that we have records for (such as the Medieval Warm Period) were obviously not caused by burning of coal and oil and indeed saw periods of unprecedented prosperity in Europe. It would seem likely that increased temperatures combined with increases in CO2 would see the potential for greatly increased food, fibre and timber production.

Many of the sites that are used to measure temperature (around the world) have over the last 40 or 50 years been increasingly developed, to the point where they are now surrounded by concrete, air conditioner outlets and other items which could all influence the temperature reading and certainly bring into question data from the individual sites.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that I personally can accept that there is some global warming and that it might even be man made, but that there probably doesn't really need to be that much done about it.

I can see lots of other reasons why you might want to limit CO2 emissions, from national security to improvements to our environment, especially in built up areas, but I DON'T believe that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to somehow save the planet.

That being said, if you do want to reduce emissions, I believe that a carbon tax is the best way to do that. It's simple and effective and means that there is a massive incentive to actually find alternatives. An ETS I can't conceive as being effective, simply because it becomes too complicated. This makes it expensive and it makes it easy to rort.

Far too many people take a quasi-religious view of this whole situation, wanting to "cut emissions" without thinking about the whole picture. And often while driving a nice car, living in a nice house and having overseas holidays. ????

Who's more aboriginal?

This white lady, above, has been attacking this black lady, below, basically because she doesn't agree with on issues to do with aboriginality.



Here's a couple of articles about the situation here and here.

One nice quote from Warren Mundine about Larissa'a 2010 NSW Australian of the year award:

"They become awards for trendy inner city-type people and don't recognise the tremendous work Aboriginal people do on the ground."

There's also a very powerful article by Marcia Langton about the whole situation in today's Australian.

So basically, we have Larissa Bernherdt, a woman who is so thin skinned that she is suing Andrew Bolt because he dared to suggest that maybe she didn't really suffer from discrimination because of her aboriginality. She than says that Bess Price is more disgusting than watching a man have sex with a horse, because she dared to say that the aboriginal intervention might have had some positive outcomes. I wonder if Bess will now sue Larissa?

I wonder if she'll sue me?

NBN

Here's a great article about the NBN. I personally think we should be going flat out installing fibre-to-node all the way around the country, than after we've done that we can re-assess where we go from there, in response to changes in technology. Is that crazy?

Laying cable...

So there's been no blogging of late, basically because I'm lazy. Still, I've had a few things mulling around in my head for a while, especially to do with the National Broadband Network.

Now this is one of those things that people seem to be very "for" without having any qualifications whatsover.

"Broadband good, Liberal bad, Broadband good, Liberal badddddddd....." said the sheep as they trotted one by one down the race. Having an opinion doesn't automatically mean that you hate the internet (a topic for another post), just that maybe you think you're smarter than Julia Gillard (and let's face it, who of us doesn't think that occasionally?).

Anyway, reading the print edition of the Australian today I came across a couple of stories that galvanised me to put some thoughts down onto paper, or rather, onto the interwebs, so here they are.

Point One.

I think it's a bit ridiculous that the Government wants to tear up the existing copper cables that currently connect our country, so that anyone who wants a home phone will be forced to go through the National Broadband Network. Surely the point of the privatisation of Telstra was that people were sick of a Government owned monopoly in the telecommunications sector trying to control how people did things while offering expensive and mediocre service? We're going to be paying a lot of money to provide a Universal Service Obligation (currently provided by Telstra and paid for by the Government) along a fibre connection. This fibre connection will be expensive to connect to the household (whether paid for by the householder or the taxpayer, in the end someone pays) and not only that, it will require an ongoing provision and maintenance of a battery in the home, since fibre won't work without power at each end (with a copper cable the power can be sent from one end to enable the system to work). In addition, those people who simply want a cheap, low cost internet connection will be forced into the NBN's high speed service even though it's probably not appropriate for what they really want.

Why not leave the existing copper in place and allow the private telcos to continue to compete with the NBN? This will keep prices down and service up and enable real competition.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Two.

Apparently 30% of Australian households are currently already serviced with a cable (I believe Foxtel or Optus, can't remember right now) that will provide them with internet at a speed of approximately 100Mbps (the speed which is being advertised as the big selling point of the NBN). Not only are very few customers actually utilising this opportunity for very fast broadband, but the Government is actually going to pay a great deal of money to prevent them from being able to and forcing them to use the new NBN.

Why not leave the existing cable in place and if users want superfast broadband let them use that? In the meantime, effort could be spent improving access to those non-metropolitan areas that might actually have service delivery issues.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Three.

Points of connection. Noone actually cares about these, they don't actually mean anything. Except that the NBN wants as few as possible (I think 14) and all the other companies who have existing fibre in the ground are suddenly not happy because this will mean even less competition.

Why not let other companies use their own pipes to carry data?

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

My big problem with the NBN is this. If it's such a great idea (and who doesn't like the idea of a Government communications monopoly) than let's have one. It'll be so good that it should be able to beat off it's competitors using copper and wireless. It should just about write it's own cost-benefit analysis. It's business plan should be so awesome it's picks up chicks in a night club just by saying "Hey! How you doin?"

When the Government is doing tricky or sneaky things such as forcing households to sign up, or paying vast amounts to remove competitive providers than there must be something wrong.

Not only that, but how many houses actually want 100Mbps download speed? Not very many at the current prices.

How about this? Why not install cable into business districts and schools and hospitals? Why not put in fibre to every single exchange in the country and add a few more? After that, let's start thinking about fibre to the household, but fibre to every exchange will speed up things dramatically.

And the reason for this big essay?

The two articles in the Oz.

The first was about how it's now possible to deliver speeds of 100Mbps over a copper cable up to 1km from an exchange. It'll do 300Mpbs 400 metres from the exchange! While this doesn't seem realistic for much of Australia, it would probably be appropriate for 10% of the country. Not only that, but it shows once again that technology doesn't stand still, while the Government is betting all its chips on the one bet.

The second is about trialling new mobile technologies in Sydney that should deliver download speeds of 100Mbps.

Notice the magic number here? Both of them are looking at the same speeds that will be offered by the NBN, but without the vast expense.

I also remember a recent article talking about how an Australian company was trialling technologies that would enable internet access via satellite in excess of 50Mbps (I don't have a link and don't remember the exact speed, but it was fast).

Basically, there's more options out there than just fibre and for the Government to deny that and actively remove other options is practically criminal (in my opinion).

That's my two cents anyway

cheers

Dr Harry

Edit: Further news to hand. CSIRO are trialling technologies using the analogue TV bandwidth that will deliver similar speeds. Now it will only work in areas with low population, but that's not the point. The point is that the Government has all it's eggs in the fibre to the home basket, while technology is developing rapidly. It's like we're living in the future!

Let's roll out fibre, but lets not make it the be all and end all. Lets encourage other options as well. In other words, lets be smart about it.

Just for something completely different, here's a photo of Angus's favourite diva!

Spare the rod and spoil the child...

I'm not sure you could find a much more controversial topic than education to talk about. Check out some of the following links to learn more.

That video above is a preview for a new movie about charter schools in New York City. This article has a lot more information about these schools and the role that they play. They are basically private schools that are funded with public money but without the bureacracy and bullshit that public schools are afflicted by. It's a very interesting read and offers lots of things to think about. Speaking of kids and confidence, this book is apparently a very good explanation of many of the problems affecting education in the US. Also, that bit where the kid hits the roof on his mountain bike? Hilarious!

This woman above gave a very interesting speech to the Conservative Party Conference in the UK. There's some very interesting points, including the guilt she talks about experiencing when voting Conservative for the first time. I would suggest that a lot of the issues she talks about would also be experienced here in Tasmania. Read more about it here.

Boy on a Bike wrote a very good blog post about his son's schooling and some of the issues that he has encountered. This is exactly what education is about nowadays.

Too much of today's education is put back onto the students. They need to provide their own motivation, they need to choose what they should do. Unfortunately, the reality is that they're still CHILDREN! The biggest problem in education nowadays?

Students have lost their fear.

That's it, it's that simple. Not only do students lack respect for their teachers, but many parents just don't value education and as such are not willing to back up the teacher when they need to. It only takes a few students doing the wrong thing to drag down the overall level of the school.

Imagine a typical bell curve. On the far left are those students who are always going to be unable to function in a normal classroom (for whatever reason). On the far right are those students who are always going to achieve well, no matter what. In the middle, sitting on the bell, are the vast majority of the student population. Where things are going well, the entire bell curve can be moved further to the right, so that all students achieve to a high standard. When things are going poorly than the entire bell gets dragged to the left. One or two students getting away with doing the wrong thing sets the wrong example for all those students in the middle and allows that drag leftwards to occur. How can we fix this? In all seriousness?

Bring back the cane.

That's it. That's the solution to many of our educational problems right there.

Speaking of which, this woman is talking about how good teachers make more of a difference than anything else in schools and that we need to find ways to identify those good teachers. She's quite right, good teachers have a massive impact on a student's outcome. However, a teacher's impact, while large, isn't the largest influence on a student. What's number one? Parents and home life, by a long way. Remember the old Jesuit idea of show me the boy and I'll show you the man? (I'm paraphrasing here obviously). It holds true to an extent that many people maybe just don't recognise.

Will any of this happen? Not for a good long time. In the interim, standards will continue to slip as kids continue to get away with stuff they wouldn't have dreamt of doing in the past.

Dr Harry

If you disagree with me than you're EVIL!

What a great article, give it a read. This is definitely a phenomenon I've observed myself. I love that line about how for many people the moralistic is now more important than the moral.

cheers

Dr Harry

And that's all I have to say about that...

Are Men Better Than Women? You decide. This blog is some funny shit, especially if you realise it's quite tongue in cheek. Also, the woman in this clip is funny.



Can I hear a "Child Support?"

Child Support!

Can I hear a "Child Support?"

Child Support!


This gentleman here has apparently fathered 15 kids with 14 different mothers. As the journalist say, talk about heading forward to the past.

Apparently dna records indicate (I don't quite know how) that in prehistoric times, only 40% of men and 80% of women were able to reproduce. This guy is the new caveman. As an aside, I've heard a very similar story from the seaside resort that is East Devonport. Apparently there used to be this one guy there that all the single mothers were desperate to have a kid with, even though he was patently incapable of looking after or supporting any of them, on account of the fact that he had several kids already and no job!



Anyway, the human race is going to hell in a handbasket. Just watch the documentary Idiocracy for proof. Instead of thinking about that, look at the clip above, it's pretty cool and looks real, but who can tell.

More sport.

The AFL Grand Final was a draw and so has been delayed a week. Lots of people have their knickers in a twist about this. Why? It's a Grand Final...... and it's a draw! Talk about the best game of the year. Of course, I only saw the last 5 minutes as I was kayaking and then heard the second half on the radio in my car, but still, talk about a tense game. I'm rather glad I wasn't a supporter of either team.

I think the replay is great. It's historical and that's a good enough reason for me, if no other. On the same basis I'm totally opposed to away strips. If people can't work out if the Kangaroos or the Pies have got the ball, who cares? They managed find for decades and decades, they would have continued to be ok.

Plus, there's an added bonus. You know that the team that wins this week really is the best team. They've mentally and physically recovered from an epic match, dragged themselves to the top of the hill and done battle once again. Talk about a challenge! That's why this game on Saturday is already great, before we even know the outcome.

And lastly, Essendon's favourite son has come home to bring the club back to the promised land. If he can get Bomber Thompson to help him out than things will be perfect. Either way, the only way from here is up for Essendon, things are looking good.

And that'll do for now.

cheers

Dr Harry

broadband, schmroadband...

So I haven't posted anything here at all for a while, I've been too busy kayaking and stuff. Also, I don't have internet at home and sometimes work makes me actually, like, you know, work and stuff.....whatever.

Anyhoo, here's a quick contribution, a fantastic article from Malcom Turnbull while the National Broadband Network is a gigantic steaming pile of dog poo, that will cost $4000 per person. That's great, I get cheap fast internet and then pay for it with taxes. Woo!

Personally, I think that governments are like the slow kid at school who has to get their shoelaces tied by the teacher because they can't be bothered learning it themselves, someone else can do it. Therefore, the government shouldn't be setting itself up in an internet monopoly!

Enjoy the article, plus another short one here.

cheers
Dr Harry

Give a big hand for....

Mohammed!



Yes finally, Dr Harry's much anticipated entry in the international "Everybody Draws Mohammed Day" is here. The only disappointment is that it's too late to win a prize.

Still, at least it's out there, unlike certain other cowardly bloggers.

And why draw Mohammed, when such a thing is obviously offensive? Because by making threats of violence if such images are published, Muslims make a terrible attack against free speech. Threats of violence aren't acceptable and force those who defend free speech to publish, not because they want to offend anyone, but because they would be craven not too. I'm doing it just to spread the load around, so to speak.

Check the links, they're good.

cheers

Dr Harry

Move along people...

I'm a massive fan of Mark Steyn's writing. He's funny and acerbic while still getting his point across. His gross generalisations have to be the best in the business.

How about this line about female genital mutilation?


A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line at “FGM.” After all, it’s a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure. True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don’t demand genital mutilation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civilization rest.

The rest of the article can be found here. It's worth a read, even if you disagree with him.

And what happens if Islam does take over? Well for a start, you don't get to look at pictures of attractive women. Here's some examples of what you wouldn't be able to see...

or

or even

Apparently Cheryl Cole is a host of X-Factor in Britain. I had no idea, I'd just seen her photo in English newspapers!

One last thing. I remembered reading this and thought I should include it. It is an absolutely hilarious satire about trying to solve the mystery of the recent attempted bombing in New York. I can recommend it highly enough.

Cheers

Dr Harry

the poison pen...

Catherine Deveney, sometime columnist for Melbourne's Age newspaper, has been given the sack, after some rather tasteless and offensive (to some) tweeting at the Logies on the weekend.

Details can be found here and here.

Now I don't read her columns regularly, although I have come across them. I've also seen her on TV and certainly heard a lot about her.

The woman seems to court controversy. More importantly, she seems to be full of hate and anger, willing to use any means necessary to vilify, abuse and demonise those with whom she doesn't agree. Plus, she's not actually funny, or insightful, which is not great when you're a "comedian" commenting on society and culture.

Good riddance, I say.

And no, it's not actually censorship. If she was forbidden from putting her point of view across in the media or over the internet than that would be censorship. Instead, it's more likely the Age have taken the opportunity to cut their losses and get rid of someone who's had multiple warnings and quite frankly isn't much chop.

cheers

Dr Harry

nothing says sedition like citing the U.S. Constitution and quoting Thomas Jefferson....

Mark Steyn, one of my favourite writers, has a great column here about the left in the US and their attitudes towards freedom of speech.

When someone is opposed to say, health care or government spending than they're pilloried, both by the members of Congress and also by the media. When an islamic organisation makes a death threat against the South Park guys Comedy Central responds by censoring their work.

Mark Steyn: Tea Party the new front in 'war on terror'

Posted using ShareThis

It's a great article, probably my favourite line is this:

Everybody knows that when you say "I'm becoming very concerned about unsustainable levels of federal spending" that that's old Jim Crow code for "Let's get up a lynching party and teach that uppity negro a lesson."

Enjoy

Dr Harry

The Chinese paradox...

As many people may have heard, the Chinese have vast reserves of foreign currency which they are holding onto and may use to buy the ENTIRE WORLD (or something like that).

At the moment, those reserves are apparently in the order of some $1.4 trillion US. In other words, an awful lot of money.

This article is a great read explaining why the Chinese are doing what they're doing and what the ramifications are.

Basically, the Chinese are getting lots of foreign currency, because they're selling lots of stuff overseas. The vast majority of this currency is being put into safe, long term investments, such as treasury notes and bonds, the majority in US dollars.

By doing this, they are deliberately keeping themselves poor (at least functionally) and ensuring that they stay competitive on a world stage. As an added benefit, the vast amounts of US dollars the Chinese hold are helping to hold up the US economy by keeping the dollar strong and interest rates low. If the Chinese stopped pumping in all this cash the US govt would have to borrow from elsewhere, probably at much higher rates.

By keeping the dollar strong and rates low the Chinese are in effect subsidising the American people (to a significant amount) and thereby enabling them to buy yet more stuff, from the Chinese.

Of course, this isn't much fun for all those poor Chinese people who would quite like some of that money to be spent at home, on things like, say, heaters in schools in areas with blizzards in winter.

However, the Chinese are now in a quandry. If they start pulling their money out, the value of the dollar will fall, thereby lowering the value of the rest of their investments. Not only that, the Chinese currency would rise, making it harder for exporters and the ramifications for govt spending and the economy in the US would be huge. Suddenly the Americans wouldn't be able to buy as much stuff from the Chinese. This ends up in a huge downward spiral.

So rationally, the Chinese can't do anything because they're stuck.

Except, lets face it, people aren't rational, especially crazy, paranoid communist party members convinced that the US is out to get them. Forget the GFC, apocalyptic world economy collapse anyone?

It's a fascinating article, you should definitely read it.

cheers

Dr Harry

Kicking Ass...

So I saw Kick Ass last weekend. I probably wouldn't have written about it, but I saw the above review and thought what the hell?

I really enjoyed it, there were bits I found quite funny (generally violent bits where people die in unfortunate ways) and lots of great action. However, the movie is billed as an "action/comedy" when in reality it's more a tarantino-esqe gore fest, with a bit of pathos thrown in and a few laughs (for some members of the audience).

I really enjoyed it, but if you don't like blood (and lots of it) and violence in general, than steer clear.

The future is here...

And it looks delicious!




Now I don't really eat much at major chain restaurants (McDonalds, KFC, Hungry Jacks et al), basically because I think the food mostly tastes pretty crap. However, I would definitely eat one of these babies. I might even come back and have a second one! (I have McDonalds every year or two and realise again that the reason I don't eat it is that it tastes so poor).

Couple other things of interest.

Came across some articles by a guy who writes for The Village Voice in New York. Going through his archives there's a great article about gangsta rap and the impact of crack crime and rap culture on young unemployed black men in the ghetto. While it's written in 2003 it's still got some great points about the glorification of gang violence and drug dealing in rap culture, even though much of that lifestyle has disappeared, while the young black men remain unemployed.

There's another great one from the same guy, published in Time magazine, about computer gaming and World of Warcraft in particular. Now, I've never played WoW, but I have played another MMORPG, back before WoW emerged on the scene. One of the reasons that I never signed up was because from all accounts I could find, it took the things that most people do in these games, such as grinding (killing lots of the same monsters to raise your level) and hanging out in safe zones, and made that the point of the whole game. The idea is, if that's what most people do, lets just give them that. Fair enough, it worked for them, as an 8million strong subscriber base will attest to.

However, enough bashing of WoW, the really interesting part of this post is looking at the reasons why people play such games. And the main ones are being able to interact with people, to form communities and do activities, and to have a feeling of accomplishment, of having done great feats, conquered foes and achieved significant goals. I can totally relate to that and still have great memories of running around a virtual world, being scared silly by things that could destroy me in an instant and the excitement of achieving major quests.

Couple more links, if you haven't seen The Escapist and you like video games, than you should. He might rant on a bit, but his reviews are quite good and funny as well. For those who hate his style, his description on Wikipedia will make you feel much better.

Last but not least, a quick piece from the US about teacher unions and their various failings. There's some similarities with Oz and there's some differences, but generally I agree with the point that unions care more about teachers than they do students (as they should, that's their role) and that we need to find some way of recognising those better teachers rather than paying all teachers identically, no matter their ability or location. Why does a crap teacher in an easy school get paid exactly the same as an amazing teacher in a difficult school when they both have the same experience?

That being said, I think NAPLAN is crap and almost useless as a diagnostic tool for individual students and the idea of relying on it for anything at all seems to be quite pointless.

Harry out!

The boys fight back...

Football so far...

So the AFL has had an interesting start to the year. Generally speaking, most of the outcomes so far have been pretty expected. Probably the major shocks have been the form of Fremantle (great) and Adelaide (awful). Sydney has also been going quite well, probably much better than expected.


For me, the big disappointment has been Collingwood. Last week they weren't able to beat a St Kilda that was missing Riewoldt and Koschitzke. Not only that, but the Collingwood forward line is looking seriously ineffective. Their defence is great, their midfield looks great but their forwards (Cloke, Didak, Anthony, Davis) need to actually do something. Unless they can turn things around (which lets face it, is possible, Collingwood regularly do that) than the flag is beyond them this year.

So, a new look at how we can expect things to turn out this year.

Bulldogs
St Kilda

These guys seem to clearly be ahead of the pack so far

Geelong

They're the wounded champion (think Essendon in 2001 or Brisbane in 2004) but they still have the ability to put the hurt on. Do they have what it takes to win another flag?

Collingwood, Hawthorn, Brisbane

These teams are all strong, and potentially top 4, but they're not firing 100% at the moment. They do have the teams to bust anyone though, they just need to sort themselves out.

Sydney, Fremantle

Sydney has been the surprise packet, winning games and looking quite solid. Do they have the chops in their backline to match it with the big boys though? Fremantle have been amazing. I have massive wraps on Matthew Pavlich and it's nice to see them finally be good at the start of a season. If they can win on the road (especially now that teams realise they're a serious threat) than who knows where they'll end up.

Essendon, Carlton, Port?

These guys have the game to take it to the big boys, but aren't balanced out, either lacking key players or having very young lists. They might make up numbers in the finals but realistically they can't win a flag.

West Coast, Adelaide

West Coast have been doing alright (apart from not winning) and have a couple of genuine A-listers (Kerr and Glass, Cox if he's uninjured), but they're not going to win a flag anytime soon. Who wouldn't like Natanui in their team for the next 10 years though? Adelaide are just too old. They're structured and well drilled but just seem past it. The worst thing is that without their old midfielders they'd be even further in the hole! They definitely should be higher than this (expectations were top four) so they should turn things around, maybe.

North Melbourne, Melbourne

North Melbourne have lost their forward and have an old and inconsistent midfield. They should win a few games, but it's not going to be a fun year for their supporters. Melbourne has a very young list. They've shown that when they put in a full effort they can have a real dip, but they're necessarily going to be inconsistent because of the youth of their list.

Richmond

What can I say, they're screwed.

Obviously things are going to change, especially this weekend with the Hawthorn/Collingwood match, but that seems to be the state of play at the moment.

cheers

Harry

Edit - Bulldogs/Brisbane is going to be fascinating as well!

dirty politics

So the Labor party made an obvious choice in this election campaign to go dirty, early. They have been running a very negative campaign against the Liberals since day one. This campaign has not only continued, but it has actually gotten dirtier since then, broadening to include the Greens as well.

This is all very well, they're obviously desperate to stay in office and doing everything they can to achieve that.

I personally thought that the campaign would backfire on them, with the contrast between negative Labor ads and positive Liberal ads showing up the differences between the two parties. However, in the last week the Labor party have been pushing heavily their ad about the Liberals "preferring a road to a hospital" and letting down the state when it comes to health.

I believe that these ads have the potential to be really significant in the community. Why?

My grade 9 classes have been doing some polling as part of our SOSE course, asking people about the election. Results from last Thursday came in almost identical to the results from the Sunday Examiner EMRS poll, showing pretty clearly 1 vote each for Greens, Labor and Liberal, with the remaining two seats carved up somehow between the big two, possibly both to Liberal but probably one each. On the important issues, the biggest (far and away) was health, with well over twice as many people worried about health over education, itself 4 times more important than the next issue, the pulp mill.

Other polls we've done since then back up the importance of the health issue, it is far and away the most important issue raised when people are asked.

Not only that, but classes that have gone out this week (today and yesterday) are showing a marked decline for Liberal and Greens with votes going back to Labor. The undecided vote has also dropped.

While it's impossible to be certain based off a small poll in one town, I have to say that the health/midlands highway issue is resonating and could potentially turn things around for the Government.

If it does it will give the green light to ultra-negative campaigning nation wide, which doesn't sound fun. Guess we'll just have to see what happens.

On a side note, if you go to my first link, which is a Labor website pretending to be a Liberals website but bagging out Liberal policies, you will see they attack the Liberals because their Midlands Highway proposal isn't serious or feasible or costed. Yet in their TV ads they're attacking the Libs because it is! Hypocrisy, thy name is desperation....

:)

Two days to go!

Predictions

It's always nice to have predictions put in place early, so you can prove that you were right! Of course it doesn't work so well if you're wrong, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

First off, the Tasmanian state election.

In Braddon, the smart money is on 2,2,1 ie Labor and Liberal getting 2 seats each and the Greens the single. While this is most likely, I'm going to put my hand up and and say that I think there is a distinct possibility of 1 Labor, 3 Liberal and 1 Green. The other possibility is no Greens at all, but I think my scenario is much more likely.

For the state the Liberals certainly look like they're going to win more seats, but an outright majority is unlikely. I think Will Hodgman is definitely on the right track with his campaigning solidly on a "Liberal majority government" theme. It worked for Labor last time around, with many people deciding late to support the party which could win outright.

The most interesting twist in this election is that anecdotally, many people are saying they're going to vote Green for the first time. This includes many Liberal voters and Labor voters sick of the Labor Party. I predict a lot more Greens preferences are going to swing to the Liberals than normal (a LOT more) which is going to make it very hard for Labor when trying to pick up second seats around the state.

The most likely outcome is a hung Parliament, probably 11 Liberals, 5 Greens and 9 Labor. However, there is a very strong possibility of 6 Greens (with a second in Denison). I think there is a reasonable possibility of 6 Greens, 12 or 13 Liberals and 6 or 7 Labor. THAT would be extremely interesting!

Wildcards:

Health would seem to be the big issue at the moment. I had my class doing some polling and 56 people put health down as the most important issue for this election. 18 put education, 6 put the pulp mill and 4 put jobs! Labor are pushing the health barrow, who knows if it will gain traction for them?

As already mentioned, majority Government is going to be an issue. Many Tasmanians don't like it and don't want it. When faced with the very real possibility of it happening expect to see many of those votes move to the Libs. Will it be enough? Who knows?

Next Federal politics.

Kevin Rudd is on the nose, people are finally waking up and smelling the bull shit and his poll numbers have been on a very slow but steady decline for a while now. Also, Tony Abbot's numbers are about as good as any opposition leader has had.

Labor are on the backfoot and need to keep their head up until after the budget. Abbot needs to get them on the ropes and punch them in the head until they fall. He has the weapons for this, with the insulation debacle, Rudd's ridiculous health scheme and Rudd's seeming feud with the NSW Government. Faffing around with maternity leave schemes does not help the cause, he should be focussing on the Government while he has material to work with.

My prediction:

Labor are in trouble for the next election. Probably unlikely to lose (although Beazley very nearly knocked Howard off after one term) but still take a hiding.

Gillard is waiting until Rudd stuffs up the next election to swoop in and take over. She has the numbers on the left plus she's been all authoritarian and school ma'am-ish, which should help her with the right. Only problem is that that plan won't work if Labor lose the election! Also, Greg Combet is building a head of steam and seems likely to be accumulating votes at the moment, which might be a problem for her.

Global Warming

Global warming is dead. Most people don't seem to have realised it yet, but the idea that the world will end unless we reduce our CO2 emissions has run its course. Maybe we are warming the earth with our emissions (possible but unlikely and basically unverifiable anyway) but even if we are, the negative consequences are small and there's lots of positive consequences.

You want real armageddon stuff? Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon. Pakistan is a hair's breadth away from falling to the fundamentalists. We have a nuclear war in the Middle East and suddenly the world's major supply of oil is no use. How you gonna feed 6 billion people when the vast majority rely heavily on the internal combustion engine to deliver their food to them?

Ok, onto more important stuff.

AFL

The doggies were super impressive against the Saints on Saturday, even though I only saw bits of the game. I have to admit never being a huge fan of the dogs, but now, suddenly, they have some height and I find them much more interesting to watch. They have plenty of tough bodies, plenty of runners and now, some good height in the back line and forward line.

I think anything less than top four is unacceptable and they are a realistic shot for top 2 and a flag.

The Saints have to be good this year, after the build up of last year. They have experience and hunger and talent, how can they not go well? That being said, lots of teams make it to a Grand Final and then disappear from view. As for the Bulldogs, anything less than top four is unacceptable and they are a realistic shot for top 2 and a flag.

Geelong have the team, the talent and the experience, but do they have the motivation? It's an awfully long hill to climb and maybe they've been there too many times already? I would expect a top 4 finish (at least) for the Cats, but they could be much lower.

Collingwood have recruited heavily and look very very good (at least on paper). They are aiming for the flag this year, with Mick's last roll of the dice. I enjoy watching Collingwood play and would like them to do well, but I'm sceptical. The one thing we do know; whatever they do at the start of the season probably has no bearing on the end of the season! If they start well, that's good. If they start poorly that might be better, they'll turn it around and come storming home at the end of the year!

Hawthorn might be back this year, who knows? Buddy is looking significantly improved (apparently he was ordered to bulk up last year, not such a great decision in hindsight) and they have an awesome midfield and forward line. That being said, I still think they're very weak defensively and some teams (Brisbane and St Kilda especially) are going to expose them and cut them up. They want another flag and top 4 is certainly realistic.

Now last, but not least, the mystery package, the Fev and Brown show. Can Brisbane recruit their way to a premiership? Probably not, although their young kids are coming through and they have good rucks, running players and a solid defence. I think Brisbane are the smokey, but personally I'm doubtful they can go all the way.

So that's a top 4 list with 6 teams in it. I think Brisbane and Geelong might miss out, but I wouldn't want to put any money on it!

As for the Coleman, I think Barry Hall is the man to watch this year. Fev no longer has Judd to stick it down his throat, while Riewoldt, Brown and Buddy all have goal kicking partners to spread the load around. Buddy is a big chance but you would have to see Roughead kicking at least 60 this year and if he does that than Buddy probably won't get his century.

Top five? Hall, Franklin, Riewoldt, Brown with Fevola and Roughead tied for fifth!

TFL

Can anyone really see Burnie recovering from the off field debacles of the last few months? Plappy dragged them into a final series that they probably didn't deserve to be in and things have just gone downhill since he left!

NTFL

Surely Ulverstone has to win this year?

Darwin

God himself, in his omnipotent, omniscient omnipresence could probably not say who's going to win this one. I would love Natone to win but I'm kind of sceptical I have to admit, certainly not huge numbers coming to training.


So, there we go, a few random predictions that may or may not come true. Let history be my judge!

Harry

More election news

So the Labor Party in Tasmania have gone dirty. Early and hard as well. They're really laying the boots in hoping to scare people with a negative campaign. At the same time they're spending money like there's no tomorrow (which for them, there isn't).

Interesting news.

The latest EMRS poll (with a tiny dataset admittedly) has a consistent Green vote statewide of around 23% with 40% in Denison. Given the upward Green trend in Denison theres a real possibility of 2 seats there. That means that there's a real possibility of David Bartlett losing is seat! Ken Sturgess has the bogan vote sewn up and Lisa Singh has the greenie/swearing at media/hard left Labor vote sewn up (apparently) so Bartlett might be on his arse. In fact looking at the numbers (off a tiny dataset as said) Labor could be looking at only 7 seats. More likely is 9 seats, with a hung parliament.

Pollywaffle. Apparently when asked on radio whether it was an attack on Polley and Llewellyn she replied "no, and Rene Hidding"! Not "no, it's an attack on Rene Hidding" but AND Rene Hidding!

Also, Bartlett announced yesterday or the day before $3million dollars for the Simplot factory in Ulverstone. He then claimed that thanks to that money Simplot would be staying. Except of course, that Simplot had already announced that a) they were staying and b)they'd committed to spend 17 or 18 million dollars of their own money in the factory anyway.

When Bartlett turned up and announced money for a project (money they hadnt asked for and don't know what exactly it's meant to be for) and then claimed credit for stopping Simplot from going offshore, apparently an awful lot of people there were quite angry.

Anyway, fascinating times.

Things to think about: This is Paul O'Hallorans best (and last) chance to win a seat in Braddon for the Greens. Polling shows that he's a strong chance but he has almost no personal vote, so it's still a mystery

Lots of people are going to be voting Green this election (anecdotally), but they're not Labor supporters. Look to see a lot more Green preferences flow to the Liberals than normal.

Compare and contrast he Labor attack ads with the Liberal candidate ads (haven't seen any Labor candidate ads in Braddon). The contrast is massive and I think there would have to be some positive resonance in the electorate.

Labor are in panic mode, except the dirty campaign to get even dirtier!

Harry out

Free Agency

So it seems that the AFL has finally come up with a deal to allow players "free agency", basically the ability to move club if they are out of contract but their current club doesn't want to trade them. This column by Patrick Smith seems to sum it up quite simply, although I have seen some discrepancy in different reports, whether it's 8 years service for star players (top 25% of earners) or 10 years.

Except, to my ignorant eyes it seems remarkably similar to how the system works now (Luke Ball going into the draft with no guarantees of where he would end up, for example).

Now I'm not going to go all muggaccino like Jeff Kennett has and announce that it's the death of football as we know it, but I have to admit I didn't really see the need for free agency and even now I don't necessarily agree with the changes. In fact, many of the points that Jeff brings up seem quite legitimate to me, especially since, speaking from the perspective of a club with what, 45,000 members? he is definitely in a stronger position.

It definitely would have been interesting to see what would have happened if a case had gone before a court though, any club that sponsored such an action (even implicitly) would be creating a rod for its own back by setting a dangerous precedent. As such, you can't imagine such a situation being likely to happen anytime soon.

Now one of the comments on the first link to the Herald Sun was this one

Wombat of Brisbane Posted at 8:29 AM Today
Not sure if the Players Association has done what is best for their members. They have definitely helped the minority of disgruntled players who want to move clubs and they have definitely helped the bank accounts of the best players in the competition. I think they may have inadvertantly cut the earnings of the majority of their members who are neither disgruntled or stars.

I think that that's an extremely valid point. Sure, a few people want to change clubs and a few players can attract mega salaries if they do move (Ablett, Judd, Brown, Buddy etc) but the majority of players are not only unlikely to want to move, but unlikely to be viewed as that desirable by other clubs, certainly not desirable enough to offer significantly boosted salaries to. The majority of the players out there are having their share of the salary cap cut, while a few stars take away a higher percentage.

A couple of other comments from the Kennett article also seemed quite insightful to me.


jeff from perth of perth Posted at 2:19 PM Today
Nothing has been said regarding how if a player in the top ten money earners goes to the club of his choice how that will effect that clubs salary cap. The salary cap dictates how much gets paid to the players, does it mean that if a club gains one of these players, how many players must that club jettison to keep under the salary cap. Please explain? I'd love Ablett in a Carlton jumper but if that meant Carlton would have to loose Gibbs, Kruezer and say Murphy to fit him in I'd be totally against the move. It seems to me the only persons to benefit under these new rules will be the player manager; they will always get their 10% and never have to deal with angry, disillusioned supporters.

Sure Buddy or Ablett are damn good players, but are they better than 2 or 3 middle or lower-upper tier players? If I had a choice of Ablett or a package deal of Gibbs, Kruezer and Murphy I'd go for the package deal everytime. Sure it's nice to have stars, but great teams have depth and consistency, 22 players who can deliver (why did Gary Ablett senior never win a flag?) Geelong, St Kilda and Sydney have reinforced this need for consistency in the list over recent years.
rust of brisbane Posted at 1:20 PM Today
Is`nt that like putting the shoe on the other foot now.So all the clubs will have to be extra nice to their players.They say that loyalty should prevail, but have a look at so many players that have been loyal then told that there not wanted or put up as draft bait.

Now that is a REALLY interesting point. AFL clubs can't afford to be sentimental. Even Kevin Sheedy, who always made an effort to drag players back to make up milestones was a ruthless bastard when it came to player selection. Loyal club servants were traded or dropped when it was needed. If there's no loyalty shown by a club than it's hard for the players to feel loved. It's definitely a two way street.

Anyway, what we don't really want to see is a situation like the NRL or gridiron where players can move clubs mid season. Having strong clubs with traditions and players with associations with those clubs might not be good for players, but it's certainly great for our game. If the players don't like it, let them go play for Werribee!

cheers

Dr Harry