Let’s kick off the weekend with a fresh thread. Remember that there are still separate campaign threads, so you can use this one to discuss anything outside election campaigning and punditry. Moving forward, we’ll stagger the roll-out of new Punditocracy and Spin Cycle threads based on the deep consensus achieved by our citizens’ advisory panel. And all the relevant threads are listed in the sidebar.
This Sunday’s Insiders line-up (with thanks as always to Mike Bowers) sees Barrie interviewing Simon Crean, the panel is Karen Middleton, Andrew Bolt and Malcolm Farr, and Talking Pictures has Paul Zanetti. On Sunday evening, of course, we’ll have the leaders’ debate at 6:30 AEST. More TV line-ups as they come to hand.
58 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Matthew: I certainly don’t claim any technical insight into oil drilling industry, and as such have no idea how exactly companies would demonstrate such capacity, other than proving they have the equipment, the necessary technical skill, and funds to stop an oil leak within a week of it occurring.
It is ridiculous that in 2010 it takes an oil drilling company 100 days to stop an oil leak. It’s simply not good enough, and especially if, as you say, there is so much drilling occurring around the world.
http://www.alp.org.au/blogs/alp-blog/july-2010/a-greener-way-to-drive/
So this really does just apply to cars that would probably have been traded in anyway. Nobody is going to be trading in wrecks, and nobody’s going to be buying old cars for the rebate.
I just love Shanahan logic, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/solid-but-high-expectations-mean-julia-gillard-cant-be-declared-winner-of-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1225896751857
So the PM wins, but because she didn’t beat him senseless she didn’t win. WTF???
The reporting on this is obnoxious:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/white-house-backed-release-of-lockerbie-bomber-abdel-baset-al-megrahi/story-e6frg6so-1225896741041
Without seeing the full text, which I suspect The Sunday Times won’t be providing (and I’m not paying them in order to be disappointed), this looks pretty reasonable to me. A week before the release, after all the browbeating and bargaining had been done, when the decision had almost certainly been made one way or the other, the US ambassador said that IDF he’d rather the lockerbie bomber be simply released than sent to a libyan prison (which is actually another way of saying “no half measures, either release him and accept the consequences or don’t release him” – although that’ll be lost on many).
He ALSO wrote that, if he was to be released, he should be released and required to live in Scotland. None of this is the “US approved release” headlining on some sites.
This is how the sausages get made, folks. It’s the art of the possible, remember. It was up to Scotland to make their ridiculous decision, whether or not it has anything to do with BP. All the ambassador could do was try to influence the circumstances, or do nothing.
Matt said:
“…the US ambassador said that IDF he’d rather the lockerbie bomber be simply released than sent to a libyan prison”
I’d add my two cents here but I’ll wait until I find out “IDF” means.
My one cent is, why didn’t Obama just suggest the terrorist be kept in jail? Where he belongs???
Or is this whole exercise a way to compensate all those poor Gitmo terrorists he hasn’t released yet?
Matthew: you might find this article interesting wrt the disendorsed Lib candidate in Chifley. Branch members didn’t elect him, his candidacy was ticked off by NSW Lib Council, and it would appear they knew about his extreme views and did a deal with him where he’d have to keep them out of the public.
So, too much credit given to Libs for disendorsing him. He shouldn’t of been there to start with!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/how-did-david-barker-become-a-liberal-candidate-20100726-10rqy.html?rand=1280123597118
Pedro @55
“but I’ll wait until I find out “IDF” means.”
A total typo. I’m as baffled as you are. Maybe it was a leftover bit of a mispelled IF from another sentence that I didn’t see before I hit post. But I can’t really explain why that’s there.
“My one cent is, why didn’t Obama just suggest the terrorist be kept in jail? Where he belongs???”
If you google the story, you’ll discover that at least some of the reports are honest enough to say that’s exactly what he did. The US was always opposed to his release. Unfortunately, short of invading scotland (probably a mistake) the decision was out of their hands. Based on what I’ve seen, I’m inclined to think the ambassador didn’t want him returned to libya.
I’m hoping Labor announce a new levy on the sale of new ships, simply so I can hear Tony Abboot say that he’s going to “stop the great big new boat tax”…
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All