The Sunday Telegraph 29 May 2011
If Kevin were still PM, there is no way he’d have time to create his own blend of tea, which, I am reliably told, will solve climate change, create peace in the Middle East and be the catalyst for the formation of an Asia-Pacific Union that will lead the world into a new age of economic prosperity.
So thanks, Julia. Nothing like a nice cup of tea to sort out the world’s problems.
The Australian 26 May 2011
Science, being somewhat based on facts, has never really gotten on with politics or religion, which get on with each other famously due to their more human nature friendly facts-optional approaches.
The trouble is that the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what they’re talking about on this topic (ie climate scientists, do sit down Senator Minchin) are telling a story that people don’t want to hear, and the natural human response to this annoying category of facts is similar to that of a person who loudly insists that red wine contains healthy antioxidants whilst busily cracking open their third bottle for the morning.
The wishful thinkers have it right in one respect, the inconvenient truth about science is that by definition, “the science” is never really in. The guiding principle of scientists is a rather perverse striving to prove themselves wrong, and in this particular case I for one hope they do. But they haven’t yet, and it seems unlikely that they will.
Probably time to crack open another bottle.
A4 print $66 [wp_cart:tonyhokeypokey_print_A4:price:66.00:end]
A3 print $88 [wp_cart:tonyhokeypokey_print_A3:price:88.00:end]
[show_wp_shopping_cart]
The Australian, 25 May 2011
Sorry, but if you need to be warned that placing yourself in a direct line between a state premier and a bucket of money is a bad idea, you probably shouldn’t even be in charge of the loose change in your pockets. Rookie mistake.
The Hobart Mercury 24 May 2011
Where it gets a little tricky is with a by-election. With a multi-member electorate the idea is that rather than have another election to elect everyone again, you just recount the votes that got the departing member in. It’s a bit like holding another ballot but only inviting the people who got it right (or in fact as events will have demonstrated, wrong) the first time.
I kind of vaguely see how maybe those voters whose horse fell over should be the only ones to get a say in the replacement, but it does tend to result in the election of someone who might end up saying “Don’t you know who I am?” rather a lot.
