Simon Hackett, founder and Managing Director of Internode, stated "Our single largest source of carbon emission is power generation to drive our large and rapidly growing data centres, as well as our offices. We've decided to solve that emission type 'at source' by purchasing certified renewable energy certificates."

According to Hackett the transition to 100% green energy at the source has added a 20% premium to the companies electricity costs. Although with energy costs increasing I can imagine that more efficient technology infrastructure will drive this ratio lower. Something the company has already begun with virtualisation technogies from VMWare running atop Sun Microsystems hardware such as the x4100.

This comes as the Rudd Labor government of Australia finalises it's plans to tackle climate change under advice from Professor Garnaut.

Maybe it's all the shenanigans regarding governments and elections of recent times...It's just made me recall all of the promises and deals that were made relating to an Insulin Pump Scheme that would be applicable for children with IDDM up to 18 years of age before the 2007 election.  

I was first contacted by JDRF Head Office last year, before our Federal Election. A small group of parents and I were asked to contact Mr Howard. Others were pleading with our Members of Parliament to take into consideration how many children with diabetes don't have insulin pumps, and how desperately they needed them.

On International Diabetes Day,2007, Mr Howard historically announced that, if re-elected, he would provide $22 million to JDRF, to ensure that many children, and especially the ones who truly needed a pump, got one.

Despite our inital frenzy, at this stage, Mr Howard was lagging in the polls, so Kevin Rudd and team were our next target.

We rang Labor party hotlines, we wrote to Kevin personally, we even joined his Facebook Page. JDRF Youth Ambassadors followed him around and spoke of their need for an insulin pump program to combat their ailing health.

He knew that this was something that advocates and JDRF expected him to at least match, or maybe supercede the amount promised by Mister Howard.

So, Kevin Rudd became our new Prime Minister, and we said goodbye to our 22 million dollar promise.

Nothing was mentioned about Health, nor Childhood Diabetes in his victory speeches. I was silently worried.

He made grandiose promises to amend the public hospital debacles, and even establish doctor's surgeries replaced by state-of-the-art medical centres, where you could see your doctor, as well as have all of your blood work, x rays, physio and dentistry taken care of in the same complex.

Australia nodded and agreed wholeheartedly. This was a man who cared for the little Aussie battlers.

However, in that election promise, there was no mention of a insulin pump grant.

In the meantime, Lance's health took a turn for the worse. His endocrinologist spoke to me about the possiblity of getting an insulin pump.  When I bought up the possibility of obtaining one through the Insulin Pump Grant, he raised his eyebrows, stopped writing frantically, and shook his head. Hot, angry tears spilt down my face.

I began looking around and finally settled on a Medtronic pump.

The rep, Louise, and I gained a fantastic rapport. 

.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      totally  I really loved the way she communicated with me and understood how desperately a pump would be beneficial for Lance. I mentioned the insulin pump grant to her. She grimaced, and said something along the lines of, "If it does happen, it won't be for years, and it wouldn't be anywhere near the amount promised by Howard." I sighed, disheartened, and continued listening.

 I put DAYS into writing letters to different influential people-some responded, but it all depended on the upcoming election. As soon as we knew that the Labor party were victorious, I began furiously writing to various Health Ministers, Members of Parliament, and King Pin himself, without one reply.

Just before our annual budget was released in May, our very good friend, Gareth Eldershaw, (Gareth completed an interview for www.whydidtheinsulindie.com earlier this year), wrote to Arch Bevis,Federal Member for the Seat of Brisbane.

This is what Arch wrote in his comments regarding the budget results.

Firstly, he made reference to the letter that Gareth had written to him, complete with Jelly Baby Lapel Pin. (Budget night happens to coincide with Jelly Baby Month, so we make it a point that each MP is sent a pin and request that they wear it on their lapel on the night that has the Nation at a standstill.)

"May is a special month for JDRF as we try to make the community more aware of Type 1. As you know the jelly baby is a sort of motto that represents a vital aid to help us recover from a “hypo” when our glucose levels are too low. There’s a little blue guy in the envelope that I’d like to give you and ask you to wear in May and especially on Budget night."

I can tell Gareth that I am wearing his little blue guy on my lapel, as I did last night during the budget. Gareth went on..

" We talked about the grant to fund the reimbursement of insulin pumps for kids under the age of 18. 3000 pumps for all these kids (over a 5-year period) would cost $35m. It’s a lot of money I know, but you know how much it will save the government in the future? Of course it will make life a bit more bearable (and safe too) if kids can use insulin pumps."

I was very pleased to have been able to ring Gareth up today and say that in last night’s budget we made a step in that direction. I do not pretend that we have gone as far as we need to. I want to see the opportunity to benefit from an insulin pump—and not everybody with diabetes is suited to an insulin pump—be made available to all. But I do applaud the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, for her efforts in recent times in ensuring that the budget includes a provision that will see about 700 young Australians gain access to an insulin pump. I look forward to continuing to work inside government now rather than from the opposition benches to try to have that program extended.

The grand result?? JDRF were given $5.5 million, to be dispensed over three years, to provide insulin pumps for 700 children.

After much planning and deliberating, JDRF will begin accepting applications for contributions towards the purchase of an insulin pump. It will be based on a financial means test, and the most that can be received per child is $2500. Families without health insurance can begin applying for insulin pumps for their children in November.

So, with the average insulin pump costing $6000, (notice, I say average ), and with approximately 1.7 million dollars provided each year, it won't take long before all of the money is dispensed. If you are a suitable candidate for the $2500, what happens then? How do you get the rest of the money? Fundraising is about the only real option,and we all know how difficult that is.

I'm really not trying to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I'm so grateful that we were acknowledged at all, the heart and soul of some 50 parents went into sharing their children's private stories regarding life without an insulin pump. I'm sure PLENTY of other charities tried their hardest to get a financial boost without succeeding, so I really don't want to appear like I'm complaining or ungrateful.

I guess it just smarts a little that we could have had 22 million dollars.

It hurts to think that some families will qualify for the $2500, but will be totally stuck when it comes to raising the rest. Not to mention those who receive $750-I mean, what happens there?

• Knowing JDRF Australia, they may have some amazing fund raising venture up their sleeve, but in all truthfulness, does it leave families any better off than before this money was offered? Personally, if I hadn't have paid for Lance's pump outright, and I knew that there was NO way I could afford to pay for the outstanding amount, I think (and only if Lance's health was in excellent shape), that I would forfeit the opportunity. JDRF staff are going to have to make some really difficult decisions without being biased to families they know well and adore.

 Vote for whomever will give you a better Health Care System, America!

"He is a useless excuse for a Treasurer, appears to be afraid of the banks and totally misleads the public whenever he feels like it...He is totally misnamed - Wayne Swan should have been named Wayne Goose."

Robert Scott, Rosemeadow, letter to the Daily Telegraph. Other readers agree:

"Giving them carte blanche to do as they will with interest rates is a disgusting, spineless surrender by Wayne Swan...Wayne Swan is running the economy the same way Kevin Rudd is running the country - into the ground." Steve Limbrick, Hornsby Heights.

"If you don't know what you're talking about Wayne Swan, then shut your pie hole and let us get some help." TG, Holsworthy.

"Next time you hear sanctimonious Kevin Rudd using fine-sounding phrases such as "a fair go for all" and "Labor governs for all Australians", fine tune your inbuilt crap detector to pick up the background hypocrisy."

Ron Sinclair Bathurst, letter to the SMH.

On Monday Andrew Bolt returned to work and successfully slapped down Bernard Slattery's hostile takeover of his blog. (Can you picture a whimpering Slattery, prostrate and gesticulating, backing apologetically out of Andy's office?) And it took only a few minutes for the trademark Bolta intellectual underhandedness to kick back in.

Tricky. How do you thank someone who didn’t actually want to help you gain freedom?

THE Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, will visit Australia this month to express gratitude for Australian efforts in toppling Saddam Hussein and to discuss trade opportunities in Iraq.

The trip follows an invitation from Kevin Rudd, but Mr Maliki will have to tread a delicate path as he seeks to praise Australia’s contribution to a war that Labor - and most Australians - did not support.

If it were up to Rudd, the Iraqi leader who’d be visiting would be Saddam Hussein.

Is this the new Godwin: person X disagreed with the Iraq war because of its completely bullshit premise and dodgy morality, so person Y continually smears person X by suggesting that they opposed the war because they supported Saddam Hussein, despite the fact that not supporting the war and not supporting Hussein are not mutually exclusive?

Name just ten times that Rudd has explicitly supported Saddam Hussein, Bolta. Just ten.

"It must be time Kevin 747 went on another of his important overseas missions. He has been visiting Australia for the last three weeks."

Mick Millsom, Devenish Vic, letter to the Daily Telegraph.

This isn't a myopic rant but a more broad brush look at how the continued, and largely publicly acknowledged, lack of respect the old parties have for voters hasn't led to voters seriously looking to change their vote. It's also something I find very frustrating when I read domestic and foreign news services and feeds about the interference of third parties and their impact on electing a 'progressive' member or at best not an 'official' conservative party member. And it's not a hate rant about the 'stupidity' of voters.

Reality though is that Australia, like the United States of America, is a multi-party political system that just happens to be dominated by a political duopoly. The political duopoly has even been able to convince voters that if they vote for anyone or any other party they are wasting their vote. Needless to say that the prevailing attitude I've come across, and seems that others have too, is that voting for an independent or a minor party won't do anything because they won't form government.

However, how is it then that real progress takes place?

By voters deciding that enough is enough and declaring this at the ballot box change can happen. It would certainly lead to a greater amount of respect from political parties for voters and the reasons they vote for a particular independent or party candidate.

On 22 May of 2008 columnist Miranda Devine of The Sydney Morning Herald started the witch-hunt. NSW police joined in closing Bill Henson’s exhibition in Sydney and threatening to lay charges.

The Bill Henson story was picked up by Associated Press and reprinted in newspapers around the world. What politicians thought would have local breakfast television appeal makes Australia look internationally like a nation of philistines. Peter Garrett, the Minister for the Arts and former Midnight Oil front-man, ducked the issue and has kept largely out of sight since.

Censorship of the arts in Australia became a hot issue again, and to the frustration of the politicians, the issue would not go away. It continued with the cover of Art Monthly featuring a photo of Olympia Nelson taken by her mother. The controversy was raised in every gallery director’s opening speech at an exhibition of nudes; especially Gordon Morrison, the Director of the Art Gallery of Ballarat, introducing his exhibition “The Naked and the Nude”.

Many artists have commented on this controversy over the year. Mary Newsome referred to both the censorship of Fogelberg and Henson in her postcard installation at Mailbox 141. In Hosier Lane, a paste-up of a fat ugly naked man by Camel bares the slogan “No Rudd Gonna Censor Me!”

The lack of a clear outcome in this controversy has meant that artists working with nudes now fear censorship and demonising. The increased sensitivity to nudes in the community lead to more censorship issues; for example, in South Australia at the Tea Tree Gully’s annual art exhibition in August two nudes were banned.

There has also been an increase in search terms like: “pedophile melbourne art”. The popularist polemics of state and federal politicians have convinced some people that art, like the Catholic Church, is simply a cover for pedophiles. In October the next round of the witch-hunt started with a non-controversy: Bill Henson visited a Melbourne primary school. The Victorian government reprimanded the school principal, before finding any breach of protocols, presuming wrong doing and slandering Henson by in the process. I have called this witch-hunt as it is an intensive systematic campaign directed against Bill Henson and those who support him. The reason for the witch-hunt now is simply to vindicate the politician’s views by any means.

The last word on this subject should go to Olympia Nelson: “I’m really, really offended by what Kevin Rudd said about this picture. That was really, really rude. For him to be talking about my picture, the picture with me in it, it doesn’t feel very good.” Kevin Rudd is yet to apologize to Olympia Nelson.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev forms new Russian political party to challenge Putin

FBI Prevented Agents from Telling 'Truth' About 9/11 on PBS

Ultrasound technology speeds up wound coagulation and halts bleeding

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wants federal control over home loan regulation

Major military exercise staged days before 26 dolphins died - "The MoD has confirmed that sonar "dipper" devices were used seven times by Merlin and Lynx helicopter crews in the week before the incident. The mid-frequency sonar used, which is just beyond the range of human hearing, has been associated with strandings of marine life in the past.

Sonar on a similar frequency was also being used by one of the Type 23 Royal Navy frigates on the regular training exercise commonly known as the "Thursday War".

FDA experts say melamine, the chemical which set off a Chinese sourced scandal, is OK in small amounts, even if eaten every day

New application uses cellphone's own GPS to tracks your "carbon footprint"

Cambodian and Thai soldiers get in firefight  over 11th century temple

Australia, Japan, and South Korea pull more Chinese milk containing products off shelves

Four months ago, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd publicly floated an initiative to develop what he called an Asia Pacific Community, through which leaders of all the key countries in the region would be able to come together.  His proposal was greeted mostly with a mixture of quiet puzzlement and outright scepticism.  But this is an idea that is not going away.  Over the course of the next twelve months or so I expect momentum will be built for taking it further.  As this happens, the emphasis in discussion will soon shift from whether or not this initiative will proceed to focus increasingly on the modalities how it will proceed.

Initial public responses to the proposal were wary. By far the most extensive discussion of Mr Rudd’s initiative – and the most sceptical commentary – has come from within Australia itself. This wariness had more to do with Australian domestic politics than the international politics of the Asia-Pacific region, as Mr Rudd’s announcement of the initiative came as the early ‘honeymoon’ phase of the new Labor government passed and complaints were beginning to emerge about ‘initiative overload’ across the policy spectrum and ‘under organisation’ in the Prime Minister’s own office. A wide array of Australian analysts, journalists and parliamentarians past and present were quick to criticise the Rudd proposal for being ‘half-baked’, lacking in detail and presumptuous for not having consulted other regional leaders in advance.  These complaints were not without some substance – not only was the initial articulation of the idea rather sketchy, with distracting references to the European Union, but even the distinguished former diplomat, Richard Woolcott, nominated to lead regional consultation process evidently learned about the proposal only a few short hours before it was announced.  

But none of these issues were decisive and as Richard Woolcott himself has said, the circumstances were much the same nearly twenty years earlier when then Prime Minister Bob Hawke tasked him with leading a similar initial consultation process on APEC.  Much more important than the flurry of debate within Australia has been the reaction within the Asia-Pacific region.  Some commentators were sceptical or even dismissive of the proposal, with most government spokesmen expressing polite, non-committal interest in hearing further details.  Significantly, no head of government spoke decisively against the proposal.  

In the world of multilateral diplomacy, that constitutes a positive outcome.  It is very rarely the case that proposals for large-scale multilateral engagement engender clear and strong enthusiasm – almost always the benefits are too diffuse for this to be the case.  Much more telling is whether they generate clear and strong opposition.  And that has not been the case.

The real diplomatic action – which for the most part does not appear in the newspaper headlines – is now underway. Rudd’s special envoy, Richard Woolcott, has undertaken a first consultative foray into the region, focusing on key Southeast Asian countries.  Subsequent rounds will see him working his way around the wider region. There have been no official statements from Rudd about progress, but informal indications are encouraging. This will help to build momentum.

Ultimately, the reason some version of Rudd’s proposal is likely to succeed is that there is an underlying need for it.  There is real scope for improving on the current situation of regional consultation arrangements to the advantage of all.  Notwithstanding the variety of existing frameworks for regional engagement along various dimensions – most prominently  ASEAN, the ASEAN + 3 framework, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and APEC – the inescapable problem is that none of these arrangements brings all the main players from South Asia to the Americas together. It makes no sense that there is no framework which also includes both India and the United States. While all existing frameworks serve some specific purposes, none adequately meets the needs of the region as a whole.  There is no particular virtue in preserving the status quo for its own sake; more than anything else it is inertia and the inherent difficulty of taking multilateral diplomacy into new areas that preserves it.

Leadership to overcome these problems could come from almost anywhere in the region, but as middle-sized player Australia is one of a handful of countries that is well-placed to offer it.  And with Rudd’s quiet persistence it is quite likely that we will see results.  Increasingly, the issue that is coming into focus is the modalities of just how a comprehensive framework for regional engagement might be developed from the status quo.

There are several broad possibilities.  One is that it could evolve by adapting one of the existing frameworks.  For instance, the membership of the East Asian Summit might be expanded eastward across the Pacific.  Or the membership of APEC could be adjusted and expanded westward to South Asia.  A second broad possibility is that a special gathering could take place on the coat-tails of an existing forum.  Here too there are several imaginable variants, but by way of illustration, an appropriately comprehensive gathering of leaders could be engineered at the same time as the ASEAN or APEC summits, and evolve over time from there.  Or third, an entirely new framework could be purpose built from scratch.  

None of these broad possibilities is clearly superior to the others.  Each has distinctive pros and cons. In the end, it is likely to be the path of least resistance that prevails.  And it may be that a one-off and more limited gathering of pivotal leaders is needed to kick start the process and help cut through some of the initial complications.

To succeed, Rudd’s initiative will need to evolve into something much broader than just another proposal from a regionally activist Australian leader.  At least some countries and some other leaders will need to come to view it as advancing their interests.  This is quite likely to happen and in the process the character and form of the initiative will evolve as ‘authorship’ widens.  Indeed, that is what happened with all previous efforts to build frameworks for regional engagement, from ASEAN and APEC onwards.

The absence of a vocal chorus of public support for Rudd’s initiative might be thought of as telling evidence of a lack of demand or even interest.  It is not.  Frameworks for multilateral regional engagement – whether in the Asia-Pacific region, or any other – are not essential elements of international engagement.  That is why there is almost never overt demand for them.  But they can be very helpful, even if in quiet and low-profile ways.  There was no great demand for ASEAN at the time of its birth, but all Southeast Asian countries place value on it now.  Similarly, for all its limitations, heads of state continue to invest time and effort in the APEC process.

Kevin Rudd’s proposal has already evolved somewhat since his first speech in June.  It will continue to do so as momentum gradually builds behind and as an informal coalition of leaders willing to support its development emerges.  It is an idea whose time is coming.

De problemen spelen zich af in Northern Territories, een staat van Australië met een relatief groot aantal aboriginals. De vorige regering onder leiding van de John Howard besloot in 2007 in te grijpen nadat bleek dat kindermisbruik onder deze groep meer regel dan uitzondering was.

Aborginals bleken zich bovendien schuldig te maken aan talloze andere vergrijpen en diverse gemeenschappen kwamen aan de rand van de afgrond te staan. Howard stuurde onder meer een leger sociaal werkers, verbood alcohol en pornografie en versterkte de politiemacht in de regio. Daarnaast werd voortaan streng toegezien op de verstrekking van uitkeringen.

Sindsdien zou er echter weinig zijn verbeterd. Daarnaast klinkt er protest tegen het militaire karakter van de operatie. De outbackbewoners zouden volgens critici veel te hard worden aangepakt waardoor talloze nieuwe problemen ontstaan. De huidige regering onder leiding van Kevin Rudd lijkt gevoelig voor deze geluiden en wil het regime versoepelen.

Glasson – lid van de emergency taskforce die de interventie coördineert – erkent dat Howards aanpak niet alleszaligmakend is, maar waarschuwt dat het nog veel te vroeg is conclusies te trekken. ,,We zitten daar met een complete generatie die is opgegroeid zonder baggage. We moeten doorgaan om ervoor te zorgen dat de volgende generatie het beter heeft.’’

Volgens Glasson sorteren onder meer de strenge regels met betrekking tot uitkeringen wel degelijk effect. ,,De helft van hun inkomen wordt tegenwoordig op een rekening gestort waar je alleen kleding en voedsel van kunt kopen. Dat is een grote verbetering ten opzicht van vroeger, toen dronken mannen hun vrouw sloegen en het huishoudgeld inpikten om alcohol te kopen.’’

De Labor-regering heeft een commissie ingesteld om advies uit te brengen over de aanpak van de problemen onder aboriginals. Een rapport dat vandaag overhandigd zou worden aan de federale overheid in Canberra is echter met minimaal een maand vertraagd.

All of this actually reminds me of a similarly traumatic era, one that has scarred my family and no doubt millions of others as we try to come to terms with our tragic, shared past: the re-election of John Howard in 2004. At this dawn of a new Dark Age, poor Mum, after much indefatigable campaigning for the Greens, could only find recourse for her pent up disillusionment by making pies. Lots of pies. As you can imagine, this made me happy, especially when they were cheese pies. But Mummy's anguish still impacted on my Last Exile-infatuated Year 8 Smoothie Brain enough to write her a song, or rather, re-write a universally-loathed and unfortunately ubiquitous song to reflect the terror and economic rationalism of Howard's prolonged reign...

Obey America Fair

Australians all let us extort,

for we must fund the war:

It matters not whose war it is;

As long as there's blood and gore;

Our PM lusts for omnipotence

and we bow to foreign rule;

Let's slash the tax, and never look back,

Obey America Fair!

Let democracy die and kill free speech,

Obey America Faiiiiiir!

Sung in my screechy faux choir girl voice I thought it was rather effective and jaunty. Of course, it's slightly less relevant now than it was, but maybe in a few years when the Kevin '11 Brigade has rolled past and Mum once again commits herself to the kitchen in the service of pastry creation, I will take up pen and paper once more to write Driving Brendan Spare, or perhaps You Don't Care (you smarmy hypocritical Queenslanderous bureaucrat), and then This Isn't Fair! when I appear in court over libel charges. W00t.

You will find some views I find interesting over there in the side bar.

I also commend, without being able to evaluate it one way or the other, the post Jim Belshaw alludes to this morning in his personal blog: Why the US financial package should be rejected - and why Australia will ride out the storm.

This post deals with two issues, one macro, one local.

Listening to the debate on the proposed US financial rescue package, I have slowly come to the conclusion that it should (at least from a US perspective) be rejected. I say this for one core reason.

The package mixes together two very different things. The first is the maintenance of liquidity so that financial institutions can lend to each other. This is a good thing. The second appears to be the maintenance of US property values. This is plain silly.

What will happen if the package is rejected? The worst case is that the US economy will slip deeper into recession as necessary corrections for past excesses work their way through. We have seen this before. The right economic answer would be to use monetary and fiscal policy to then expand the real economy.

What will happen if the policy is accepted? At best, it may ease the immediate pain, while leaving the US economy (and Government) saddled with still over-valued assets. The outcome will be slower longer term US economic growth...

Jim does have considerable experience in public service and business.

For other views, see the mainstream Australian media, for example Global Financial Crisis on ABC.

One take on all this I did give some credence to is in today's Sydney Morning Herald, whose general coverage is here. One particular note that attracted my attention is by Ian Verrender:

UNCHARTED waters, dangerous territory, storm clouds. Whatever your choice of metaphor, there is no understating the seriousness of the situation in which we now find ourselves.

For many, watching the super-rich squirm after a lengthy period of conspicuous excess can be enormously satisfying. A well-deserved come-uppance. Justice long overdue. But the firestorm engulfing Wall Street threatens to scorch us all...

How did it ever come to this? In hindsight, it seems like madness. And it was. Debt was being raised to invest in debt that had a loose connection - via debt instruments in heavily mortgaged properties - to US real estate. Debt overpowered equity and swamped savings. The $US12 trillion in mortgages extended to American homeowners far outweighs the value of the real estate.

Even more worrying, that same cavalier approach was repeated with personal debt, via credit cards, and at a corporate level as corporations across the globe fell prey to a swarm of private equity locusts who borrowed to the hilt as they cut a swathe through the business world. So far we've only seen the fallout from the property market collapse...

Australia's financial system is in rude good health. Despite the problems of the past year, our big banks look to be on track to earn record profits. But our financial system will not be immune to the sort of pressure being brought to bear from the contagion sweeping the world.

The Reserve Bank of Australia is likely to lower interest rates, possibly by as much as 0.5 percentage points, next Tuesday in an effort to keep our economy from tipping into recession. Banks are likely to absorb much of that and pass on only half. And our central bank may well be thankful for it.

In his lead story Peter Hartcher notes some differences between the Westminster parliamentary system and the US system:

...The most fragile and fickle commodity in the economic armoury is confidence, which is essential to consumer spending, to bank lending and to business investment. Australian authorities will emphasise the strengths of the domestic situation.

This is exactly what Kevin Rudd did yesterday when he called a press conference to say: "The bottom line is this. Strong regulation, the best regulatory system in the world, strong balance sheets on the part of our banks, as well as a strong budget situation on the part of the Australian Government means that Australia's situation in this period of global financial turbulence is the best that you could have."

The party discipline in a Westminster system is often criticised for being repressive, but today, by contrast with the chaos in Washington, it looks pretty good. Political parties in Westminster democracies put members "under such a discipline in carrying on the common cause, as leaves no liberty of private opinion", according to Britain's Lord Halifax in 1750.

Yet in the US system, where there is plenty of scope for private opinion, the President, the leaders of both parties, and both presidential candidates combined were unable to marshal enough votes to pass the proposed $US700 billion ($850 billion) rescue bill.

As the Washington Post's Ben Pershing said: "It wasn't a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren't threatened. They (probably) weren't bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum."

More discipline will be required of both Australian parties. The Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, privately pledges not to criticise the Government on economic policy during a crisis...

And that's where, perplexed as I am, I will leave it.

And here is how the Australian Prime Minister reacted yesterday to the plunging stock market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_Law_School

Already, is there a claim there for "This article or section is written like an advertisement.".

Next in the " Notable Faculty" section, there is, listed "Rosemary owens", "Bernadette Richards", and "Susan Bartie". Obviously someone has also found that there was an instance of astroturfing and has already listed the templates "This article or section is written like an advertisement" on all three pages, as well as a deletion template because it is "marketing propoganda from the university of adelaide".

On close analysis of the discussion page of Rosemary Owens:

• Delete: University of Adelaide, please stop with this marketing bullshit. As I identified here (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/92abb5c5d77f0736#), the University Marketing department seems to be taking a stroll on promoting their Law lecturers to sell their classes. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising space for educational institutions.Toprooflaw (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• delete. first she is the acting dean (we don't need no hoaxes on wikipedia), next she was "promoted" to a reader in law - are you kidding me? you're telling me this woman who encouraged research skills, is now dean? i also searched "rosemary owens" up on google, and received only 3,710 results, compared with say "richard dawkins", which had 4,620,000 results. delete this utter crap.
• spam- spam is against the law! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincestagesince (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

On close analysis on the discussio npage of Bernadete Richards:

• Delete: University of Adelaide, please stop with this marketing bullshit. As I identified here (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/33b66d90f0bac617#), the University Marketing department seems to be taking a stroll on promoting their Law lecturers to sell their classes. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising space for educational institutions.Toprooflaw (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• delete. wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for self-promotion. a english/drama teacher belongs in school, not wikipedia. get a life. all of those associations she's apart of are also red links (they don't exist on wikipedia, because they're not famous enough).i also searched "bernadette richards" up on google, and received only a mere 639 results, compared with say "richard dawkins", which had 4,620,000 results. delete this utter crap.
• spam- spam is against the law!

On close analysis on the discussion page of Susan Bartie:

• Delete: University of Adelaide, please stop with this marketing bullshit. As I identified here (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.australian/browse_thread/thread/0ab5d4e57cb66346#), the University Marketing department seems to be taking a stroll on promoting their Law lecturers to sell their classes. Wikipedia is NOT an advertising space for educational institutions.Toprooflaw (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• delete. first she is only a lecturer, at this unknown law school. next, she was only a judge's research ASSISTANT, and then it goes on listing a few master degrees. stop wasting your time astroturfing. she is non-notable in every respect. i also searched "susan bartie" up on google, and received only 106 results, compared with say "richard dawkins", which had 4,620,000 results. delete this utter crap.
• spam- spam is against the law!

Now, it is interesting that these days even law schools would attempt to astroturf.

The word astroturf is described by Wikipedia as:

Astroturfing in American English is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising which seek to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf

This is a clear example of a breach of law by a University, which shows just how revolting our education system is.

I am also somewhat surprised, that of all people on the staff page (http://www.law.adelaide.edu.au/about/staff/), only three people have been promoted in this campaign. Seems to me like a feminist movement within the Law school.

"KEVIN Rudd had best keep a close eye on Deputy PM Julia Gillard. Anyone who watched question time last week could not have helped being struck by Gillard's relaxed and confident handling of the top job at the dispatch boxes. She was so self-assured and polished that you rather wished Kev08 would spend more time travelling. He is so studied and so addicted to using 100 words when 10 would do that you almost cringe when a question is put to him, knowing that the next 10 minutes of your life are going to be wasted."

D.J. McNicoll.

From the Tim Blair Blog, September 27, 2008

We’ve broken through the 10 billion tonne barrier:

Global carbon emissions are continuing to rise at alarming rates despite efforts by households and governments across the developed world to go green.

Official new figures show the rate of emissions is increasing at an alarming 3.5 per cent a year—exceeding the worst-case scenarios of the UN’s peak scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Despite years of effort to change our ways, the Global Carbon Project report shows that for the first time, humans are now emitting more than 10 billion tonnes of carbon annually.

And the emissions are accelerating, having already increased over the past eight years at four times the rate in the 1990s.

Just as well it isn’t having the slightest effect on the weather. Anyway, I blame Kevin Rudd:

(Art by Igor Saktor)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/go_go_go

"While Rudd has been quietly seeking solutions, Malcolm Turnbull has been noisily acting out his new schizophrenia as Opposition Leader. He advances responsible Turnbullesque policy on one hand, and defends populist ideas he inherited from Brendan Nelson on the other.

In his Nelson mode, Turnbull shamelessly spouts the nonsense that Rudd must rush home to solve problems here. Yet Turnbull knows full well that the biggest problem facing Australia is the crisis in the US, and that's exactly where Rudd should be."

Peter Hartcher. Could it be something to do with the dope Turnbull smoked in his misspent youth?

"Roll out the red carpet. It is believed Kevin and Therese Rudd will visit Australia soon."

Daily Telegraph reader Mick Millsom of Devenish, Victoria, comments on Kevin747.

Fielding, the Senator responsible for the amendments being defeated, has boldly declared he's saved a million or more families from an increase in private health insurance premiums. I cannot begin to explain the anger I feel that this sole Senator has stopped an important piece of legislation being passed. But I will try to explain how wrong the Senator's position is, even though it is being loudly supported by the Coalition Opposition.

1. The average income for most families is below $100,000 per annum. This means that there are a lot of families that rely on bulk billing, Medicare and hospital emergency wards for primary health care options as private health is generally too expensive once additional costs (excess) are included.
2. The levy is a punitive taxation measure to force Australians to take up private health care insurance. Essentially the health care system is being destroyed by the former government's ideological bent on privatisation and competition. There has always been a private health care option for Australians but now the system is being underwritten by our taxes. Public health care is meant to be an affordable, accessible and quality service which it is quickly deteriorating (and not due to the hard working men and women in our health care systems).
3. Working families would unnecessarily suffer the burden of higher insurance premiums, according to Fielding. Mr Flip Flop has been caught in his own rhetoric, just like every other stunt he's pulled since being elected in 2004. Working families, which are the vast majority of Australia's families, have suffered through regular increases in premiums since the introduction of the Medicare surcharge levy in 1997.
4. The Senator has punished a great number of families while they try to make ends meet for things like housing, food, and clothing. Now these families will be forced to forgo $500 from each tax return or take out private health insurance with ever increasing premiums, or simply go with out adequate health care.
5. A major source of problems with our health care systems is the chronic lack of funding for equipment, training, nurses, and doctors. The ever dwindling number of general practitioners in rural and regional Australia, on top of the ever dwindling number that bulk bill.
6. There is a chronic lack of community health centres as well as the exclusion of dental health care from the Medicare scheme.

Once you delve a little deeper behind Fielding's fatal garbage, he is revealed as being entirely ridiculous as a publicly elected representative. On more than a few occasions he has been the source of absurdity as he pushes his evangelical brand of populist politics.

Steve Fielding and Family First have again failed Australia's families.

"Kevin Rudd: The Kruddster, Prince Planet
Being Australia’s PM means the nicknames pile up. At the moment the preferred moniker is Prince Planet due to Rudd’s penchant for touring the globe. One day may make an historic visit to Australia."

Jack the Insider, in covering Kevin Rudd's current nicknames, neglects to add Kevin747. Here Jack is on other politicians:

Brendan Nelson: The Stud
Nothing to do with the fact that he used to wear a diamond stud in his ear. Nelson ascribed the nickname to himself while studying medicine at Flinders University. Clearly he was more popular then.

Malcolm Turnbull: Truffles
A man who went from rags to riches without changing post codes.

Philip Ruddock: The Un-Dead
A man of great wit and humour. A powerful orator and man of high principle. No, wait, I was thinking about someone else.

Warren Truss: The Laundromat
Is there any more boring place to be than a laundromat? Spend some time with Warren Truss and you decide.

Bob Brown: Sludge
What you get when you mix brown and green.

Colin Barnett: The Pensioner
Came from a retirement home and went to the Premier’s office in WA.

Alan Carpenter: The Unemployed
Came from the Premier’s office and went to a retirement home in WA.

David Bartlett: Short Pants
I thought young people got off the island by the time they reached 21 years of age.

Will Hodgman: Who?
Google his name and break the internet.