Dear Tom,

The response has been incredible. Over $120,000 raised in one weekend for our new ad on climate change featuring the return of John Howard.

If we can get to $160,000 we'll be able to buy every available regional market across Australia, and if we get to $200,000 we'll be able to purchase blanket coverage across the nation - and hit Rudd's woeful climate policy for six.

If you haven't seen it yet, it's not too late to be part of this! Check it out and chip in to make waves this summer:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SpotTheDifference

Our contacts in Canberra tell us this ad is pushing all the right buttons, but that we need to apply pressure in rural and regional areas. It's marginal seats in these areas that play most heavily on the minds of this Government when considering climate change.

A donation of $20, $50 or $100 can help this vital climate message reach every corner of the country. We've pencilled in new slots in Newcastle, Tamworth, the Gold Coast, Lismore, Taree, Coffs Harbour, Canberra, Wollongong, Albury, Shepparton, Ballarat, Bendigo, Gippsland, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Toowomba, Cairns, Bundaberg, Townsville, Mackay, Launceston and Hobart.

If we hit $160,000 they'll be ours, but the clock is ticking - we have only a few days to put this message on the lips of Australian families as they sit down to discuss the year that was. Can you chip in today?

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SpotTheDifference

It's moments like this when the GetUp movement is at it's best. Not so long ago there were literally only a handful of Australians who had the power and the money to air political TV ads. But together you and I can wield that power. Get behind this ad today and show Kevin Rudd that his meagre 5% climate targets just won't cut it.

If there's one match we must win next year - it's the battle to fight climate change. Help start us off on the right foot today by getting this message out to the nation.

Thanks for making this big,
The GetUp team

PS - If you missed yesterday's cricket, South Africa scored a surprise upset in the first test. This is going to be the most exciting summer cricket series in years and cricket ratings are going through the roof. Help put our ad on air when the whole nation will be watching.

__________________________

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.

Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000

Posted by editor at 4:51 PM EADT

Updated: Monday, 22 December 2008 4:57 PM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

As much as the PM Rudd and his government roll out education, shelter for the poor, and defence announcements (no increase in soldiers to Afghanistan) it is clear from today's broadsheet press that prominent opinion continues to address the flawed Emissions Trading Scheme. No doubt the global financial crisis alters both the rate of emissions and the Australian govt priorities in terms of preserving employment but that doesn't change the reality of an irresistible political pressure to effectively address climate change and the immovable object of heavy industry intransigence.

Here are a few articles today:

* [Fairfax] Sheehan: Rudd's posturing gives polluters green light.

* [The Australian, sledging the green movement and yet still on topic] Muddle-headed greens channelling Thoreau David Burchell Today's protesters see themselves as part of a noble tradition of civil disobedience, regardless of the issues.

A political discussion covering this can also be heard here:

* Saturday 20 December 2008 Political Panel Geoff Gallop Director, Graduate School of Government University of Sydney Dr Sharman Stone Member for the federal seat of Murray Shadow Minister, Immigration and Citizenship Max Walsh Deputy Chairman Dixon Associates

A perspective from business (including guy from my old firm Baker & McKenzie a long long time ago):

* Saturday 13 December 2008 The business of climate change As the UN Climate Change conference draws to a close, the Rudd government is expected to announce its emissions target for 2020 early next week. What will the emissions trading scheme planned for 2010 mean for business, and how is the global credit crunch affecting green investment?

Martijn Wilder Partner, Baker & McKenzie Responsible for the Australasian arm of the Firm's Climate Change and Emissions Trading Practice Andrew Grant Chief Executive, C02 Australia

Quality science discussions on the global warming issue can also be found on abc radio national here:

* Saturday 06 December 2008 [audio and transcript here] Solar variability and climate What do we know about the cycles of the Sun and what does that tell us about climate change and global warming? / Professor Marvin A. Geller Atmospheric Scientist Stony Brook University, New York.

[Prof Geller was brought out to Australia to address the National Conference of the Australian Institute of Physicists]

* Terrestrial Carbon Terrestrial carbon is found in trees, soil, and peat and the vast majority of terrestrial carbon emissions come from deforestation and the degradation of forests and peatlands in the tropics of developing nations.

Posted by editor at 3:35 PM EADT

Updated: Monday, 22 December 2008 4:41 PM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Whether by design or coincidence the Sunday press coverage of PM Rudd's 'white paper' on homelessness means his government sounds like Bob Hawke in 1990 making his famous and wrong claim 'no child will live in poverty' by from memory 10 years timeline. Echoes of the same egotistical assertions and hubris?

One recalls wearily that any government funding package sounds big over 12 years - in this case $6.1 billion on this social welfare policy as per page 1 Sydney SunHerald (Fairfax).

What we believe is going on, right or wrong, is that the Rudd Govt are piling on any number of potential PR announcements to offset and drown out the widespread condemnation of the emission trading scheme (ETS) policy. This was the most sensitive election related posture and will cause the most serious backlash. Both broadsheets here in Sydney - The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian - on Saturday led with the Govt's own policy architect Professor Ross Garnaut rejecting two major planks being unjustified bailouts to dirty industry, and a weak target setting a poor example to other countries. One only needs to recall that 193 other countries have similar or even smaller total emissions as Australia, and will see 5% as both pathetic, and a useful excuse too.

The great irony is that with security experts across the developed world agreeing that climate refugees will become the biggest concern in the future - imagine Shanghai or Bangladesh being swamped with tens of millions on the move - Rudd promising anything on homelessness by 2015 let alone 2020 is a tragic joke. Just last week some 70,000 PNG nationals were made homeless on the northern side of the country by big seas and king tides. That's a foretaste of the homelessness to come under dangerous climate change.

But still the Rudd Govt piles on seemingly more desperate or gimmicky PR. We notice the Naked Eye (Fairfax) yesterday column again with a "daisycutter theme" coming through. That is PM Rudd 'stealing' the limelight off Minister Penny Wong on the ETS. Of even more staff from his office and other ministerial offices bailing out as worn out cannon fodder.

It does seem that the history of politics is speeding up in this internet age. Rudd is already at the phase of NSW Premier Carr in 2003 after 8 years in government where his green credentials had turned biege, only to retire under force of devastating polls by 2005. And Bob Hawke in 1990 with his infamous and arrogant 'no child in poverty' speech after 7 years in power. Rudd has been in harness as PM for 12 months. And things are only getting harder, not easier like the climate. Just ask the insurance industry.

This is the Green Party MP Milne with some chapter and verse:

Saturday, 20th December 2008

Rudd Carbon Plan Unravelling: Urgent Review Needed

The Australian Greens say the growing discontent over the Government's
carbon trading scheme - including the Government's own advisor Professor
Ross Garnaut - now means it's imperative that an immediate review be
held of the scheme's targets and design.

Australian Greens Climate Spokesperson and Deputy Leader, Senator
Christine Milne, said today's blunt assessment by Prof. Garnaut
condemning compensation for big polluters as 'over the top', echoed
other damning assessments from economists, scientists and
environmentalists.
"The scheme is unravelling rapidly as the experts assess the detail and
find it to be environmentally irresponsible, economically inefficient
and actually disastrous for Australia."
"When the Prime Minister announced the scheme it was not only scientists
who were aghast but economists who couldn't understand why the
government would reward the biggest polluters with 'over the top'
compensation that will end up costing taxpayers unlimited amounts into
the future."

"Australians want to know why the government has decided that
multi-nationals like Rio Tinto and Blue Scope Steel deserve this level
of corporate welfare."

"They also want to know how Woodside's Don Veolte managed to persuade
the government to be so generous to the LNG industry when, as Prof.
Garnaut says, there appeared to be no clear principles or criteria
behind the decision."

"The whole point of an Emissions Trading Scheme is to reduce emissions
by putting a price on carbon to drive a change in consumer behaviour at
the lowest possible cost. But by giving away 97% of the funds in
compensation, the government has dampened the price signal."
"To drive a clean energy revolution we need not only to roll our
renewable energy but also to strengthen the existing grid, improve its
efficiency by making it an 'intelligent grid', and to extend it to areas
where geothermal, solar thermal, large solar arrays and wind, can be
located. Under the government's scheme there is no money to transform
the grid."
"Equally concerning is that the proposed cash compensation to households
will not be a sufficient driver to boost the manufacturing of renewable
energy and energy efficiency technologies, or to encourage the hundreds
of thousands of green-collar jobs needed for this transformation."

"This flawed scheme will instead lock-in the coal industry and lock-out
the renewable energy sector until well after 2020, when it is clear that
the government is pinning all its hopes on its pipe-dream of carbon
capture and storage."

"With the Climate Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation
joining the Greens in condemnation of the scheme, and with the growing
concern among economists, it is essential that the government admits
that it has got the scheme completely wrong and immediately review its
weak targets, and its shocking bias and generosity to the big
polluters."

Posted by editor at 6:09 AM EADT

Updated: Monday, 22 December 2008 6:57 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Picture: This image lifted from local ABC video feed played on most commercial and public television coverage yesterday in Sydney. It echoes the profound symbolism of shoes launched at President Bush by an Iraqi journalist 2 days ago (we say journalist because though a massive departure from protocol, control of Q&A in presidential press conferences are notoriously choreographed making his action fairly arguable or provoked). Profound echo here too because ex defence minister Brendan Nelson in Australia in 2007 noted it was 'a war for oil': Fossil fuel causing global warming. Now PM Rudd won't favour being positioned as the same as oil man George Bush Jnr (junior in so many ways). Sure it's only satire but the best satire can be very dangerous to a politician's reputation.

We noticed a disjunction this morning in the ABC local radio in their always interesting political and journalism interviews. We were motivated to offer this on the topic of the now fairly stale chestnut of traditional media tension with sunrise web based media:

Fowler [abce 4 Corners] and Ryle [Sydney Morning Herald] handwringing is justified no doubt.

Cameron's adjusted agnostic tone on the value of the change is also noted.

Disaggregation is the process of democracy which the internet in large part is about. It grows because democracy is so intoxicating.

A practical example from your cross to Kieran Gilbert at Sky: No one commented that the Education Paper is a Rudd Govt controlled timing. Gillard said on [ABC AM show earlier today] she wouldn't respond till Feb or March [2009]. Clearly it was released to guillotine (!) the deep reach of the protest against the weak emission targets: My media monitoring indicates the priority and wit given to the protest of the Greens for instance especially on commercial tv and front pages would have scared the federal govt. There was some real damage to 'green' ALP [brand] yesterday.

True The Oz front page today suggests traffic both ways as [so called balanced] 'Capt Reasonable' PM Rudd claims but [big media coverage has been] mostly adverse and pro Green Party. The Govt needed a bait and switch. Cue Education paper of no real policy bite as such. Unis want more money - derr.

The fact neither Cameron or Gilbert noted this obvious Govt media manipulation - and the fact both of you are sharp observers shows the systemic bias - dependent on govt funding (abc), or access (Gilbert) for your meal ticket. This cramps your ability and skill and why the 'consumers are increasingly doing it for themselves'.

No doubt there are bigger implications for society in all this from disaggregation but it's spilt milk really.

Here is the man throwing his shoe at the President. Not recommended for media practitioners - likely to end up dead.

The fact he got his second shoe off was an even bigger breach of security and a serious failure of the president's protection services. On the other hand it all ended innocently and Bush was right to treat it like free speech as per his visit to the Australian Parliament and taking Green Party MP protests. In fact the presidential shoe thrower as he will remain for all history now has probably done the security service a big favour exposing another loose end to sort out.

Posted by editor at 10:02 AM EADT

Updated: Wednesday, 17 December 2008 10:43 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Mood:  quizzical

As federal Climate Change Minister Wong here quietly sledges the notion of the Australian Greens seeking carbon neutrality by say 2050, it seems a big corporation with its local headquarters a stone's throw from the Sydney Opera House is also aiming for "neutrality". Only in Coca Cola's case it is the consumption of water for its drinks products.

So who is right to claim the concept of neutrality? The corporation but not the Greens. Or are both wrong? Or both right? It's very confusing Minister!

Here is a critic of Coca Cola in correspondence to SAM recently:

Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:09 PM

Subject: Coca-Cola's Latest Scam - Water Neutrality

Coca-Cola's Latest Scam - Water Neutrality
http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2008/neutrality.html
by Amit Srivastava
India Resource Center
November 25, 2008

The Coca-Cola company is up to its old tricks again.

The company, which is under fire for its mismanagement of water resources in India, has gone all out to manufacture an image of itself as a global leader in water conservation. Sections of Coca-Cola's website, for example, read like a proposal that a non-governmental organization (NGO) working on water issues may write.

Now, in an attempt to position itself as "aggressively" tackling the world's water problems, the Coca-Cola company has come up with a new Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative - water neutrality.

The company has already announced that it will become water neutral in India by the end of 2009 and that it has plans to do so in its global operations as well.

Sure, it all sounds good and who could object to water conservation measures in an increasingly water scarce world?

But just what does becoming water neutral mean?

In a concept paper on water neutrality developed by the Coca-Cola company, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, World Wildlife Fund and others in November 2007, it reads:

"In a strict sense, the term 'water neutral' is troublesome and even may be misleading. It is often possible to reduce a water footprint, but it is generally impossible to bring it down to zero."

I see. Troublesome and misleading.

The concept paper also notes:

"After having done everything that was technically possible and economically feasible, individuals, communities and businesses will always have a residual water footprint. In that sense, they can never become water neutral"

In other words, becoming water neutral is impossible.

And finally, the concept paper on water neutrality offers this:

"Alternative names to 'water neutral' that have been suggested include water offset, water stewardship, and water use reduction and reuse. However none of these other terms seem to have the same gravity or resonance (inspiration) with the media, officials or NGO's as the term neutrality. For pragmatic reasons it may therefore be attractive to use the term 'water neutral', but there is a definite need to be clear about precisely what it entails if reduction of water use to zero is not possible."

Just to be clear, we want to summarize what the concept paper on water neutrality has to say on the use of the term water neutrality.

It is pragmatic to use a troublesome and misleading (but attractive) term like water neutrality i?? which is impossible to achieve i?? because it resonates well with the media, officials and NGO's.

Welcome to Coca-Cola's world.

It doesn't really matter what the facts and reality may be. As long as it sounds good, no matter how misleading or troublesome the concept, they will market it to forge public opinion with the use of their mighty public relations apparatus.

The Coca-Cola company will be announcing its "water neutrality" goals later this week in London and in San Francisco on December 2, 2008.

Little Drops of Misery

The International Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable for its abuses in India has been frustrated with Coca-Cola's increased public relations, under the guise of Corporate Social Responsibility, to respond to the crisis that Coca-Cola has created in India.

Communities living around some of Coca-Cola's bottling plants in India are experiencing severe water shortages - due to Coca-Cola's extraction of water from the groundwater resource as well as pollution by the company's plants. Located primarily in rural areas, the hardest hit have been farmers who have seen significant declines in crop production as well as women who now have to walk longer to access potable water.

A study funded by Coca-Cola - which the campaign forced it to agree to - confirmed that Coca-Cola is a significant contributor to the water crises and one of its key recommendations is that Coca-Cola shut down its bottling plant - in Kala Dera in the state of Rajasthan - where the community has been campaigning against Coca-Cola.

The study - a damning indictment of Coca-Cola's water management practices in India - concluded that the Coca-Cola company had sited its bottling plants in India from strictly a "business continuity" perspective that has not taken the wider context into perspective. It also warned Coca-Cola of worsening water conditions around its bottling plants, found an alarming increase in pollution as one got closer to Coca-Cola bottling plants and faulted the company on pollution prevention measures, among others.

In typical fashion, the Coca-Cola company has chosen to ignore the findings of the study - which it paid for and even participated in - and is now insisting that shutting down the Kala Dera plant and leaving is not an option because the responsible thing to do is to stay and solve the problem because they are "problem solvers"!

Lies and Half-Truths- Coca-Cola's CSR

Last month, the Coca-Cola company released its 2007/2008 Sustainability Review, and surprisingly, critical issues facing the company's operations in India do not find mention in the review. Needless to say, the company gives itself high marks in its sustainability report.

We can understand that mentioning the company's atrocious record in India would not look good for a company that is on a fast track towards manufacturing a green image of itself. But surely a company cannot just choose to ignore the fiercest battleground it faces when it comes to measuring Coca-Cola's sustainability?

Evidently, if you are Coca-Cola, you can conveniently choose to omit the most critical issues facing the company's use - or abuse - of water. The sustainability report must look good, and facts do not matter.

One of Coca-Cola's champion projects in India to deflect attention away from the water crises it causes is rainwater harvesting, a traditional Indian practice. Although the company started operations in India in 1993, it only had four rainwater harvesting structures in 2001 - definitely not a priority for the company.

As the community-led campaign against Coca-Cola's water abuses spread around India, so did Coca-Cola's championing of rainwater harvesting. Today, the company claims to have over 200 rainwater harvesting structures.

Along with the massive publicity of their rainwater harvesting structures (which, incidentally, the Coca-Cola funded study found to be in "dilapidated" conditions), Coca-Cola also started making fantastical claims.

In Kala Dera, for example, the Coca-Cola company claims to recharge (through rainwater harvesting) five times the water they use from the groundwater resource. In other words, they claim that they put back fives times as much water they use back into the groundwater resource. Forget water neutral, this would be water positive!

Yet, while they make this claim in a letter to the University of Michigan, they also note that they do not have any metering mechanisms in place to measure how much water is being recharged.

If you don't have measuring devices in place to measure the recharge, how can one claim that they recharge five times the amount of water they use?

If you are Coca-Cola, you just make it up. And the University of Michigan officials never even bothered to clarify this point. It sure resonates well with the media, officials and NGOs. And evidently, it seems to work.

Last month, the Coca-Cola Company extended its partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to conserve freshwater river basins around the world, except India. Announced originally with much fanfare in Beijing in July 2007 as part of their Olympics presence, the partnership with the WWF is yet another attempt to deflect attention away from the real crises that the company creates in India. The Coca-Cola company regularly highlights the partnership when responding to the issues in India. While we welcome any initiatives on water conservation, it makes no difference to the communities in India who are reeling from water shortages - courtesy Coca-Cola.

Conserving freshwater river basins in China and Guatemala do absolutely nothing to impact the depleted groundwater in Kala Dera and other Coca-Cola bottling plants in India. Water issues are local issues.

The list of Coca-Cola's initiatives to mislead the public is long and is well documented by the India Resource Center. The company has repeatedly publicized the Golden Peacock Awards that it has received for "environmental excellence" in India, for example. What the company does not tell you is that Coca-Cola is the primary sponsor of the organization that gives out the awards.

Water Neutrality - A Scam

The Coca-Cola company is now embarking on their latest initiative to mislead the public - announcing its water neutrality goals.

Becoming water neutral is impossible, and Coca-Cola is very well aware of this. But matters like that have never stopped the company from making preposterous claims, however misleading and troublesome they may be.

What is surprising, however, is the complete lack of scrutiny that Coca-Cola is subject to by the corporate social responsibility community and the media. Allowing Coca-Cola to get away with such a disingenuous plan significantly weakens the core aims of corporate social responsibility as well as objective reporting and makes CSR nothing more than an extension of public relations for companies.

If the Coca-Cola company were serious about being a good corporate citizen, it is well advised to begin by meeting the key recommendations of the study it paid for, and shutting down its plant in Kala Dera would be a positive first step.

Coming up with misleading and absurd terms like water neutrality is not going to make the difficulties of the communities in India go away. We need genuine changes in the manner in which Coca-Cola does business in India, not public relations initiatives like water neutrality.

On December 2, 2008, the Coca-Cola company and other water intensive companies will be meeting in San Francisco to ostensibly outline strategies for sustainable use of water.

Coca-Cola will be leading the session on water neutrality.

The India Resource Center has joined with The Blue Planet Project, Council of Canadians, Food and Water Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network and a host of local groups to organize a counter-conference to highlight the greenwashing efforts by Coca-Cola and other companies such as Pepsico and Nestle Waters. http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2008/Waterconference.pdf

Amit Srivastava is the Coordinator of India Resource Center, an international campaigning organization based in San Francisco, USA.

Posted by editor at 12:21 PM EADT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 December 2008 12:57 PM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Colleague and role model Bob Walshe, author and environmentalist, now 85 years old sends on this speech read for him at the above function, attended by the Victorian Community Cabinet and local worthies in Ballarat 7th December 2008. Notice the typo in the first line of the local newspaper, 154th not 54th anniversary. Bob was present at the 100th anniversary as well as indicated below held at the Sydney Domain. This event probably should have been covered by the ABC in its Fora ABC2 and web based service, and maybe it was (?).

Posted by editor at 6:35 AM EADT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 December 2008 7:08 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Picture: Plenary of senior panel first morning of 3 day Solar Energy Conference 25 tp 28 November 2008 in Sydney. This blurry slide is data 4 years old and shows Australia at number 4 in per capita greenhouse gas emissions behind United States, Canada, Norway and just ahead of Falkland Islands with alot of belching sheep.

The Rudd Govt in Australia has just announced some kind of '5-15% target by 2020'. Like most people we don't really understand what that means: Is it 5% reduction on emissions level as at 2000 by 2020, regardless of population increase?

Why does Australian Industry Group rep Heather Ridout argue just now on ABC radio here that it means' reduction of emission by 1 in 5 per capita' and that '15% reduction means reduction of emissions by 1 in 3'. Yes we are confused about it all. But we will digest the diverse analysis over the next few days and get back to the reader on that.

Picture: PV is photo voltaic solar energy for running household gadgets compared with solar thermal which is for water heating. An example of each is pictured below, solar thermal being the cylindrical one.

What we do find very probitive is this risposte to the old chestnut about Australia being relatively insignificant at only 1.22% (or is it 1.4%) of global emissions:

Dr Monica Oliphant (shown immediately above at 3rd from left, seated on the main senior panel day 1 Sydney Solar Conference Nov 2008) daughter in law of famous scientist Sir Mark Oliphant (both on Wikipedia) is President of the International Solar Energy Society - and an Australian by the sounds of her accent (?).

She told a big Solar conference 2 weeks ago here in Sydney that: Australia is ahead of 193 other countries with the same or less emissions [when measured as a country as compared to per capita above where we are fourth in 2004]. We trail another 15 countries which are bigger than us in emissions. So our 1.22% is a very big symbol to those 193 other mostly undeveloped countries on what we do. All up the 194 including Australia make up 30% of total emissions in the global budget.

Posted by editor at 5:45 PM EADT

Updated: Monday, 15 December 2008 7:24 PM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Author's general introductory note

This is not a well packaged story. It?s a contemporaneous traverse of the Sunday television free to air political talkies indicating the agenda of Establishment interests: Better to know ones rivals and allies in Big Politics and Big Media.

For actual transcripts and/or video feeds go to the programme web sites quoted including Riley Diary on 7. And note transcripts don?t really give you the image content value.

Media backgrounders

* Sad story of Oz mountaineer who died on Mt Cook, Dr from Perth. This is the real Mt Cook tragedy compared with the ridiculous trekker/Mt Sealy Range story a few months back, about 5 to 10 km from Mt Cook, mis-described.

* Leading story about Mr Madoff fraud of $50 BILLION alleged in USA founder/chair NASDAQ. Based on pyramid selling called Ponzi scheme. Real head shaking stuff as per Syriana soliloquy .... "corruption"

* SAM's editor has discovered blogging tool software which is a free download for our server. This means no more clunky frustrated willful blindness at typos and poor sentence construction. Also faster upload of edits and pics and spellchecking (like 'spell checking'). It also means ominiously much easier understanding of html advertising inserts from Google Adsense and other companies that do that kind of thing. Sorry folks. We are likely to be blighted by adverts. But as minimal as financially viable.

10 Meet the Press: 8- 8-30 am

No show, summer break

Meet The Press - Watch Political Video Online - Channel TEN.

Riley Diary 7, from 8.30am

In recess for summer holidays. Sunday Sunrise last show of the year.

http://www.seven.com.au/sunrise/weekend

9 Sunday newshour Laurie Oakes interview 8.40 am

Leading story about Mr Madoff fraud of $50 BILLION alleged in USA founder/chair NASDAQ. Based on pyramid selling called Ponzi scheme. Real head shaking stuff as per Syriana soliloquy ... "corruption"

Ross Greenwood does round up of the GFC in impacting way re corporates and currency here etc. Good story, should go back to it.

Kevin Wilde does interview with newish Premier Rees. First 100 days. Ministerial embarrassments. Not Joan Kirner he reckons. Pushes greenest state in Australia and smartest. Presents well [compared with disgrace of guns everywhere front page Sunday Telegraph ? all about courting the old `One Nation? vote.

Laurie Oakes with Opposition Tony Abbott. Intro adverse for re "very bad" newspoll. Abbott has to wrangle LO who is getting cranky (and with Ramsey bailing the notable crusty) with the Opposition and quite chummy with the Rudd Govt.

Joyce as maverick. Says he?s a decent bloke and learnt his lesson to work as a team.

Costello waits as potential leader ..."sick of this stuff as I am" as per column in Daily Telegraph yesterday. Joke? Says in the main game or not, his talent shouldn't be on back bench. Peter's time never came and happens in politics. Offers high praise for 11 years service.

Re Joyce ? mix ups last sitting night ? was "one crazy night". Learning experience.

Confused about unfair dismissal in demise of Work Choices compared to leader Turnbull. "No no no" exhorts TA all a matter of careful consideration ? maybe.

LO tone gets testy on 3 occasions plus. Real dentist drilling session here.

...........................

Great story follow up train ride in South America re The Devil's Nose in Ecuador 9000 feet, [air thins at about 6000?]. Tourists on roof, wave to children and children wave too. Lovely. Rotting wooden slats. Rails are 100 years old. A lot of tracks. Not dangerous. Only goes at 20 to 30 km. Train derails. Well practised routine. Great story.

3 train derailments. Buses in Egypt just as bad, philosophical attitude. Train staff are frustrated with lack of investment too.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/oakes

Insiders 2: 9 to 10am

Run Talkie show ? Q&A

"Debating all the big issues are former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer; author David Marr (Fairfax); columnist Angela Shanahan (News Corp); Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner; and Young Labor's Rose Jackson." Rose is typically wordy and a bit shallow, daughter of Liz Jackson, but very telegenic.

Lindsay Tanner "I'm not really religious, I'm Anglican" and "I'm not really spiritual ....[I'm in the Labor Party ... obsessed with power and spoils of same over principle!?]".

Home page is http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/

Inside Business, 2 at 10am

In summer recess ? check this for a chunky wrap from Alan Kohler from last week

2008 an extraodinary year in finance

Alan Kohler gives a final summary of what happened in finance in 2008.

Refer http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/

Posted by editor at 8:55 AM EADT

Updated: Sunday, 14 December 2008 9:35 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

We thought to share this idea in frugal times. Ever had damn comfortable once expensive highly cushioned runners that are also getting so tatty it's embarrassing? A new pair of really good shock absorbers would be Australian $150 probably. We do especially with pedal stirrups on our bike which greatly increase efficiency but tend to abraid your footwear.

Truth is ours were already in pretty rough shape recycled via the washing machine and disinfectant powers of the sun out of a builder's dumpster.

But they are ugly even while doing our old football left hip alot of good on those morning walks etc. So we thought about painting them. Just like those days as a kid before mass produced cheap runners with the white sponge thing on the old fashioned sandshoes for cricket or tennis. White, flat as a pancake jarring little numbers on young joints.

Well we couldn't find any water based white paint in the shed, nor the yellow paint used on a friend's kitchen. It was either green or blue. Remove laces beforehand. No paint on the insides at all either. This really should be a before and after kind of picture story but too late. Actually we found some white water based paint so this is an After 1 and After 2 story:

The paint does seem to bond quite okay with the leather (?), vinyl upper and spongy rubber upper. It took 3 coats, quick drying between each coat, to really get a regular finish. No cracking of the surface so far. We do love water based paint compared to the other.

Anyway it postpones a $150 expenditure. We might try orange next time.

Posted by editor at 5:42 AM EADT

Updated: Tuesday, 16 December 2008 7:21 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

We posted last week on various speculations of PR management of the big Dick Pratt criminal case over price fixing.

We left out Dick Pratt's reported ill health. Serious ill health in fact. We have added a postscript today as follows:

Postscript #1 13 December 2008

i??There is an extra aspect to the big media coverage that we didn't appreciate at the time of writing this above. We feel obliged both for fairness and balance to add: Either geniunely or again as a PR gambit or both, billionaire Mr Pratt has been presented as suffering prostrate cancer and having a spine operation as well related to the treatment. This appeared on crikey ezine about 2 weeks back we recall, and again in the press early this week - that we read late this week:

9 December 2008 Ill health throws doubt on Dick Pratt case | The Australian

All of this is in the balance along with Alan Bond getting an easier run because of his health when he crashed and went to gaol for 4 years. We will post separately on this transcript from Denton's Enough Rope interview with Bond.

Here's a tough appraisal of Dick Pratt:

8 Oct 2008 Crikey - Pratt 2: proof that the rich are indeed different - Pratt ...

12 Dec 2008 Richard Pratt denied cartel scam to John Howard | The Australian

Now we add some very juicy exchanges with Andrew Denton by another (once) billionaire Alan Bond who suffered ill health in a court case. We know enough as a lawyer that has never been sued for defamation to ever suggest that Pratt can be considered in anyway the same as Alan Bond. As far as we know Dick Pratt is really a very sick man and should be treated compassionately for that reason. Over to Alan Bond and Andrew Denton here (when it might be said Enough Rope really kicked butt):

Andrew Denton: Whenever I mention to people, "I'm interviewing Alan Bond," they say, "Oh, has he got his memory back?" Because they remember you from those court cases in 1994 where you were apparently very, very sick. How sick were you?

Alan Bond: I was very, very ill. I was in a very deep state of depression and I just couldn't remember anything. I mean, I couldn't even remember two hours before. It wouldi??just wenti??it just went blank. And I had an infection of the kidneys and I was in no position to actually attend anything.

Andrew Denton: The court had you examined by some neurological experts and they found differently, didn't they? They found that they could see noi??that they could see some physical problems but they could see no indication of memory loss.

Alan Bond: Do you know, that's, umi??not right either. Um, but that doesn't surprise me. That's not in the book, buti??thei??

Andrew Denton: Is it possible that things happened that weren't in the book, Alan?

Alan Bond: Well, I could fill five books. I could fill five books.

Andrew Denton: I'm sure you could.

Alan Bond: So is it practicali??how far you go into everything? But what you're talking about now was in a different time in the sense that I'd had open-heart surgery and I had some embolisms and the embolisms showed on them that there was somei?? I had some minori??strokes during the period of that open-heart surgery. And you could go to 10 heart specialists and they'd tell you in 10% of cases little air bubbles get ini??

Andrew Denton: But what I'm talking about wasn't a different time, this was when your doctors told the court you were too sick to testify. They had you examined and they found you weren't.

Alan Bond: That's not true either. They didn't. The court never did an examination.

Andrew Denton: Two neurological experts?

Alan Bond: They did not do an examination. They examinedi??they examined the X-rays. I was never given an examination other than by our own independent doci??independent doctor. I was very ill. I mean, the reality is if anybody's been in deep depression, you can attest to iti??i?? you either were or you weren't. And I really was in a very, very difficult position. Um, you know, it was life-threatening, really. So I can only leave it at that.

Andrew Denton: I don't reckon most people believe you. Why do you think that is?

Alan Bond: Well, I think a lot of people do believe it, quite frankly.

Andrew Denton: It's just that I'm going on the reactioni?? It's always the same. "Has he got his memory back?"

Alan Bond: That's a standard joke around town. "Got your memory back?" But the reality is that I was, and I'd had enormous pressure and the system wasi??er, had stopped. I was on heavy medication. Um, I wasi??I had been in a, umi??in with a psychologist and I'd been hospitalised for a week prior to this and I was in a pretty difficult position, quite frankly.

Andrew Denton: Let's talk about something else that's not in the book. I'm sorry about this, but the receiver that was taking you to court at this time, when you were too ill to remember, subpoenaed the phone records from the hotel you were staying at during the court case. And according to the phone records, you would be in the stand, not being able to remember much, if anything, then you'd go home and you'd make calls to Switzerland, USA, UK, India, Pakistan, Singapore, also 24 calls to a businessman in Australia with whom you were setting up a gold deal, that you went on to send faxes, 65 international calls, including one to a phone box at Zurich railway station, six to the Zurich Hilton and one to a number Swiss authorities identified as the Zuger Kantonalbank. How could that have happened?

Alan Bond: You know, when you're at the point of a nervous breakdown, um, you do silly things. You ring everybody and you don't even know what you're doing.

Andrew Denton: You were just ringing the Swiss bank toi??"I'm whooooo!"

Alan Bond: I never made a call to a Swiss bank. I mean, that's ridiculous to say that, 'cause it's not true. But the bottom line of it is, though, that I made lots of calls, but it's like a person's having a nervous breakdowni??i?? you're hyperactive, you're beingi??I was on huge medication. And you come out of the court, you can hardly stand, you get back to the hotel, and then your mind is just racing, and you just ring everybody that you can think of and you're doing calls and you're making silly conversations. And that's what occurred.

Andrew Denton: So it was a cry for help?

Alan Bond: Um, it was on the verge of a nervous breakdown to such an extent that, um, there was no logic to what I was doing. There was just no logic at all.

Andrew Denton: Later that year you took the stand again. You actually collapsed on the first day in court. Do you remember that?

Alan Bond: Um, I was very ill.

Andrew Denton: Mm.

Alan Bond: Umi??

Andrew Denton: You actually had to physically excuse yourself.

Alan Bond: Well, that wasi??that happened a couple of times, actually, but, eri??

Andrew Denton: Because that same day you collapsed in court, three businessmen on St Bees Island in the Whitsundays saw you, and they came over to Perth and gave secret testimony, and the testimony was that that very weekend, 48 hours beforehand, you'd been with them, snorkelling and walking and conducting business deals, and were in rude good health. Now, how do we explain that?

Alan Bond: Well, that's not true. I wasn't in good health at all. I'd gone to the Whii?? I'd gone to St Bees Island to try and have a rest. And the mind was still very active. It was like, umi?? It was like a hyperactive situation. You can't sleep, you're constantly awake, and you're physically exhausted and you talk about things. Um, and we were talking about all sorts of things that when you look back on it now, they just didn't make any sense at all.

Andrew Denton: Should you have been up for a Logie, really, Alan?

Alan Bond: Umi?? Er, no, I should have had a lot more compassion. And people who've had depression that will watch this program will understand, and those who haven't had it, er, hope they never do get it.

Andrew Denton: It's a hideous disease and I couldn't agree with that more. In the booki??i?? in this book, which I've read, you, umi??

Alan Bond: Partially read it. Perhaps you didn't understand it.

Andrew Denton: You're right. There were a whole lot of things I didn't understand. And that's why it's great we have a chance to chat. In the book, you suggest that there was a conspiracy to get you to court, to bring you down, that people in power wanted to see you brought down.

Alan Bond: Yes.

Posted by editor at 5:34 AM EADT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink