Goodbye trees

I wasn't expecting much from the video, but watching trees disappear vertically underwater makes for a very peculiar look:



Incidentally, is it just me, or does the number of sinkhole stories in the media seem much higher now than it ever used to be? 

What a load of absolute bollocks

Gillard led a contest of 'crude political head-banging', says Abbott

Sorry, folks, but this confirms it.

Abbott is not smart and has no self awareness.

There has been nothing in the history of Australian modern politics to compare to the personal slagging off and rumour mongering that Julia Gillard suffered at the hand of the right wing media such as Alan Jones, Michael Smith, Larry Pickering (and Andrew Bolt, who would gleefully point people to those last two sites even if he wouldn't repeat it himself.)

Tony Abbott did make snide comments about Gillard's single woman status for years (a minor list is collected here) and the Gillard "misogyny speech" was red hot because he had just echoed Alan Jones' highly offensive "died of shame" comment made after her father had died. 

Now Tony confirms that he felt really sorry for himself after that speech.

I don't care that he was a Rhodes scholar.    He's just not smart.

Update:  Wendy Harmer's take on this is pretty good too, likening him to a bully boy who just can't resist going back for one last punch, when he's already won (vis a vis Gillard).    I don't know that nastiness is the best explanation, though.  I tend to lean more to mere gormlessness. 

This analysis of him at Independent Australia (admittedly an over the top site in many respects) also seems pretty accurate:

It’s as if he can’t be bothered. Or it’s as if he has missed the past four decades entirely. Though, presumably he wasn’t alone in this. Presumably he is in sync with an entire demographic that has not seen the need to pull back the curtain and only reluctantly ever answers the door.

He really does think, when confronted with the issue of the recognition of the rights of gays, that it’s a matter of fashion.

There’s a certain laziness here. It represents the approach that says that some things aren’t worth noticing, learning, respecting. They’re just not important. He is comfortable where he is and really can’t be bothered to take on new information, or understand new dynamics.

I would add - he appears to show an interest in changing mainly when the need presents itself directly to him in his family - thus more (allegedly) understanding of gay issue because his sister went into a lesbian relationship.  He realises the importance of parental leave to women because his daughters are now of child bearing age.  He's on board with fertility treatment (against Catholic teaching, incidentally) because he knows Christopher Pyne and his chief of staff have had it.  Yet again, this indicates to me a significant degree of shallowness and/or opportunism that I find unacceptable in anyone aspiring to be PM.

From the Friday night video archives

I just stumbled across this at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub (a blog I still don't quite understand thematically):  a segment from the old Groucho Marx quiz show featuring a very young, and very tall, Ray Bradbury.


This is apparently from 1955, and Ray is rattling off all of his most famous books as already being written.  I would have thought they came a bit later - in the late 50's to mid 60's.  Obviously my mental chronology of his career is wrong.   I also had no idea he was such a strong looking bloke.  My image of him is as being grey haired with thick glasses, and not physically imposing at all. 

A peppery tale

Tableside pepper grinding at restaurants: Why servers started wielding pepper mills in the early 20th century.

I would have thought Slate would have covered this before; but evidently not.

It's actually quite a good read that gives a bit of background about the evolution of restaurants between the 19th century and now.

Changing expectations

English views of marriage: From here to eternity | The Economist

From a review of a new book looking back at changing views of marriage in England.  The author reckons that high expectations really kicked in during the 1950's.  These paragraphs are interesting:

The growing idea that marriage was all about feeling alarmed many. The Bishop of Sheffield thought that the institution would buckle under the load of emotional and sexual expectation. The Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce of the early 1950s feared “an undue emphasis on the overriding importance of a satisfactory sex relationship”. They were not wrong. By 1959 the Archbishop of Canterbury was thundering against the “tide of adultery” sweeping the land. Ms Langhamer convincingly argues that the sexual permissiveness of the 1960s and the subsequent decline in marriage were less a reaction to the so-called stability of the 1950s than a product of the decade’s instability.

She sees the 1920s and 1930s as a time of pragmatism, of slow courtships and modest expectations. The question was less whether a couple were in love than whether she could housekeep and he could earn. Ms Langhamer concedes that the trends she traces are winding and unsteady—that caution was urged in the 1960s, just as emotional intimacy was sought in the 1920s. Still, she finds that after the devastation of the first world war, steadiness was valued above all. The woman who, in 1930, wished simply to meet someone “clean, and if not good-looking, at least pleasant”, with £5 a week, was not untypical.

What a waste of research effort

New research suggests 'female sperm' and 'male eggs' possible - Science - News - The Independent

As a person who thinks that IVF research has been pretty much an inappropriate allocation of medical resources, I can't fathom why it is thought useful to do this research for the tiny number of humans who find they would want to go absolute extremes to reproduce. 

There are probably thousands of biology research subjects into how cells work that are of more potential benefit to humanity than this.

Defending Kevin

Kevin Rudd does have a huge burden of well known examples of past poor treatment of his minions to overcome.  For years, I noted he had a fake public persona, according to many, many accounts.

And it is entirely possible that anyone who saw how he interacted with the TV make up woman the other night might have thought "that's a bit much Kevin, you *%#@."

But honestly, should the press really run with an uncorroborated complaint of  being "treated badly" which contains no details at all?

She didn't say at all how he was rude.  It could have been anything from heated swearing to ignoring an attempt at polite chit chat to saying "hurry up, and don't talk to me while I prepare mentally."  Yet it was run all day by not only the Murdoch press, but Fairfax and on the ABC too.

On the Drum, they wondered why he didn't just apologise.  Apologise for what?  We have no idea what he actually did.

OK, so perhaps its Kevin just reaping the consequences of past bad behaviour.   It still seems to me to be disreputable of the media to spend so much time on it during a campaign without knowing how he allegedly "treated her badly".

Update:  I see that Andrew Bolt, who ran with the Rudd rudeness story at great, great length yesterday, is now complaining that the story was not covered enough by Fairfax!    Apart from the fact that it did run on Fairfax websites all day, he apparently can't see that his comparison with the story of Abbott and an incident from his university days is just a little different in this way- we knew exactly what Abbott was alleged to have done.  (And, incidentally, Bolt's own employer recently had to apologise in Court for running Kroger's claim that the complainant had a history of lying and was a nutter.  Did Bolt ever note that at his blog?  He certainly hasn't updated his original post giving publicity to Kroger's claim.   Just like he has never updated corrections to Anthony Watt's wrong claim about how his project would show the temperature record was wrongly attributed to CO2.  Bolt is a propagandist who hardly ever bothers noting corrections to his past errors - and when a court confirms they are errors, he whines bitterly about that too.)

Update 2:  what a sleazy, sleazy gossip monger Bolt has become.   Running a post today about a band aid on a the hand of Rudd, and parsing Rudd's comment about it as if there is a scandal being hidden (the suggestion obviously being that he hurt himself hitting something in a rage.)

Even a two faced politician doesn't deserve groundless crap like that.

Update 3:  the first account I have heard that gives any detail of what is supposed to have happened in the make up room:

Whether Rudd deserved the critique is another question. Accounts of those who were in the room are consistent with Rudd's - that he said ''hello'' and ''goodbye'' to Fontana and virtually nothing in between as he prepared for the most important 60 minutes of the campaign to that point, reading intently from last-minute briefing notes before taking the stage. ''I was in the zone,'' is how he put it.

Murdoch's journalists not what they used to be

I have been wondering how the intense anti-Labor editorial and headline slant of Murdoch's papers has been sitting with some of his senior journalists.   Their reaction certainly seems a far cry from what went on in 1975, when they went on strike:

A letter written by News Limited journalists and presented to management outlines clearly some of the concerns they had resulting in their strike action on 8th-10 December 1975, the last week of the election campaign.

…the deliberate and careless slanting of headlines, seemingly blatant imbalance in news presentation, political censorship and, more occasionally, distortion of copy from senior specialist journalists, the political management of news and features, the stifling of dissident and even palatably impartial opinion in the papers’ columns…

~ Denis Cryle; ‘Murdoch’s Flagship: 25 years of The Australian newspaper’; MUP (2008)

Is the only difference that Murdoch's editors have given up on actually altering senior journalist's column's to give a different slant?  Come on, you weaklings - speak up for yourselves.

There's money in underpants

Well, there you go.  Just yesterday, as I noticed the pre-Father's Day blitz of underwear advertisements at the local shopping centre,  I wondered to myself "how much money does Bonds make from men's underwear?"

Quite a lot, seems to be the answer:

A SURGE in demand for Bonds underwear has helped clothing group Pacific Brands post its first full year profit since 2010. 
 
But the maker of work clothes, bed linen and shoes is bracing for a tough financial year ahead as consumer confidence remains weak.

Pacific Brands' $73.8 million net profit in the year to June 30 is a turnaround from a $450.7 million loss in fiscal 2012.

The underwear division drove much of the result, with earnings rising to $78.1 million, compared with a loss of $330.3 million the previous year.

Undergarment sales revenue also rose by five per cent, to $453.9 million, as wholesale, in-store and online sales for Bonds underwear accelerated in the second half of fiscal 2013.

So, undergarment sales for just one company are approaching half a billion dollars?   In which market, I wonder?

In a different shopping centre, I was annoyed by several poster ads for (I think) Bic women's razors, which featured only a close up frontal shot of a woman's panties (with woman inside them.)  The byline was something like this (I am going by memory, because I can't find an image of it on the net):  "Showered, shaved and ready to go, all before he's even found his keys."

Whatever the exact line was, the point of the ad was obviously to encourage women to have a daily pubic shave, just like their blokes do to their face.

I am not exactly outraged by this current hairless fashion per se, but there is something about razor companies actually encouraging it for profit that irritates me.   Perhaps because it is obvious that the fashion is often having a poor effect on women's self image, 'cos they get to see clearly shapes and folds which would normally be somewhat obscured by hair.  And besides, the ad is surely guilty of that old term "objectifying" a women's (hairless) torso in a way that I think everyone should be uncomfortable with in a public space like a shopping mall.

And while we are in the general groin-al area, can the papers please stop running headlines such as this:

Lily Patchett explains why she allowed student newspaper Honi Soit to publish a photo of her vagina

The fact that a University newspaper was intending to publish a front page featuring 18 vulva images (which is, technically, more correct than saying they were photos of vaginas) is surely not that dramatic an issue is it?   University newspapers have been routinely "in your face" for the mere sake of it for the last 40 years, haven't they?, and while I think the idea is not in great taste, I find it less objectionable in the context of who would likely see it and the effect on attitudes to women than decades of page 3 girlie photos in Murdoch owners papers in England.

The motive for it was actually on pretty solid feminist grounds:

The editors of Sydney University's Honi Soit publication said they published the graphic edition in order to make a statement about how vaginas have become "artificially sexualised ... or stigmatised".

Yes, it was a response to the effect of the likes of the Bic poster which I had a problem with.

Of course, it goes too far, as University papers are wont to do (the people who run them are immature, let's face it).  Surely the point could just have readily been made by referring people to a website or two which feature "average" vulva for women's reassurance without them being on the street.  (There was a website set up specifically for this purpose in the US recently; I read about it at Slate or Salon.)  Or the photos could simply have been inside the paper.

But still, as for the mainstream media, it should be treated as a bit of a non story, rather than taking it as an opportunity to write a half dozen headlines referencing genitalia. 

Saul sounds skeptical

Coalition has $30b gap in promises: leading economist Saul Eslake

He predicts that the Coalition will ultimately adopt all of Labor's proposed budget savings measures, except for ending the tax break for cars bought through salary sacrifice.

Even so, Mr Eslake estimates, the Coalition has so far committed to $28.4 billion of tax cuts and $14.8 billion on new spending in the next four years, a total of $43.25 billion. But he estimates the nine savings measures the Coalition has announced so far would save only $13.44 billion over the same period.

"By our reckoning, over the remainder of the election campaign, the Coalition needs to announce additional savings measures totally in the vicinity of $30 billion over the four years to 2016-17 in order to be able credibly to claim that it would produce better bottom line outcomes than those projected (by Treasury and the Department of Finance), he said."

"That is a substantial sum, although it is considerably less than the $70 billion 'black hole' suggested by the government."

Clive and Mal had a chat

Mad, rich Clive is probably telling the truth about this, I reckon.

Mal Brough's role in the Slipper saga was clearly dodgy from the start, and he lied to journalists about it.  As Bernard Keane wrote:

Twice now Brough has been revealed as having misled the public over his role in the affair. The first time was in early May when, in the aftermath of Fairfax’s Jessica Wright outing him as having met with Ashby, he arranged a tell-all explanation to The Australian, complete with photo shoot with his wife, to explain he’d met with Ashby three times and had only spoken to a small number of trusted legal advisers about the matter, and not anyone else in the Coalition or LNP.

That marked a change from his position of just a few days earlier, that claims he was aware of the legal action beforehand were “nonsense”.

We now know, courtesy of yesterday’s document release by the Federal Court, that he was misleading the public again with his claims to The Oz, and was a key player in the co-ordination of what appears to have been a campaign to damage Slipper, trying to arrange a job within the LNP for another disaffected Slipper staffer, Karen Doane. Ashby is also alleged to have emailed Brough with confidential material from Slipper’s diary.

Self inflicted wounds

There's no doubt, I think, that the issue of the funding and costs of the Tony Abbott endorsed Paid Parental Leave plan is hurting the Coalition.  Maybe not "election losing hurt", but certainly a significant negative for the campaign.   And it would appear entirely self inflicted, because the claimed supporting costing done by the Parliamentary Budget Office is presumably sitting in the box in Liberal Party HQ marked "do not open less than 48 hours before election day."

The evidence that it is hurting:  everyone in the Coalition is showing clear annoyance and irritation at persistent questioning about it.  Tony Abbott last night, Joe Hockey during the day yesterday, and this morning the heavily South African accented Mathias Cormann on Radio National.

Cormann amuses me - he is like the perfect antidote to the annoyance I am sure many Australians have felt over the years towards Scottish or English accented unionists, some of whom have gone on to political careers (hello, Doug Cameron.)   They have often provoked the reaction that they were importing their aggro, working class warfare from the UK to a country that didn't want it.  

Well, fortunately for Labor, we now have a Coalition spokesperson who comes with an accent which, especially when they get agitated, I think people associate with sentiments ranging from "I am born to rule and you aren't" to "release the hounds - we must have law and order." 

And to make it funnier - I see that he is actually from Belgium and only sounds South African because that's where he learnt English. he, um, sounds South African. (To me.  And clearly when I went looking for a reason why he sounded that way, I read the Wiki link too quickly!)

As far as I am concerned, he should be on TV and the radio more often...

But back to the Tony Abbott's parental leave:  there must be many, many teeth grinding about this policy amongst Coalition strategists - it is wholly of Abbott's creation, never been widely supported within the party, and he has been so persistent about it for so long, it is politically impossible for him to back down now.

A perfect, and completely unnecessary, self inflicted wound.

Update:  Delicious.  Despite Henry Ergas' attempt to put lipstick on this pig of a policy, Judith Sloan calls the scheme "crazy", and Sinclair's inevitable gut reaction against anything involving money being handed to a government means he's been helping the bad PR for it as well.
 

For people who can't work out the basics

Gosh.  Slate finds it appropriate to have a video that argues that slicing a tomato is much better with a serrated knife than a straight edge one.  

I think I might have worked that out successfully by the age of 14.

Anyway, perhaps I have noted this before here, but Victorinox steak knives are a fantastic general purpose knife in the kitchen, and they slice tomatoes very well.

But I must thank Slate for one kitchen idea that I never knew, and it does work brilliantly:  how to boil eggs right.  (You don't really need the ice bath at the end, though.) 

Record rains watch, and old men and climate change

Record rains flood large tracts of China, Russia, the Philippines 

My theory that large, more frequent disastrous floods from more intense rainfall may be the earliest, clear sign that global warming is a highly disruptive and economically harmful thing might be getting some more support via these floods.

It's been a funny, mixed  summer for global warming:  some record heat in parts of China, a very hot, record breaking, run in Japan, and Alaska and other parts of the North.  I think the Australian winter has been pretty warm on a country wide scale, and it's been a bad snow season.   Yet it also seems to have been wet and cool in part of the US, and weather conditions are such that the Arctic ice cap itself (while well down on long term average) will not get close to record summer minimums. 

Those are my impressions anyway.

As for how this is reported:  Rupert Murdoch is over 80, and is now free of a liberal wife and her friends, so of course he no longer sounds at all convinced of climate change being a problem.  

On the age issue, it's also funny to drop in on that paper retirement village for conservatives known as Quadrant. It runs very, very heavily against climate change now, but look at the line up of writers who get space to go "ha, as if!"   Geoffrey Luck (former ABC journalist) - appears to be age 82.   Someone called Tony Thomas - never heard of him before, but appears to be an author and some Googling indicated he was born in 1940 - age 73 this year.  I can't spot an age for retired right wing economist Des Moore, but here's a photo: 

What else can I say, but "typical".

Ian Plimer is 67, a relative spring chicken amongst the climate deniers who have written in Quadrant.  I haven't yet spotted the age of fellow retired geologist Bob Carter, but he looks of the same vintage.

Tom Quirk's name turns up on Quadrant as a climate commentator; he's on the IPA but I haven't found his age yet either.  Time for another photo then:

Not exactly youthful.

I just find it remarkable how age specific active climate change denialism is.

Sure, there are younger folk (and women, such as Quadrant's own Phillipa Martyr, who hasn't yet cracked 50, but is an ex smoker with a cat who has offered to date Rupert Murdoch) who are happy to tell the world that they think it's all crap; but to be a really active club participant in spreading the word, it helps enormously to be over 65 and require prostate checks.

Not politics

This review in the TLS of a new book about the history of the attitude towards death in Britain has a couple of interesting suggestions.

The first:  that the loss of the idea of Purgatory helps explain English affinity for ghost stories about lost souls haunting the earth:

Watkins paints a vivid picture, in the first part of his book, of a medieval way of life in which the “Church Suffering” (as the souls in Purgatory were called) formed part of an economic community which straddled the realms of the living and the dead. The endowment of monasteries, churches, almshouses, gifts of land were bequeathments by the dying to those who followed after. Golden chalices, jewelled reliquaries, stained-glass windows, wood-carvings: all the splendour of the medieval Church was underwritten by the dead, with wider consequences for the economy as a whole. Focusing closely on the dealings of John Baret, a fifteenth-century merchant from Bury St Edmunds, Watkins shows how businesslike he was in approaching eternity, settling earthly debts, endowing monuments, buying masses in advance to promote his soul’s salvation. If the lack of spirituality is striking, so, too, is the unquestioning assumption of a continuity between this existence and the next.

An unscriptural amendment to the Christian tradition, Purgatory was ripe for abolition. Yet, as a psychological support for striving Christians, it had made sense and its loss left ordinary people bereft. It is no surprise that its phantom should have stalked British society from that time on. To some extent, folklore filled the gap – songs and stories of wild wastes which had to be traversed by wayfaring souls on their way to the afterlife; there were tales of ghosts and what we would now call poltergeists. Watkins rejects the idea that such traditions were a sort of “strange Catholic survival” – yet they surely stemmed from some deep anxiety. Justification by faith may sound a soft option, but the faith required is the mountain-moving sort: how many, after all, could seriously hope to be saved?

 The other suggestion, novel to me, is that Spiritualism, when it arrived, felt "modern":

There was nothing much respectable about the Welsh doctor-druid William Price, yet it was he who effectively brought about the legalization of cremation in 1884. In doing so, suggests Watkins, he carried to its logical conclusion both the demystification of the human body which had begun with the rise of dissection (albeit in the face of fierce popular resistance), and the detaching of the life of the individual from that of the community which had begun with the replacement of the churchyard by the cemetery. Yet it was to be a self-consciously progressive, scientifically minded set which brought the dead back into the everyday existence of the living with the craze for spiritualism from the 1850s. Watkins makes the point that, with all their various knockings and tappings, the spirits’ communications seemed as modern as Morse code. 

Ultimately, spiritualism can be seen as an aspect of a general secularization which saw the imaginative hold of the afterlife weakening: “the other world had thinned”, Watkins concludes. Quite how and why this happened isn’t clear. While scientific rationalism must have played its part and immigration made new perspectives available, we’re finally reduced to some version of Virginia Woolf’s mischievous suggestion that “On or about December, 1910, human nature changed”.

 Update:  on that second point, I have noted here before how the explanation for where heaven can exist has changed with increasingly sophisticated scientific ideas, so that (for example) the belief that it was just  beyond the dome of the sky was replaced by it being in a higher dimension which we could not perceive from our 3 D "flatland" perspective.  But I wouldn't have thought that Spiritualism per se felt "modern" when it first arrived.  There are, however, cases where Spiritualism has specifically gone into science-y explanations.  Apart from talk of spirits living at different "vibrations" (an idea that seems almost as old as the Fox sisters), in the Scole experiments in the 1990's, I recall that there was much talk of how the device used in the sittings was constructed via instructions from spirit scientists on the other side as to how to build a good quality "receiver". It's a wonder that, as far as I know, we never hear of spirit communications that talk about quantum science and the multiverse.  (The skeptical explanation, of course, would be that mediums simply aren't that interested in the topic and don't read enough about it for their subconscious to regurgitate it during "communications".  But the idea does get a lot of publicity in the popular media now, so it's a bit curious that it doesn't turn up.)

Good luck, losers

What a time for a Shooter's Party to be running candidates for an election...

The tragic random thrill killing of a young Australian in America has the Australian tabloids talking (with justification) about "the madness of American gun culture,"* and Tony Abbott already (even before the shooting) had a specific policy out about cracking down on illegal imports of guns.

So good luck, wannabe gun law reformers of Australia.  

And boo hoo to reader IT, wannabe Texas Ranger for Perth.

*  Just lucky that it would appear Rupert's not a gun fan, I suppose.

Possibly the funniest thing Rupert has ever said

So, Rupert Murdoch has tweeted:

Conviction politicians hard to find anywhere. Australia's Tony Abbott rare exception. Opponent Rudd all over the place convincing nobody.

Yes, Rupert.  Sure Rupert. You've never really read Bernard Keane's clever 2011 history of Tony Abbott and climate change, have you?   I'll reproduce just part of it:

Tony Abbott: OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth,  the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.
Tony Abbott: I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.
Tony Abbott: The argument is absolute crap.
Tony Abbott. We believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.
Tony Abbott: There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.
Tony Abbott: I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that’s I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.
Tony Abbott: I think there are all sorts of ways of paying for this that don’t involve a great big new tax that we will live with forever.
Tony Abbott: There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.

Update:   further "conviction politics" from Tony, only in May this year:

The letter, signed by Mr Abbott, states that he had been briefed by shadow special minister of state Bronwyn Bishop about the agreement, negotiated between former special minister of state Gary Gray, Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane, and the ALP national secretary George Wright.
"I am satisfied with the agreement reached and indicate the Coalition's intention to support the legislation and to deal with it, as requested, before the end of the sittings," the letter states.

However, today Mr Abbott explained that he changed his mind after discussions with his colleagues.

 Update 2:  yet more conviction:

 TONY ABBOTT (archive footage, July 22, 2002): Voluntary paid maternity leave: yes; compulsory paid maternity leave: over this Government's dead body, frankly. It just won't happen.

First it was lead pipes, now it's copper...

Copper may play key role in Alzheimer's Disease - latimes.com

It's funny how metals in water pipes never seem to be a good idea.

Then again, plastic pipes probably secrete hormone affecting chemicals that are drying up our vital bodily fluids and shrinking genitalia.

I also have quietly dismissed my wife using a filter jug for most of her drinking water.  Now I am not so sure.

Anyway, go read the article: it's quite interesting

Why people don't like politics

Treasurers' debate: either intellectually dishonest or no intellect

From Michael Pascoe's pretty accurate take on last night's Q&A debate between Hockey and Bowen:

But ultimately it was the same old routine, leaving the voter with the same old quandary: is it a matter of intellectual dishonesty or an absence of intellect?

Neither Bowen nor Hockey could or was prepared to level with the audience on the nation's looming taxation demands, a failure highlighted by both sides running away from improving the GST. Labor ran further and faster than the Liberals on that score, but the Liberal performance over any “big new tax” other than their own and perpetuating an illusion of a lower tax future has been at least as shameful.

The Coalition has been wildly successful in flogging the government debt horse and Hockey showed no inclination to dismount, never mind that the beast is only one-fifth equine and four-fifths canard. Chris Bowen attempted and failed, like his predecessor, to put the deficit issue in perspective. The pink batts have stuck.

And that was the core of the problem on display last night: a government incapable of standing on the relative success of its fiscal big picture thanks to the focus on failures in detail and looking after some select union mates; an opposition that's so successful in beating up the government's shortcomings that it hasn't had to go beyond sweeping generalisations and the Magic Pudding aspects of Hockeynomics.

Both have finished up abandoning principles and squawking “me too” when the other seems to have a policy that's a vote winner – the Coalition on Gonski, Labor on something as loony as a Northern Territory company tax haven.

Direct Action dismissed, and ignored

At least Fairfax is making an effort to deal with an important election issue.

All the dirt on carbon is a pretty good explanation of the issues with both Labor's and the Coalition's CO2 cutting plans.  

In this Factchecker article, they look at the recent claim by the Climate Institute that Direct Action must at least cost several billion more than claimed to reach its target.  The assumptions made in the Institute's analysis do indeed appear very conservative (that is, looking at the most optimistic take possible on the Coalition's plans) and it still comes up short.

And at the SMH, at least, the website is noting aspects of the latest leak of the next IPCC report.

Meanwhile, at the news.com.au website, the most popular story is "man inserts fork into penis".   Good job, Rupert...