Rudd wins!  Harry Potter for PM!!!  

Of course there's a slim chance we may not win next year.  In that case Jules will be Australia's first Labor PM this century, if the way Labor goes through leaders is anything to go by. . .  In the meantime she should get Shadow Treasurer.  



See how cool she is?  She wears a suit to the beach!!  

As for Beazley. . .


He's enjoying Karl Rove's stand up act.  Apparently he's holding a press conference this afternoon.  I wonder if he'll go for good. . .

Is it just me or is he totally looking down her shirt?  Even adjusting his glasses to do so!  Now that's what I look for in a politician.

Rudd said the pair offered "fresh ideas, a fresh vision and a bucket load of energy".  Well compared to Kim Beazley an empty bucket has a bucket load of energy. . .

Well thank God for that Mr Rumsfeld otherwise Iraq would be in real trouble!  


"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate ... necessarily accurate ... it might also not be inaccurate, but I mean ... I'm disinclined to mislead anyone." 

"The message is that there are known knowns - there are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we do not know we don't know. And each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns." 

"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past - I think the past was not predictable when it started." 

"It's an enormous country - you know, it's bigger than Texas! Or as big, I guess - I haven't looked lately." 

"I also know that stating what might be preferable, er, is simply stating what might be preferable." 

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly." 

"The statement I made is sound as a rock ... [laughter] ... I didn't say Iraq!" 

Reporter: "Mr Secretary, what do you think of the situation in Georgia?"
Rumsfeld: "Who else had their hand up?"

"The construct I would suggest would be, um, what are the benefits - what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting - against the moon - would be that no-one could say that you acted. They would say, 'Isn't that good - you didn't do anything against the moon'. The other side of the coin of not acting against the moon, in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you then suffered a serious loss, and you're sorry after that's over. And in weighing the things, you would have to make a judgement ... or net ... do you think you are acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterised - X numbers of people dying, innocent people, and it's that kind of a evaluation one would have to make." 

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead." 

"I believe what I said yesterday ... I don't know what I said, er, but I know what I think, and ... well, I assume it's what I said"

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  It is basically saying the same thing in a different way.  Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

You can listen here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/bh/rumsfeld.shtml 

This is gold: http://www.humorisdead.com/rumsfeld/ 

So five years on from 9/11 do we have a better understanding of terrorism and in particular suicide bombers?  If knowledge is power do we have the power to prevent terrrorist attacks from taking place?  Yes + yet obviously no...

Is it necessary to conduct further research into the matter to collect data on organisations + activities that threaten us?  Would such knowledge be relevant to our protection?  Not according to the walking cadaver our Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.  

Flinders University sociologist Riaz Hassan was given an $829,000 Australian Research Council grant for his terrorist research, which proposed to interview leaders + members of terrorist organisations as well as families affected by terrorism.  Ruddock warned him such research could breach new terror laws.  So Hassan will modify his grant objectives + will now only talk to academics + secondary sources.  

It is an offence to associate with terrorists but surely there is a difference between interviewing someone + associating with them?  

You Are Jean Grey

Although your fate is often unknown, you always seem to survive (even after death). Your mind is your greatest weapon, literally! Powers: telepathy and telekinesis, the ability to project thoughts into the mind of others, communication with animals

From laughing so much. Who knew Peter Costello had such fantastic comic timing and such an awesome deadpan delivery??

Tomorrow's budget will offer a $250 a year extension of the Family Tax Benefit to reward families for having a third child. That's roughly $5 a week! To raise a child! Its just too funny!!

This budget is going to be a hoot!

Won't somebody stop me from thinking
From thinking all the time, about everything
Oh, somebody, from thinking all the time
So deeply, so bleakly, so bleakly all the time
About everything (Who I am, how I ever got here?)
Somebody stop me, from thinking
From thinking all the time, so bleakly, so bleakly
So bleakly all the time

Unless that would mean turning into one of those sheep like Australian's who agree with Peter Costello and John Howard when they say that tinkering with the Family Tax Benefit system is the same as tax cuts and is therefore tax reform or who are satisfied with Brendan Nelson's non-explanation regarding the death of Private Jake Kovco?  Then no thank you.

Electronics multi-millionaire Gary Johnston spent about $250,000 putting large ads in major newspapers on Anzac Day begging Australians to have more babies. I suppose in a way the Anzacs were fighting for our right to procreate but it doesn't seem right to me to invoke the Anzac spirit in this sort of advertising campaign. That's not my major quarrel with the campaign though.

Its all very well for a multi-millionaire to suggest people should have more kids. He can afford it. If I was a multi-millionaire I would consider thinking about having kids because I would have no financial concern in doing so. However there would remain the small matter of the mental and emotional wellbeing of a child with my genes in my care. And the even smaller matter of finding someone I would be willing to procreate with in the first place!

In the ad Mr Johnston states, "Whatever the child [you end up having] may be ­a plumber, hairdresser, pilot or brain surgeon ­ it doesn't really matter." What about my son the psychopath or my daughter, Mummy's little mass murderer who finally snapped after years of being pushed to achieve her mother's lifelong dream??

I can't deny that population growth is slowing, well I could but I'd be wrong. The current birth rate is 1.76 per fertile female and to maintain our current population this needs to go up to 2.1. I presume I'm a fertile female, I don't know for sure, and I'm definitely not ready. I'm not ruling it out completely but its not on my to do list either. It just seems to me that a more logical way to address the issue would be to look at the root causes. Why aren't people having as many kids and why are there so many unwanted pregnancies?

I think financial security is a major factor but also people realise being a parent is the hardest and most important job in the world and hey maybe we're not qualified! I also think now more than ever people don't just want to do it, they want to do it right. The better educated and more intelligent among us are more likely to make a conscious decision not to have children or to only have one. These are the very people who should be encouraged to populate our country and the world. We should be focussing on quality not quantity.

Anyway how do you have 2.1 children? If I were to get married and have 1 kid could I count my husband as the other 1.1??