Last month I wrote:

The Public Media (print, TV, Radio) are giving our PM a tough time.  They are shaking negative opinion polls at him.  They are praising past PM Abbott who was deposed by Malcolm based on negative opinion polls. They are openly considering other alternatives.

Public Media has always done that sort of thing, but it's not working so well anymore.
Trump demonstrated it. So did Brexit.

Barnaby Joyce yesterday (1st December) had to stand for re-election.  If he had lost that seat, the LCP (Coalition) government lost it's majority.  This election was not just a test of Barnaby. It was a test for Malcolm.

Barnaby won with the largest swing for a mid term election. Ever.

And so? The Media?  Did they recognize the source of that victory?

Lots of obfuscation. "He had a good lawyer to explain to everyone it wasn't his fault." etc.

No credit to Malcolm. That just maybe even those who voted against Barnaby at the last election did not like the idea that Malcolm might fall.  And Shorten get in.

Hey Malcolm. Can you make huge cuts in the ABC?  I used to watch nothing else.  Out of habit I keep returning.

Most shows I just have to switch off.

I am discovering all these intelligent radio people, like Allan Jones.

And SBS now broadcasts unbiased news in English.


There is some friction between the Australian and the Chinese government.

The recent affirmation of John Alexander as a member of government for Bennelong is significant.

President Xi has taken control of China and instituted draconian reforms that reduce the liberty of the people by restricting information.  Most of our western politicians don't mind that in the slightest. (they would love to do it themselves)

However common Australians do not like it so much, and the Dastiari resignation and Alexander win is the proof.   That is because Bennelong has a significant Chinese population.


The Italians are on the ball.

Back in my youth (I am 75) there used to be jokes about girls who would detour to pass building sites to get whistled at.  It was part of their affirmation that they were desirable.

Now the workers would not dare.  A complaint would get them sacked.

At my age I am not into making passes. But if I were so inclined, I would make sure that I had a signed invitation.  Not that I am famous or powerful or rich enough to warrant complaints, so I would probably be safe.


Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital appears to be a first step.

The Palestinians think that they hold the upper hand. They (think that) they have a billion Muslims on their side.  That is why they will not do a fair deal.

The UN proposed (Resolution 303(IV in 1949?) that Jerusalem be made an international city, under the control of the UN.  The Israelis said YES. The Palestinians said NO.

Jerusalem consists of the ancient walled city and modern housing stretching East (Palestinian) and the Western city (Israelis}.

So a fair division (to me) is:
  • UN control of the walled city
  • Palestinian control of East Jerusalem.
  • Israeli control of W Jerusalem.
  • And the two state solution, with no "right of return"
  • although financial compensation for provable property loss should be offered.
I suspect Trump will continue to erode the Palestinian position until they see the futility of their stance.


With apologies to DPRK, but we in the west call your country North Korea.

So far as I am concerned, every country has a right to develop whatever weapons (Nuclear or Rockets or whatever) that it desires.

So long as it does not endanger neighbours (By developing e.g. a bug that was always fatal to humans with an invisible incubation period of six weeks.)

The record of those leaders (Hussein, Kaddafi) who have "done a deal" with the US is not good.  Trouble is, the deal only lasts for one administration, and then a Hillary cancels it.

Trump might find a way to ease tensions and the DPRK keep it's weapons.  I hope so.


What is the fuss about Russian intervention?

First. The morality.  Consider the following points.
  1. As a voter I want to know true information about the candidates on whom I will vote.
  2. I am less concerned about from where that information derives.  I am concerned that it is accurate.
  3. Nobody has challenged the accuracy of the allegation that Hillary had a personal email server and used it to store and send Federal top secret documents.
  4. So I think that information about Hillary's emails should have been published.
  5. There is a dispute about whether secret documents were illegally stored on her personal web server.  Having just been hacked I concur that she did not behave responsibly.
Second.  The story of the discovery seems to be:
  1. Australian diplomat Alexander Downer was advised in a drunken encounter by minor US presidential associate? Papadopolus that "the Russians" had dirt on Hillary.
  2. When questioned by the FBI, Papadopolus revealed his source to be Joseph Mifsud, an undistinguished Maltese professor whose only claim to fame was that he had attended the 2014 Valdai conference at which Putin spoke.
  3. There is no evidence that the Russians provided the information to Mifsud, or that the Russian government had any hand in hacking Hillary's Illegal mail server.
So what if Trump was told of an unconfirmed rumor by his aide Papadopolus?  What could he have done...

"Uh Hillary.  A minor Aide of mine heard a rumor from a third rate professor from Malta that the Russians knew of someone who has hacked your emails.."



mail comments to: