Rudd Govt. endorses UN Declaration on indigenous rights

Bollocks to that.

Here's Janet Albrechsen's take on it.

I agree with comment writer Ivan at 5:11am who says:

Fine let them govern themselves with their own laws, education and so on but also let them fund their own welfare.

Janet Albrechtsen - Stop bailing out the irresponsible 1/3/09

About the uninsured.

Read the comments, I've just noticed the second one, by an Andrew at 2:42pm.

You get home insurace to safeguard against leaving the stove on and burning (only) your house down, or to protect against burgulars, not bushfires that kill 300 people.

What kind of twit thinks this way? Using this logic your car insurance won't cover you if the accident is not your fault, or only if the car is stolen. Good grief.

Janet Albrechsen and ungracious winners 26/1/09 - Update

Here.

I haven't read the comments at all yet, but imagine that they're full of the usual left-thinking whiners.

Update:
Oh, you just gotta read the comments...

Lachlan
Mon 26 Jan 09 (02:11pm) I do find it sad that Indigenous people consider it “Invasion Day”, but if that’s the way they truly feel about it, then why should Mick Dodson shy away from saying it? It’s in the interests of inclusiveness to make these opinions heard. Perhaps then we can find some better way to celebrate Australia day.
Ask most indigenous people what they really want from our policymakers - many of them will say first and foremost that after decades of mistreatment and neglect, they simply want to be listened to. So lets not be so quick to poo poo what he says.
I think Mick Dodson is a very worthy recipient of this award, based on his lifetime of achievements.

The last sentence... I'm rolling around on the floor with laughter. "Based on his lifetime of achievements." Bugger me, I don't believe it.

Janet Albrechtsen, today - read it.

YOU know that something is amiss with rational judgment when economics Nobel laureate Amartya Sen describes events surrounding Barack Obama’s arrival as US President as “turning an exceptional human being into almost the kind of godhead that he has become”.

Sober analysts must be standing aside, wondering about the role of emotion in politics and its implications for critical scrutiny of Obama’s presidency. But many other observers have metaphorically cast aside their crutches and accepted that Obama has made them whole again.

To be sure, none of this is new. During Obama’s campaign, Hollywood types swooned at the sight of a good-looking, left-wing, articulate man of colour. And the media was equally seduced.

With a human rights charter, what's trumps?

When do my state given human rights trump yours?

This time in Canada it’s a cracker of a story about a preacher man who has had 26 wives and more than 106 children. Clearly a sucker for punishment, 52-year-old Winston Blackmore, from the aptly named town of Bountiful in British Columbia, was arrested last Wednesday amid much media hoopla and charged with breaching BC’s criminal prohibition on polygamy.

Not taking a backward step, Blackmore says his fundamentalist Mormon beliefs on polygamy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the charter overrides BC’s criminal code.

More from Janet Albrechtsen.

Janet Albrechtsen with a juicy column

A sip...

THE Rudd Government has some heavy holiday reading for punters this summer. Last week John Faulkner released his electoral reform green paper, which asks some weighty questions about how best to reform our democracy from the improper influence of political donations. However, genuine reform will require the Labor Party to do its own house cleaning: kicking its addiction to union money and its reliance on union election campaigns. Anything less is window-dressing, at best. And, at worst, reforms that address concerns about the practices of pro-business parties while leaving untouched the abuses favoured by the unions will simply skew democracy in Labor’s favour. One-sided reforms will actually damage democracy.

The whole column here.

"Tubby custards should pay more to fly..."

Janet Albrechsen makes a point about obese air travellers.

After returning home from overseas recently, I raised this idea with a group of friends. They nodded in furious agreement. They were sick of having to subsidise the bad lifestyle choices of so many obese people. While some obesity may be caused by medical conditions or genetic makeup, most is caused by the simple equation of too much food and too little exercise. It’s bad enough that obesity is causing a blowout of costs within our health system. “Why should we also have to subsidise the poor lifestyle choices of the obese when we fly?” asked my friends. I agreed.

Then something interesting happened. A couple of friends said this: “But, of course, you can’t write about ‘fat’ people. It’s too judgmental.” At least, suggested one friend, call then “tubby custards” instead of using the “f” word.

Surely, I wondered aloud, making rational judgements was not a bad thing for a society? Perhaps there would be fewer tubby custards and therefore less strain on our health system if we were more willing as a society to make judgements about patently bad lifestyle choices like overeating.

Similarly, the fear of hurting someone’s feelings about their self-inflicted weight problem should give way to some rational thought when it comes to flying. As airlines the world over have been getting tougher on imposing baggage weight limits and charging mightily for excess luggage, it makes sense they start taking a closer look at their passengers.

more

She has a point. But where do you draw the line at what is going to attract a higher charge? What weight will be the limit? What about someone who is just naturally large?

What about someone who is thin? Will they be able to pay less?

Will we not be able to buy our tickets on-line any more because we must be weighed before we travel?

Will we have to arrive at the airport four hours before the flight for safety and chubby checks?

If airlines were to charge more for fat people then, in all fairness, they should reduce the charge for slim people. You will no longer have to pay full price for a child over, what is it now, twelve? And full child fare for a toddler in a seat?

I don't think it will happen.
***
I travelled on a bus from Melbourne to Sydney and had the aisle seat. The passenger beside me was sleeping like a baby, very comfortably with her feet stretched out on my side and her head resting on my shoulder. Great. I'd rather fly, a shorter time of discomfort. She wasn't fat, just very tall (at least 6 feet).
***
Oh, and the last thing someone dieting needs, particularly a woman, is people who are friends* or workmates adding their advice when they are watching what they eat (or even have announced that they'll be going on a diet). I have a friend who decided to start a diet. She mentioned it at work. Immediately one of her "friends" made the remark that she hoped that exercise was going to form part of the diet. Many fat people know they're fat, and they know exactly what they need to do to lose weight. They don't need to be told, or nagged, or advised, and they certainly don't need supposed helpful friends (or acquaintances) giving them advice.

*I'd tell them to mind their own bloody business.

Janet Albrechtsen - Labor subsidising Labor

and what a surprise is that?

Though I'da called it Federal Taxpayers subsidising incompetent state Labor.

However, thinking a little longer on the subject I'd call it Howard Legacy subsidising Labor.