Doctor, You're in Trouble

Goodness gracious me, but are we in trouble with the elevation we have given to Doctors. We all need good doctors from birth until death and we give credence to what they say and do, but the parlous state of many of those who have made their very handsome living in the biz is a worry. Many are directly and deliberately responsible for killing  little people before those little ones are even born and many through their errors kill-off those who could otherwise be saved when they go to those edifices of modern life, the Hospitals.

Her smile just might be the best medicine.

But we were given some low-down today on that most modern of phenomena, the TV doctor.  Medicine has become entertainment and comedy, and some of it is not funny. OK, some is and I would prefer Dr Eliot Reid sitting beside my bed than Dr Phil.

Zac and pals on Scrubs is a scriptwriter's joy but what is almost hysterical is the fact that many medical students see medical dramas as 'trade training'. 

TV drama scrubs up well for students

PATIENTS will be hoping it's not a case of life imitating art when it comes to a new study showing student doctors are addicted to racy medical dramas such as House, Scrubs and Grey's Anatomy.

There are also concerns this appetite for screen drama could be teaching them bad habits, a new Australian study shows.

 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/tv-drama-scrubs-up-well-for-students/story-fn6bfkm6-1226106270041?nk=1dc4d9f3f2a05effc85fce79fb2efc8a-1468030642

The University of Western Sydney's study of almost 400 medical students revealed 94 per cent were regular watchers of medical TV shows.

Most wanted to emulate "McDreamy", played by heart-throb Patrick Dempsey, or his no-nonsense sidekick Miranda Bailey in Grey's Anatomy.

TV Doc gets her kit off for the cameras.
"Here is my backbone, er...somewhere".

Blonde bombshell immunologist Dr Allison Cameron and straight talking oncologist Dr James Wilson were the favourites on rival show House.

Most undergraduates thought the shows depicted medical professionals positively, showing they were caring and compassionate, responsible, honest and respectful.

But when it came to relying on the shows as a source of information, most rated TV medical dramas well behind medical school.

"However, this finding is at odds with the students' high consumption of these shows, recall of ethical issues portrayed and beliefs about the professionalism on the shows," the authors said.

"It may be that students do not realise the extent to which they are influenced by medical programs, even in subtle ways."

The study, published in BMC Medical Education, suggested that rather than ignoring the influence of TV shows they could actually be incorporated into medical school.

It is almost as bad as young military troops watching war films with the usual 'celulloid heroes' doing things that no real soldier would even comtemplate.Then we have the 'medical experts' pontificating and 'educating' but we have that 'little knowledge' that can do more harm than good to deal with.

Television medical experts are not all created equal

Every television station has their own physician pundit commenting on medical news.

But with some many different fields of medicine, how can a single physician claim to be an expert on every health topic?

 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/03/television-medical-experts-created-equal.html

Surgeon Jeffrey Parks takes issue with ABC News’ recent coverage on the tragic death of Senator John Murtha. Richard Bessler, a pediatrician who works at the CDC, was the on camera expert commenting on the surgical complication.

In analyzing the pundit, Dr. Parks noted “you can tell that he looked at a human atlas and saw that the colon seems to be pretty close to the gallbladder,” and, “his hypothesis [was] detached from any semblance of statistical likelihood.”

Being a television medical expert means more than looking good and having a charismatic demeanor. 

Getting facts straight needs to count for something as well.

It gets worse.

We have imported pseudo-medical-science served up by 'good-looking' chaps and earnest young women gabbling sheer garbage with a straight face. Much of it to sell their own products or services.

Experts Say Half The Advice On Dr. Oz And The Doctors Is Wrong Or Lacks Evidence

"The Dr. Oz Show" and "The Doctors" have average daily audiences of 2.9 million and 2.3 million, respectively. This gives the show hosts a huge amount of influence regarding medical information that gets disseminated to the American public. But how much of what these charismatic hosts discuss is actually sound medical advice? 

For the first time, a team of researchers has systematically analyzed the claims made on these popular shows, assessing their credibility. The research was led by Christina Korownyk of the University of Alberta's Department of Family Medicine, and the paper was published in The BMJ. 

 http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/how-reliable-are-tv-doctors/

Dr. Mehmet Oz came under fire earlier this year after he admitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance that all of his claims might not be all that they are cracked up to be. However, the full extent of exactly which claims were particularly problematic were not assessed.

Korownyk's team recorded over 70 episodes each of "The Dr. Oz Show" and "The Doctors," and randomly selected 40 of each to analyze for accuracy and integrity of claims. 

The shows were recorded in 2013, spanning from January to May. Recording the shows allowed the researchers to create an accurate transcript of the claims that were actually released to the public. On average, each show contained three or four topics, with four or five medical recommendations given for each. If the hosts themselves did not provide the advice, it was most likely given by an approved guest on the show.

The advice given on the shows was discussed and weighed by a team of researchers to reduce any individual bias that might occur in the physicians who co-authored the study. The results weren't fantastic, as only about 54% of the claims on both shows were backed up by peer-reviewed evidence.

When looking at the shows individually, there was evidence to support 46% of the claims made on the "Dr. Oz Show." Approximately 15% of the claims made on the show were contrary to what has been reported in scientific literature. There was no evidence to support or reject 49% of the claims made on the show. "The Doctors" had slightly better results, with 63% of the claims supported by scientific evidence. About 14% of the claims on the show are contradicted by evidence, and there is no evidence for or against 24% of the show's claims.

While there is evidence to support some of the claims made on the show, these statistics indicate that their recommendations should not be taken before consulting a personal physician. A family physician would understand an individual's unique medical history and could identify potential drug interactions associated with the supplement or dietary changes advocated on the TV show.

So we have one lot of experts not at all happy with another lot of experts who get more TV exposure and go direct to your 'apps'. But do not let a cynical old Tavern Keeper persuade you. 

Here in Oz we are far more serious. Aren't we? Hmmmmm. We have our fair share of medical and science programs that have that air of authority. But not all is as it seems.

Dr Maryanne Demasi

We were a little taken aback by one of our talking heads, and a pretty one at that, getting whacked. Shoba Rao told us:

ABC show’s Catalyst presenter Dr Maryanne suspended after review of ‘Wi-Fried’ story on Wi-Fi

A CONTROVERSIAL ABC program about the health effects of Wi-Fi has led to a presenter being suspended, after it breached impartiality standards.

ABC presenter Dr Maryanne Demasi from the popular science program Catalyst has been suspended until September this year, after a review of the episode titled “Wi-Fried” was conducted by the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA) Unit.

 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/entertainment/television/abc-shows-catalyst-presenter-dr-maryanne-suspended-after-review-of-wifried-story-on-wifi/news-story/30a4fe3d27262fc9b67268c0209118dc?nk=1dc4d9f3f2a05effc85fce79fb2efc8a-1468029437

Adelaide-born Dr Demasi completed a doctorate in medical research at the University of Adelaide and worked for a decade as research scientist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

She has also worked as an adviser to the South Australian Government’s Minister for Science and Information Economy.

The “Wi-Fried” episode was broadcast in February this year and contained information about the safety of wireless devices such as mobile phones.

In a statement released by the ABC, the investigation was initiated after the ABC received complaints from viewers about the episode. The ABC informed readers of its findings after the show aired on Tuesday night.

The A&CA found the episode breached the ABC’s editorial policies standards on accuracy and impartiality. “The A&CA Report found several inaccuracies within the program that had favoured the unorthodox view that mobile phones and Wi-Fi caused health impacts including brain tumours,” the ABC’s statement said.

“ABC TV is reviewing the strategy and direction for Catalyst with a view to strengthening this very important and popular program.

“Further, ABC TV is addressing these issues directly with the program makers and has advised the reporter, Dr Maryanne Demasi, that her on-air editorial assignments will be on hold until the review is completed in September 2016.”

ABC Director of Television, Richard Finlayson said the investigation had been thorough.  “Catalyst is a highly successful and respected science program that explores issues of enormous interest to many Australians. There is no doubt the investigation of risks posed by widespread wireless devices is an important story but we believe greater care should have been taken in presenting complex and multiple points of view,” he said.

The finding comes just two years after a separate investigation was launched into a Catalyst program about the use of cholesterol-reducing medications.

“ABC TV takes responsibility for the broader decision-making process that resulted in the program going to air and acknowledges this is the second significant breach for the program in two years,” the ABC stated.

“The ABC accepts the findings and acknowledges that errors were made in the preparation and ultimate approval of the program.”

The “Wi-Fried” program will now be removed from the Catalyst website.

Information about A&CA’s findings will be added to the Catalyst website, and the A&CA’s investigation and findings are on the ABC Corrections page.

What Dr Phil would make of an on-stage interrogation of Dr Demasi I don't know but the 'Prof', JJ, spoke to this: 

The woman should have known better. There must have been some personal reason for the BS.  The effect of electromagnetic radiation on health has been a big boogeyman for many years but the contrary evidence is huge. A scare that a few alarmists are trying to keep alive is that the radiation from your mobile phone will give you brain cancer.  Yet from the early days of mobile phones until now there has been no upsurge in brain cancer.  Now that mobiles are very widely used, we should be swimming in brain cancer cases by now.  But we are not. High or low levels of mobile phone use and the resultant radiation makes no difference. 

It's all just attention-seekers big-noting themselves.

Hmmmm. I can but agree. I can but point to far more too. 

The ABC can, when it tries, provide quite fine programs but seems to be besotted with Doctors. And not just medical ones. There we can always find the 'climate change' Drs. The Flannerys et al, a whole clinic-full of the charlatans all taking a taxpayer-funded fee for crap. Maybe another conversation in the Tavern's bars might occur.

But perhaps they might take Dr Phil's dad's advice being as he didn't.

My professional advice? Don't believe everything someone tells you, especially when they wear a lab coat and talk about 'practicing'.

Pax

A Gentleman's Residence

Many men these days eschew marriage. They 'go their own way', according to a popular men's movement, as many have done since time immemorial. Not for them a house and home fit for a wife and children with all the daily chaos and life and feminised accoutrements and comforts (pleasant as they may be). 

Adventurous men always left such a home to sail the seas or discover new lands, though as married men they did, in the main, leave the wherewithall for living to the family and provided for them while away.  He was prepared to undergo hardship. The 'modern' man rarely does that these days.  Leave he may - or rather be ejected - and all his possession taken.  He has the hardship aplenty. Besides, there are few places left to discover and sailing the seas is to be anchored to rules and regulations, permits and licence fees. Odysseus could not be found today and his Penelope would be out clubbing.

A Southern Gentleman

The Chinese man is hard-pressed even to find a wife and is restricted to one sprog when he does. Some 100 million such lads have little hope and must look, as does his western chums, for a place of his own: a new paradigm. And there are lessons from eras previous that he can take with him.

Is this you?

I would suggest that he 'aspire'. First to be a Gentleman. Most men can be a gentleman with some modest effort. 

Next, to aquire a Gentleman's Residence. 


Especially if he is Chinese as I, for one, do not relish the ides of so many young fellows on the loose all over the place and behaving in an ungentlemanly manner.

Being a Gentleman is a State of Mind that is clear to all.  If you are without the knowledge of just what a gentleman is I suggest you steer well clear of articles that describe all that he must have and be. Simply find one and observe. And yes, they are hard to find so seek in places where Gentlemen are likely to be found.

I was, m'self, a Gentlemen, albeit briefly. Yes, even Kings and Knights had beginnings which were not quite so exhaulted. It was as per an Act of Parliament (The War Act, if you must know) which dubbed me a Military 'Officer and Gentleman'. 

It was a dark and marked day that our democratic representatives decided to make women officers who by virtue of distinct lack of vir could not be gentlemen so the title was dropped. The very Act was amended. A disgrace ! 

A 'young' man might be foolish enough to think that being a gentleman is 'old fashioned.' It is a foolish though, albeit true. It is of a different era. But a chap makes his own place and his own time. As I said it is a State of Mind which includes far more than a rolex watch and a smart suit. It is 'a Refined Masculine Human Spirit'. Independent. Self reliant. Attributes honed, Polished. And yes, I said Spiritual.  It does not sit still, unless reading or listening or waiting on game, but 'aspires'. And comes with a Pipe.

Now, to his residence. 

It may take a while to realise the full glory of a chap's Residence but an aim in mind is always useful. 

This for instance is very like mine at present. Yes, mine is just a bit smaller, as previously mentioned in the Tavern when I moved quarters, but how a chap 'sees' his pad matters.  And I am a hermit. 

A large place with land, solitude and water nearby is always a good start. Most young chaps could not possibly afford such a residence but were say 10 to club together it may be in reach.  Monks used to do that and still do. It would need to have plenty of rooms.  Such would enable guests from time to time but the place should not have neighbours apt to drop in. In fact no neighbours for at least a mile all around.

Privacy is essential. And trees. And water. If you do not have water near, you will need a pool. Indoor preferably but out is fine too. You will need space for solitude and for those occasions when a group of gentlemen wish to practice manly arts outdoors, with weapons.

Some illustrations may take your mind toward your own ideas. So...

This is a Monestery !

The monastic idea is ripe for return. Four to 20 chaps sharing a place, in the country, cooperatively and focused on improving their souls is a fine solution for many men. 

Preferably within half a day's walk to the Tavern.

Mind you, were I as active as I used to be quite a while ago, I would opt for a mobile Residence. A Steed is an essential for a Knight.

Pax

Do You Seriously Want to be Rich?

There can be very few folk who have not given thought to what they would do with a couple of million bucks won at Tattslotto (or its equivalent elsewhere). The urge to have more than what one has is almost universal, and the imagination can do more with more than with less. Many would like to be as 'Rich as Rockefeller', and envy is a poisonous pill.

A chap came in waving his Tatts ticket yesterday and ordered "Drinks all 'round".   Fortunately for him the Grace here is free and he only won division 7, around $13. But his heart was in the right place. 

But, what is 'Rich', anyway? Would you really like to be seriously rich? Remember Bernie Cornfeld? He was an infamous early 'pyramid scheme' money-man who tapped into that deep well of envy that seems to swallow millions frequently. Most came unstuck, just as he did.

The point was put in the US room by a fine chap who considered the matter of living like Rockefeller. I too was musing over an old acquaintence of many, many tears and years ago, a fellow King who was so seriously rich that his name started with it. Richard. He was good-hearted too, in fact Lion-Hearted. He went off to the Crusades with his heart full of piety and warrior spirit and on his return was waylaid by a Duke in Germany.  So much for European solidarity in the face of a common enemy. Things have not changed. 

In 1194 after a lot of searching long for him and diplomatic wrangling by a couple of Abbotts on his behalf, he was released after a ransom was paid. The ransom was twice the entire GDP of England at the time, from whence we get the phrase 'a King's Ransom'. 

Coincidentally the membership fee paid by today's Great Britain to the EU is just about the same amount.  Times change and money always decreases in value. Gold, on the other hand remains pretty constant, and the value of 'social goods' increases. The 'common man' did the paying of course. No wonder they wanted to be free of it as much as Richard did.  

Riches today are looked at with a very peculiar eye. Greed rules. People who 'provide' as well if not better than any King an eon ago get severly criticised and even punished, while the narcissists and talentless, the me,me,me people get all the praise. It is a mad world.

But back to nearer times and Rockefeller. Don Boudreaux considered the relativity of wealth.

Most Ordinary Americans in 2016 Are Richer Than Was John D. Rockefeller in 1916

By the standards of a middle-class American today, the lifestyle of just 100 years ago in 1916 was poor, inconvenient, dreary, and dangerous.  In 1924, the 16-year-old son of a sitting U.S. president would die of an infected blister that the boy got on his toe while playing tennis on the White House grounds.

http://cafehayek.com/2016/02/40405.html 

So here’s a question that I’ve asked in one form or another on earlier occasions, but that is so probing that I ask it again: What is the minimum amount of money that you would demand in exchange for your going back to live even as John D. Rockefeller lived in 1916?   

21.7 million 2016 dollars (which are about one million 1916 dollars)?  Would that do it?  What about a billion 2016 – or 1916 – dollars?  Would this sizable sum of dollars be enough to enable you to purchase a quantity of high-quality 1916 goods and services that would at least make you indifferent between living in 1916 America and living (on your current income) in 2016 America? 

Think about it.  Hard.  Carefully.

If you were a 1916 American billionaire you could, of course, afford prime real-estate.  You could afford a home on 5th Avenue or one overlooking the Pacific Ocean or one on your own tropical island somewhere (or all three).  But when you travelled from your Manhattan digs to your west-coast palace, it would take a few days, and if you made that trip during the summer months, you’d likely not have air-conditioning in your private railroad car.

And while you might have air-conditioning in your New York home, many of the friends’ homes that you visit – as well as restaurants and business offices that you frequent – were not air-conditioned.  In the winter, many were also poorly heated by today’s standards.

To travel to Europe took you several days [or weeks]. To get to foreign lands beyond Europe took you even longer.

Might you want to deliver a package or letter overnight from New York City to someone in Los Angeles?  Sorry. 

Impossible.

You could neither listen to radio (the first commercial radio broadcast occurred in 1920) nor watch television.  You could, however, afford the state-of-the-art phonograph of the era.  (It wasn’t stereo, though.  And – I feel certain – even today’s vinylphiles would prefer listening to music played off of a modern compact disc to listening to music played off of a 1916 phonograph record.)  Obviously, you could not download music.

There really wasn’t very much in the way of movies for you to watch, even though you could afford to build your own home movie theater.

Your telephone was attached to a wall.  You could not use it to Skype.

Your luxury limo was far more likely to break down while you were being chauffeured about town than is your car today to break down while you are driving yourself to your yoga class.  While broken down and waiting patiently in the back seat for your chauffeur to finish fixing your limo, you could not telephone anyone to inform that person that you’ll be late for your meeting.

Even when in residence at your Manhattan home, if you had a hankering for some Thai red curry or Vindaloo chicken or Vietnamese Pho or a falafel, you were out of luck: even in the unlikely event that you even knew of such exquisite dishes, your chef likely had no idea how to prepare them, and New York’s restaurant scene had yet to feature such exotic fare.   

And while you might have had the money in 1916 to afford to supply yourself with a daily bowlful of blueberries at your New York home in January, even for mighty-rich you the expense was likely not worthwhile.

Your wi-fi connection was painfully slow – oh, wait, right: it didn’t exist.  No matter, because you had neither computer nor access to the Internet.  (My gosh, there weren’t even any blogs for you to read!)

Even the best medical care back then was horrid by today’s standards: it was much more painful and much less effective.  (Remember young Coolidge.)  Antibiotics weren’t available.  Erectile dysfunction?  Bipolar disorder?  Live with ailments such as these.  That was your only option.

You (if you are a woman) or (if you are a man) your wife and, in either case, your daughter and your sister had a much higher chance of dying as a result of giving birth than is the case today.  The child herself or himself was much less likely to survive infancy than is the typical American newborn today.

Dental care wasn’t any better.  Your money didn’t buy you a toothbrush with vibrating bristles.  (You could, however, afford the very finest dentures.)

Despite your vanity, you couldn’t have purchased contact lenses, reliable hair restoration, or modern, safe breast augmentation.  And forget about liposuction to vacuum away the results of your having dined on far too many cream-sauce-covered terrapin.

Birth control was primitive: it was less reliable and far more disruptive of pleasure than are any of the many inexpensive and widely available birth-control methods of today.

Of course, you adore precious-weacious little Rover, but your riches probably could not buy for Rover veterinary care of the sort that is routine in every burgh throughout the land today.

You were completely cut off from the cultural richness that globalization has spawned over the past century.

Hmmmmm. Globalisation? Or the product of the Industrial Revolution's great grandchildren? I don't see much contribution from vast swathes of the world.    

There was no American-inspired, British-generated rock’n’roll played on electric guitars.  And no reggae.  Jazz was still a toddler, with only few recordings of it.

You could afford to buy the finest Swiss watches and clocks, but even they couldn’t keep time as accurately as does a cheap Timex today (not to mention the accuracy of the time kept by your smartphone).

Honestly, I wouldn’t be remotely tempted to quit the 2016 me so that I could be a one-billion-dollar-richer me in 1916. 

This fact means that, by 1916 standards, I am today more than a billionaire.  It means, at least given my preferences, 

I am today materially richer than was John D. Rockefeller in 1916. 

And if, as I think is true, my preferences here are not unusual, then nearly every middle-class American today is richer than was America’s richest man a mere 100 years ago.

Hmmmmmm. Yes, and while I am no longer a King residing in a Castle on a hill, deep in the forest, with torches to light my halls (hah! as if -all that smoke !!), I live far better today as a very poor man, drinking my fill of Grace here in the Tavern. 

I have a million dollar view and my Supplier is pleased with me. (Mind you, He does expect me to do better).

Were I to come into a fortune again, I would be tempted to give most away, and I have a track record in giving in to temptations.  I am fortunate in having some good things to tempt me.

Oh, by the way.... have you noticed how the gold and silver prices are going up? I may have to take my old armour off the wall and put it in a cupboard. All the Kingly gold and silver bits you see.

Pax

Well Done Malcolm, and so you shall be.

The customers have drifted back into the Tavern after a long weekend of watching the Oz Gummunt going down the gurgler. Yes after all the votes were cast, and after a long and arduous campaign by many earnest people vying for a place at the trough and the prospect of a fat pension and perks for a lifetime, we are still counting the very last votes to see if anyone has 'won'. Hah ! Fat chance.

The Australian people have said, resoundingly, a Pox on all your houses. Particularly upon  Malcolm Turnbull's mansion. (For those in other nations, he is, for the moment, and was the Prime Minister who reached his exaulted position after stabbing the PM of the day, Tony Abbott, in the back.) He managed to do what very few ever get to do. 

Snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.

Voting for Himself

He deposed a Leader who had come from a long way behind in opposition: one who inspired his troops and set strategic goals to win a resounding victory for the Conservatives of the country. A huge and commanding victory which he used to do much good for the nation. Malcolm was not impressed and thought he could do better.

He failed. Spectacularly.

Well done Malcolm. Now what will you do? A man of such arrogance and perfidy will be reluctant to fall on his sword. I would raise a glass to anyone who would rid us of this pesky political pygmy and show him the pointy end of the sword I have behind the bar. If Malcolm wandered in here I might have some trouble restraining my Bouncer.

Much has been written and spoken over the past 48 hours and much more will be in the next few days. The final results will not be in for a while. But we did have a cogent chap speak up as he ordered a round for the chaps and chapesses in the Oz room. Rowan Dean.

Congratulations Malcolm 

for proving treachery doesn’t pay

CONGRATULATIONS, Malcolm. Those are the words you’ve been yearning to hear for so long, so I’ll do my best to oblige. 

Congratulations, Malcolm. Congratulations for reminding average Australians that they value loyalty and mateship above all else and will never reward someone for treachery and betrayal towards a colleague (or a leader, for that matter).

 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-congratulations-malcolm-for-proving-treachery-doesnt-pay/news-story/64dff1ec935e2245add461ddaad676b9?nk=1dc4d9f3f2a05effc85fce79fb2efc8a-1467613041

Congratulations for pointing out to the electorate, what with their short attention span and all, that Tony Abbott won a landslide less than three years ago, and that although he would have had to fight hard to do so, would almost certainly have done better than you.

Why do I believe that? For many reasons – including the evidence of the extraordinary focus group that David Speers conducted on Sky News – but above all because the main reason I believe people voted for the Coalition in this election was because of Abbott’s policies: he stopped the boats, he set up the royal commission that exposed the depth and width of union corruption, thuggery, and bullying, and he refused to bend his knee to the false god of climate change.

Malcolm Turnbull has managed to fragment the Liberal Party while simultaneously trashing some of its key values. 

If you do manage to form government, Malcolm, it will be entirely because of the efforts of the man you betrayed, and not, as you imagine, because of your shiny round yellow and blue logo.

Congratulations as well, Malcolm, for amply demonstrating your complete lack of those long-touted “communications skills”. Let’s face it, for eight long weeks, and indeed for more than nine months, you have communicated what exactly? That “everything was on the table”, before everything was off it? That the GST was going up, er, no, hang on, it’s staying where it is? That income powers were being handed over to the states, er, no, hang on, no they’re not?

That we must “live within our means”? Well, that’s definitely true, so I’ll happily congratulate you on that one. Except of course, that was Abbott’s slogan and you sneered at him for using such three-word slogans before you suddenly decided to have a crack at inventing a few yourself.

Tony Abbott’s policies dominated the election campaign, dressed up as Malcolm Turnbull’s. 

But putting all of that aside, as a former ad man allow me to point out what your army of spin doctors so clearly failed to do: you can’t convince people to “live within their means” while you splurge billions of their dollars on meaningless “innovation” agendas, ridiculously expensive submarines, renewable energy, fancy football stadiums, or tossing hundreds of millions of our dollars at atolls in the ocean that may or may not one day get hit by a big wave.

Congratulations, too, Malcolm, for your successful attempts to engage with the Australian Islamic community. Indeed, I genuinely applaud your brilliant exposure of some of the nastier aspects of that religion, particularly their lethal attitude towards gays.

This may turn out to be your greatest legacy – I’m not sure politicians will in future rush off to the local Ramadan “iftar” with such relish. (You never know who might turn up! Someone who actually believes what it says in the Koran, perhaps?)

Malcolm Turnbull could only wish to have someone as talented as Peta Credlin on his political team.

Congratulations are also in order for the way you have managed to fragment the Liberal Party at the same time as trashing some of its key values. That took a mammoth effort, I know, but you never faltered. The only shame is that the electorate appears not to be particularly impressed, although no doubt it is only a coincidence that Peter Hendy, who so generously provided his home to your co-conspirators for their late-night secret shindigs, has been given the boot by the voters. In fact, most of your key plotters appear to have come unstuck.

But my final congratulations must go to you for your brilliant exposure of what a fine and decent man Tony Abbott actually is, and what a smart and talented chief of staff Peta Credlin was. The twin highlights of the election campaign have been in seeing both of these individuals performing in their new roles; him as a humble backbencher and her as a highly insightful and well-informed Sky News commentator and columnist with TheSunday Mail.

Abbott has been an exemplary team player, and the contrast between the support he has given you and the support you gave him couldn’t be starker. As for Ms Credlin, I bet you wish you had someone with even half her political skills on your team.

So what lies ahead when we get the results? More instability and uncertainty, more chaos and confusion, I guess. 

Congratulations, Malcolm.

Yep. A Home - Grown 'Innovator' who showed he could not find a use for a paper bag full of policies let alone some truely great Conservative fighters.

Go, man. 

Do not disgrace Oz anymore.

Pax.

Australia Votes

Oz is all out at the polls today. The bars are quiet. Even the restaurant is empty as everyone is down at the sausage sizzles - the most notable part of the enjoyment of an Oz poll. Not that there is much else enjoyable about the compulsory attendance.

I cannot claim to be wholly sold on the idea of Democracy. I was a King after all. And this is Hilary's Village after all.  But the idea that one person's vote is worth just the same as another's seems odd to me. There are very odd and dim people out there who vote. Some still have the cradle marks on their bums and heads filled with 'schooling' from marxist-feminists. And in a country which, like others, swings from one party to another and barely change their views despite the evidence of cock-up after cock-up, I am sadly reminded every election just how thick the electorate can be

Our current - for the moment, with his fingers crossed - PM had both houses dissolved in the hope of 'greater stability'. He is not likely to get it.

Our PM's claim to imfamy is that he knifed a sitting PM in the back.  He is running against an opposition leader who has greater experience as he knifed two of his PMs in the back.  Oz resembles Rome more everyday.

The 'Eekomonee' is the fixation of both major parties. We call them 'Labour and Liberal' here. The Americans call our labour their liberal and our liberal their conservative (or Republican). Not that either can do any actual 'good' for Oz. All they usually do is make things more difficult and take even more money from people's wallets and purses. Trees and Whales and global warming, skies falling down and seas washing us all away are the  fixations of the third, Green party. Meanwhile all three parties ensure that the nation's soul gets blacker by the day.

A pox on them.

This time around we have an entire battalion of minor parties vying for seats. It is unlikely that many will find a space on the benches in the House of Representatives, but with some good fortune and a larger than usual handful of votes some may make it into the Senate. The Senate ballot paper is so large that it will not take many to cover a cricket pitch. Amongst the shooters and motorists and scientist parties we have several up and coming Christian, Family and Morals parties. And Independants. And women. 

I shall keep you posted on the results, although in this most laid-back of countries, the results of the Reps might be in sooner than for the Senate but still a while. 

Come back later. I am sitting here with a pint.

Meanwhile..... looking forward......

And why are we going to see a crash? Jo Nova dropped by with a clue or two. America has its Independence Day (in 2 day's time, as my Southern Gal reminded me - she's been weeding the flower beds in her local park getting it ready for the festivities), and Britain has just declared itself Independent of the EU, but here we are awash with Independents.

Both major parties have lost their heart and soul — deserting their bases

Australian politics is a parody.

 http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/election-day-in-australia-independents-day/

Labor fights to stop plebiscites that would ask the workers what they really want (how bad can that be?). It rages for same-sex marriage, a topic that affects 2% of voters, and not in a life or death way. Labor tries to galvanize the crowd to change the weather in 2100, even though voters don’t vote much on environmental issues, and choose other environmental problems when they do. 

The party of workers supposedly worries about the rights of non-workers from outside Australia who apparently escaped death and tyranny but aren’t grateful for food, shelter, and allowances in safe locations. Labor lied about bringing in a carbon tax and hasn’t yet admitted it was the wrong thing to do or said sorry for doing it.

The Liberals have given up on free speech and smaller government. They are not even pretending. 

The ABC pours scorn on half of Australian voters and does so with permission of the Coalition. The Liberals won the last election on a blood oath to stop the carbon tax, but they tossed out the leader who did that, and a carbon tax started today. 

They tax as much as almost any government in Australia ever has, and enthuse that governments really can control the weather, stop storms and make floods go away. The Liberal Party cannot keep this up. Will they split, or will a new force arise from the forgotten base?

Curiously a couple of Bellwether voters I know, who only see mainstream news and mix in mainstream circles in median suburbs, have told me they’ve already voted and they went “totally independent”. They know almost nothing about Brexit. When asked why they are fed up with the major parties, the answer is “they both lie”. And some of them put the Greens last, after the majors.

The independent movement in Australia is immature, disorganised, not networked and not focused. 

There’s no Trump here, no Boris Johnson or Farage. 

Yet there is anger and passion here for the galvanizing. Who will do that?

Fortunately no Hilary either.

OK. The Tavern Keeper's prediction..... The Liberals will very likely get back in with a reduced majority. They will not have an easy Senate, filled with small parties and independents. So, not a change for the better for Mr Turncoat. The Greens will be trashed. Labour will be trashed unless there is a big 'protest' vote by conservatives.  Let us wait on the 'mind' of the People. God help us.

Don't count on a Tavern Keeper's political guesses though.

There will be protests of course. As with Britain voting to 'brexit' the EU, we may well have female academics - surely the most useless creatures on the taxpayer teat - protesting in the only way they know.  

Getting naked !

Cambridge academic walked in naked at a meeting at the Faculty of Economics in protest against the results of the EU referendum.

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/07/01/naked-don-a-cambridge-academics-protest-against-brexit/

Victoria Bateman had written on her breasts and stomach ‘Brexit leaves Britain naked’.

Put 'em on, silly woman.  We do not want to see your lady bits. They are worth only a D- anyway. That woman teaches in a University ! 

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

Well here we are half-way through the evening and all the talking heads on the TV dissecting the votes are looking toward a very close call sometime tomorrow. We just may have a hung-Parliament, seems to be the view. The Senate will see Independents up the Ying Yang. And in all the discussions of 'ishoos' not one person, TV presenter, politician, ex-politician, candidate, has mentioned the 'M' word. I guess they've all had the memo.

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

Now the question turns on whether Turncoat can hold onto his job even if the Liberals scrape back in. I know quite a few 'conservative' folk who would be glad to see the back of him. Mind you, here in Tasmania the Liberals are thin on the ground and surrounded by welfairies and greens. I doubt the conservatives (Liberals) will do well on the Island, or even survive.

Notable, Eden-Monaro, a seat on the NSW coast which always sends an MP to the new Government, (the Bellweather seat) has gone Labour. It may not be enough for the socialists but it does not bode well for the Libs.

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

Barely had I spoke than Andy Bolt dropped in for a cleansing ale.  He shouted a few words out of the window, although Turncoat may not have heard them yet.

Malcolm,

You assassinated a Liberal Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who’d won an election by a huge margin.

You promised to do even better than him.

 http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/malcolm_turnbull_you_are_finished/

You then treated the Liberal base like dirt, smashing it with a huge super tax, refusing to speak to conservative journalists, repeatedly humiliating Abbott.

You referred to the colonial settlement of Australia as an “invasion” and even held an end-of-Ramadan meal with known Muslim bigots.

You called an early double dissolution election on the excuse of needing new laws to tackle rogue unions with a building and construction commission, but with the true aim of getting rid of crossbench oppositionists in the Senate.

You went to the election with basically only one policy to sell - a pathetic 10-year promise to cut company tax.

And now look. Almost everything turned to ruin.

You have lost so many seats that you could even be forced into minority government, if pre-polling and Western Australia go against you.

You have, if anything, lost ground in the Senate, which will block most of your plans.

You will be unable to get the numbers to get your building and construction commission through in any joint sitting of parliament.

You have asked for no mandate for real reform, and will have almost no power to undertake any.

Your popularity, already plummeting, will fall further.

There is no way you can seriously claim that this result is better than anything Abbott could have achieved.

Abbott picked up seven seats at the 2010 election and another 15 in the 2013 election. You have lost between 10 and 15 seats and dumped key Liberal values in doing so.

You have been a disaster. You betrayed Tony Abbott and then led the party to humiliation, stripped of both values and honour.

Resign.

Hmmmmm. I don't think Malcolm will  want to resign. Hopefully he will feel the heat as his mate Cameron in the UK did.  I pulled a pint for Andy anyway.

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

The night is nearly done and the 'faithful' on both sides are gathering for the wake. And both sides will be grieving. The Libs are still not over the line despite being ahead. 

If it is a hung Parliament, as I indicated earlier that it could be, there will be pouches of silver coins, 30 to a pouch, being filled, ready to buy off the independents who will hold the balance of power.

It will be a fine old time for them as Silver has risen 30% in the past month. The pay-off of Malcolm to prise him out of his chair will be bags full of the stuff.

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

And the counting continues. 76 seats needed to win. The result yet to come, perhaps in a day or two. Labour has no chance left. But the Liberals are not in majority. The Greens have one seat and Independents have four. There are a few seats yet to be decided.

Libs 73: Lab 66: Green 1: 'others' 4.

What is clear is that Turnbull has buggered his Party and Shorten is being hailed as a hero. 

Not in this Tavern though.

There will be sore heads in the morning but not from drinking the Tavern's Ale.

Pax.