Bee-have

I am arranging a combined birthday party out at the farm. My mother is turning 80, two days before my Uncle reaches 92 and the youngest son is 26. So I have been on the phone ringing friends and relatives to inform them of the event.

I was talking to one set of Queensland relatives who live on a squatter selection that has been in the family since well before Federation.

When the selection was taken up in the late 1800’s the family arrived on site with bee hives, the only reliable sweetening agent that could be produced in the area.

One of my grandmother's fond memories was going to rob the bees with her mother - she was in charge of the smoker - and eating fresh honeycomb with the honey dribbling down her chin. Something I too have had the pleasure of experiencing.

About 20 years ago the neighbouring selection was purchased by the National Parks and according to the rello’s they have been quite good neighbours.
A few bush fires between friends were not enough to sour the relationship.

The month before I phoned he had received a letter from the National Parks stating that they had just became aware that he had European honey bees on his property, and that he is obliged to keep his bees out of the national park.

He wrote back to the parks official that he had gone down to the bees and read them the letter and, had even taken a map to show the bees so there would be no confusion about the borders between their land and the national park.

The bees, he wrote, have agreed to keep off the national park if the national park stops frog, lizards, birds, possums and other assorted critters from coming over to the hives and eating their sisters and raiding their honey.

He had just received the reply to his letter; it stated that the animals in the national park were wild animals and the authority could not control their behaviour and therefore could not stop them from entering his land and raiding his bee hives.
He was wondering how he was going to break this news to the bees.

They will be attending the birthday party - just look for the group bringing the mead.

Bee aninimation from Animation Buddy

Japanese whale research - it's just a meat business according to Professor Masayuki Komatsu, a former senior official of the Fisheries Agency

Asahi Shimbun newspaper in Japan reports on support for commercial whaling, 31 May 2010:

When the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meets for a general assembly in June, it is set to discuss proposals to further cut down on whale catches. While Japan stopped commercial whaling in the face of strong opposition by anti-whaling countries, Masayuki Komatsu, a former senior official of the Fisheries Agency who represented Japan in past IWC negotiations, urges Japan to act on scientific data in the negotiations. He also argues that Japan should increase its catches to supply whale meat at lower market prices. Excerpts from an interview with The Asahi Shimbun follow........

Q: But Japan's actual minke whale catches are significantly smaller than planned. The situation seems to make Japan's argument less persuasive. What do you think?

A: It is a problem. According to plans, Japan was supposed to catch up to 935 minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean, but actually it caught only 506 in fiscal 2009. This is because of sluggish sales of whale meat. Since it is unpopular with consumers, in an effort to cover whaling costs, Japan reduced the number of catches to maintain prices at high levels. As a result, the expensive meat does not sell. It is a vicious circle. Whaling countries such as Norway and Iceland are boosting catches. Japan, too, should shift its policy and increase catches to supply cheap and tasty whale meat at the risk of price collapse....

Masayuki Komatsu is a former Fisheries Agency section chief who was known as a tough negotiator when he represented Japan in IWC negotiations from 1991 to 2004. He quit the agency in 2007 and became professor of ocean and marine resource policy at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in 2008.

Abbott's at it - again

Pic from ABC NEWS

Stone the crows! Doesn't that bloke ever think what he might sound like to the average Aussie?
This is Tony Abbott in a carefully prepared scripted remark in front of a Christian audience on Monday; ''our civilisation is inconceivable without the influence of the Christian faith''.
Inconceivable? G'arn!

Then yesterday the media was full of this little gem from Teh Mouth; "Victory is within our ready grasp.......We are in reach of a famous victory."
When Abbott realised that his private remarks to party collegues were in the public arena he quickly fronted the cameras with this unscripted statement; "That's not what I said...."What I said was the next election is certainly winnable, but there's an enormous long way to go. It's very, very difficult to beat a first-term government - it hasn't happened for almost 80 years."
Sorry mate, I'd like to believe you but your lips were moving at the time!

UPDATE:

7.30 Report interview on 25th June 2010 in which Abbott admits to the lie that which he had denied:

"KERRY O'BRIEN: Well, let's come to back to your credibility then if you're happy to test it. There's confusion about what you really told your party room on Tuesday. According to the official Liberal Party room briefer to journalists, a senior lawyer who one might expect to be pretty good with the facts on detail, you said, according to him, "Victory is within our grasp. We are within reach of a famous victory."

TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, yeah. That wasn't all I said. That wasn't all I said.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So you did say that?

TONY ABBOTT: But that wasn't all I said. And the fact of the matter is no election is unwinnable. No election is unlosable. I've always been the underdog and I expect to continue to be the underdog, but I've gotta say this: we will put up a very good fight."

Tiresome tea leaf reading: so who's winning at the opinion polls this week?

So who's winning at the opinion polls this week?
Bottom line is that Labor is slightly improved on first preference votes compared to last week (but not nearly enough to gladden the hearts of its backroom boys) and holding steady on two party preferred numbers.
While the Coalition is basically holding steady over the same week on both counts.
When is comes to confidence in the person - both Rudd and Abbott are on the nose with the electorate and although Rudd's fall from grace has been the more spectacular over the last few months it appears that Abbott remains the most unpopular of the two.

And who would win if an election was called tomorrow?
With The Greens growing stronger and their preferences still up for grabs, it's nothing more than a guessing game right now despite what some mainstream media pundits might say.
It's worth noting that those serious tea leaf readers, the punters, are still behind the Government. The money's running 63.8% for Labor and 36.2% for the Coalition as of 18th June.



Betting figures from Pollytics.







The real winners in all this number crunching are the professional pollers who have us all convinced that slight changes in weekly figures actually matter.

In last Monday's telephone Newspoll 18th -20th June 2010:

• the Labor Party held steady at 35% of the first preference vote and the Coalition fell one point to 40%


• on a two party preferred basis Labor rose one point to 52% and the Coalition fell one point to 48%


• dissatisfaction with Rudd's performance as Prime Minister rose two points to 55% and dissatisfaction with Abbott's performance as Opposition Leader stayed steady at 49%


• the preferred prime minister stakes ran at 46% for Rudd (a fall of three points) and 37% for Abbott (a rise of four points).

According to Newspoll; "These surveys were conducted on the telephone by trained interviewers in all states of Australia and in both city and country areas. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were selected at random. The data has been weighted to reflect the population distribution. The latest survey is based on 1,147 interviews among voters. The maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Out the same day the Essential Report online polling for the 15th - 20th June was released:

• the Labor Party rose three points to 38% of the first preference vote and the Coalition fell one point to 40%


• on a two party preferred basis Labor rose one point to 52% and the Coalition fell one point to 48%


• 40% believed that Labor would have a better chance at the next election if Rudd was not prime minister and 47% believed that the Coalition would have a better chance at the next election if Abbott was not opposition leader


• the preferred prime minister stakes ran at 47% for Rudd (a fall of three points since 22 March) and 30% for Abbott (trading water since 22 March).

According to Essential Report; "This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The omnibus was conducted online from 15h to 20th June and obtained 1,066 respondents."

About that war in Afghanistan.......

Photograph of Afghan war orphans from Flickr gallery

Remember when the media was full of concerns raised about the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan and whether Australia should even be part of Operation Enduring Freedom or the War on Terror?

That debate appeared to die away over the years - now media and politicians barely mention the war except in terms of troop deployments or casualties. While as an election issue it is a non-event so far this year.

However, many ordinary Australians still hold to their views if the Essential Report on 21 June 2010 is any indication:

61% of respondents think Australia should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, 24% think we should keep the same number and 7% think we should increase numbers. Support for withdrawal of troops has increased by 11% since this question was asked in March last year.
There was majority support for withdrawal of troops across all demographic groups and voter types. 55% of Liberal/National voters, 61% of Labor voters and 75% of Greens voters support withdrawal of Australia’s troops.

Click on image to enlarge

Australian Federal Election 2010: the refugee debate

Robert Tickner, Chief Executive Officer Australian Red Cross writing in The Daily Examiner on 21 June 2010:

IT would appear that Australians are a much more sympathetic and understanding lot than the current public debate around the plight of refugees and asylum seekers would indicate.
This is evident from the results of a recent survey of 1000 Australians commissioned by Australian Red Cross for Refugee Week.
The results indicate that:
86 per cent of people would flee to a safe country, if they lived in a conflict zone and were under threat.
94 per cent of these people would use all their money and assets to get to a safe country.
31 per cent know of someone who came to Australia escaping persecution or conflict.
83 per cent agree people fleeing persecution should be able to seek protection in another country.
83 per cent are willing to assist a refugee in their community settle in Australia.
67 per cent agree that refugees have made a positive contribution to Australian society.
On this evidence there appears to be a disconnection between the strong sympathy of the Australian public and the unsympathetic nature of much of the public debate around asylum seekers and refugees......

Coalition policy on refugees coming to Australia:

TONY Abbott says he will turn asylum-seeker boats back out to sea if the Coalition wins the next election (The Australian 31 December 2009)

Abbott smells votes. "If you want to stop the boats you've got to change the government,'' he says. His solution is a return to the Pacific Solution crafted by Howard, Alexander Downer and Peter Reith to deal with the Tampa crisis. If it is safe - which is unlikely - boats will be turned around. If not, everyone on board will be taken to either Christmas Island or another country for processing. Visas will only be temporary. The threat of being sent back will hang over people who have made the perilous trip by sea. And if they don't find a job they could miss out on Medicare and welfare. This last point is even tougher than Howard. (Herald Sun 21 June 2010)

Australian Government action:

KEVIN Rudd has frozen asylum applications from Afghans and Sri Lankans after receiving advice that people-smugglers were preparing to launch a new wave of vessels for northern Australia.
Sources confirmed yesterday that the decision, announced yesterday, came partly in response to new intelligence that people-smugglers were forming "new ventures" overseas expected to boost the boat traffic. (The Australian 10 April 2010)

The IWC is losing all credibility as alleged vote buying spreads ahead of this week's Morocco meeting

Female whale and calf

Whale song MP3 here and here

Once the United Nations and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) had almost universal credibility with regard to a global effort to reverse population decline amongst cetacean species.

As one of the original signatories to the INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING, Australia continued its support the IWC because of the moratorium on commercial whaling.
As part of a nation which had hunted whales it was obvious to many Australians that this unsustainable practice meant that we were in danger of losing part of our natural marine biodiversity and cultural heritage if whaling continued.
Australia formally banned whaling in 1979, ahead of the IWC 1982 vote to impose a general moratoriun by 1985.

However support for the IWC has turned to dismay at how easily this organisation has been subverted in the interests of whaling nations like Japan.

Any nation which allows its delegates to support the push to roll back the moratorium on commercial whaling this week will fully deserve the inevitable backlash, as ordinary people around the world (along with many ethical investors) quietly decide to boycott goods and services from those countries which are behaving like environmental vandals.

The Times on Sunday 20 June 2010 reported:

.....Anthony Liverpool will open the crucial International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco tomorrow which could vote to lift a 24-year ban on commercial whaling.

He has accepted free flights and the £4,000 cost of staying at a hotel with a private beach during the meeting. The hotel bills of five other countries' delegates are also being paid.

The payments will increase concern that Japan is bribing delegates to secure support for whaling and may be in breach of the IWC convention which says: "The expenses of each member of the commission ... shall be determined and paid by his own government." ......

On Friday Liverpool, the Antiguan IWC vice-chairman who will stand in as chairman at the meeting, said he did not know who was paying for his trip. "I am just aware of getting support through agencies," he said.

However, inquiries have shown that his bill at a hotel in Agadir is being paid by Japan Tours and Travel of Houston, a company said to be linked to Hideuki "Harry" Wakasa, who has previously been identified as the middleman who makes secret payments to the pro-whaling Caribbean countries.

Mr. Wakasa has been mentioned before according to BNET Australia in 2008:

Grenada's commissioner to the International Whaling Commission IWC from 1997 to 1999, Baptiste had been charged with pocketing more than US$75,000 sent by the Government of Japan as contributions to the Government of Grenada for its support of Japan at the International Whaling Commission. Investigators from Grenada visited Japan and the US gathering evidence on the alleged theft, which was said to have involved three payments in 1998 and 1999 through a U.S. corporation owned by a Japanese businessman, Hideuki "Harry" Wakasa.

This is the face of commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research as reported by Rushpr on 24 June 2009:

The data was