Old age redefined as a budgetary measure in 2010?

Click on table to enlarge

Now those demmed demographers (acting more and more like insurance adjusters) are telling us that old age doesn't begin after 65 years of living on this earth.
Well, I know my mind is still clinging to middle-age, holding onto the kitchen door jamb for grim life and screaming "No, noooo, don't take me yet!" - but my joints and back are saying that they're old, old, old after years of hard graft, my eyesight isn't too crash hot, everyone is complaining that I need the teev volume up too loud these days and most nights the car keys find a new place to hide.
Though I was half expecting to hear that I was no longer considered to be all that old, indeed that I could move mountains if only I really stirred myself. How else are governments going to cut back on public health services and cash transfers to retirees once the younger taxpayers consider that greybeards are too great a burden?
Or as the abstract to "Remeasuring Aging" succinctly puts it:
"Population aging is an international concern, in part because of consequences of coming age-structure changes, e.g., growth in the number of elderly, decline in the number of youth, and accompanying economic and social costs..."
And the authors' 9th September 2010 media release ends:
"And such measures have policy implications because, “slow and predictable changes in pension [retirement] age justified by an increased number of years of healthy life at older ages, may be more politically acceptable than large, abrupt changes justified on the basis of budget stringency.”
Work longer and prosper Gen Y!

Bundjalung clubs return

Grafton Regional Gallery's Jude McBean has a terrific piece in Saturday's Daily Examiner about the return of three Bundjalung clubs.

Credit: The Daily Examiner

Somehow I don't think those budgie smugglers are going to fade away

Jules quite literally nails it in The Daily Examiner on 10 September 2010.

The 2010 Australian general election poll should finally be declared on Monday 13 September 2010.

Why isn't this youngster on the Gruen Transfer?

Source: The Daily Examiner

Never mind the quality, feel the post-election hate

Not content with a mind-blowing Page 13 editorial on 9 September 2010 which clearly positioned the newspaper:
Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown's criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.

On the same day The Australian pointed out (as though it matters) that Prime Minister Gillard doesn't normally carry a handbag.
A handbag? So why is this so weighty a matter that it has an entire article devoted to it?

I'm much older than Julia, am most definitely not an elite female of any sort and, I haven't carried a handbag for the last twenty years.
Journalist Glenda Korporaal is the odd one out here - not Gillard or I.

However, it is not really about handbags is it? This is merely a snippet from the river of hate continuing to flow Gillard's way and why The Australian is often considered the in-house newspaper of the Coalition parties.

Conroy remains one of the reasons why Labor continues to offend the nose

In Teh Granny Herald last Friday:
"The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, is ploughing ahead with his internet filter policy despite there being virtually no chance any enabling legislation will pass either house of Parliament.
Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, the Opposition and the Greens have all come out against the policy, leaving it effectively dead in the water.
The Greens communications spokesman, Scott Ludlam, has called on the government to end the facade and drop the internet censorship scheme once and for all, as it was wasting time and taxpayers' money.
University of Sydney Associate Professor Bjorn Landfeldt said, given the catastrophic election result after only one term in government, it was "remarkable" the government was "pushing the very issues that undermined their credibility, rather than focusing their energy on important societal issues"....."

Numbers rule!

A hat tip to Omar Todd for pointing out that at 6 minutes and 7 seconds after 5 o'clock on the eighth day of September the digital numbers read 05:06:07 08/09/10.

Apparently this won't occur again until 3010 according to Omar.

Graphic at The Big Questions