Football journo sides with climate change scientists to 'prove' League really OK after all

I can't believe that I read this para of support for legitimate climate science in a football commentator's diatribe on why Rugby League's culture of shame is really OK after all:

The current debate about behaviour in rugby league is a lot like the one surrounding climate change. Although global warming is scientifically undisputed, stubborn naysayers are often granted equal airtime, which gives the impression that the issue is somehow in dispute. And perception is reality.

That slash at the climate change sceptics aside, Josh Massoud of the Sydney Daily Telegraph was making the somewhat tenuous point that because he had made an early-morning micturation on the shrubby verge of a near-deserted expressway, miles from any public toilets and away from any camera, it was OK for prominent Rugby League players to do the same in a public street, on a wall, near a pub. And sadly, near a guy with a camera. Yep, I'm convinced.

Now Rees is stealing from kids with a disability.. has he no shame? #media #politics

First up, let me say that I fully support effective funding for programs that assist people with a disability to reach their potential as human beings in a caring society. (And by definition that means all of us, varying only by degree and by our own recognition - or not - of ours and others' abilities. ) That means removing cultural roadblocks to change, including any distortions or misrepresentations by politicians, lobbyists of various kinds and the mass media. With that in mind, let me press on...

This is a story about several groups trying to leverage an issue to achieve an end. The issue itself becomes burdened with hangers-on and it becomes hard to tell who's really wanting what for or from whom; but the nub of it is that kids with a disability will be 'missing out' because the NSW State government bureaucracy wants to reassign unspent monies (ie to other programs, elsewhere).

Well first of all, IMHO this happens every year, and indeed school principals have been accused of hoarding cash from year to year, possibly with a larger goal in mind, or simply through an inability to properly manage their budgets. I'm sure there are many highly skilled, competent principals in the State system, but I am equally sure that many others need help with financial strategy, planning and execution. There is no secret about this, or about the yearly "issue" of 'use it or lose it'. Every state government department goes about this practice, every year.

So today we read this: PRINCIPALS are accusing the Rees Government of a "grubby grab" for more than $12 million in unspent funds sitting in school bank accounts.. That's para one. If you go to that page online and search, you'll find that there is no attribution for the "grubby grab" remark. We don't know how many principals are involved, as all we have is a quote from the chair of a forum: Cheryl McBride, the chairwoman of the Public Schools Principals' Forum, warned yesterday the Government was slashing funding for students. Presumably the 'grubby grab' quote is an invention by the newspaper in question. There is, thankfully, an opposing view provided: However, DET Deputy Director-General Trevor Fletcher denied there had been a reduction in any school's allocation for 2009. He said some schools had built up more funds than they could hope to spend on programs for which the money was earmarked.

Whatever the truth, the headline is all about Premier Rees and his grubby grab, and nothing about addressing real issues for school kids with a disability. There are resources made available by both the Federal and State governments, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding the problem is more that the individual needs of students are not properly assessed and addressed by the schools concerned. Simply, the right approaches are not made by the right people in a timely fashion, leaving cash at the bank. I could be wrong, but that may be the real issue, not this supposed "grubby grab".

The more that I see the traditional media pour scorn on NSW Premier Nathan Rees the more I imagine that the public will see an underdog being kicked by bullies. (Not enough to save this government, perhaps, but surely it will be a factor over time.) Now Rees is ostensibly in power, but you'd hardly get that impression from the pack of hounds constantly baying for blood.

It's become a running joke. It sometimes appears that if any State government department does anything that upsets anyone, there's a story printed, and always it's a distortion, and always it's the fault of the NSW premier. I hope he is enjoying his time in the hot seat. The real power may lie elsewhere.

Slack maths education helps Terrorgraph beat up parrot hate over logging #environment #media

Ahhh, the Terrorgraph's definition of lunacy is a solid one:

IN THE middle of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the Federal Government's decision to enact a law that will knowingly put 1000 people out of work in NSW is nothing but sheer lunacy.

Now no-one wants to deliberately put people's jobs at risk, but sometimes it's better to paint things black and white, isn't it? To the Daily Telegraph it's jobs before everything else, no matter what. Especially if it'll sell newspapers, too.

But does the maths stack up? Let's see, 1000 jobs. That's made up of:

A Forests NSW briefing note obtained by The Daily Telegraph warned 11 sawmills would be forced to close overnight and 800 people would lose their jobs along with the closure of an industry worth $60 million to the NSW economy.

Well 800 is close to 1,000. Small rounding error. But the Tele can do better, and it does:

The State Government is seeking an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Mr Garrett, claiming the intervention by the Commonwealth to declare the logging illegal would cause the immediate loss of at least 500 timber jobs and 360 indirectly related jobs.

Now that's closer. 500 + 360 definitely feels like 1,000 now. So let's go with that. (Sadly there is no push here to correct the obviously ineffective teaching of mathematics to journalists.)

Whilst we're here, let's make out that the parrot at the centre of this issue is making no effort to adjust in this matter, despite the seriousness of the issue. Indeed the parrot is making out that there's a big problem when in fact it simply does not like flying over open spaces. So parrot, the Tele's advice to you is to get over it - literally.

Now I have spoken with these parrots and they are seeking professional help immediately. As a species with a fear of open spaces (and let's face it, if you were a brightly coloured small-medium parrot that was exposed to loss of life and wing by birds of prey, you'd feel a bit exposed too) they qualify for Federal Government rebates for psychological counselling. Hopefully the Tele won't squash that temporary stimulus assistance as well.

Mind you, it's not just parrots that offend the Tele. They also have it in for 'middle class' working mothers taking paid maternity leave:

The main targets are new mums earning a lot less, and who might not be able to confidently have a family without assistance. But slipping $260 million a year to women who might be among the top 10 per cent of wage earners doesn't sound like tough and rigorous Budget discipline.

The angle here is that middle-class women (whoever they are, but obviously they earn up to $150,000) don't deserve further assistance - they are well enough off already; but really it's just that the Tele's editor believes that the paper's readership can't hack the idea that working women can be successful, earn decent money and be an integral part of an Aussie family's "breadwinning" process. If they earn over the average wage then they don't deserve to be temporarily supported by the community whilst they are caring for newborns - except by their husbands, of course. Bizarre, I know, but that's the 1950s for you.