September was the second driest month in more than 100 YEARS – and Summer is set to be even worse

Notice the dog that didn't bark?  For once there is no tie to global warming given.  But EVERYTHING is due to global warming!  How come this bout of difficult weather is not attributed to global warming?  I have repeatedly noted that with Leftists, what the leave out is as significant as what they say -- and this is an example of it

What they are not facing up to is that drought is a sign of COOLING!  If the weather really had been hot, more water would have evaporated off the oceans and come down as rain, giving FLOODS, if anything.  It has not not happened.  Their cockeyed theory doesn't fit the present observed facts.  The globe is NOT warming.  A big drought shows that


Drought-stricken farmers are expected to get a much-needed break from September's record dry spell over the next few weeks.

But Aussies shouldn't breath a sigh of relief too soon - weather experts believe that the dip in temperature won't last long.

Bureau of Meteorology expert Tom Hough warned that the months leading up to summer will see above-average heat and summer is set to be a scorcher.

Above-average temperatures will grace the country in the months leading up to summer, Mr Hough said.

Temperatures will soar above the norm for the month of October across the country, with the exception of far-east and north Queensland and northeast NSW.

Sydney's average temperatures for October usually sit between 24-27 degrees.

November temperatures will also be above average with the exception of Western Australia's southeast coast. 

Similarly December will see scorching temperatures above the norm in most of the country.   

However there is no need to crack out the sunscreen just yet. Temperatures are expected to cool towards the end of the week and much-needed rain will sweep the country.

A BOM expert told Daily Mail Australia that rain will be widespread across the southern half of the nation over the next two weeks.

At least 25-50mm of rain is expected to fall in Sydney alone, following the country's record dry September. An average of just 5.2mm of rainfall was recorded last month. 

SOURCE 






What's this all about?



It's the cover for the latest issue of News Weekly a broadly conservative Australian news magazine. It should be available at your local Newsagents. It's been around for 50 years now.  You can find the story behind the cover here.  You can subscribe here. Artwork above by Zeg.






Pauline Hanson demands massive pay cut for the ABC's next managing director after the sacking of $890k-a-year Michelle Guthrie – and says her successor must be paid less than the PM

Pauline Hanson is demanding the next ABC managing director be given a massive 45 per cent pay cut so Michelle Guthrie's successor is paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.

The One Nation leader has suggested the head of the national broadcaster be paid the same as any other senior executive public servant, a week after Ms Guthrie was sacked from her $891,000-a-year post.

Senator Hanson nominated the principal executive office band E salary, starting at $488,310, as an appropriate remuneration for an ABC managing director, in her opinion piece published in The Australian.

Were this salary cut to be implemented, the ABC managing director would be paid less than Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who is on a $538,000-a-year package.

Making her case, Senator Hanson said it was wrong that the ABC paid its most senior executive more than the BBC's director-general Tony Hall, who is on $810,000.

'Like many Australians, I don't understand how we can pay the managing director of the ABC more than the director-general of the BBC when the head of the BBC must manage licence fees and the sale of programs to fund a significantly larger and more complex organisation than our own national broadcaster,' she said.

Senator Hanson also suggested the ABC's seven remaining board members be replaced with directors who take seriously accusations of left-wing bias at the organisation, which received $1.1 billion for the 2018/19 financial year in the May federal budget.

'The next task is to find board members committed to culling producers and presenters who cannot separate their own left-leaning political opinions from accurate and impartial news and information,' she said.

David Anderson, the ABC's former head of television, took over as acting managing director on September 24 following the sacking of Michelle Guthrie, halfway through her five-year appointment.

In a week of turmoil, Justin Milne resigned as chairman three days later, after it was alleged he had sought the sackings of chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici and political editor Andrew Probyn to appease former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

One Nation has two senators and shares the balance of power in the Senate with 17 other cross-bench lawmakers who aren't from the major parties.

SOURCE 





Five ways universities can advance free expression

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm.

At a 1943 symposium, Univer­sity of Sydney professor of philosophy John Anderson spoke out against religion in the school curriculum. “Religious doctrines are a direct attack and assault on a child’s common sense,” he said. “If a child is forced to swallow doctrines of a religious nature, it will undermine his understanding of things in general.”

The learned members of the NSW Legislative Assembly condemned Anderson’s comments for undermining “the principles of the Constitution of the Christian state”. Not one member of the assembly spoke in Anderson’s support. The Legislative Council (parliament’s other house) passed its own motion asking the governing body of Sydney University to “define the limits” universities should place on the discussion of controversial matters. The world still awaits its response.

Anderson was unrepentant. His call for campus speakers to be “as blasphemous, obscene and seditious as they like” was strongly supported by students, sympathetic colleagues and a few univer­sity leaders.

Fast-forward to the present. The right to speak on campus remains as contentious as ever but the protagonists have reversed roles. Politicians now lament campus censorship while students — and even academics — are becoming increasingly intolerant. Convinced of their own fragility, today’s students believe exposure to challenging ideas can be harmful, even traumatic. Students demand to be “protected” from controversial speakers.

A poll of 3000 students in the US conducted by the Knight Foundation last year found 37 per cent believed it was acceptable to shout down speakers and 10 per cent thought using violence against speakers was sometimes acceptable. The Brookings Institution reports even larger numbers: 50 per cent of university students consider it acceptable to disrupt speakers by shouting, and 19 per cent condone the use of violence to silence those whose views they find objectionable.

One victim of student intolerance is sex therapist and columnist Bettina Arndt. Her heresy is to disagree with the conclusions of a report produced by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which claimed that 21 per cent of Australian university students were “sexually harassed” in a university setting.

Arndt pointed out that the commission’s definition of harassment included unwanted compliments, leering, staring and bad jokes. The number of respondents who reported being assaulted was 1.6 per cent (and some of those incidents took place on public transport, not at the university). The incidence of sexual assault on campus is lower than the rate of sexual assault in the general ­community.

Students at Melbourne’s La Trobe University invited Arndt to speak. At first, university administrators refused permission, claiming Arndt’s views did not “align with the values of the university and its campaign … against sexual violence on campus”. It seems that La Trobe has an “official position” on sexual assault. As a consequence, the university would rather have students, and the public, believe its campus was unsafe than let Arndt speak.

La Trobe relented when Arndt took her story to the press, but no one heard her speak. Protesters sil­enced her by shouting her down.

Her next talk, at Sydney University, simil­arly was shouted down and required mobilising police to protect her and the audience from aggressive protesters.

In the 1940s, Anderson urged his students to fight hard for free speech “without restrictions”. Today’s student activists are intent on achieving the exact opposite.

Expressing alarm at the censorious environment on our campuses, Human Rights Commis­sioner Ed Santow is encouraging universities to develop codes of conduct that protect robust debate.

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan agrees, expressing support for the University of Chicago statement on principles of free expression, which commits universities to unfettered “debate and deliberation” even when “the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the university community to be offen­sive, unwise, immoral or wrongheaded”. The statement also forbids anyone from interfering with the freedom of others to “express views they reject or even loathe”. (That is, no shouting down speakers.) The Chicago statement has been adopted by dozens of American universities, but none in Australia.

Echoing Orwell, former High Court chief justice Robert French said this week that “offensive or hurtful” speech was the price we paid for liberty. He says universities erode their public standing and perhaps even face legislative intervention if they fail to defend free speech. French’s prediction is not just hypothetical. The US states of Arizona and North Carolina already have legislated speech codes for their universities and so has the University of Wisconsin board of regents.

Australian universities would avoid the erosion of their public standing and advance liberty by adopting five rules.

* Affirm the value of free speech.

* Forbid administrators from disinviting speakers.

* Discipline students or staff who try to silence speakers.

* Remain institutionally neutral on matters of public policy.

* Levy security charges on all speakers, not just those on one side of an issue.

It is fitting to end where we began. After being condemned by parliament, Anderson addressed students. His words are worth repeating: “There is no absolute right of free speech. It exists only so far as people are prepared to maintain it and fight for it.”

Universities owe it to the public to join the fray.

SOURCE 






Hospitals target relatives of the sick -- raking in $45MILLION a year in parking fees

Public hospital patients tend to be poor so their relatives probably are too.  Ripping off the poor: Way to go!

The government is calling for hospitals to offer parking discounts after it was revealed they rake in millions of dollars each year.

Top hospitals in Melbourne are raking in up to $45.5million combined per year in parking fees.

The Alfred, St Vincent's and the Royal Melbourne have increased the price of parking by 25 per cent over three years, the Herald Sun reported.

Another hospital, Austin Health, said they take in $8.6million profit from parking.

They recorded a revenue of $11.5 million last year and spent $2.9 million on costs.

The government have asked hospitals across the nation to at least offer discounts for frequent visitors. 

A spokesman for Health Minister Jill Hennessy said they forced hospitals to publish their parking rates in a push for cheaper fares.

'We know that going to the hospital can be extremely distressing and the last thing we want is for patients and their family and friends forced to pay exorbitant carparking fees,' the spokesman told the publication.

In Victoria alone, several hospitals were found to be paying off long-term loans owed to the government with the car park revenue. 

Last month, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital came under fire for rising their parking prices. From October 2, prices at the Queensland hospital will sky-rocket from $30 to $35 for a full day of parking.

The cost of parking for two to three hours will also rise one dollar to $24.

In a letter to the families and visitors of frequent hospital patients, the hospital detailed the price increase and offered financial support for those eligible. 'Families experiencing financial hardship may be eligible for parking assistance, such as concessional parking or free public transport.

'We have a policy in place for concessional parking at a rate of $12 per day for parents, carers and families, where there is evident financial or social need.'    

In 2017,  The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne raked in $10.3 million in car park revenue. The 2018 review won't be released until November.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here