The anguish and anger behind Australia’s clean energy plan

It’s known as the “energy superhighway”, a catchy slogan that holds the promise of a country on the move, speeding towards a clean energy world.

Fourth-generation Snowy Valleys landholder Dave Purcell pulls up a map of the transmission line superhighway and tries to picture what this vision of the ­future means for his family farm in this picturesque corner of southern NSW.

This is what he sees: eight to 14 steel towers, up to 76m-high, carrying cables that crisscross the sky above the cattle property like high-voltage cobwebs. Not just on this farm, but a line of steel on 70m easements marching up the hills and down the green valleys that surround it.

“We’ll be massively impacted,’’ Purcell says, ticking off the pitfalls as his ­mother Louise gazes out the window of the family home near the orchard town of Batlow.

Intrusion on prime agricultural pastures, disruption to farming practices, devaluing of their land by at least 30 per cent, hindrance to firefighting ­activities – that’s a big one for a family who suffered so much in the 2019-20 fires that took every blade of grass, about 70 cattle and, worst of all, the life of a family friend who was helping to save the property.

Neighbours tell similar stories, of trying to rebuild their blackened farms or razed homes while opening letters informing them that the HumeLink transmission project was coming, a more ­permanent alteration to their landscape.

“The timing was terrible. We were still coping with all of this when they started hounding us with phone calls day and night,’’ Purcell says. “We had to get solicitors ­involved. We were so devastated from the fires we couldn’t deal with them.’’

And so, like other landholders along Transgrid’s proposed ­HumeLink route, the Purcells simply shut their gates.

Feel-good buzzwords and ­superhighway slogans generated in city offices don’t mean much here in the western foothills of the Snowy Mountains. Stakeholder engagement teams with their bright smiles, soothing assurances and veiled threats of compulsory acquisition come and go, impeded by fences emblazoned with Stop signs barring access to the network operator, Transgrid.

Joe McGirr, the local NSW ­independent MP, says early consultation in the aftermath of the fires was unnecessarily adversarial. A bad start for a project requiring the agreement of hundreds of landowners.

The resistance runs deep. Snowy Valleys locals talk of ­motels and petrol stations turning away Transgrid workers; of organisations refusing the company’s offer of $5000 community grants even though they could do with the money to paint a clubhouse or buy new gear.

Behind many a “Stop HumeLink” sign there’s genuine anguish and anger. Impacted landholders will be compensated – $200,000 per kilometre of powerlines on their property, paid out over 20 years – but neighbours who have a giant tower built outside their home or business won’t.

Farmers who successfully ­agitated to have the route moved off their land have inadvertently pushed the 500kV lines onto outraged neighbours.

Longstanding friendships have been extinguished and neighbours divided as the winners and losers work out what has been gained and what will be lost.

There’s bewilderment that the race towards green energy will see further land-clearing and destruction of wildlife habitats, and it has widened the city and country divide. Nationals MP Wes Fang says his community is bearing the burden of “this overhead monstrosity’’ so city dwellers can have cheaper power.

“No one should minimise the consequences of ‘industrialising’ Australia’s iconic locations – would we build power lines above Bondi Beach?’’ the Snowy Valleys Council asked in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

Instead of speeding towards the future, HumeLink, one of the country’s biggest infrastructure projects and a critical link to connect renewable projects such as the beleaguered Snowy Hydro 2.0 to the electricity grid, has stalled in the face of community opposition along the length of the proposed 360km line from Wagga Wagga to Maragle to the south and Bannaby to the north.

Opponents have been accused of holding the country to ransom, delaying the race to build sufficient renewable electricity to ­replace coal-fired power stations as they close.

Transgrid says HumeLink is critical to the release of more ­affordable, reliable and renewable energy, but CEO Brett Redman has foreshadowed that the original $3.3bn budget has already blown out to nearly $5bn.

The federal government’s $20bn Rewiring the Nation plan requires 10,000km of new high-voltage power lines across the country’s east coast, but local communities from Tasmania to Queensland aren’t copping new overhead lines without a fight, and they’re emboldened by the HumeLink protest and the equally fierce resistance in Victoria to the VNI West project (Victoria to NSW ­Interconnector West).

Environmentalist Bob Brown is leading the protest against the $3.5bn Marinus Link undersea cable between Victoria and Tasmania, saying it will enable environmentally destructive projects in his state.

In the Sunshine Coast hinterland near Gympie, locals are up in arms over Powerlink’s plans for transmission lines to connect pumped hydro to the grid.

Of the country’s major transmission projects, the 900km EnergyConnect project west from Wagga Wagga to Robertstown in South Australia, connecting to Red Cliffs in Victoria, is under ­construction.

The gridlock threatens to derail the federal government’s clean ­energy transition and has forced Energy Minister Chris Bowen to establish a “community engagement review” to ensure better ­consultation with communities and proper handling of complaints. “It would be easy, but wrong, to dismiss those concerns as just NIMBY-ism,’’ he said in a speech last May. “In my experience, most concerned community members are not anti-renewables, anti-transmission or anti-progress. Nor, in most cases, are they opposed to the projects going ahead if their concerns are ­addressed.”

The HumeLink landholders who spoke to The Weekend Australian aren’t against renewables. They’re not anti-progress or rednecks. Many have spent time and money researching the options, hiring experts, looking for ways to make this work.

They know that transmission is necessary and that their properties are in the firing line, and so they have come up with an alternative plan: bury the cables.

The NSW government has ­responded to their concerns by holding a parliamentary inquiry into the feasibility of undergrounding the lines. More than three years into the battle, it’s given the landholders hope.

“Everyone is happy to work with them if they put it underground,’’ Dave Purcell says. “They could come on to the property and start working tomorrow if that was the option.’’

Communities divided

Mary-Jane Betts is driving across her sheep property just west of Yass, pointing out the lines of trees planted by her late dad John Betts, an early and enthusiastic Landcare member who understood the need for sustainable farming practices and regeneration.

This very afternoon her mum Nan, an active 84-year-old, is down by the creek digging up river red gum seedlings that she’ll nurture and replant elsewhere on the property. Rainbows of parrots erupt from the trees as we survey a deep gully with a generous waterfall spilling from the rocks.

A wedge-tailed eagle is disturbed from its twiggy nest and soars overhead as Mary-Jane talks about the history of this part of Derringullen Creek and its significance as a women’s area for the original Ngunnawal people.

Eight towers, each as high as the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, over of distance of 3.1km are slated for this property.

She shakes her head in disbelief that the route will cross this very gully, away from the women’s area but most likely skirting the eagle’s nest, and taking out ancient trees and newer plantings and wildlife corridors nurtured by her family.

The route, including a 70m easement, will most likely go up through the best lambing paddocks and the helicopter landing pad needed for aerial land management in the steeper, more inaccessible country.

Unlike farmers further south she has asked Transgrid’s mapping team to come onto the property, to see from the ground what can’t be spotted from satellite maps.

These generational farmers know the contours of their land as well as the features on their face. “This place is deep in our bones,’’ Mary-Jane says. “It is absolutely soul-destroying and it hurts us deeply to see what they’re planning to do and at the way we are being treated.

“I hate that this has made me so angry because we are not angry people.”

If the lines must go above ground she has come up with an alternative route within Transgrid’s 200m corridor, but it’s all up in the air, along with her plans to build a conservation trail and eco lodge down at the waterfall.

“We can’t plan anything until we know where these lines are going. We’ve had to put everything on hold while we try to fight this. I can’t tell you how bad it’s been for our health,’’ she says.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/trandgrids-humelink-the-anguish-and-anger-behind-australias-clean-energy-plan/news-story/2a64de7aaffcd3462adaff39c9f5d485

*****************************************************

Many censored social media posts did not contain Covid-19 misinformation

Many of 4000 social media posts secretly censored by government during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic contained ­factual information and reasonable arguments rather than ­misinformation, new documents reveal.

Digital posts released after Freedom of Information applications show the censored information shared facts such as the ineffectiveness of vaccines in preventing Covid-19 infection and transmission or argued against measures such as mask mandates and lockdowns.

For instance, the then Coalition government sought the removal of an Instagram post in April 2021 that claimed “Covid-19 vaccine does not prevent Covid-19 infection or Covid-19 transmission”.

That statement clearly was accurate yet the official intervention via the Home Affairs Department claimed it breached Instagram’s community guidelines because it was “potentially harmful information” that was “explicitly prohibited” by the platform.

A large proportion of posts the government targeted for removal by the digital platforms promoted wild conspiracy theories and misinformation but many others ­simply questioned the effectiveness of lockdowns and masks, shared information now accepted as accurate, and urged people to protest against pandemic ­measures.

An April 2021 tweet was challenged because it claimed “Covid-19 was released or escaped from Wuhan laboratory in China and that it was funded by the US government”.

The Home Affairs Department claimed this was “explicitly prohibited” under Twitter’s rules because it might “invoke a deliberate conspiracy by malicious and/or powerful forces”, yet American intelligence agencies have found the most likely source of the virus was the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and it has been revealed that some work at the laboratory was funded by the US.

Over three years up until last month, the federal government paid World Services Australia, an arm of London-based global communications firm M&C Saatchi, more than $1m to monitor Covid-19 posts online and alert it to controversial material.

The Weekend Australian previously revealed how the federal government, under the Coalition and later Labor, intervened more than 4000 times seeking the removal of social media posts by digital giants such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, using the companies own community standards as the ­trigger.

The information came to light as a result of FOI applications by Liberal senator Alex Antic.

Questions on notice from Senator Antic have now produced details of these interventions, revealing extensive efforts to suppress even factual information.

Senator Antic said this had confirmed his worst fears. “During the Covid period, Home Affairs actively sought censorship of true statements such as ‘lockdowns are ineffective’ and compelled social media companies to penalise dissent from the government’s position,” Senator Antic said.

“This is gravely concerning for all Australians who care about freedom of speech.”

One Facebook video post in January 2021 was targeted for removal because it encouraged “civil disobedience”.

It depicted a “recognised misinformation influencer” in Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens “blatantly walking up to signs that ask people to maintain physical distancing and hiding them from view”.

Many other social media posts were censored for opposing mask mandates and questioning the ­effectiveness of lockdowns and vaccines.

This was censorship on an industrial scale, with the private contractor tasked to trawl through social media posts 24/7.

Senator Antic said the revelations were “gravely concerning” to all Australians who cared about freedom of speech.

He said this amounted to a “censorship industrial complex” and raised fears about this type of intervention being expanded under the proposed Misinformation Bill that would allow for the issuing of multimillion-dollar fines against platforms found to be hosting “misinformation or disinformation”.

“It’s never been more imperative that we protect freedom of speech in Australia and reject this bill,” Senator Antic said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/many-censored-social-media-posts-did-not-contain-covid19-misinformation/news-story/c47a8217ffada2cf576475aef3c12c63

******************************************************

The great green backlash: is Labor next?

Net Zero is the politics of poverty. This dim economic reality lurking beneath all the feel-good social media propaganda about saving a planet that doesn’t need rescuing is manifesting as a serious voter backlash poised to slap left-wing parties across the backside sooner rather than later.

As the loudest champions of ‘green at any cost’, the aptly named Greens are likely to be the first party to feel the sting of public outrage. This will trickle through to the ‘wind turbines and solar panels are our God’ Teals until the mess finishes up in Labor’s lap, where it belongs. They were the chief architects of climate politics when, decades ago, it was all too easy to nominate a distant apocalypse and use its scary vista as an election boost.

‘Give us money and we’ll save the world!’

The masses lined up, wallets open and eyes closed. Everyone loves a saviour, but politicians are not deities with magical powers. Your tax dollars have about as much chance of changing the weather as New Zealand does keeping its volcanoes quiet by giving them gender-neutral pronouns.

The cost of living crisis is walking away from the Net Zero wreckage with a sober view. The existential fear in the public mind no longer relates to the stubbornly stable sea levels, or the faux colour weather maps dipped in red and orange. Too many people remember this as ‘summer’, not a disaster. When Rowan Dean’s Ice Age Watch offers a better quality weather report than the ABC, you know ‘climate change’ has run its course.

Western economies are in a mess because their leaders evoked a ‘war economy’ to handle a crisis that didn’t exist. The initial panic rustled the public purse. It was enough to force people to politely comply with restrictions on freedom while watching, without complaint, the sabotage of public assets. Yet this same citizen body has very little patience for charlatans that use perfect beach weather as an excuse to swindle hundreds of billions in public money.

How many fractions of a degree have Australian taxpayers bought themselves? Is it ‘zero’?

It’s no wonder a backlash has begun. We saw flickers of it arise during Queensland’s recent Fadden by-election in mid-July where the Liberals increased their hold amid sulking Newspolls for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The Greens sank by 4.5 per cent – which is quite extraordinary during a ‘climate change frenzy’.

Situated on the Gold Coast, Fadden would surely notice a catastrophic sea level rise. No doubt residents are watching the tide line hold steady, as it has always done.

The Coalition needed the Fadden win to stem the blood loss from repeated electoral losses up and down the country – although it would be generous to give them credit for the victory. Labor and the Greens are creating an expensive, untenable existence for Australians and as the cost of living crisis escalates the vote will flow away from left-leaning parties.

It’s a shame to see it pour into the pockets of the Liberals, who have spent the last two decades quietly cheering on the same Net Zero policies as Labor and the Greens. They had their chance to protect the Australian public from ruinous and greedy, green-tinted international socialism and instead they leaned heavily into the global prestige of being another ‘yes man’ in the UN crowd.

One Nation has stood against this eco-fascist nonsense from the beginning. We recognised immediately that global corporations and busy-body bureaucracies are misusing scary end-times propaganda for the purpose of acquiring power and gaining riches. Picking carbon dioxide – the foundation of life – as a poison worth controlling and eradicating was always suspect. Frightened citizens in the West, who took the claims of authoritative bureaucracies at face value, are starting to understand that they were duped.

No doubt the Coalition will try to bury their former life as chief propagandists for Net Zero. History will revisit the wets of the party – the Sharmas, Turnbulls, Wilsons, Zimmermans, Keans, and anyone else who empowered the Teals’ apocalyptic message – as either naive or fools. The virtue that green ideology once held is festering into a curse revealing that the darlings of the broad church were always an embarrassment to common sense and economic stability. A moderate Liberal is nothing more than another shade of Teal.

The minor win of a single seat in a by-election result consistent with trends against state and federal governments has reinvigorated Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, yet one wonders if he can see the larger picture.

Australia sits on a turn-tide. The relentless rips of Net Zero and panicky environmentalism have stilled. A grim surge of economic terror waits offshore. This time, it’s a real problem – not some fantastical delusion of a zealous school-skipping teenager. Australians can feel the change in the air and while they punished the Greens at Fadden, they’ll soon unleash hell upon Albanese’s delusional climate posturing.

Young families want to know why renewable energy companies are being given billions of dollars of support in grants while their power bills double. What happened to cheap energy?

Green energy is not cheap energy, and Australians have the power bills to prove it.

So-called green energy is a parasitic malinvestment with each claimed green-job costing at least 2.3 real jobs in the productive economy.

Voters from all walks of life are abandoning ‘green’. Traditionally environmentally-minded surfers never signed up for lines of wind turbines trashing thousands of kilometres of pristine beaches with each turbine anchored to the seafloor where their steel and concrete bodies destroy wave creation. Even the most devout among them find it difficult to look at these aquatic monstrosities with anything other than disgust.

While wind firms and desperate governments keep insisting there’s ‘no evidence’ offshore wind farms are killing whales – whale corpses are piling up. Correlation does not equal causation, yet repeated ‘co-incidence’ makes a strong case for some sort of connection either in construction or operation. Internationally, ocean groups holding ‘Whale Lives Matter’ signs are raising their voices against offshore wind – particularly in America which has seen an increase in beached whales in areas surrounding wind farm activity.

Meanwhile, Tasmania requires wind farms to shut down for five months in the year to protect the migration of parrots. It is an admission that wind turbines present a clear physical threat to migratory birds who get caught in the blades and killed. The irony of ‘environmentally friendly’ energy generation butchering wildlife is as depressing as it is typical of this current era. If coal-fired plants had a habit of slicing-and-dicing nearby wildlife, they’d be banned outright, yet ‘green’ energy is given a free pass on even the most horrific destruction.

If we delivered the broken, bloodied bodies of our birds to Adam Bandt, Chris Bowen, and Anthony Albanese’s offices, would they start caring, or is the machine of renewable energy worth too much to their mates in Beijing? Corporations fattening themselves solar and wind subsidies are unlikely to give up this position of privilege without a fight.

Australia has all the natural gifts to be a standalone energy superpower. Our energy problems are political mistakes driven by greed. That’s all green energy is – public exploitation and the belief that the green money tree will keep refreshing like the Tim Tam genie.

Public money is not infinite and public patience has run dry.

The Netherlands pushed the green delusion harder and faster than Australia, and their catastrophic collision with reality should serve as a lesson to Australia. Their government collapsed in July after farmer movements holding pitchforks destabilised the tyranny of Net Zero policy. Farmers are not giving up their land and livelihoods without a fight. Like the revolutions of old, the public can feel the grip of elitism.

In Europe, the great green backlash has begun. Australia has been put on notice as farmers, rural and regional villagers, and lovers of rainforests come out in force to protect vital natural and human habitats. These vigilantes stand against bulldozers levelling trees and despoiling homes for the scattered blights of wind turbines, vast carpets of solar panels, and dispersed swathes of transmission lines.

Those who continue to attach themselves to this failed policy will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Australians want a secure economic future. They want a prosperous, energy-rich nation. It’s what the blessing of their birth in this wonderful country promised. It is what we are entitled to.

Once we scrape the gangrenous veneer off our political system, Australia will finally be free.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/the-great-green-backlash-is-labor-next

************************************************

The Woke art of debanking men

Bettina Arndt

Last week, the National Australia Bank (NAB) announced a plan to ‘cut off’ customers found to be financial abusers, spelling out this means suspending, cancelling, or denying such people access to their accounts.

They call this ‘debanking’ – cutting off the accounts of anyone who is accused of being a financial abuser.

But how will the banks prove they are dealing with actual perpetrators of this abuse? No problem. It seems to be a case of believe women! Here’s the Australian Banking Association (ABA) explaining that their guidelines on financial abuse specify no evidence is required if a woman claims her partner is an abuser:

‘The guideline recognises that banks don’t need legal evidence of domestic violence, such as an Apprehended Violence Order, to be able to offer assistance to customers,’ said the ABA Executive.

What guarantees are there in place that this new power will not be abused or lead to the damage of, for example, an ex-hubby’s credit rating at the hands of an angry spouse? We know that messy domestic situations can be abused by both sides. This banking ploy is not yet implemented, but rather simply recommended by the Centre for Women’s Economic Safety report, Designed to Disrupt, which maps out plans to use banks as a means to tackle suspected financial abuse. No doubt feminists see this as a great idea. Others remain less enthusiastic.

‘Consider the potential to develop a process to make an adverse credit report for a perpetrator of financial abuse which can be made concurrent to correction for victim-survivor, so that there is a material consequence that impacts on the ability to get future credit,’ writes the author, a UNSW Social Science professor.

Let that sink in. What we are talking about here is banks deliberately trashing what is likely to be a man’s credit rating as punishment when that person has not been convicted, charged, and perhaps not even notified of the accusations. Doesn’t that take the cake? It provides a lot of scope for misuse.

That example is for the future, but right now we have one major Australian bank already cutting off men’s accounts and others lining up to do so. These institutions never actually admit that the new apparatus is primarily targeting men, although it is hinted at through the general wording of the proposal which leans heavily on the assumption that women are the main victims of the domestic and financial abuse this system attempts to address. By extension, men will primarily be on the receiving end of the debanking.

The carefully orchestrated campaign enlisting our banks to tackle financial abuse has been promoted by the key organisations within the domestic violence industry which are, in my opinion, shameless in their anti-male rhetoric. Major banks are also known to finance some of these organisations with large donations. Supporting domestic violence networks is one thing, employing real-world financial action against unproven accusations is quite another.

‘This kind of behaviour is a form of domestic violence. It can be an enabler for partners to keep women trapped in abusive and often dangerous relationships,’ said the CEO of the Australian Banking Association and a supporter of the venture.

Women, women, women… Bank promotions on this subject never seem to feature any male victims of financial violence, but tend to include numerous photographs of miserable, downtrodden women. A bit of equality might be nice. Given the competing sensitivities of identity, virtue signalling in this territory demands a very careful tightrope walk.

So, are men being targeted already? It’s hard to tell, but Andrew, one of my key researchers, reports an intriguing interrogation that took place after his partner transferred a significant amount of money into his transaction account, which they’d planned to shift into a share trading account. Since the amount was beyond his normal transaction limit, Andrew called the bank to arrange it. The operator put him on hold and then transferred him to her supervisor.

To his surprise, the supervisor quickly started grilling him about his partner’s transaction, asking about the nature of their relationship, how close they were, whether they had just broken up and other personal questions. Andrew explained they were friends and declined to answer further questions on the topic. He was then threatened with the possibility that both his accounts might be frozen. He passed the phone to his partner and asked her to try to sort it out. After an intense conversation, his partner convinced the supervisor not to freeze his accounts. Andrew then took the phone back and said he wished to lodge an official complaint. It was some months later that Andrew received a call from his bank saying that, after investigation, the bank wished to apologise for what had happened.

There’s no telling what was really going on here. Perhaps the bank suspected Andrew of being a money mule or involved in some sort of scam…? But the intrusive personal questions focussed on the relationship which implies this zealous bank official might have been following the official industry guidelines recommending banks be on the alert for signs they might be dealing with a perpetrator of financial abuse.

Normally, restricting a customer’s access to bank accounts would require a very high bar, such as evidence of criminality. But as this legal analysis from the Centre for Women’s Economic Safety points out, this may no longer be the case. ‘In NSW, recent legislation provides for a new coercive control offence. The NSW legislation criminalises abusive behaviour, including economic abuse, towards current and former intimate partners.’

That might just give the banks the muscle they need to justify their actions, which are certainly pushing the envelope when it comes to appropriate behaviour for a financial institution.

Clearly the banks’ lawyers believe they have found a way through any regulatory or legal hurdles. When I asked a former senior banking lawyer to examine what the banks are doing, he raised a concerning issue: ‘How do these banks defend themselves from charges that these are unfair contract terms in relation to financial products which are banned by the ASIC Act? Under recent amendments to unfair contract terms legislation to take effect in November 2023, a person such as a bank cannot include an unfair term in a standard form contract or rely on one that is already in place. Significantly increased penalties will apply for breach. One would have thought that these unilaterally imposed new terms which impose draconian consequences on affected consumers based solely on the bank’s view of the facts, with no apparent rights to appeal or prevent the action, are the very definition of unfair contract terms.’

You may like to include this vital question in letters of complaint to the big banks, particularly if you are a customer. And to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

Please get back to me if you know of anyone who has been debanked. We are very keen to challenge the bank’s activities and need actual cases.

Note, there is an important real issue buried in the bank’s financial abuse initiatives, and that is elder abuse. Financial abuse is the most common form of elder abuse – Australian Institute of Family Studies research shows 2 per cent of elders have suffered financial abuse in the last 12 months, which compares to 1.6 per cent of people suffering this abuse from a cohabiting partner, as found in the ABS’s Personal Safety survey. But most of the banks have other priorities.

When it comes to these new banking guidelines and powers, customers are right to be concerned. Psychologists at the University of Central Lancashire, who carried out the major research available on male victims of coercive control, report financial abuse was a major issue for many of these men: ‘Half of male victims had their earnings controlled as a pattern of abuse which in some cases led to men not being able to purchase food or clothing. Men were also expected to take on the burden of all household finances as almost two-thirds of the female perpetrators refused to contribute to household bills and over half refused to work even if able to. Similar to women, some male victims were prevented from going to work, whereas almost one in three male victims were forced to go to work even when unwell.’

Hmm, can you imagine the banks cutting off the accounts of women who refuse to work or contribute to household bills? That’s clearly not going to happen. This initiative has been introduced without government oversight, parliamentary scrutiny, and community consultation. It must be stopped.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/07/the-woke-art-of-debanking-men/

************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

***************************************