Celebrate Human Achievement Hour

Anzac Day and the Disapproval of Commemorations Thereof

	Member Nations of the United Nations:	193
	Member Nations which commemorate Anzac Day:	3*
	Member Nations which don’t commemorate Anzac Day:	190

So, if you don’t like commemorations of Anzac Day…

*  Australia, New Zealand and Tonga.  (Cook Islands and Niue also commemorate Anzac Day.)

Poor Craig Thomson

He’s Really, Genuinely Ill, Really 

All the medical
certificates ever sent
were wholly benign;

and no GP would
dare provide a document
that’s less than quite fine.*

Of course, Craig Thomson
must be ill: it’s certified;
a doctor so states.

Thomson says that he
never even once supplied
a card for his mates,

and he never signed
for “escorts”, “drinks” and “desserts”:
that was just a joke

he need not explain.
The Prime Minister asserts
that he’s a great bloke

so that should be more
than enough for all of us
to clear Thomson’s name

particularly
since his mates won’t make a fuss
over any claim.

Thomson in better days,  before he felt sick to his stomach.

*  according to Dr. Steve Hambleton, President of the AMA, at a media conference today.  Busy, for the most part, with inventing slightly differing variants of the leading question asking whether, surely, the Coalition were unqualified to query the legitimacy of medical certificates, not one alleged journalist asked Dr. Hambleton whether he had never heard of a doctor complying with a patient’s request and thereto signing a medical certificate which certified that the patient had been ill but without the doctor’s examining the patient thoroughly. 

UPDATE (21 March):  see the case of Anderson v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2008] FMCA 152 (3 March 2008), wherein Burchardt FM referred to a medical certificate (used by a worker to obtain a sick-day because he preferred to watch a football match) as “inappropriate and improper, and [...] deficient”, and said, “Had not Dr Salter so inappropriately given a sickness certificate to somebody who plainly did not merit one, it seems entirely clear that Mr Anderson would not have gone to Perth and not have lost his job.”

In an “Explanatory Statement” for the Workers Compensation Regulations 2002 Subordinate Law No. SL2002-20, circulated by Simon Corbell MLA, the ACT’s Minister for Industrial Relations, it would seem that “doctor shopping”—a process whereby, for instance, a patient attempting to claim compensation  fraudulently might consult numerous doctors in order to find one amenable to his need for a less than completely honest assessment of his medical condition—is known to legislators:

The notice required by regulation 10 ensures that the reasons for any referral to a specialist to confirm or challenge a person’s medical condition is known by all parties.  The imperative to provide notices also dissuades all parties from ‘doctor shopping’.

“Doctor shopping” is known to at least one AMA representative:  in “Oldies’ driving ambition can be costly”, by Sasha Pcino, in the Mackay Daily Mercury (from May, last year), a “local AMA spokesperson and Sunshine Coast medical association president Mason Stevenson” is quoted:

“Some [older drivers] decide to doctor shop in order to circumvent the usual GP’s opinion on the matter, which is the best person to make the decision,” he said.
“This is why the medical authorisation certificate was changed to specifically ask if the doctor is familiar with the patient’s medical history or not in an attempt to stop doctor shopping.”

I sent an e-mail to Dr. Hambleton, asking him:

Do you still maintain that no doctor has ever supplied a medical certificate without having ascertained that the explanation provided on the certificate related accurately to the diagnosis by that doctor after a scrupulous examination?
Does not the widely known practice of “doctor shopping” suggest that some doctors will provide medical certificates which might be “inappropriate and improper, and deficient”?
Does not the case of “Anderson v. Crown Melbourne Ltd” provide an instance of a doctor’s having provided a medical certificate which was “inappropriate and improper, and deficient”?

A Land of Severer Severities

Unless We Tax Our Air 

No coolth within, no rain without,
Will Steffen ever has no doubt:
a long dry spell could soon spell drought
unless we tax our air.

At last, however, ceaseless rain
would flood each dusty, wide, brown plain
and some would not see land again
unless we tax our air.

Whatever happens, he will say,
might expedite a dismal day
of floods or droughts or much dismay
unless we tax our air.

Consensus and authorities
agree with him, and he agrees
with them that none would be at ease
unless we tax our air.

All Steffen’s chums have guaranteed
more “greenhouse” gases antecede
great warming (which may come with speed)
unless we tax our air.

In warmists’ wild imaginings
some slightly warmer weather brings
severer storms and spooky things
unless we tax our air.

Severer the severities,
among eternal verities,
there will be no prosperities
unless we tax our air.

Will Steffen is a man of clout
so we must heed each mighty shout:
“Floods might cause floods, drought could bring drought,
unless we tax our air!”

Prof. Will Steffen, a silly, duplicitous fellow, but a Climate Commissioner, asserts that, “Extended dry periods are expected to increase in southwest and southeast Australia by the end of this century, increasing the risk of drought.”  See “Droughts May Lead to Droughts”.

UPDATE I:  added what are now the fifth and sixth stanzas. 

UPDATE II:  added this:

They claim it’s from a peer-review:
there is but one thing we can do
to save us from the C-O-2
which dissipates from stack or flue
and wickedly turns skies into
a dreadful, sickly, evil hue,
and leaves a nasty residue
which makes each fluffy kitten spew
or forces herbivores to chew
on cuddly bunnies; far too few
have recognised what must ensue
if we don’t pay attention to
Will Steffen and his crazy crew
(such as his boss, the Flamster, who
predicted ruin, overdue,
for cities which would have to queue
for drinking water—quite untrue);
they ever seek more revenue
and try to make each person rue
the day one lit a barbecue
or drove a car or rode or flew
towards a far-off rendezvous);
they say that mankind’s down the loo—
in other words, we’re in deep poo—
unless we tax our air.

UPDATE III: added what is now the seventh stanza.

UPDATE IV (14 July, 2013):  see “A Change Is in the Air”.

One of Our Strongest Allies Punches above Its Weight

(Thanks to the Crack Emcee.)
 

A Modern Motto

“Racist and Insane”

(Thanks to I Hate the Media; see also Jason Mattera’s site.)

Big Government: Everything Is Illegal

The PM Lied

Julia Abstrahenda’st 

Across this land’s wide
expanse, people are aware
that the PM lied.

At sea, scores have died
seeking unlawful entry
since the PM lied.

She could not abide
Rudd but extolled him none the
less; the PM lied.

Then she justified
her acts: Rudd was really bad;
so the PM lied.

The self-satisfied
members of caucus praise her
though the PM lied.

Gillard has denied*
that she sought to appoint Carr,
but the PM lied.

There’s a great divide
between her words and the truth
for the PM lied.

Is she qualified
now to be Prime Minister?
No; the PM lied.

*  see “Bob Carr at odds with Julia Gillard on ministry bid”, by Matthew Franklin and Dennis Shanahan, in The Australian:

Former NSW premier Bob Carr has directly contradicted Julia Gillard’s denial that he was offered the post of foreign minister in her government this week.  The Prime Minister’s handling of the disclosure of Labor's attempt to draft Mr Carr has sparked fresh concerns among colleagues about her political judgment.
The concerns emerged last night after Ms Gillard attacked as “completely untrue” a report in The Australian yesterday detailing the government's offer to Mr Carr—despite the fact Mr Carr had publicly confirmed the offer had been made.

See also “Unfit to Lead”. 

UPDATE (2 March):  see “Julia Gillard admits talks to lure Bob Carr”, by Matthew Franklin and Sid Maher, in The Australian:

Julia Gillard has confirmed she held talks with former NSW premier Bob Carr over drafting him to serve in her government, sparking fresh opposition attacks on her honesty and political judgment.
The Prime Minister has backed away from her claim that a report in The Australian on Wednesday revealing her dealings with Mr Carr was “completely untrue”, after being challenged by the opposition to repeat her claim in parliament.