I would like to congratulate Peter Costello on receiving the Companion of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day Awards announced this morning.
The citation reads: For eminent service to the Parliament of Australia, particularly through the development of landmark economic policy reforms in the areas of taxation, foreign investment, superannuation and corporate regulation, and through representative roles with global financial organisations.
Thoroughly deserved.
***
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Someone hasn't told the fog about GW
This was the view from my back verandah at 7.15 this morning. Just to clarify, it is summer here in New South Wales, Australia! I have lived here for well over thirty years, and we get many fogs. I just can't recall one in January before.
***
***
Saturday, January 15, 2011
On the road in Canberra
Here's me (well, I'm driving), on a trip from Woden in Canberra, to the Barton Highway. This 2:27 video covers a real-time journey of sixteen minutes. If only I could do this trip in under three minutes!
***
***
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Queensland floods - for my sanity, please mind your language
My television will be wearing a size ten shoe the next time I hear someone refer to the "enormity" of the flood disaster.
Time for Grammar 101.
'Enormity' does NOT mean enormous, it means excessive wickedness, or something monstrously evil. Now, many people might indeed believe the floods were evil, nevertheless, most who use 'enormity' do not have this context in mind. 'Enormousness' is used of size.
As the dictionary on my Mac explains:
Many people nonchalantly use enormity where enormousness belongs. If the shopping centre is enormous, do not speak of its enormity. That would make no sense at all.
My prayers to all flood-affected victims.
***
Time for Grammar 101.
'Enormity' does NOT mean enormous, it means excessive wickedness, or something monstrously evil. Now, many people might indeed believe the floods were evil, nevertheless, most who use 'enormity' do not have this context in mind. 'Enormousness' is used of size.
As the dictionary on my Mac explains:
USAGE This word is imprecisely used to mean 'great size,' as in : it is difficult to comprehend the enormity of the continent, but the original and preferred meaning is 'extreme wickedness,' as in : the enormity of the mass murders. To indicate enormous size, the words enormousness, immensity, vastness, hugeness, etc., are preferable.
Many people nonchalantly use enormity where enormousness belongs. If the shopping centre is enormous, do not speak of its enormity. That would make no sense at all.
My prayers to all flood-affected victims.
***
Friday, January 7, 2011
Michael Clarke quits wrong form of the game
I must admit I did a double-take when I heard this news item today. I had a bit of a 'what the...' moment.
After their humiliating loss to England, Australia's stand-in captain, Michael Clarke, has announced he is quitting the 20-20 form of the game of which he was the captain.
Does Clarke think that quitting 20-20 will save him from the axe from the test side?
What does 20-20 have to do with test matches anyway?
Clarke's recent form has been atrocious in all versions of the game, and yes, he does need to focus on his performance at test level, but all this sounds very much like he is making the short form of the game some sort of scapegoat for his unremarkable recent form at test level.
Australia were comprehensively outplayed by England this summer - especially they were outbowled. The selectors made some God-awful decisions, and the coaching staff should not be blameless either. As a result, it isn't just the jobs of some wearing the baggy green that are looking very shaky.
Bring on the footy.
***
After their humiliating loss to England, Australia's stand-in captain, Michael Clarke, has announced he is quitting the 20-20 form of the game of which he was the captain.
Does Clarke think that quitting 20-20 will save him from the axe from the test side?
What does 20-20 have to do with test matches anyway?
Clarke's recent form has been atrocious in all versions of the game, and yes, he does need to focus on his performance at test level, but all this sounds very much like he is making the short form of the game some sort of scapegoat for his unremarkable recent form at test level.
Australia were comprehensively outplayed by England this summer - especially they were outbowled. The selectors made some God-awful decisions, and the coaching staff should not be blameless either. As a result, it isn't just the jobs of some wearing the baggy green that are looking very shaky.
Bring on the footy.
***
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Usman Khawaja - a good start, but let's calm down a bit
I need to point out that I am not a cricket commentator; however, this vignette - my first foray into the genre - has been prompted by my reading a lot of effusive dribble from the Australian press about the debut innings of Usman Khawaja.
From the outset, I am a huge fan of Khawaja, and, if you read my last blog post, you will see that I supported his inclusion into the Australian side for the Sydney test. He earned his place in the team and thoroughly deserves to be there.
On a rain-marred morning at the best cricket ground in the country – his home ground – Usman Tariq Khawaja batted very well, and, until his dismissal ball, solidly, for his 37.
Make no mistake, 37 on debut is a good effort, but, to be more flattering than that is to get carried away with ourselves; and this is precisely what many have done. You would think he scored 137.
Mind you, had he been able to achieve a century, the Australian cricket world would have shifted on its axis, and the Islamabad-born New South Welshman would have secured the number three position in the test team for as long as he wants. It still might happen – there’s always the second innings.
Khawaja is a bright young prospect for the future success of Australian test cricket. But the same is said for all test debutants. What sets the truly special ones apart from the plodders is when a youngster can consolidate and log some post-50 scores - consistently. If Khawaja can do this then we will all whoop and cheer to our hearts' content.
Let's just support him now, and encourage him, and let him get on with his no-nonsense brand of cricket. I think he will be a joy to watch.
I like the cut of his jib; and, from the sounds emanating from the SCG yesterday, so does Australia.
***
From the outset, I am a huge fan of Khawaja, and, if you read my last blog post, you will see that I supported his inclusion into the Australian side for the Sydney test. He earned his place in the team and thoroughly deserves to be there.
On a rain-marred morning at the best cricket ground in the country – his home ground – Usman Tariq Khawaja batted very well, and, until his dismissal ball, solidly, for his 37.
Make no mistake, 37 on debut is a good effort, but, to be more flattering than that is to get carried away with ourselves; and this is precisely what many have done. You would think he scored 137.
Mind you, had he been able to achieve a century, the Australian cricket world would have shifted on its axis, and the Islamabad-born New South Welshman would have secured the number three position in the test team for as long as he wants. It still might happen – there’s always the second innings.
Khawaja is a bright young prospect for the future success of Australian test cricket. But the same is said for all test debutants. What sets the truly special ones apart from the plodders is when a youngster can consolidate and log some post-50 scores - consistently. If Khawaja can do this then we will all whoop and cheer to our hearts' content.
Let's just support him now, and encourage him, and let him get on with his no-nonsense brand of cricket. I think he will be a joy to watch.
I like the cut of his jib; and, from the sounds emanating from the SCG yesterday, so does Australia.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
