tip off

Sorry ABC sloggers, we love Annabel

Crikey readers weigh in on the big issues of the day.

Crabb is fab

Brian Mitchell writes: Re. (Tip and rumours, yesterday). It’s easy to see why Annabel Crabb is a favourite: she’s fantastic. Her feature piece for Foreign Correspondent was an entertaining and informative summation of Florida voters’ intentions. She is engaging, witty, wry and whip-smart, with awful taste in big droopy hats. I’ve met her a couple of times in person and her on-screen persona is who she is, it’s not a confection for the camera. Long may she reign.

Nicole Lindsay: Annabel Crabb’s Foreign Correspondent was good — no better nor worse than long-term ABC reporters would have produced. Their complaints about reward for hard slog doesn’t work anymore. If the ABC is going to recruit people later in their careers then you can’t be fixed on this kind of reward thinking.

Pam Marks: I just love Annabel’s take on politics and wonderful use of  language in all programs she appears in. I have also loved the Kitchen Cabinet series and the quaintness of the kitchens she prepares the dessert in each week. Her column in The Age is always delightful to read as well. Go Annabel!

Guy Rundle

Bruce Graham writes: Re. “Rundle: what’s up for grabs tomorrow, and how they’ll win it” (yesterday). Guy Rundle writes “everyone who votes must select dozens of officials”. Having voted in USA elections, I can vouch that once you get into a polling booth, there is nothing you MUST do.

In Seattle, the rates of voting for minor posts like school board member were vanishing small — only a few thousand votes, in some cases. I guessed that this was self selective: only the people who actually had an opinion on county sheriff voted that line.

Live exports

John Richardson writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday). So, Richard Farmer thinks it “strange” that Australians are outraged by Japanese fishermen harvesting a few hundred whales each year, whilst they appear relatively untroubled by our own cruel live sheep and cattle export trade.

Of course, what Richard has overlooked is that Australians, including our bold political leaders, have no problem attacking the Japanese over their dreadful activities, because it would cost us nothing if those activities were outlawed, whilst also making many of us feel a whole lot better about our world.

On the other hand, doing away with our live animal export trade would cost the Australian economy more than $1 billion annually and probably make us feel a whole lot worse about our world. Nothing ironic here: just good old-fashioned self-interest trumping principle, as it almost always does.

1
  • 1
    mattsui
    Posted Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    John Richardson writes; “doing away with our live animal export trade would cost the Australian economy more than $1 billion annually “.
    Nice, round figure, that. Where did you get it from, John? I’d be willing to bet that you made it up. But even if you didn’t there’s no way it could be true.
    I and millions like me believe that the world would be a better place if sheep and cows, goats etc. could be slaughtered and processed at home before being exported. Value would be added. The animals’ final moments monitored to reduce stress and pain. Crimes like those shown on television on Monday ended forever.
    And jobs for those who are willing.
    Win win.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...