Latest Entries »

Another day, another attack on the ABC from the Right of Australian politics.  Seems to be becoming the norm lately, doesn’t it?  ‘Ah well’, you say, ‘it’s just a bunch of frothers hyperventilating again.  We’ll go on ignoring it as we’ve always done, and things will stay the same.’

Not necessarily though.  While indeed the attack was a consistent with the theme we’ve had in recent months, this attack came right from the top.  Now even the Prime Minister of Australia is engaging in the fringe-dweller culture wars normally reserved for the Cory Bernardis, Ian MacDonalds and Kevin Andrews of this world.

Yes, the PM has criticised the ABC for, seemingly, casting a critical view of the Australian Government.  I mean, God forbid we have an independent news organisation daring to uphold its charter and hold a democratically-elected government to account.

Hatred of the ABC from the political Right is no new phenomenon.  To the economic ‘dries’, its existence is seen as invading the space and performing the role that an equivalent private organisation could perform.  To the rabid right-wingers (or the Conservative Revolutionists, to use a Bernardi term), its editorial line is seen as left-leaning, not providing enough balance (read bias to the right) on pet issues for social conservatives like climate change, as well as being overly critical of the performance of conservative politicians and governments.

(Mind you, these same politicians don’t seem to complain too much when the ABC goes around breaking stories that discredit their ideological enemies.)

So generally, to have members of the Liberal and National Parties, i.e. those on the Right, come out against the ABC in many forms is nothing short of expected.  However, this type of behaviour, from the PM no less, demeans the office of the Prime Minister, and portrays Tony Abbott as both a whinger about media bias, as well as someone prepared to entertain the ramblings of the fringe even to his right.  Both are rather unflattering and potentially dangerous paths to be treading.  Mr Abbott’s whinge sounds very familiar to the ‘poor me’ cries from the Gillard Government and the Greens about unfavourable coverage in News Limited papers during the last term of parliament, which only sought to make the government look like it was trying to blame someone else for its poor fortunes, as well as putting offside the largest newspaper organisation in the country.

It also raises the very serious prospect of political intervention in the operation of the ABC.  The PM’s comments appear to be a political rebuke for the editorial line of the ABC and the stories it chooses to cover.  They appear to suggest the PM is advocating that the ABC heed his direction (given while in the company of one of the most right-wing radio hosts in this country in Ray Hadley) and adjust its editorial tone to suit the Australian Government’s (the Liberal and National Government’s) agenda.

I value the ABC very greatly, but if EVER the ABC were to buckle to any pressure from political organisation either in or outside government, it’s very purpose would cease to exist.  There is only a purpose in maintaining a publicly-funded broadcaster if it maintains complete editorial independence, and is never influenced by government or opposition opinion.  If the ABC were to in any way heed the calls of the Prime Minister on this or any other occasion regarding its editorial standpoint, it would be reduced to a laughable and completely insignificant propaganda machine such as the Korean Central News Agency of North Korea.

I guess the purpose of this rant (other than to vent a bit of fury) is to serve as a warning to all of the dangers of politics interfering with, or worse yet, potentially influencing our national broadcaster.  The government will inevitably find itself with the power to limit the scope or power of the ABC, and it probably will as a measure of spite undertake an element of ‘wing-clipping’.  However, for the sake of the integrity of the entire organisation and the millions of people it serves, the government must never be willing or able to influence its editorial practices.  Even I, as a great fan of the ABC and its services, would rather see the entire corporation abolished than for one minute see its editorial practices influenced by the politics of the day.

With the Queensland Plan forum in the news, and in the wake of the southern states of Australia winding their clocks forward an hour for daylight savings this weekend just gone, that thorny old issue of daylight saving time in Queensland has once again raised its head.  Despite the best intentions of both the ALP and LNP to keep it under wraps and pretend that daylight savings is a non-issue north of the Tweed, the Queensland public has again declared a desire for action on this somewhat stagnant issue.

A brief history lesson now – daylight saving time was introduced permanently in parts of Australia in the early 1970s, after being initially briefly employed previously during the world wars as an energy saving measure.  New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia have all since undertaken the practice of winding their clocks forward one hour in spring, and back one hour in autumn, so as to capitalise on the excess morning light delivered by nature during the summer months.

At this time, Queensland was under the rule of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s National Party, with a predominantly rural and profoundly conservative voter base.  To them, and Sir Joh’s Nationals, the concept of adjusting clocks twice a year was more than a minor inconvenience, and after a brief flirtation with the practice, was permanently stopped.  The sharper-minded observers will recall the mutterings from the then-Queensland Premier about how daylight saving time would fade the curtains and make the cows produce sour milk.  Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke famously told the world that Queensland’s resistance to the concept was because “Joh wasn’t getting out of bed an hour earlier for anyone”.

Of course, all (word deliberately omitted) things must eventually come to an end, and with the revelations of corruption and the onset of the Fitzgerald Inquiry, Joh’s Nationals were turfed out of office in 1989 for the Wayne Goss’ Labor Party.  Goss sought to immediately introduce a trial of daylight saving time in Queensland, which ended up running for three full summers, before a referendum was held in 1992 to decide whether Queenslanders were prepared to embrace daylight saving time.

The result was clear, and even the most sceptical of statisticians and psephologists admitted its conclusions.  The ‘no’ campaign won the day with over 54% of the statewide vote, with opposition to daylight saving time reaching levels of over 90% in some areas in far north and west Queensland. Interestingly, South East Queenslanders embraced the concept, unlike their regional cousins, with almost all voting districts in the South East registering overall support for the extra hour of daylight in the summer evenings.  However, their support was overall insufficient, and in March 1992 Queensland ended its last ever period of daylight saving time since.

Since 1992, a few half-hearted proposals for the reintroduction of daylight savings in Queensland have been thrown around.  A political party dedicated to the concept was registered in the late 2000s, and in 2010, a private members’ bill was introduced into Queensland Parliament to establish a separate time zone for South East Queensland that ran on daylight saving time in the summer months.  However, without the support of either major party, it was quickly defeated, and the status quo remained.  It is of note that since Goss, no Queensland Premier has advocated the introduction of daylight saving time while in office (though both Anna Bligh and Campbell Newman are on the record as privately being supporters of the concept).

So, how do you tackle a thorny issue such as this?  There’s no doubt that the state is deeply divided on it, with the far north and west bitterly opposed, and the South East generally supportive.  The status quo has seen the South Easterners surrender to the north on the issue, with year-round standard time being the norm.  However, this must be questioned when two-thirds of the state’s population resides in this area.  One is forced to question the wisdom of allowing a clear minority of the state’s population to dictate terms regarding time zones, despite the state capital and its largest tourist areas all being located within areas that would clearly benefit from daylight saving time.

The rationale behind daylight saving time in the South East is clear: in summer, sunrise occurs at approximately 4:45am EST in Brisbane, yet sunset is before 7pm.  Winding forward one hour would bring sunrise to the much more respectable time of 5:45am, and would push sunset back an hour to closer to 8pm.  While the sun would still set earlier in Brisbane than in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Hobart, daylight saving time would give people in the South East an additional hour of light at the end of the day.

Then of course is the time difference factor – for six months of the year, Brisbane is one hour behind the eastern states, and even half an hour behind Adelaide, despite being significantly further east.  This time difference plays havoc for business relations between Queensland and the southern states, and proves especially confusing at the NSW border.  The state border is far from clearly defined in most areas, meaning people can cross it and change time zones without knowing.  Quite literally, there are parts of Coolangatta, the southernmost town of the Gold Coast, where you can cross the road (in a dense urban area mind you) and have changed states and time zones without even realising.  This proves confusing for locals and especially tourists, noting that the Gold Coast is one of this state and our nation’s most popular tourist spots.

To reflect my objectivity, I note that the arguments against daylight saving time in the north of the state are strong too.  Cairns, for instance, is 800km further west than Brisbane, and some 1500km further north.  This means that the sun naturally rises and sets later anyway, and in summer the days do not grow longer to the extent that they do further south.  Objectively speaking, it is perfectly reasonable for people in Cairns to wish to remain on standard time for 12 months of the year.  Mount Isa also fits into this category, being even further west than Cairns, as do many other towns and cities to the north and west of Brisbane.

So, what does one do?  The politically easy option is to retain the status quo – it’s at least uncontroversial.  No politician wants to piss of the regions, nor be seen as the person splitting the state.  This is why you see people like Campbell Newman, who campaigned strongly for the introduction of daylight saving time as Lord Mayor of Brisbane, resisting any action on this front.  But that doesn’t solve the issue – it merely means the South East continues to miss out due to the minority in the north, and gives the southern states even further evidence of Queensland being a backward state that, as a resident of Brisbane, I can assure you that it otherwise does not justly deserve.

The only pragmatic solution, and the only one that gives people what they all want, is for Queensland to operate two time zones in the summer months.  Draw a line no further south than Gympie, and no further east than the Dividing Range, with everywhere south-east of that line observing daylight saving time in summer, and the rest of the state remaining on standard time.  Sure, it will have its logistical challenges at first, as any change in time zones will, but it’s the best solution to this dilemma.  We wouldn’t be the first place in the world to split a state into more than one time zone – Florida observes both Eastern and Central time in the USA (due, like Queensland, to its expansive geography), and closer to home, Broken Hill runs at a constant half-hour behind NSW time, despite being in that state.

Why don’t we trial that for a few years – please everybody for a while, and see if anyone wants to change back at the end.  Of course, if the South East embraces the change (as I anticipate they will), let them keep that time zone.  And if Gympie, or the Fraser Coast, or Toowoomba, or Bundaberg want to join in, let them wind forward too.

In my view, a dual time zone arrangement is the only realistic solution to Queensland’s split on support for daylight saving time.  I believe it can be made to work, and in my view, its implementation will be beneficial for both those involved and those who lie outside these areas.  So, Premier Newman, what are you waiting for?

Why? Just, why?

It’s been impossible to so much as look around in the last week here in Melbourne without being confronted by images and stories about missing Brunswick woman Jill Meagher. Unfortunately, as we are now sadly all too aware, her body was located in the early hours of the morning and a Coburg man has been charged with her rape and murder.

The confirmation of this despicable crime, the extinguishing of the last remaining hope held out by her family and friends, and the outpouring of emotion from people as close as her husband to as distant as complete strangers has shown the best and the worst of our society and the human race of which we are all a part. A beautiful young woman, slain in the prime of her life, her husband now a widower, her parents without a daughter, a life cut far too short for seemingly no reason. One wonders, why? Just, why?

I know if someone did something as inexplicable and horrible like this to the woman I loved, I would be absolutely devastated in ways words could not convey. To have lost someone as dear as your daughter, sister or partner is a feeling I cannot begin to understand, and hope never to have to. Though relating that feeling, even hypothetically, to my own situation only makes me feel even more grief and sorrow for the family and friends of their now-lost loved one.

But sadly, this heartbreaking episode that has unfolded since the early hours of Saturday morning is just one small event of this nature. Without in any way belittling the hurt and sadness of the Meagher family for the sudden and unfair loss, this is but one of many incidents of this type to occur in the world we live in. It is one, like the other 91 murders that occurred in Victoria in the last twelve months to June. It is one, like the 2,044 rape offences that occurred in that same period.

Again, I don’t mean to belittle this tragedy, but I aim to point out that tragic events like are sadly all too common. I sincerely hope that the publicity surrounding this specific case leads us to formulate a response that protects others who may otherwise have fallen victim to foul play. If this incident can lead to measures being implemented that prevent even one of these crimes occurring again, we’ve at least then done what we can to make the best of a truly terrible situation.

The suspect, who has now been charged in this case, led police to the body of the victim. I find his actions truly deplorable and abhorrent, truly abhorrent. I am of the opinion that crimes against women, particularly of this nature, are the lowest of low. I am horrified of the concept that a man can bring himself to rape a woman, let alone then murdering her afterwards. I simply detest any crimes against women, and the people (generally men) who perpetrate them.

However, this man, as deplorable as I may find his actions, is now in the hands of the system. He will now be subject to the processes and procedures of our judicial system to determine his guilt and deserved punishment. This is a fair and reasonable outcome. While the instincts of some may be to seek revenge in a very primitive way, I feel we must let justice run its course. Nothing can bring her back now, and seeking to make another suffer just lowers us to this despicable man’s level.

Let us now leave the system do its job. And most importantly, let us now leave this poor family to grieve, and hopefully put this extremely unfair and unfortunate chapter of their life behind them.

Friday Flashback #26

Hey, just thought I’d let you know I’m still alive. Busy, but still alive.

I’ve got a truly woeful flashback to greet you all with too. One from my childhood back in the mid-to-late 1990s that I really wish I hadn’t rediscovered. But I have, so now I get to subject you to the same pain. Enjoy…

From way back in 1997, this is T-Shirt (a “band” that came and went just as quickly) with their cover version of Hot Chocolate’s “You Sexy Thing“.

Interestingly enough, this cover (it was actually one of many cover versions of this song) included Hot Chocolate singer Errol Brown in the song and film clip. The song peaked at #5 across the ditch in New Kiwiland and #6 here, staying in the ARIA charts for an unbelievable 32 weeks.

The 90s kids will note the old Video Hits graphics from around 1997 aired throughout the filmclip as well. The super-keen TV nerds (such as myself, I’m not going to lie) might also note this was recorded from Ten Victoria, the Channel Ten affiliate station based throughout regional Victoria. Funny that, given I’m sure I probably saw this filmclip back in the day on holidays in Ballarat or Gippsland myself.

I recall watching this and loving it, being a 9-year-old kid at the time. I may even have it cassette-tape recorded somewhere at home. It’s a song I haven’t heard in probably over 10 years, and while most of me wishes I still hadn’t, parts of me enjoyed the trip down pop music memory lane

Until we meet again…

Call me a genius…

Well call me a genius. I wrote this prediction in November. Sure enough, on Australia Day, my prediction came true. Gotye and Kimbra’s “Somebody That I Used To Know” won the Triple J Hottest 100.

Considering the song was odds-on favourite to win, I guess it’s no surprise really. Though I’m going to claim my little victory for all it’s worth anyway 🙂

As for the rest of, few surprises there I imagine. I expected to see The Black Keys, Boy and Bear and The Jezabels do well, and they did. A bit disappointed that one of Florence and the Machine’s new ones didn’t get into the top 10 though.

Now the rest of the world will go back to ignoring Triple J till next January…

 

A not-so-minor or popular rant coming up here, initially provoked by today’s announcement by Coles Supermarkets that they will be reducing prices across a number of items in their fresh produce departments, though largely fuelled by the media and some regular offenders’ contributions to the discussion of this announcement.

The headlines say it all; “Concerns over fruit & vegetable discounting”, “Fear for farmers over Coles cuts” and so on. In my mind, they should read: “People complaining about cheaper prices”.

The irony I find in the situation is expressed henceforth. In a society where everyone, particularly the populist media, makes such an issue of the supposed high costs of living for everyday Australians, they see it fit to jump on the big supermarkets whenever they say anything, positive or negative.We saw the same thing happen when Coles and Woolworths announced last year that they were decreasing the price of milk and bread –  a populist anger and outrage that prices were being reduced for consumers. Why?!

Now’s the part where everyone will chime in claiming that the supermarkets through their duopoly over the grocery sector in this country use their market power to pay pittance to farmers for their produce, only to sell it with high profit margins in their stores nationwide, and that these price cuts will only see farmers paid less for their produce. While I’m not going to deny that supermarkets undoubtedly make efforts to reduce the wholesale cost for the products they sell, all I can say is, who can blame them? A supermarket, like any other shop in the world, is a business. It provides a service and aims to profit from doing so. People seem to have this fanciful notion that supermarkets exist (or at least should exist) solely for the good of their suppliers and customers, when nothing could be further from the truth. They aim to make money, that’s the purpose of their existence! And a business makes money if it minimises its expenses (aka the price it pays for the products it sources), and maximises its takings (aka the price you pay at the register for those products).

So to get back to what I was trying to say, today in the media we had everyone from an AusVeg spokesman, the CEO of the National Farmers Federation, a spokeswoman from that defender of consumer rights (translation: the mob that aims to protect people from their own stupidity when shopping) Choice, and even the Greens coming out and criticising Coles decision to cut these prices, despite not actually knowing what items specifically would be reduced in retail price. AusVeg, the NFF and the Greens were touting much the same argument, namely that lower retail prices inevitably translates into lower wholesale prices for producers, and that’s bad for farmers. Choice’s main concern that these items were being used as loss-leaders; namely cheap deals that lure customers into stores with the intention of then enticing these customers to buy other premium-priced products as well.

Let’s deal with these concerns in order. For starters, the NFF is the organisation dedicated to protecting farmers’ rights and livelihoods, or as they dub themselves, “the voice of Australian farmers”. They act much like a workplace union would, attempting to lobby for additional rights and benefits for farmers. Essentially their aim and purpose of existence is to help farmers make as much money as possible. They would be quite pleased to see farmers be able to charge top dollar for the produce, which is essentially what is being argued for here. However, if Coles and Woolies were forced to pay top dollar to obtain produce, let’s examine the real impacts. Prices would rise for produce in Australian supermarkets, as wholesale prices would increase and the supermarkets would have to maintain their margins. So suddenly your $2 kilo of bananas would cost more like $4 or $5, as would everything else increase. If that were to happen, imagine the outrage from the cost-of-living-concerned individuals and tabloid newspapers/”current affairs” shows then!

The Greens coming out in defence of Australian farmers continues a string of patriotic-bordering-on-xenophobic policy statements recently regarding the protection of Australian farming and the limiting of overseas ownership of Australian farms and the importation of food. Confusing really, considering the Greens are the party who actively promote and support multiculturalism in every other way. While their concerns for the financial stability of Australian farms and farmers are noble, I sense it is a little in vain. To this day I’m yet to meet a farmer or anyone from the land who would even entertain the concept of voting Green, yet the residents of their one seat of Melbourne would be far happier with cheaper supermarket produce.

And Choice, don’t get me started on Choice. As I said earlier, their sole purpose for existence is to protect idiots from their own stupidity, and that is only proven by the arguments offered by spokeswoman Ingrid Just today on ABC News. Yes, a loss-leader is a product marketed below cost to attract people to your store, and yes, not all products in a supermarket will be loss-leaders, because it’d be a pretty stupid way to run a supermarket if all your products sold for less than they cost. However, if you’re not a gullible fool you’ll realise this, and realise that you can buy your cheap fruit and vegetables without paying extra for other products, and you as the consumer will win, which is what Choice claim to be all about supporting. How a consumer group can oppose lower prices really confuses me, and only convinces me of their continued irrelevance. Though Ms Just’s explanation of a loss-leader does shoot down the arguments made by the NFF and the Greens earlier that farmers will solely bear the burden of the reduced prices.

However, despite these pointless comments from vested-interest groups, one thing has gone amiss in this discussion: fact. The fact is that growing conditions in many parts of Australia over the last few seasons have been the best they’ve been for nearly 20 years. As a result, the supply of many fruits and vegetables available is grossly in excess of demand. Coles’ solution is this: rather than seeing excess product go unsold and have farmers turning tonnes of their good quality produce into fertiliser for their next crop, why not spark an increase in demand by lowering retail prices. That way sales increase so farmers can move more produce (which as any producer will tell you, selling stock cheap is better than not selling stock at all), and retail sales improve due to reduced prices. Not to mention, we the consumers get cheap food. It’s making the best of the situation.

Now I don’t mean to stand here and be a supermarket apologist. And yes, I know you’ll all claim I’m biased as I worked for one of the major supermarkets. However, all I’m doing is presenting the facts and what I believe to be the case, without the usual vitriolic hatred directed at supermarkets from most parts of the media and of popular opinion in general, or for that matter any profit-making institutions in this country. All I ask is, can you say the same for what you believe?

Now I’m off to buy some cheap veggies…

A backflip too far?

Late last year I wrote a post bestowing the virtues of the current minority government status we have in our federal parliament. Rather naively and/or presumptively, I wrote that

…it is almost certain that Australia will have these cash-guzzling machines limited in some fashion, if not removed from existence altogether…

I wrote this based upon the fact that, in November when those words were committed to paper (or whatever its digital equivalent is), the situation was thus: the government had an agreement with key independent Andrew Wilkie to implement pre-commitment technology on poker machines by 2014, and Wilkie, who then held the balance of power, had promised to renege his support for the government should they fail to do so. At this time, what we didn’t expect to see by mid-January was the whole Slippery Pete speaker swap, reducing Mr Wilkie’s influence, and now the government’s decision to abandon its agreement with him on poker machines.

This latest episode, which did cause Mr Wilkie to withdraw his support as he promised to do, simply goes to reinforce the image that this minority Labor government is illegitimate and prepared to abandon any principle and backflip on any agreement in order to gain or maintain power.

Look at the list: Rudd dropping the ETS because it was too hard to legislate, Gillard overthrowing Rudd before the election, Gillard subsequently abandoning the need to act on climate change, Labor gaining government with a minority by wooing a few independents, Labor then backflipping on the backflip over carbon pricing to introduce the carbon tax, Labor seducing Slipper into the speaker’s role to shore up its numbers, and now this pokies backflip. The list is quite damning, seeing as this has occurred over not even two years.

While some of the policy outcomes (read carbon tax) have in fact been beneficial, that does not change what they were. Backflips. Reversals. Lies. And with the now two key backflips her government has perpetrated, Gillard has managed to alienate both of Labor’s primary supporter bases. The social conservative, suburban “Aussie battlas” were offended and driven away by Gillard, arm in arm with Bob Brown, deciding to introduce a carbon tax when it had promised not to do so. While I may support the tax, and these may be the people who choose to deny climate change based upon the fact that it was cold last night, nothing changes the fact that this backflip hurt her politically, at least on that side. Now, by breaking the pokies regulation promise, she has alienated the social progressive supporter base she had, the type who support government intervention on problem gambling. The two sides of the party who Gillard and Labor need the support of have both been alienated by two damning backflips that leave them feeling betrayed.

So where does this leave a voter like me. I reluctantly voted Labor at the last election, based upon the fact that I thought Kevin Rudd’s handling of the financial crisis was exceptional, and in spite of Labor’s lack of commitment to what should be core principles such as action on climate change and fairness to immigrants. However now, Rudd remains alienated in favour of an unconvincing politician whose every word sounds like it has been scripted and rehearsed, and who looks in no way either convincing to her voters or convinced of what she’s saying herself.

But what’s the alternative? As a progressive-minded young person, I’d rather be caught eating paddle pops in hell than vote for anyone like Tony Abbott, yet this government continues to find ways to make him look more credible than itself. His policy beliefs also swing more wildly than a loose gate in a cyclone, so he’s hardly a “conviction politician” like he claims himself and his former leader John Howard to be. And his core beliefs are so far right of centre that I’m sure Mussolini would be looking on in approval.

So what can we hope for? A change of leader in one or both of the major parties is probably the best option. Someone more convincing that Gillard or more moderate than Abbott to lead their parties would be a start. Then for some parties to provide some policy inspiration and give us something to choose between and a reason to vote for them at the next election.

Stop me now. I’m dreaming again.

Friday Flashback #25

Today I’ve brought out one from left-field. Please bear with me…

Now for those of you born post-1987, like me, the song is English novelty band The Firm‘s number one hit Star Trekkin’. For those of you born pre or post-1987 wondering why on Earth I’d promote listening to such an abstract (and that’s putting it politely) song, I don’t really have an answer.

If you want a boring story (rhetorical question), here it is. For some reason or another, I first recall hearing this song on some random video recording my mother had tape-recorded from MTV back when she was pregnant with me. Those were the days when MTV was a) in some way watchable, and b) still shown on free-to-air television (those were the days). The claymation filmclip featuring Captain Kirk inhaling from a bong amongst other humorous Star Trek overtones like it amused me as a pre-teen back then, and I guess I’ve kinda liked the song since, much for the same reasons (who says you have to grow up as you get older!)

So if you’re disgusted that I’d link to such a song, well I’m not very sorry. Remember that this song was top of the UK charts for two weeks back in 1987. Though for those of you who found it as funny and amusing as a more childish version of me did (yes, that did exist), good on you.

Due to the time consuming nature of my life at this point (aka the need to move house, complete a uni exam and visit my girlfriend interstate) I’m lacking the time to dedicate to my beloved blog. So here’s a quick one to keep you Tantalised in the meantime…

I wrote about these guys back in October, and had the good fortune (thanks to said lovely girlfriend and her very generous father) of seeing them play on the Gold Coast a few weeks back. Seriously fantastic gig, even if I didn’t know a great deal of their material. This was one that stuck with me, largely thanks to the very talented and nice person that is their guitarist Marty Willson-Piper with his ridiculously quick-handed guitar work. For the record, they sounded excellent despite the thirty years of age they’ve accumulated since their debut.

Enjoy, and hopefully we talk again soon.

Another set of look-alikes?

All this talk of Republican presidential nominations of late has seen this man, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, gain a lot of exposure in the media. I couldn’t help but notice he looked kinda similar to a great historical character, whose heights of fame may almost be reached if he does become president next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, I think Mitt Romney reminds me of The Fonz. Nowhere near as cool though. Tell me, am I deluded, or is there a similarity?