Archive for September, 2007

>Sunday night Aussie rock

September 30, 2007 Leave a comment

>These guys are not bad for any age but the fact that they’re 16-19 years old makes their success even more meritorious.

Operator Please is a five piece indie rock band from Gold Coast formed in early 2005 by lead singer Amandah Wilkinson in an attempt to compete in her high school’s annual “Battle of the Bands” competition. After winning the contest, the five members, aged 16 to 19, started working on getting their name out through their independently produced EP “On The Prowl”, and minor gigs at local pubs and clubs. Through word of mouth and exposure of their second EP Cement Cement on Australian youth radio network Triple J, they generated a buzz in the music industry – both locally and internationally.Within months, and with the help of a record label sponsored showcase in NYC, they had inked a deal with Virgin/EMI Records for Australia, and for the UK with indie label Brille Records.

Get What You Want

Crash Tragic

Just A Song About Ping Pong

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Music

>1% of Americans agree with Ahmadinejad – the Holocaust is a myth

September 29, 2007 Leave a comment

>According to Rasmussen Reports, 1% of Americans agree with Iranian nutjob Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust is a myth. When Ahmadinejad says there should be more research on the Holocaust he seems to be unaware that it’s the most studied and written about event ever in the history of mankind, and by a wide margin. Clearly, all of those researchers must have missed something.

Not only do 1% agree on the Holocaust but the same percentage view Iran as a US ally. One presumes that it’s the same people giving that response to both questions.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a much-hyped trip to New York this week and 34% of American voters followed the news stories covering the event Very Closely. Another 38% said they followed the coverage Somewhat Closely.

But, only 1% of voters believe that Iran is an ally of the United States. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% view that nation as an enemy. Forty-two percent (42%) say it’s somewhere in between while 6% are not sure.

Sixty-two percent (62%) believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities against the United States. Only 6% disagree and 32% are not sure. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans believe that Iran sponsors terrorist activities along with 70% of unaffiliated voters and 45% of Democrats.

President Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust “a myth.” Only 1% of American voters share that view. Ninety-two percent (92%) disagree and say the Holocaust really happened. Seven percent (7%) are not sure.

Well then, those 7% are moral idiots.

While in the United States, President Ahmadinejad was not allowed to visit the World Trade Center site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Sixty-six percent (66%) of American voters think that was the right decision but 22% believe he should have been allowed a trip to the scene of that horrific attack.

As are those 22%…

In March, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 40% believed the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Another 40% disagreed and say force should not be used

Earlier surveys found that 75% of Americans believe Iran is likely to develop nuclear capabilities in the near future.

Other survey data released this month found that Americans are somewhat less pessimistic about the War on Terror.

(Nothing Follows)

>Killing England in plain sight but nobody will stop to help

September 28, 2007 1 comment

>Regular readers know that I have predicted England to be the first country in Europe to lurch into fascism due to the violent, non-integrating Muslim immigrants that it is inviting into its midst. Unfortunately for Europe’s Muslim population, the history of Europe, when push comes to shove, is not to roll over and give in to totalitarian aggression. Its history is filled with slaughter and mayhem, which is the fate I predict for Europe’s Muslim population.

England is now in a similar situation to France and Germany, which are both losing their educated middle class at a rapid rate. In Germany the situation is even worse with a net positive emigration rate.

Cal Thomas sums up the situation:

“There’ll Always Be an England” — popular World War II song.

BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND — Perhaps there will not always be an England. An exodus unprecedented in modern times, coupled with a record influx of foreigners, is threatening to erode the character of the land of William Shakespeare, a land that served as the cradle for much of American thought, law and culture.

The figures, making headlines in London newspapers, tell only part of the story. Between June 2005 and June 2006 nearly 200,000 British citizens chose to leave the country for a new life elsewhere. During the same period, at least 574,000 immigrants came to Britain. This number does not include the people who broke the law to get there. Britain’s Office of National Statistics reports that middle-class Britons are beginning to move out of towns in southern England that have become home to large numbers of immigrants, thereby altering the character of neighborhoods.

Britons give many reasons for leaving, but their stories share one commonality: life in Britain has become unbearable. They fear lawlessness and the threat of more terrorism from a growing Muslim population and the loss of a sense of Britishness, exacerbated by the growing refusal of public schools to teach the history and culture of the nation. What it means to be British has been watered down in a plague of political correctness. Officials say they do not wish to “offend” others.

Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers are about to be granted “amnesty” to stay in Britain. The government’s approach is similar to that pursued by President Bush, who failed to win congressional approval for his amnesty plan. Migrants will be granted immediate access to many benefits, including top priority for council housing. Taxpayers will foot the bill.

The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, called the policy a “stealth amnesty.” Again, in a comment reminiscent of the debate in America, Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: “This is yet another example of the Alice in Wonderland world of human rights. If you break British law for long enough, you acquire rights, not penalties.”

Abraham Lincoln said no nation can exist half slave and half free. Neither can a nation be sustained if it allows conditions that result in mass emigration, while importing huge numbers of foreigners who come from backgrounds that do not practice assimilation or tolerance of other beliefs. When one factors in the high number of abortions (one in five pregnancies are aborted in England and Wales), the high birth rates of immigrants (15 times those of white Britons), it doesn’t take an expert to predict that the days of the England we have known may be numbered.

The problem for Britain and the United States isn’t just the change in demographics. It is the reluctance of both countries to inculcate the beliefs, history and, yes, religious ideals, which made our nations so successful that others wanted to come and be a part of them. The difference between many of the current immigrants and those of the past is that the previous ones wanted to become fully American or fully British. The current ones, in too many cases, would destroy what makes our countries unique.

The greater tragedy is that the people of Britain have little say in any of this, so they are taking the road of last resort. They are leaving.

Categories: Islam, United Kingdom

>Swastika shaped building oops

September 28, 2007 2 comments

>It’s hard to imagine that when the design of these buildings was presented for approval that people didn’t notice their uncanny resemblance to a swastika.

The US Navy will spend thousands to camouflage a California barracks resembling a Nazi swastika after the embarrassing shape was revealed on the internet.

Navy officials said they became aware the barracks looked like a swastika from the air shortly after its 1967 groundbreaking — and had decided not to do anything.

According to The New York Times the resemblance went unnoticed by the public for decades until it was spotted in aerial views on the internet.

The Navy now plans to spend $682,000 on “camouflage” landscaping and rooftop adjustments to hide any aerial view of the San Diego barracks, known as Naval Base Coronado.

“You have to realise back in the 1960s we did not have the internet,” base spokeswoman Angelic Dolan said. “We don’t want to offend anyone, and we don’t want to be associated with the symbol.”

Ms Dolan said when officials first noticed the swastika look there was “no reason to redo the buildings because they were in use”.

But an anti-bigotry group based in San Diego is not impressed.

Regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, Morris Casuto, said: “We told the Navy this was an incredibly inappropriate shape for a structure on a military installation.”

He said his group “never ascribed evil intent to the structure’s design” and praised the Navy for recognising the problem and “doing the right thing”.

The naval spokeswoman said the barracks were in a no-fly zone that was off limits to commercial airlines, so most people would not see the offending building from the air.

Fortunately, just down the road are a couple of aeroplane shaped buildings in line astern formation ready to shoot the nasty swastika if it moves.

Given the Navy is going to pay so much to camouflage the swastika are they also going to pay money to whoever owns Star Trek for ripping off the design of the USS Enterprise?

And for conspiracy freaks…proof that Area 51 really exists…

I don’t know what this shape is but it looks evil.

While I was cruising around the Navy base I found this great image…

…it seems a little ironic to be spending money camouflaging a building when such valuable military assets are there for all to see.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Miscellaneous

>New poll question

September 28, 2007 Leave a comment

>In honour of Dr Karl Kruszelnicki’s choice to stand for the Climate Change Coalition at the next NSW Senate election I have put up a poll question about what percentage of the vote climate change focused parties will receive.

I’ve kicked off the poll with a vote for <=1%.

>Oxymoronic Greenpeace says "clean coal" is an oxymoron

September 27, 2007 1 comment

>Has anyone noticed that the left has started tying itself in knots over recent years with its use of terminology that conflicts with reality?

Conservation group Greenpeace says the term ‘clean coal’ is nonsensical and compared it to the saying ‘healthy cigarettes’.

New South Wales Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald says a pilot carbon capture plant planned for Lake Macquarie is part of the Government’s commitment to clean coal technology.

But Greenpeace’s energy campaigner Ben Pearson has defended the comments of State Environment Minister Phil Koperberg who has previously described the term clean coal as an oxymoron.

“The whole term clean coal has to be challenged, it’s like talking about healthy cigarettes,” he said.

“Really at the end of the day coal is a dirty fuel. But we also need to be more exact about what we are talking about.”

“Clean coal is an umbrella term that refers to variety of different processes that are designed to burn coal more cleanly and capture carbon dioxide.”

‘Clean coal’ is an oxymoron?

How about these for oxymorons:

Green peace
Democratic socialism
Progressive left

Can you think of any others?

(Nothing follows)

Categories: Climate Change, Politics

>Climate change political reality vs Fluffy, low-impact promises

September 27, 2007 Leave a comment

>The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen nails the smoke and mirrors aspect of federal Labor’s climate change policy. The situation in Australia is no different to other countries around the world that are seeing politicians promise little to no impact of their climate change policies whereas the reality is a lot different.

WHAT is it about climate change that attracts charlatans? While the focus has been on the Howard Government these past few days, what about the political snake-oil salesmen who would have you believe that we can reduce carbon emissions and fix global warming in the near term?

That we can pull it off without noticeable economic or political pain and without worrying about what developing countries do. All bunkum. But you wouldn’t know that just by listening to the siren songs of the federal ALP or the Greens. They tell us breezily we can have it all, no worries. Where is the probing, sceptical media when these sorts of porkies are told?

Labor’s climate change policy represents the sort of brazen deception that Hugh Mackay would have no hesitation labelling “shameless mendacity” had it been offered up by the Liberal Party. But because Mackay and his progressive friends are barracking for Kevin 07, they have gone missing in action on the issue of what an ALP government can, and will, deliver on climate change.

A couple of striking recent developments in NSW tell us what a real live ALP government would be forced to do if it got its hands on the levers of power. It doesn’t bear any resemblance to the cuddly, idealistic promises of the Kevin 07 campaign. Federal Labor is hoping nobody will notice the yawning gap between what can be delivered on climate change without passing through the public’s pain barrier and what Peter Garrett and co are holding out to us.

Which is why we ought to take a close look at NSW, where this problem is writ large. The NSW Iemma Government is acutely aware of the chasm between reality and spin because it actually holds the reins of government.

Exhibit one from the NSW Government reality file is Moolarben. A few weeks ago, the NSW Government approved the development of a massive new coal mine at Moolarben near Mudgee despite loud protests from environmental and residents groups. Moolarben is huge. The Sydney Morning Herald reported it would produce 504 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 168 million more cars on the roads and almost as much climate change pollution as Australia generates in a year. If you’re a climate change purist, this is surely a disaster. But the iron law of political reality meant it had to be approved. A cleaner environment tomorrow is no substitute, electorally speaking, for jobs and prosperity today.

As Tasmanian forestry unions taught us at the previous election, the first duty of any Labor government is to preserve and enhance the jobs of union members. Utopian promises of a clean, green environment free of coal mines and timber workers must always surrender to reality.

This is one reason that those telling you it is possible to have meaningful and binding international targets on carbon emission in the near term are practising a fraud. If the NSW Government cannot say no to the jobs generated by the coal industry, can we realistically expect developing countries such as China to do so?

And any scheme that imposes real and effective targets on developed countries but not on developing countries is no more than a scheme to export jobs from Australia to China. Now, Bob Brown and Garrett may have no objection to that. But the hard heads in the ALP know better.

Exhibit two from the NSW school of practical political reality. The NSW Labor Government realises that NSW needs at least one large new power station to “keep the lights on”, to quote Premier Morris Iemma. But as Tony Owen told the Government in his report, it cannot afford to have one without privatising the NSW electricity retailing sector at a minimum, and probably also the generation sector as well.

Herein lies not one but two delicious ironies. Privatising the power industry in order to fund a new power station, inevitably coal-fired, shatters two sacred tenets of the left-wing faith. Thou shalt not privatise. Thou shalt not build more coal-fired power stations.

The need to preserve the jobs of electricity workers, no matter what the cost, will likely mean privatisation will fail because the unions will oppose it, just as they did when former premier Bob Carr and his treasurer Michael Egan went down that path in 1997. Already the unions who pull the NSW Government’s strings have vetoed privatisation.

Interestingly, according to reports in The Daily Telegraph, they have done an unholy deal with the NSW Government to keep any dispute between them quiet until after the federal election. Similarly, if NSW needs a coal-fired power station to keep the lights on, they will get one. At public expense. No matter what climate change commandments are broken in the process. Union jobs will always outrank the cost to the public and certainly trump a clean atmosphere.

The hard men from Labor’s NSW Right faction learned those lessons of practical politics along with their two-times tables. And the key lesson for voters is that federal ALP is run by such practical men today. Men such as Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan. They know, though they are not saying, that Garrett, Anthony Albanese and ALP promises of a clean, green tomorrow are all just flim-flam election material. They know that, pre-election, the vast gap between what they promise on climate change and what an ALP government can actually deliver needs to be filled with a combination of smoke, mirrors and lies.

Should Labor win the federal election, these childish stunts will stop and the real business of governing will begin. Perhaps we should be grateful: adhering to idealistic targets, butchering the coal industry and banning electric hot-water systems will simply impoverish Australians and send jobs offshore without making a jot of difference to world carbon levels or global warming.

If we think the Chinese are going to stop opening new coal-fired power stations because we veto new Moolarbens and won’t sell them coal, we have a shaky grip on reality.

So the realpolitik of the ALP hard heads is infinitely to be preferred to the Pollyanna-type views of the dreamers who write the campaign ads and the jingles about clean green futures.

But it would be nice to think that when this inevitable deceit is practised upon us, it would be fearlessly exposed. To think that the left-wing faithful, the artists, poets, actors and playwrights will complain about a lack of public decency in public life, led by Mackay, excoriating the mendacious in public office. To think the intelligentsia will moan about being lied to and write books titled, Not Happy, Kev.

Not likely. I guess that’s my own utopian fantasy. But don’t say you weren’t warned.

Over to you…

>Columbia University punks Ahmadinejad

September 25, 2007 Leave a comment

>Did the widespread condemnation of Columbia University’s decision to allow Iranian 9/11 Troofer and Holocaust Denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there result in a less amiable than usual reception? Whatever the reason, it’s impossible that the 21st century version of Adolf Hitler expected to be called “petty and cruel” by the president of Columbia in his introduction. Given his repetition of leftist talking points in an effort to drum up support among that intellectually bankrupt group it must have come as somewhat of a shock that he had miscalculated so badly in expecting to be feted as if he was in Cuba or Venezuela.

Vilified as a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism and a backer of Iraqi insurgents, the president of Iran was actually able to make New Yorkers burst into laughter – but not at a joke.

“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay men there.

“In Iran we do not have this phenomenon,” he continued. “I do not know who has told you we have it.”

Loud laughs and boos broke from the audience of about 700 people, mostly students at the Ivy League school whose garb included “Stop Ahmadinejad’s Evil” T-shirts.

Everyone from presidential candidates to September 11 families had expressed outrage that Ahmadinejad would speak at the university.

University President Lee Bollinger pulled no punches.

He called him a “petty and cruel dictator” and said his Holocaust denials suggested he was either “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”

“I feel the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for,” Bollinger said to loud applause.

In retort, Ahmadinejad berated Bollinger as a rude host.

“Many parts of his speech were insults,” he said. “We actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgments.”

After his assertions that Israel persecutes Palestinians and that Iran’s nuclear program is for energy not weapons, the Iranian leader’s comment on gays broke the tension.

But it spurred strong reaction too.

“This is a sick joke,” said Scott Long of Human Rights Watch, saying Iran tortures gays under a penal code that punishes homosexuality between men with the death penalty.

When Ahmadinejad, speaking in Farsi, actually tried to crack a joke, it drew no laughter, although maybe the nuance was lost in translation.

“Let me tell a joke here,” Ahmadinejad said. “I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, or testing them, making them, politically they are backward, retarded.”

The crowd seemed uncertain how to react. Some applauded that pacifist sentiment, others seemed befuddled by the insensitive use of the word retarded.

Ahmadinejad’s visit here was preceded by a deluge of objections when it became apparent he wanted to lay a wreath at Ground Zero and that he would speak at Columbia.

Presidential candidates from both major US political parties took swipes at the president of a country President George W. Bush calls part of “the axis of evil.”

They said he denied the Holocaust, supported terrorism and armed Iraqi insurgents.

New York City councilman Anthony Weiner had a different way of capturing all that.

“Sometimes we have snakes slithering through the streets of New York,” Weiner told protesters outside the United Nations, where Ahmadinejad will speak on Tuesday.

And in a city known for its blunt manners, the Iranian president’s reception was bound to be frosty. The New York Daily News had the front page headline, “The Evil Has Landed.”

How funny is that? The guy uses the word ‘retarded’ and his majority left wing, ‘culturally aware’ audience is ‘befuddled’. It doesn’t take much does it?

If nothing else, it has exposed him to the world as the propagandist that he really is, as well as exposing the left’s naivety to itself – not that they can see it, of course.

Categories: Education, Iran, United States

>Labor’s ’11 year’ lie and the Kyoto Protocol

September 24, 2007 3 comments

>24-Sept update: Kevin Rudd can’t seem to get his head around the facts of the Kyoto Protocol. It was impossible to ratify it 11 years ago. It didn’t exist!

Massive carbon user, Al Gore, backs Rudd’s economy-destroying environment policy, which includes ratifying Kyoto.

Mr Rudd criticised the federal government for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol 11 years ago and said failing to act would have a greater economic impact on Australia than on acting.

“The question farmers are asking me is: what are the long-term impacts of climate change on the ability of Australian agriculture to sustain itself?” he said.

“How do we look in the faces of the next generation and kids around the planet if they ask us: why if the evidence was so clear, did you fail to act?”

I doubt they’ll be asking that. They’ll be looking out at the state-designed 2050 version of the Trabant and asking, “What were you thinking to force policies on us that have led to the immiserisation of the developed world for no environmental benefit?”

Kevin Rudd has woven into his climate change spin a line about the government having refused to set a target for CO2 emission reduction for 11 years.

Kevin Rudd – Leader of the Opposition – 31 May – “Why did the government sit on its hands for the last 11 years and do nothing about the introduction of an emissions trading scheme?”

Anthony Albanese – Shadow Minister for Infrastructure & Water – 28 May – “What Australia needs on climate change is a Government that will lead, not one that will mislead. On climate change the Government has been in denial for 11 years, it needs to stop it’s denial about the climate change advertising campaign. What we actually need on climate change is more policy makers not more jingle writers. This is a Government that’s determined to spin its way out of 11 years of denial on climate change. I think the Australian people will regard this for the cynical action that it is.”

Peter Garrett – Shadow Minister for the Environment – 1 June – “After 11 years of climate change denial and inaction, today’s Emissions Trading Task Group report shows just how far behind the game John Howard has fallen…Only Labor has demonstrated the genuine commitment and the practical and responsible plans to combat dangerous climate change. Labor has set a decisive and responsible long term target of 60 per cent emissions reductions by 2050. This target is based on the overwhelming scientific consensus about the reductions required to prevent dangerous climate change.”

Tanya Plibersek – Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women – 1 June – “But who in the public would believe that after ignoring climate change for eleven long years but now, five minutes away from an election, John Howard is serious about doing something about climate change?”

Labor’s ’11 year’ theme is completely bogus given that 2007-11=1996 and that the Kyoto Protocol was only drawn up in December 1997. The Coalition has been in power since 1996 and I presume that Labor is trying to paint a picture that the government has done nothing on the issue since being elected.

As an aside, the rules for implementing Kyoto were not developed until November 2001 (at Marrakesh) and the Protocol didn’t come into force until November 2005.

Of course, Labor’s claim is far from the truth, as anyone that has followed the issue knows.

So what’s the reality?

The fact is that Australia did negotiate, in good faith, during the Kyoto talks and achieved a target that allowed an 8% increase in 1990 CO2 emissions. Having achieved an increase in emissions rather than the decrease being forced on most other nations Australia was referred to by environmental groups as an “international pariah”. The increase was based on two factors. Firstly, we are a huge net energy exporter and a large amount of those exports go to Asian countries that are exempt from Kyoto targets. We would be unfairly penalised in this instance. Secondly, we tried to negotiate a life cycle accounting approach to the cost of carbon (i.e. user pays, which is by far the most sensible and fairest method) but it was cynically voted down by European nations that would have had most to lose. The 8% increase was a pay-off for avoiding life cycle accounting.

Here’s something that most people don’t know – Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997.

Another thing that most people don’t know: Unlike most countries that have ratified Kyoto, Australia is well on the way to achieving its 108% target by 2008-2012 (here’s a handy online emissions calculator so that you can see for yourself).

What we haven’t done is ratify Kyoto. The reason is because the largest emitter of CO2, the United States, refuses to damage its economy if the large developing nations such as China, India and Brazil are left out of the target equation.

Here’s another really important fact that 99.99% of the population don’t understand – the effective transfer of sovereign power that ratifying Kyoto causes, as Hugh Morgan pointed out in 2002:

The most serious is the transfer, under the terms of the Protocol, of powers of enforcement, compliance and taxation, to an international bureaucracy based in Bonn; a bureaucracy which will be totally unaccountable to the Australian people. It is proposed that the Kyoto Secretariat will have wide-ranging powers of inspection and enforcement, including the power to impose new carbon taxes on countries which, in their assessment, fail to meet their Kyoto commitments. Such a proposal is unprecedented in Australian history.

In theory, Australia could withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol if the economic sacrifices demanded of us by other countries became too great to bear. But it is the explicit ambition of the EU to change international law and practice so that such recalcitrance could be met with trade sanctions which would effectively cut us off from many of our export markets. Australia would then be powerless to recover the sovereignty which had been de facto yielded up with ratification of Kyoto. It is forgotten that in the lead-up to the Kyoto Conference in December 1997, Australia was threatened by many commentators with trade sanctions, if we refused to agree to what was an open-ended commitment to the de-carbonisation of our economy.

…ABARE calculations suggest that the increase in the price of electricity which will be required to meet the Kyoto commitment will be of the order of 50 per cent. The consequence of that would be economic dislocation, rising unemployment, and political upheaval consequent upon serious increases in household energy costs.

It’s interesting to note that ABARE’s calculation of a 50% increase in energy costs has been achieved in Europe since they implemented Kyoto and they are experiencing exactly the loss of industry to overseas, non-Kyoto targeted countries that has been predicted.

If Rudd, and Labor, is prepared to tell such a bald-faced lie about the climate change facts then what else is he lying about? The cost? The loss of industry to other countries? The massive loss of employment?

Kevin Rudd needs to come clean on the real cost of implementing a 60% reduction in CO2 by 2050 so that the Australian public can decide for themselves whether it makes sense to impose such a huge cost in the absence of an all encompassing global treaty that would really address the issue and not impose unfair economic burdens on any particular nation.

(Nothing follows)

>Sunday night Aussie rock

September 23, 2007 Leave a comment

>Kevin Borich is a New Zealand born Australian virtuoso guitarist and singer/song-writer. He has been a member of the The La De Das, Kevin Borich Express, and The Party Boys.

Borich wrote the classic hit Gonna See My Baby Tonight, and has performed at some of Australia’s biggest Rock events including the Sunbury Pop Festival and the 1970s Rockarenas with 60,000 people, featuring Fleetwood Mac, Santana and The Little River Band. He played in two New Years Eve celebrations at the Sydney Opera House with 70,000 people as well as support shows for international acts including Elton John, Status Quo, Jeff Beck and Buddy Guy.

Kevin Borich is one of Australia’s great rock ‘n’ roll guitarists and a fantastic live performer. Going Somewhere (below) was recorded at the Corner Hotel in Richmond, Melbourne – a terrific place to watch live bands. Included here is a version of the Hendrix classic, Voodoo Chile, which demonstrates how good he really is.

Goin’ Down Town

Gonna See My Baby Tonight

Going Somewhere

Voodoo Chile

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Uncategorized