THE FLATS — Delayed two and a half hours due to weather, Georgia Tech softball (28-26, 13-11 ACC) fell in the quarterfinals of the 2018 ACC Softball Tournament to No. 3-seeded North Carolina (30-25, 15-8 ACC), 6-1 late Thursday night at Mewborn Field.
The Yellow Jackets finished the 2018 season with a 28-26 record, closing with a winning record for the first time since 2012 and making its first ACC Tournament appearance since 2014. In its first year under head coach Aileen Morales, Georgia Tech softball won five ACC series, the most since 2011 and saw two, nine-game losing streaks come to an end to ACC opponents North Carolina and Boston College.
Designated as the away team, Georgia Tech batted first, and the Jackets made it onto the board first. Senior Emily Anderson held the score at 0-0 heading into the top of the third. Senior Draven Sonnon, batting in the lead-off spot, drew a walk to reach base. Freshman and all-ACC selection Cameron Stanford smoked her second hit of the game, a single, to third base, advancing Sonnon to second. Junior Katie Krzus knocked an RBI-single up the middle to plate Sonnon from second and put Tech ahead, 1-0.
North Carolina responded in the bottom half of the inning. The Tar Heels plated two to steal the lead at 2-1. The scored stayed there heading into the bottom of the sixth. North Carolina scored four runs, three unearned, to move the score to 6-1, plating the final tally on a solo home run.
Tech was unable to overcome the deficit and the White and Gold ended their season with the 6-1 loss.


text:
FOIL Requests
Media > In The News
Guilty Plea in February Fatal Shooting Case
Albany County District Attorney David Soares
ALBANY, NY - District Attorney P. David Soares announced today that DARRYL SMITH, 34, of Albany, pleaded guilty to (1) Count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, a Class C Armed Felony, before the Honorable Andra Ackerman in Albany County Court this morning for his role in a fatal shooting in the City of Albany on February 8, 2020.
On February 8, 2020, at approximately 9:50 P.M., SMITH fired an illegally possessed firearm at a residence on Clinton Avenue in the City of Albany, ultimately striking a male victim that was inside of the residence. SMITH was observed by on-duty officers while he was standing in the street firing at the residence. Upon seeing the officers, SMITH dropped the gun and surrendered.
Further investigation revealed that an argument had ensued between parties and the first shots were fired from inside of the home towards parties out on the street. One of the residents in the home was determined to be 19-year-old Irving Lamboy of Albany who ultimately sustained a gunshot wound to the back. Mr. Lamboy was treated at the scene by medical personnel and transported to a hospital where he was later pronounced deceased.
SMITH faces up to (9) years in State Prison, to be followed by (5) years of Post-Release Supervision, when sentenced on November 16, 2020.
Assistant District Attorney Collin D'Arcy and Assistant District Attorney Michael Wetmore are handling the prosecution of this case.
For more information please contact Cecilia Walsh at (518) 275-4710 or [email protected]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Join the Audience
Video Player failed to load.
Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
Super, Sexism & Surgery
Download Super, Sexism & Surgery (207.95 MB)
Download 207.95 MB
TONY JONES: Good evening. Welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: author, comedian and presenter of The Project Charlie Pickering; the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten; actress, author and psychologist Pamela Stephenson.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Hello.
TONY JONES: Financial Review's corporate woman columnist Catherine Fox; and Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation Sophie Mirabella. Please welcome our panel. Q&A is live from 9:35 eastern daylight saving time, simulcast on News 24 and News Radio. Go to our website to send a question or join the Twitter conversation using the hash tag that just appeared on your screen. We'll start tonight with a question from Elizabeth Newman.
GILLARD LEADERSHIP
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: Many commentators believe the Prime Minister displayed poor judgment by protecting Peter Slipper in Parliament only to watch him resign a few hours later. Despite the positive reaction to her fiery speech, has the Slipper debacle made the Prime Minister's hold on the leadership less secure.
TONY JONES: Let's start with our non politicians. Catherine Fox?
CATHERINE FOX: Oh, me first. Great. No, I don't think so. I actually thought it was a wonderful speech and I think that we'll remember that speech a lot longer than we'll remember what was happening with Peter Slipper and I think, in fact, it had resonance for so many women and I think we've seen that because we know there were 1.5 million hits on YouTube. A lot of young people are discussing it. In fact my daughter was saying they were discussing it at uni today and just about unanimously in her tutorial group of young men and women they were all saying it was a quite amazing speech. So I think for a lot of people the message that she gave was long overdue. As someone who's covered women in the workforce for nearly 20 years and been told repeatedly there are no problems with sexism, that it's an even playing field and we live in a meritocracy and then to observe over time that we have 3% women CEOs and 8% women executives in business, I was really delighted to hear somebody articulate what can happen and what sexism can do and I thought it was great to elevate it to the national agenda.
TONY JONES: Do you buy that, Elizabeth?
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: Peter Slipper - protecting Peter Slipper more than anything.
TONY JONES: Let's go to...
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: You haven't touched on that.
TONY JONES: That was a charge levelled against Julia Gillard was hypocrisy for defending Peter Slipper, essentially against charges of misogyny and sexism while simultaneously berating Tony Abbott for...
CATHERINE FOX: Yeah. Yeah. And, look, I can see why those charges were there because I think the text - the Peter Slipper texts were not attractive, were they, in any way, shape or form?
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: They're pretty revolting.
CATHERINE FOX: Whether his comments - and I don't really want to go into the details - but whether some of those comments were actually sexism or just greasy and quite revolting comments on sexuality, I'm not quite sure. I thought some of them though were awful and I think that, yes, I can understand that that could be seen as hypocrisy and that's a shame.
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: Sexism.
CATHERINE FOX: But as I say, I still thought that the speech was a wonderful speech and did represent an important step.
TONY JONES: Catherine, we'll come back to that. Charlie Pickering?
CHARLIE PICKERING: I just want to say something about the Slipper texts. Like let go, yeah? Like I understand that could offend some people. You found them offensive. I absolutely understand. To me, when I read them, if I didn't know they came from a political context I would have thought this is two bad drag queens working on some material, all right? That's genuinely what it felt like. In the same way that if a woman described a penis as a disappointing Frankfurt, you know, like the fact is I don't share the view I don't share a dim view on female genitalia but the phrase "Bumping uglies," exists for a reason, okay? Like people have said things that our bits look weird before, okay? And this was two guys texting. Some people found it offensive absolutely. Was it misogyny? I personally don't think so.
TONY JONES: And yet he lost his job as a result. He was forced effectively to resign.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Oh, absolutely. Don't get me wrong, the stakes are very high in this minority government that we have at the moment in a hung parliament. With a margin that close the stakes are very high and so tiny little things are going to be blown completely out of proportion so that someone can win the day.
TONY JONES: Pamela Stephenson, tiny little things, did you think, or you obviously had some knowledge of the Slipper texts.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: First of all, I really want to grab your phone and check it out. Secondly, I want to grab everyone's phone and check it out. But, secondly, Billy and I have a little place in Scotland and men wear kilts there and they wear them for council meetings very often and there's a woman in her 80s, Lady Mary, who sits on this council and she's the only woman on this group and, you know, men, when they sit in kilts, they're really supposed to sit properly in kilts. There's a way to sit in kilts and that's not, you know, with your legs open without a little wall between you and what's underneath the kilts. Because, of course, they're Scottish and Scottish tradition demands that you don't you go commando. You don't wear anything. Anyway Lady Mary complained to me one day that she had to sit in a council meeting and see a "Whole line of ancestral prunes." So it's not just female genitalia that comes in for the wrinkly words.
TONY JONES: Bill Shorten...
BILL SHORTEN: Why did you go straight to me?
TONY JONES: It's a perfect segue really, isn't it? I mean well the first question was about hypocrisy.
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: (Indistinct)
TONY JONES: Yes, let's go back to the questioner.
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: I don't feel the question has been answered.
TONY JONES: Yes.
ELIZABETH NEWMAN: The question, the end is: has the Slipper debacle made the Prime Minister's hold on the leadership less secure? Nobody's answered that yet.
BILL SHORTEN: Well, I will, Elizabeth.
TONY JONES: Go ahead, Bill Shorten.
BILL SHORTEN: The answer is no. Her leadership is still secure. Now, the Slipper so that's the short answer. The longer answer is in terms of Peter Slipper's texts, acknowledging what other participants have said, I'm sure that he is completely humiliated by them. I think reading the words that I did in the newspaper on the Tuesday, they're just - all jokes aside, I just think that they're odd. Like I don't know - I've never thought of sending a text message like that. It's not a matter of sending it and getting caught, it's just odd. Like it is a frame of thinking for which is just beyond what you'd expect of the speaker of the parliament. But in terms of the Prime Minister's contribution on the day, I was there and I did hear what she said and what she was speaking about wasn't defending Peter Slipper. The guy - his time was numbered once those texts came out. Whether or not some people just wanted to chop his head off and others wanted him to resign, you can have that debate. But what I know about the Prime Minister is she was giving a speech which I think exists in the minds of a lot of women in Australia who have ever encountered either thoughtless behaviour which is what I call sexism or, indeed, a more entrenched prejudice and unexamined view in the minds of some men that women are not up to doing certain jobs. So I think her speech, I believe, has made the place better for my daughters when they grow older because I think the abuse that she's been subjected to - attack us on our policies. People do. No doubt this will happen tonight. But she has been subject to an attack on her leadership because of her gender. Now, that is unacceptable and I can see you shaking her head but I have to say I saw those signs of "Ditch the witch". You just have to go to some of the disgusting far right, blogosphere websites to see the sort of crazy, rancid attacks and these happen because of her gender. Now, fair game in terms of our policies but her gender should not be an issue and there are some men in our society who struggle with the idea of powerful women and that speech was a powerful speech.
TONY JONES: Sophie Mirabella.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Was it a good performance? Sure. But it was just that, it was a performance because this was a motion to get rid of Peter Slipper because in the eyes of the Opposition he could not fulfil his basic duty of being an impartial speaker, both because of his disgusting comments about women and because he'd shown that he obviously had an axe to grind against me and the Government knew in May about the existence of these texts. So if Bill is saying they're disgusting now and unacceptable, they were disgusting then. Why wasn't this brought out into the open? So it was a debate about Peter Slipper and the accusations of sexism were labelled against Tony Abbott and I thought they were absolutely over the top and absolutely unjustified. It was using the charge of sexism for political advantage to avoid really defending the position of keeping Slipper in the job. And I think that's and there's a really big difference there, Bill. And a lot of us get disgusting, offensive comments. I mean Tony Abbott, by people on your side, has been called a douche bag, rancid, a dog. I get, weekly, these sorts of emails and texts that are really disgusting and abusive but there's a difference between - and I think it's an important distinction - there's a difference between sledging, sexism and misogyny. Is there a hell of a lot of sledging in parliament? Yes, there is.
TONY JONES: Can I interrupt you there because there's a question on this very subject. I'll go to Vince Del Gallego. We'll just get the microphone. A
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: A lie is a false...
TONY JONES: Sorry, just wait a sec. We'll just get the microphone.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. A misogynist hates women and girls. Julia Gillard announced to Australia and the whole world that Tony Abbott is a misogynist, which is a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive. Is the real Julia Gillard a confirmed liar?
TONY JONES: Bill Shorten.
BILL SHORTEN: No. Let's go through and what I understand to be the meanings of misogyny and sexism. There's been a lot of really valuable contributions from a range of people. I take the definition of misogyny - the old definition is do you hate women. I don't think Tony Abbott hates women. But do I think in the vernacular that misogyny has moved to the following definition, yes I do and the following definition is - there are some people who say things to women which are frankly inadvertent. That doesn't make them right but they're capable of being corrected. You say to this bloke or this person, "That's just not right," and they change. Misogyny, to me, is a - in the language which I understand it to have been used most recently is a view that there are some people who have a prejudice about women in certain occupations and they have an unexamined view in their own head about the status of women and the equality of women to do a whole range of things. Now, I would say that what's important, and we can talk about the speech and all these things and that is an important part of tonight, but for me what's also important is you've got to examine all the conduct around it. If I had been Mr Abbott, I wouldn't have used the references in his speech that are "The Government's died of shame" when, in fact, they were the same lines that Alan Jones had just most recently used about saying that the Prime Minister's father had died of shame, something which is clearly not correct. I also I'm sure Mr Abbott, and I would be interested to see what Sophie thinks, but he would have probably, if he had his time again, not have attended that rally which showed all those ludicrous signs demonising Julia Gillard. I think there are distinctions and I do think that what's happening is, if you look at the policies of the Opposition when it comes to reintroducing a tax on the superannuation of low paid people, most people who are low paid are women. I think that the industrial relations case...
TONY JONES: I'm just going to interrupt. We will get to talk about some of these issues later on.
BILL SHORTEN: I just was getting...
TONY JONES: I mean you are broadening it out...
BILL SHORTEN: ...to policy.
TONY JONES: ...and you've already redefined a word that's in the dictionary to suit your own meanings. So Charlie Pickering.
BILL SHORTEN: It's still a free country. I will work with you but they're my views.
TONY JONES: It is a free country and there's a dictionary and you can look up the definition.
BILL SHORTEN: Yep. Okay.
TONY JONES: If you're redefining it tonight, that's a different matter.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: Excuse me, Tony.
TONY JONES: Yes, sorry, go ahead.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: Just the question was actually to be answered as a yes or a no and, as Tony said, you've redefined the dictionary to suit yourself. What I'm asking is that if you say that Julia Gillard is not a confirmed liar then you agree with her that Tony Abbott is a misogynist. Now, if you agree with that, can you tell me and this audience and to the whole world that Tony Abbott is a confirmed misogynist?
BILL SHORTEN: What I said to you - I did answer your question and I understand you've clearly got strong views but I do too on this.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: I believe in integrity and I think the Prime Minister should have the integrity of this world.
TONY JONES: Okay, well, let's let Bill Shorten answer, briefly if you wouldn't mind, because I'd like to hear from the rest of the panel.
BILL SHORTEN: Sure. I think if I rerun the tape I said no in answer to your question, Julia Gillard is not what you just said she was.
TONY JONES: Charlie Pickering.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Can you just give me your definition again of liar? You were specific with that and I...
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Yeah, see I don't think that the Prime Minister's use of "misogyny" - "misogynist" was a deliberate attempt to perceive. I believe that she meant it.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: But misogynist hates women and girls.
CHARLIE PICKERING: But you're talking about a deliberate attempt to deceive. If we're getting - really, really are getting bogged down in semantics a little.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: Well, not quite, I'm just sticking to the dictionary.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Yeah, absolutely. I personally believe that once you accuse someone of being a misogynist that's a big accusation. It's like being...
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: Well, she did that.
CHARLIE PICKERING: ...accused publicly of being racist or, once upon a time, of being accused of being a witch. It's one the accusation is made it's very hard to argue you're way out of that. Personally I don't think the word misogynist was necessarily correct.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: But can you talk on behalf of the Prime Minister, she (indistinct)...
TONY JONES: Okay. I'm going...
CHARLIE PICKERING: We will not talk on behalf of the Prime Minister.
VINCE DEL GALLEGO: (Indistinct)
TONY JONES: Okay. Sorry, you've had a sort good of go there toing and froing. Thank you for that. I just want to hear from the other panellists.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, no, of course Tony Abbott is not a misogynist but this is part, I believe, of a deliberate campaign. Let's rewind back to January of this year. Someone in the Prime Minister's office was deliberately involved in passing false information to some indigenous people in Canberra that Tony Abbott had made derogatory comments about the tent embassy. That was false. Having failed to label him as a racist, there's been this running campaign to label him as a sexist. It's been over the top. It has been absolutely deliberate. It's been playing the man not the ball and I know Tony Abbott. I've known him for 20 years. He has been the biggest mentor and help to me. He actively supported my pre-selection. He appointed me as the first ever woman either in Government or Opposition as industry minister and I've seen him really push through the Cabinet, the Shadow Cabinet and the party room his long-held belief of having a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme that gives women real replacement income for six months and I know who Tony Abbott is and every single time he gets up and criticises the Prime Minister or criticises a minister, whether they be male or female, he shouldn't be labelled a misogynist and a woman-hater. Let's actually degendify some of this language.
TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt? We actually have a web question on this and I will get you to respond to it briefly. It's from Lois Calvert in Chifley in the ACT: "If you're on the receiving end of constant hostility and denigration wouldn't it feel like hatred? If you're woman and your femaleness was part of the denigration, wouldn't it feel like misogyny?"
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, it depends what you're being criticised about. If you're being criticised about your job - I mean, Julia Gillard took offence and implied that it was sexist when Tony Abbott said "You're a piece of work" and he apologised in the House. Now that is a non-gender specific term. A female member of parliament in fact used it against Tony Abbott when he was Health Minister in 2004. Let's differentiate between sledging, which occurs on both sides across the chamber, and genuine sexism. You want to know what genuine sexism is?
TONY JONES: I'm not trying to interrupt your flow too much.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Sure.
TONY JONES: But we've actually got quite a few people with their hands up and I'd also - while we go to - we'll get one of the people with their hands up down there, if we get a microphone to the second row down there in the middle but I just want to hear first of all from Catherine on this.
CATHERINE FOX: I think that misogyny is a very harsh word and the dictionary definition is one thing. I think usage is different but I think, in fact, we're almost using misogyny now - in the old days we would have actually called it sexism. I think it's actually almost they've come together, which is unfortunate.
TONY JONES: But who's brought it together? Because, I mean, the dictionary is pretty clear on this, to be frank, as that gentleman suggested.
CATHERINE FOX: That's true but I think...
TONY JONES: I mean if someone has decided to redefine the word and then use it in a different way they didn't sort of spell that out during the speech.
CATHERINE FOX: No. Well, I mean, I think with any usage of a word it's because it's been used more often and I do think that we've heard it used more often. I think this issue has been raised more often and I would have to say, I mean, I cannot imagine any previous Prime Minister being spoken about in the way that Julia Gillard has been spoken about and described and some of the campaigns we've seen in the placards. I really can't imagine a Paul Keating, a Bob Hawke, a John Howard being described in those terms. Sexism is about discrimination and prejudice based on gender and they have been very specific about gender and I think that's a distinction.
TONY JONES: Okay. Pamela, watching this from a distance, what are your thoughts?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Well, really looking at it just as somebody who lives outside Australia, first of all the texting episode is very curious. As a psychologist what's more important, I suppose, more interesting, is simply the assumption that was made by the person who texted that it would be - how it would be received by the person who received it, that there was an assumption that there would be a shared misogyny there, which is in itself very interesting. In the international stage, I mean I had a friend from New York, where I live, who called and was on the phone and saying "Wow, their President" she called her a President. "You're President really kicked ass" and the fact is internationally, yes, she really did kick ass. I mean I watched it and I was moved. I was shocked. I thought, wow, if the things that she said were said about her were said about me, I would feel exactly the same and I think there was a very strong connection, an unconscious one, perhaps a conscious one, for every woman in this audience, every woman watching, every woman in the world has been at some point at the receiving end of these kinds of comments.
TONY JONES: One columnist actually said something along the lines of, "These are the unspoken words in the minds of many women that they've uttered or haven't uttered."
PAMELA STEPHENSON: I think that's true and in that sense it was a very, very clever speech. And, of course, I don't know enough about the background of it to be able to speak to the political aspect of it or how it might have been used. But from my point of view simply watching - I only saw it today - I was, wow, I was, "You go, girl."
CHARLIE PICKERING: Isn't that the...
TONY JONES: Go ahead.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Isn't that the real test of this what people are actually going to care about; what they're going to take from it? If you spoke to most people on the street and asked them to name three speakers of the House over the history of Australia, I doubt they could do it. Two? They'd probably struggle and seeing this is to do with the Peter Slipper issue, I think over time people will consider it less to do with that and, more importantly and I think, with all due respect, every politician is going to be political when they speak. There's a political reason for their speaking. It's unavoidable. But what people take from it is entirely up to them and you'd have to say that a lot of people bought it and personally...
TONY JONES: Charlie, I'm just going to interrupt because we've got at least a number of people with their hands up. We can't go to all of them but let's go to a few.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. I really admire what Pamela said about her woman politicians over in America because as a young lady in Australia I find it hard to look up to the Prime Minister with all the stuff that's going on and what Sophia was saying about how it's just tit-for-tat basically in the House lately, I just wanted to comment saying that I totally agree with the idea that we just need to get over what's been said and grow a backbone and just move on from these child-like comments because I still go to high school and I'm able to move along, why can't adults?
TONY JONES: I'll take that as a comment. We'll just go to the gentleman next to you. He's got his hand up as well.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I'd like to take up the points that Ms Mirabella has said about performances and deliberate campaigns and ask the panel this: I'm at a bit of a loss. Tony Abbott has, for years, created a macho macho budgie smuggler man image and then Mr Abbott brings out Mrs Abbott to say he's really a nice, new age guy who gets women. Now there's confused messages here. I'd like to ask the panel whether the bringing out of Mrs Abbott is really about heading off a challenge from Malcolm Turnbull, who realises that Mr Abbott's got problems with women and that he would be unelectable.
TONY JONES: All right. I'll get a brief response from Sophie Mirabella and then we'll go onto some of the other questions. Go ahead.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, yeah, Tony Abbott wears budgie smugglers when he goes into triathlons. That's the uniform. Bob Hawke used to wear budgie smugglers. He is a fit and healthy bloke. There's nothing wrong with being fit and healthy. His wife came out because she was sick of the sledging and this deliberate campaign to play the man, not the ball and she knows him better than anyone else and that's what happened.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right. We've got another question from the floor. It's from Josh Gibson.
VILE LANGUAGE
JOSH GIBSON: So my question is to Sophie. Sophie, your recent defending of Tony Abbott's phrase, "the Government should have died of shame" only promotes the vile type of language that we learn not to use as children. In the past you've told Bill Heffernan to go and pop his Alzheimer's pills and you've also said that Julia Gillard won't need a taxpayer's nanny. So can you explain to us here why you think these personal statements are still acceptable in Australian politics?
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, I will take the last comment. It was inelegant language to make the point - the political point obviously - that Kevin Rudd was using taxpayers' money to pay for a nanny. I would never, ever, ever try and make a point or put a woman down on the issue of whether she had children or not. I personally suffered in a campaign in 2004 when the Labor candidate said I couldn't represent my electorate because I didn't have a husband and children and I had Labor women, including Julia Gillard, campaign for him. So it was inelegant language in that regard. In terms of my personal private conversations with Bill Heffernan, let's just say we'll keep those private.
TONY JONES: Yeah. Can I just pick up one other point, because we didn't get you to respond on this. I mean Alan Jones' advertisers deserted him en masse after he made those sinister remarks about Gillard's father dying of shame and yet then less than a week later Tony Abbott is making exactly the same remark, leaving the bit out about the father, about the Government dying of shame. Do you seriously think he'd forgotten what Alan Jones said just a week earlier when he used exactly the same phrase?
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Look, what Alan Jones said, you know, was offensive. It was wrong on so many levels and Tony did say that. He has used the phrase - he'd used the phrase 17 times. He's used it often. I've heard him use it.
TONY JONES: Sure, but he echoed it in this context...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: He echoed it...
TONY JONES: ...less than a week later? I mean don't you think that's a little surprising?
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, it is a phrase he'd used. There is no way that Tony was trying to link it to Alan Jones' comment. It's a phrase he'd used before in the heat of parliamentary debate. You often use phrases you've used before. I can see why people could criticise him for it but I do not believe at all that that's the intention that he was trying (indistinct)...
TONY JONES: I'm just going to go back to our...
CHARLIE PICKERING: Just on that...
TONY JONES: Yes, Charlie.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Very quickly. It didn't come out of nowhere. As far as tools of oratory go, as far as public speaking techniques go, he repeated the word "shame" that many times leading up to saying "die of shame", it was an oratory technique and he was building to a point. Like that was the impression - I was watching it live and I thought he's not, is he? Like I genuinely felt he just said "shame" too many times building up for it to be a complete out of nowhere accident. Oh, this is a phrase I've used 17 times before in my life.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: But I used - I was interviewed - I did a couple of interviews on the weekend and I used the word "shameless" regarding the Government's use of sexism as a political technique and I was thinking, oh, goodness gracious, someone's going to stop me in the street and bail me up like they did Tony Abbott. I mean sometimes, you know, a word is used and just because someone has used it in a phrase doesn't' mean you connect it...
CHARLIE PICKERING: But no one was going to accuse you of that for saying shameless in an interview.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, we live in...
CHARLIE PICKERING: He was punctuating what he was saying with the word "shame".
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: We live in ridiculous - but we live in ridiculous times when Tony Abbott looking at his watch while Julia Gillard's speaking gets accused of sexism. It's crazy stuff and it's over the top and a it's a deflection from real issues.
TONY JONES: Do you mind if I just quickly go back to our questioner, who asked the original question?
JOSH GIBSON: Yeah. Sophie, I can understand that and I think if you break down the barrier between Tony Abbott saying it and Alan Jones saying it - I didn't ask you about that. But I think the comment - I think the comment the Government or any person or entity dying of shame metaphorically or literally is just repulsive so I don't know how you or any politician can defend that statement in general, full stop.
TONY JONES: Okay. I'll take that as a comment to leave that point there because we do have quite a bit to get through. Let's go Elisa Lu. A slightly different question on a similar subject.
ELISA LU: My question is to Charlie. Recently in the media we've encountered many controversial remarks, such as the Alan Jones incident, release of Peter Slipper's text messages and the joke about Tony Abbott at a union dinner. And as a comedian and a well known figure in the media, are you concerned that the negative reactions to these comments will threaten our freedom of speech and maybe even our jokes?
CHARLIE PICKERING: I genuinely don't think they're going to threaten our freedom of speech because people will forever say stupid things and nothing will...
BILL SHORTEN: You can't...
CHARLIE PICKERING: No, you can't legislate against it.
BILL SHORTEN: You can't legislate that out.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Like, it's just going to happen. I think what's become clear I think people using the phrase "It was a joke" as a defence, it's up to people whether they buy that or not. Sometimes it is a really valid defence and as a comedian you have to make judgment calls about whether a joke is going to be acceptable or not be acceptable. But, for example, Alan Jones' comment about dying of shame, I don't know if it passes the giggle test of whether that's a joke. I struggle to imagine a situation where making fun of a recently deceased relative in that fashion is a punch line. That's more sinister than that. And, as I said earlier and I probably overplayed my hand at the top of the show, I thought reading the Peter Slipper texts, it was a very poor attempt at humour. It was poorly executed. I didn't find it funny but on a reading of it - practical reading of it - it was an attempt at humour, you know.
CATHERINE FOX: Also, Charlie, I think one of the things that's actually come out in some really interesting research that's been done at Melbourne Business School, "Just joking" is often used in a very passive aggressive way within organisations, businesses and so on and it's a way of getting away with really nasty sexism and racism and, in fact, some companies are talking about having a no just joking policy. I'm a bit like you. I think the more rules you have, in fact the less helpful it is but I do take the point...
TONY JONES: One of the list of incidents mentioned there was the comedian, the Labor dinner, the union dinner, which is actually in the Great Hall of Parliament and, as we know, a number of senior ministers did not walk out, in spite of the fact this is only a week or a little more than a week after the Alan Jones incident.
CATHERINE FOX: True. Yeah.
TONY JONES: Now, I mean, what does that say?
CATHERINE FOX: Well, I think it says quite a lot about the standards and about the sexism right throughout our culture. I think we still tolerate things that I think are extraordinary. I'm not one for censorship. I don't believe in it and I don't think it helps but I do think our standards have declined. Do you know what? I think we've become a bit desensitised since we've had a female Prime Minister and that saddens me more than I can say. I just think that we've had a sort of a level of discourse that is sexist, it's really unpleasant and I have to tell you the business community that I look at in quite a lot of detail all the time would never allow this kind of rhetoric or formal discourse. They really wouldn't. It would be stamped out and the business community's actually starting to move ahead. It's been a long time coming but they're actually starting to get their act together and address the whole issue of gender equity, gender balance. They're looking at utilising half the population. Wouldn't that be nice?
TONY JONES: Okay, Sophie wants to get in but just before you do, I just want to hear from Pamela. The whole thing was about what's acceptable, what isn't acceptable in comedy.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Oh, please, I live with a comedian.
TONY JONES: But he's never acceptable.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: I mean, we're always having conversations. As a psychologist, there's always moments when I have to say "Darling, you know, not quite sure". The current thing is about little people and little people, you know, are sometimes known as dwarfs and that's considered a politically incorrect term and we just I thought we just got to the point where we'd solve this one and then he gets a job playing the king of the dwarfs in The Hobbit. That's like go tell it to Peter Jackson, you know.
TONY JONES: Has he ever crossed the line in your opinion?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Mm hm. Mmm hm. Mm. No, it's really difficult and now you see I want to give you examples but I'm afraid to give you examples because then I would be accused of however, Charlie might. Give us an example of an unacceptable joke.
CHARLIE PICKERING: An unacceptable joke that I've made? No. But just on the topic of Billy, this is a great example. I decided to be a stand up comedian listening to a tape of Billy Connolly in my bedroom when I was 12 and it was given to me by my grandma, right.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Right.
CHARLIE PICKERING: And the language on this tape was breathtaking, right?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: All right.
CHARLIE PICKERING: I couldn't believe it, right, and I listened to it and I thought it was the funniest thing in the world and in that moment I decided what I was going to do with the rest of my life. But then I thought my grandma listens to this? I couldn't believe it. And I asked her - when I was a kid, I remember this, I asked her and I said, "Like, you tell me not to use those words, how is it okay to listen to this tape?" And she said, "Because it's funny."
PAMELA STEPHENSON: There you go. There you go.
CHARLIE PICKERING: And that's the bottom line with all of these jokes is it offensive? Is it this? Is it that?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: It passes the giggle test.
CHARLIE PICKERING: If enough people laugh you don't care.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right. Quickly to Sophie and, look, it does appear that at that union dinner nobody laughed, as far as I know. Certainly there was well the description was a pall of silence fell across the room, at which point some Labor ministers got up and walked out. Some didn't.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, I'm not into censorship or even stopping people from laughing but the issue is, Charlie's right, every member of an audience has to make up their own mind whether they find something offensive or not. The problem was that both the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese and Nicola Roxon had said the week before, they'd set the benchmark and the benchmark was if an offensive comment is made at a dinner and you're a politician, you've got to walk out. So they set the benchmark and they failed it. So it's a really big lesson not to overplay the card and not to try so desperately to paint the opposing political party in the way that (indistinct)...
TONY JONES: This is the we're all as bad as each other argument.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: No, it's not. It's saying be very careful - be very careful about screaming sexism and setting ridiculous benchmarks because you will fail them yourself and they did.
TONY JONES: Okay, Bill Shorten, briefly?
BILL SHORTEN: Just to correct the record of what Sophie said. The Prime Minister didn't contradict her own standards. She wasn't there. In terms of - I had left the function earlier. I know from speaking to the organisers of that event, as soon as a stupid joke, which I'm not going to give oxygen to, was said, everyone went, "Oh, what an idiot." So it certainly didn't pass any laugh test. But beyond that, if we want to have a debate about which policies are better for Australian women I'm happy to because, in my opinion, sexism isn't just what people say, although that can be part of it. It's about who's standing up for low-paid women workers in the health and community services and before everyone cuts me off to move on to the next topic du jour, you know, there are legitimate policy issues which distinguish the Government from the Opposition about standing up for our women in the workplace and I think that that's an important context which we've got to look at too. The Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to say that he won't repeal our abolition of tax on low-paid workers and superannuation. He has an opportunity to say he will back in the equal pay case for women in the community services sector. There are plenty of opportunities to create a better society for all of Australian women and that's where I think a lot of this debate is and we should move to the policy debate where people can see who's fair dinkum and who isn't.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Can I ask you a policy question, Bill?
BILL SHORTEN: That would be good.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Can you pledge tonight on Q&A that you won't tweak the rules and regulations that will impose additional penalties on super funds?
BILL SHORTEN: In terms of...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: A lot of self-funded retiree s want to know.
TONY JONES: Okay. All right. I'll let you get away with that one because...
BILL SHORTEN: I'm happy to...
TONY JONES: ...someone actually was going to ask that question. Go ahead.
BILL SHORTEN: I'm happy to have a debate about superannuation. I can tell you we can pledge a number of things, in fact, on superannuation.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: No, I didn't - I just asked a specific pledge.
BILL SHORTEN: To be fair you ask whatever questions you want but I will give the answers which the people can...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: You want. Yeah, okay.
BILL SHORTEN: The issue is we're the only party who has voted to increase superannuation from 9 to 12%. Mind you, through the whole history of superannuation, we're the only party who has ever voted to increase it. We're the only party who has scrapped superannuation for people who are - sorry, scraped the discrimination against older Australians from getting superannuation over 70. In terms of penalties, we are the only party with a policy who says that we're going to increase the concessional caps on superannuation. We're the only party who has got rid of the 15% tax that people who have a job who earn less than $37,000 - yeah, we've got rid of it. Those opposite have said anything of what they think on any of those issues. That's what we need in Australia: debate.
KILLING THE SUPER GOOSE
TONY JONES: I'm going to interrupt you because we did get a web question on this from John Whiteing of NSW: "Bill Shorten, your party introduced superannuation."
BILL SHORTEN: True.
TONY JONES: "Now you're leading the charge to tamper with this world-class scheme and will almost certainly kill the golden goose. Why does Labor hate financially successful people so much they continually seek every opportunity to rob them?" That was the question.
BILL SHORTEN: As much as Mr Whiteing's questions doesn't fill me with any hope that anything I say will change his mind, first of all we are continually the only party who tries to increase superannuation. In terms of financial regulation, yes, we have tried to lift the standards for financial planners. Yes, we have granted an exemption to accountants so they can offer financial advice. We stand for seeing people have adequate retirement income and we make no apology for lifting people's retirement savings.
TONY JONES: But, you know, the question really goes to whether or not you've actually won your battle with Treasury to keep superannuation safe from the razor gangs. In other words, could there be slashes and cuts to the kind of tax concessions you can get on your superannuation funds?
BILL SHORTEN: Well, if we're talking about the mid-year economic statement, which is due sometime soon, the Government has declining revenue, as we see across the Western world with falling government revenue as companies and corporations deal with the global financial crisis. We are determined to get the budget into surplus. We aren't ruling in, ruling out 'til we make the statements but what I do know and we're just following the budget rules established by Peter Costello, so it's not as if we're cheating. What we do know is that since 1970 the only governments to ever absolutely decrease real government spending or spending in real terms are Labor governments. So the Coalition would like you to believe that there are all things to all people. That, you know, they're fiscally prudent but the reality is if you look at their economic policies, they've got an unfunded black hole. They're a spendarama. We will make sure we have a very good superannuation system going forward.
TONY JONES: Will you leave superannuation alone?
BILL SHORTEN: We know...
TONY JONES: The question was a very simple one really. I mean I know you said you won't rule in or rule out.
BILL SHORTEN: That's right.
TONY JONES: But a lot of people rely on the certainty of their superannuation funds. It's really a very simply question. Will this Government leave super alone or will it start trying to drag money out of it to fix the deficit?
BILL SHORTEN: We are the strongest defenders of Australian superannuation system. We're the ones who constantly build and keep building it.
TONY JONES: Yeah. But I think the...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: That's not the question.
TONY JONES: Yeah, but I think you can hear from the audience they don't think they're getting an answer to the question.
BILL SHORTEN: I hear from some of the audience but I also know that when I'm in parliament and we try and increase superannuation the conservatives vote against it every time. So let's not rewrite history. In terms of our superannuation, there has been a scare campaign go on and I don't believe it's justified...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, rule it out. Rule it out.
BILL SHORTEN: ...and we'll see it...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Rule it out to put an end to it.
BILL SHORTEN: Sophie, don't lose too much sleep between now and the mid-year economic forecast. I think we'd be better off if...
BILL SHORTEN: People are asking me about it, Bill.
BILL SHORTEN: Well, do you know...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Rule out gutting super.
BILL SHORTEN: Can I give you some good news and the people who ask you about it? When we come out with our mid-year economic forecast people will know where they stand on a range of issues. We're still waiting for Coalition policy.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: So will you be...
TONY JONES: Sorry. Sorry...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Will tell us...
BILL SHORTEN: When are you guys going to introduce...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Will tell us how you're going to fund your 120 unfunded policies? 120 billion unfunded policies?
BILL SHORTEN: At least we're getting to economic policy. But getting a lecture about saying where we're going to get the money from when we constantly put forward our budgets and you guys won't even have your numbers assessed by the parliamentary budget office, it's a little rich getting a lecture.
TONY JONES: Okay. It's time to move along. You're watching Q&A. It's live. It's interactive. Our next question comes from Eliza Thornton.
AGEING NATURALLY
ELIZA THORNTON: My question is for Pamela. It's well known that you've undergone medical procedures to modify your body.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Who said that?
ELIZA THORNTON: People were created to age so why would you want to defy the natural process of the human body? Instead of encouraging people to change who they are, shouldn't we be encouraging people to be happy with themselves and their appearance?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: The answer to the first question is because I want to be a babe. The answer to the second question is absolutely. I went to Brazil at the beginning I've written my memoirs, available at all good book shops near you. The Varnished Untruth would be the name of those excellent memoirs and in the very first chapter of my memoirs - I'm sorry, I can't see where you are. Oh, there you are.
TONY JONES: Up the back there, yes.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Hello. Thank you for the question. At the beginning of the memoir s I've written about an epiphany that I had when after yet another one of these surgical procedures to which you are referring, I went to Brazil and discovered how very culturally defined some of our notions about female appearance is. I went there and I found myself on a beach in Porto Seguro, where I was surrounded by babes of all shapes and sizes and ages wearing the tiniest bikinis you've ever seen in your life. Fio Dental they call them, that are like dental floss and just use your imagination about where that piece of dental floss went and I began to realise for the first time perhaps in my life, because as you learn from reading my memoirs, The Unvarnished Truth...
TONY JONES: Oh, come on now.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: ...available at all good book stores, that I've suffered from body image problems my entire life and so...
TONY JONES: How much, can I ask you - because you've been pretty candid about it, what sort of work are we talking about?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Oh, shut up!
BILL SHORTEN: You've just made Q&A history there.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Anyway, what I did realise was that that these women taught me a huge lesson. That what I should have done with the money I spent on surgery was move to Brazil, buy myself a flat there and a whole wardrobe of Fio Dentals and live happily for ever after.
TONY JONES: Let's hear from the rest of the panel. Catherine?
CATHERINE FOX: Why are you looking at me?
TONY JONES: (Indistinct)
CATHERINE FOX: No work.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: And you look gorgeous. You see...
CATHERINE FOX: Thanks very much, Pamela.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: You see, that's the thing.
CATHERINE FOX: Thank you very much. Look, I think I find the whole topic fascinating. I don't know if anyone here is a fan of Nora Efron, who sadly died earlier this year.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
CATHERINE FOX: And I must say I just loved the way she wrote about ageing. I mean she angsted. You know, I'm Worried About My Neck was one of the titles of her books and it's one of the reasons - sorry, to get back on to the feminist soap box, it's one of the reasons we have to have more women speaking honestly about their lives and their ageing process and being in the workplace and being in the workplace when you're older by the way, which is an interesting thing because, for my age group, we're kind of a pioneering group. We came through university en masse for the first time thanks to Gough Whitlam, I have to say and went out and into the workplace and really there haven't been women of our age - I didn't mention my age, did I?
TONY JONES: No. No. Not yet.
CATHERINE FOX: Of my youth.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: No, but if I'm 38 then you're roughly the same.
CATHERINE FOX: I'm around the same. Roughly the same. We are roughly the same. And can I also say you're a beautiful young woman and I think issues like that for you must look very odd and you are beautiful, like my daughter's beautiful and like all young women your age are. As you get older it's very confronting. It actually is and because I'm so much of our lives we are assessed on how we look and so that's the difficulty for women particularly.
TONY JONES: Sophie, do you identify with these difficulties? I mean - no, I don't mean that in any way apart from saying...
CATHERINE FOX: Keep going.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Keep digging, Tony.
BILL SHORTEN: You've made me sympathetic to Sophie, Tony.
TONY JONES: I don't mean anything by it.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: So what's the question?
TONY JONES: The young woman asked the question about whether it's better to grow old and not tamper with your body. That's really the question.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, far be it from me, a politician, telling women what to do and not what to do to make themselves feel better and what to do with their bodies and what surgical procedures they want to pay for. So I don't want to give anyone advice or I don't want to pass judgment on anyone. For myself, I'm quite happy to let the ageing process go along. You obviously try and do your best but I've watched my mother, who was an extraordinarily beautiful woman, live through a hard life and age gracefully. And to me she looks beautiful because her face is her life and besides, my husband would freak out if I had any surgery.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Oh, don't tell him. I didn't tell Billy for ages.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: I think he'd notice. I think he'd notice.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: No, he just thought I was ageing gracefully. I want to add, because it's a very important question, and I do want to add that...
TONY JONES: There will be a great debate about that on Twitter later, I can assure you.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Yeah. That I have such respect for women who do nothing, who age. I admire them enormously. I wish I had the courage. I just I got to the point in my particular life and I think everybody has to make their own decision and it has to be an informed decision because let's face it, these procedures are darn dangerous. They are precarious and things can go horribly wrong so...
TONY JONES: Let's hear from Charlie down the end. You can see how dangerous it is for a bloke to get involved in these kind of discussions. Even asking questions can be dangerous.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Yeah. I'm going to tread as carefully as possible. I think everyone needs to make up their own mind. No one can be told but what I think is important is don't index your self esteem or your worth to your appearance. As long as you're not defining yourself by your appearance then you're going to be fine. You can have all the surgery in the world or you can have no surgery at all because it's this that is going to define you and determine whether or not you're happy when you turn 75. Simple as that.
TONY JONES: Let me just through this...
CHARLIE PICKERING: And don't look to the internet for approval of your appearance for God's sake. Just had to throw that in.
TONY JONES: Bill Shorten, growing old disgracefully, the Labor way. I mean are you actually looking forward to looking older because then you'll look more like a prime minister?
BILL SHORTEN: Listen, the serious issue is - I think I've had a bit of a greater understanding of all these issues now I've got daughters and I can't believe the pressure that young girls have on them to sort of fit in with their shape, their body shape. I've got a beautiful young daughter and I can't believe the pressure society and some of the popular media is putting on them. What I do like about this issue is it's relatively - it's not a left wing or a right wing issue. I agree with what everyone has said on this panel so far. Doesn't matter if you want to have Botox, if you don't want to have Botox, you're beautiful anyway. If you want to have cosmetic surgery or don't, that's fine. The only other thing I would say to add to this discussion is that it does remind me though the importance of not judging people by how they look and I'm going to put a plug in to a particular cause, people with disabilities. There's no doubt in my mind that people with disabilities, when they apply for jobs in Australia, suffer from unconscious bias. I don't think Australians, by and large, are bad. They're good people. But sometimes if you're not used to working with someone who is in a wheelchair, if you're not used to working with someone with a range of impairments, we can't get beyond looking at that person. So if we think that the beauty idea is important I think we could all do something positive by saying who with disabilities can we engage?
TONY JONES: Okay. Let's go back to some - thank you. We're running out of time. I don't want to cut your clapping off. But you're watching Q&A, where you ask the questions. Let's go to some serious topics again. We've two got video questions on the same topic, one from Victoria and one from Queensland. Let's see them both.
SINGLE PARENT WELFARE
CHARLOTTE LYNCH: Recent cuts to single parent welfare payments have meant that up to 100,000 single parents have now lost a government-run incentive to pursue further study. If education really is the key to unlocking poverty, how important is it for these single parents and their children to be supported financially by the Government as they seek to pursue further study?
SUZANA ZUZEK: How can the Prime Minister implement such patriarchal legislation which deprives mostly single mothers of a higher education but putting them onto the Newstart Allowance, which denies them access to the pensioner education supplement?
TONY JONES: Catherine Fox, we'll start with you.
CATHERINE FOX: Look, the words, you know, "budget cuts" and "single parents", i.e. single mothers, seem to often go together. They seem very familiar to me and so when I read about the latest ones, my heart sank a little bit. I mean this is a group struggling, no doubt. And I do just wonder - I know budgets and so are a series of trade-offs but I just wonder is the savings from doing this to mainly women, and it is mainly women, on their own bringing up kids - we don't even hear the expression single father, do we?
TONY JONES: The big picture here is that 100,000 single parents, mostly women, I think it's 80 or 90% of them are women...
CATHERINE FOX: Yes. Yes. That's right. Yes.
TONY JONES: ...are forced off the parenting payment...
CATHERINE FOX: Indeed.
TONY JONES: ...onto the Newstart Allowance and in many cases will lose up to $100 a week in the income that they'd previously relied on.
CATHERINE FOX: That's right. And so I wonder, you know, is it absolutely essential to hit this group. I just they seem to be a group that is in need and to me I just wonder are the savings worthwhile? Are they worth it basically?
TONY JONES: Before I go to the minister I'll hear from Charlie Pickering.
CHARLIE PICKERING: Well, all problems have a cause and I think this particular decision is symptomatic of a very short-term view of politics that's going on on both sides at the moment. The fact of the matter is one of the common factors in a lot of problems that we have to solve down the track is socioeconomic disadvantage and all this has done is increase socioeconomic disadvantage. So whilst it might achieve a budget surplus or help to achieve a budget surplus in the short term it's going to create problems down the track. And I'm not saying that God forbid I'm not saying that anyone receiving this or effected by this is going to be a problem in the future, I'm not saying that. All we know is a common factor of a lot of our ills is socioeconomic disadvantage and it shouldn't be these people that have to pay the bill.
BILL SHORTEN: Well, just to correct one thing which is put in the question, we haven't scrapped the pension education supplement for people who are sole parents. So whilst I understand the concern behind the question, it hasn't been scrapped for people who are currently studying. The broader question is what's the best way out of poverty? The best way out of poverty is ultimately to help people find a job but we haven't scrapped the pension education supplement so...
TONY JONES: So this project, you would regard it as tough love, would you, to actually force people from welfare into work?
BILL SHORTEN: I'm not going to...
TONY JONES: No, because we know from this is once they reach the age of once the youngest child reached the age of eight then the allowance they've been getting will stop and they will be forced to go to work.
BILL SHORTEN: There's 431,000 people who receive parenting payments. There's been group of 60,000 who are not on the same system as everyone else. It is a tough decision. I'm not going to insult the intelligence of people affected by this to say it's an easy decision because it's not. The best way to help people is to help them find a job. The pensioner education supplement is still present. We're also - one of the big barriers for single parents to find work and many of them do want to work, is the provision of child care. That's why we're spending an extra $100 million to make sure that if you get more than 15 hours work you can get up to 50 hours child care. It doesn't solve the problem because there's longer term issues here but there are more facts to be put on the table (indistinct)...
TONY JONES: Can I just ask one fact I'm not certain of? The unemployment rate just went up last week and one of the reasons it went up is because new people were entering the jobs market. Is it the people you're forcing off welfare who are now entering the jobs market?
BILL SHORTEN: No. The unemployment rate in Australia went up - we have monthly figures - went up to 5.4% for September. Part of that cause is more people participating. It would appear, and we've only got month by month data, but it would appear that the trend is that since the global financial crisis there's older people who thought they might be able to retire who are longer in the work force. There's also some sense of confidence that there's jobs out there. So I'm not sure the correlation is made but I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just - the data isn't quite there.
TONY JONES: It will be made at some point though, won't it? Because, I mean, it's in January next year when this kicks in and presumably a lot of these single mothers and other people who are on this benefit will be entering the work force which means you will have another jump in unemployment, doesn't it?
BILL SHORTEN: Well, what we've seen in Australia since the global financial crisis is 800,000 jobs have actually been created. There's been 200 created every day since the introduction of the carbon price mechanism three months ago. Like Australia is doing okay but there are pockets of disadvantage. I have no doubt that when we look at how we support people it's got to be providing them with child care to find work. We should never give up on trying to help people find a job. That's is still the best solution out of poverty.
TONY JONES: All right. I'm just to go quickly to Sophie Mirabella. Brief response if you can, because we're nearly out of time.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: The hardest job is raising children. To do it by yourself is extraordinarily difficult. The collateral damage of billions of dollars being mismanaged and then the Government struggling to create the illusion of a surplus, a $1.5 billion wafer thin surplus, is that there's a panic and people who can least afford it are the ones who get damaged in the process and this is what's happened.
TONY JONES: The Coalition supports this policy though...
BILL SHORTEN: You voted for it though.
TONY JONES: ...according to Arthur Sinodinos.
BILL SHORTEN: You voted for it.
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, if we were - well, hold on a minute. We're not the ones in Government.
BILL SHORTEN: I'm not boasting about that. I'm just saying...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: If we were in Government we would not be facing the record debt.
BILL SHORTEN: Let's face it...
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Hold on, Bill. We would not be facing the record debt because there are choices in government.
TONY JONES: Briefly, very briefly, did you actually vote for...
BILL SHORTEN: (Indistinct) on everything else we do.
TONY JONES: Did you vote for the legislation you just decried, as it were?
SOPHIE MIRABELLA: Well, I decried the process that has led up to the point where the Government will make a lot of cuts across the board and I saw it in my portfolio where they gutted science education and they had to reinstitute it. It is short-termism because the Government has cornered itself with the record waste and mismanagement and that's fundamentally the problem. You guys are going to be running around scrambling to try and find savings so you can show on a piece of paper how you're going to achieve the surplus you promised.
BILL SHORTEN: But, Sophie, the only trouble I have with what you're saying is this policy is a tough policy. I'm not boasting about it. I think it's tough. But you guys introduced it in 2006. We recognise that there's some merit to it but we're not excited by it. But don't pretend it's not your policy because you introduced it.
TONY JONES: All right. We're fast running out of time. Let's take one very last question. It's from David Greg.
DAVID GREG: The question is for Pamela.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Where are you?
TONY JONES: Down here.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Oh, hi.
DAVID GREG: G'day. Does Billy swear at home as much as he does on stage?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: Yes. But, you know, when our kids were small - our kids are now grown. My baby is 24. But when they were young he did his best to, you know, and then he began to teach them there's such a thing as, you know, if you're going to swear when you have to get it right and so there is an art to swearing and he did his best. But I actually...
TONY JONES: How did he sort of describe that art, just out of interest?
PAMELA STEPHENSON: It's along the lines that Charlie said. You know, there's a giggle test.
CHARLIE PICKERING: It's got to be funny.
PAMELA STEPHENSON: It's got to be - right. It's got to be used the right way and there's all sorts of Scottish swear words that, you know, you've probably never even heard of. But the thing is that we kept them away from his shows until they were 18 because you don't really want to see your dad doing that thing with the dog and everything. You know so and then when finally I took them to see him on stage my middle daughter turned to me and said, because they're American. We raised them in America and she says, "I can't believe I'm related to him."
TONY JONES: Sorry, I think I'm being told to wind up but I've got to ask Bill Shorten, do you swear at home or only in pie shops?
BILL SHORTEN: I do swear. I do swear. I do swear.
CATHERINE FOX: Don't we all?
BILL SHORTEN: That would make me unusual.
TONY JONES: We do but I'm not going to take the opportunity to prove that just before we go off air. That's all we have time for tonight. Please thank our panel: Charlie Pickering, Bill shorten, Pamela Stephenson, Catherine Fox, Sophie Mirabella. Thank you. Next week on Q&A political rock star Billy Bragg; former rocker now Minister for Education, Peter Garrett; the Shadow Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison; Howard Government Minister turned Radio National presenter, believe it or not, Amanda Vanstone and author and broadcaster and columnist Julia Baird. Until next week's Q&A, goodnight.
Panellist Pamela Stephenson
Panellist Bill Shorten
Panellist Charlie Pickering
Panellist Sophie Mirabella
Panellist Catherine Fox
Audience: ALP 35%, Coalition 47%, Greens 11%
Discuss the Questions
Here are the questions our panel faced this week. Tell us what your answer would be or what you think our panellists need to say.
Elizabeth Newman asked: Many commentators believe the Prime Minister displayed poor judgement by protecting Peter Slipper in Parliament only to watch him resign a few hours later. Despite the positive reaction to her fiery speech, has the Slipper debacle made the Prime Minister's hold on the leadership less secure?
Vince Del Gallego asked: A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive. A misogynist hates women and girls. Julia Gillard announced to Australia and the whole world that Tony Abbott is a misogynist, which is a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive. Is the Real Julia Gillard a confirmed liar?
Lois Calvert from Chifley, ACT asked via web: If you were on the receiving end of constant hostility and denigration, wouldn't it feel like hatred? If you were a woman and your femaleness was part of the denigration, wouldn't it feel like misogyny?
Josh Gibson asked: Sophie, your recent defending of Tony Abbott's phrase "the Government should have died of shame" only further promotes the vile type of language that we learn not to use as children...In the past you have told Bill Heffernan to "go and pop [his] Alzheimer pills" and you've also said that Julia Gillard won't need a tax-payer's nanny. Can you please explain why you think these statements are acceptable in Australian politics?
Elisa Lu asked: My question is for Charlie - recently in the media we have encountered many controversial remarks - such as the Alan Jones incident, the release of Peter Slipper's text messages and the jokes about Tony Abbott at a union dinner. As a comedian and well known figure in the media, are you concerned that the negative reaction to these comments threatens our freedom of speech, and even our jokes?
John Whiteing from Willoughby asked via web: Bill Shorten: Your party introduced [superannuation]. Now you are leading the charge to tamper with this world-class scheme and will almost certainly kill the golden goose. Why does the Labor Party hate financially successful people so much that they continually seek every opportunity to rob them?
Eliza Thornton asked: Pamela- It's well known that you've undergone medical procedures to "modify" your body but people were created to age, so why defy the natural process of the human body? Instead of encouraging people to change who they are, shouldn't we be encouraging people to be happy with themselves and their appearance?
Charlotte Lynch from Brisbane, QLD asked via video: Recent cuts to Single Parent welfare payments have meant that up to 100,000 single parents have now lost a government-run incentive to pursue further study. If education really is the key to unlocking poverty, how important is it for these single parents and their children to be supported financially by the government while they seek to pursue further study?
Suzana Zuzek from Altona Meadows, VIC asked via video: How can the PM implement such patriarchal legislation that deprives single mothers (mostly) of a higher education by putting them on Newstart allowance which denies them pensioner education supplements?
David Greig asked: Pamela: Does Billy swear at home as much as he does on stage?
Duration: 58min 15sec
Broadcast: Mon 15 Oct 2012, 10:35pm
Full episode 58min 15sec
Show more segments
The End of an Era: 2019 Finale
Mon 9 Dec 2019
The End of an Era | Q&A 2019 Finale
Q&A Pacific
link Episodes
link Join the Audience
link Ask a Question
link Your Questions
link Be a People's Panellist
link Join the High School Panel
link About
link Contact
Transmission Time
Monday 9.35pm AEST
Streamed live on iview
Subscribe on iTunes or RSS
Find ABC podcasts on the ABC listen app*
*Only available in Australia


Are you looking coltrin shirts	and coltrin hoodies?. There are many Sweaters, Meaning, T-Shirts, Tank Top, Hoodies, Longsleeve Tee, Sweatshirts, V-neck about your name Coltrin here. Check it now!
Its a COLTRIN Thing, You Wouldnt Understand!


Rosanne Haggerty was on vacation in Ireland not long ago when she decided to see how that country addresses the housing needs of its poorest residents. What she discovered in the city of Belfast was the Foyer Program, a model long used in France, Ireland, and England to help young people without family and at risk of homelessness make the transition to adulthood. Haggerty hoped the model might be useful in New York City, where about 20 percent of homeless adults have a history of foster care, and where, according to one city agency, some 3,700 young people will age out of foster care between 2002 and 2004.
Haggerty, the founder and executive director of Common Ground Community in New York City, decided to replicate the Foyer Program in her next project – the renovation of an old YMCA residence in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood, which will set aside 40 of its 207 units for young adults ages 18 to 24 who are aging out of foster and residential care or are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The Chelsea Residence will provide employment, educational mentoring and life-skills training programs; participants will work over an 18-month to two-year period toward permanent housing and stable employment. The $32 million project, which includes $9 million for acquisition, has received state, city and private financing.
Although the Chelsea Residence will be Common Ground's first project to include housing specifically for at-risk youth, the not-for-profit developer has developed affordable housing with supportive services since 1990. In addition to housing both homeless and low-income tenants, the organization has developed employment opportunities for its residents through partnerships with Ben & Jerry's ice cream shops. An important part of Common Ground's strategy is integrating residents with the surrounding community and linking them to its resources.
Shelterforce spoke recently with Haggerty about her latest venture.
What spurred Common Ground to address the needs of youth leaving foster and residential care?
After we found the Foyer model in Belfast, and visited programs in and around London and Northern Ireland, we realized that groups like Common Ground have to look at prevention issues. There's a high correspondence between single adult homeless people leaving prison or jail and those who had been in foster care.
Others in New York had been talking about this, about how we had to come up with strategies to help make the transition [out of foster care] a successful one. Jerilyn Perine, commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, had been supportive. She had visited some housing programs in a separate trip, and she also mentioned the group in Ireland. It was an idea that a couple of us knew about, and we were eager to see it happen.
How did Common Ground reposition itself to reach out to this new, younger population?
We formed alliances with new social service partners. Good Shepherd Services, a nonprofit social service and youth development agency, will do the case management and youth development work and operate a mentoring program. We're also repositioning our job training program in Ben and Jerry stores from adults to a youth training program, to tie it in with the Foyer program.
Were there specific challenges/obstacles in providing supportive housing for young people that differed from your experience with adults?
There aren't funding streams available for obtaining properties or providing services [for this population]. We had to piece together grants from state and city agencies and help them understand that this could be a powerful new model.
What advice do you have to offer CDCs venturing into this area?
This is an area that CDCs can be very effective in. The goal is to have these types of residences in as many communities as possible, to keep them closer to community resources, to reinforce and augment the training of Foyer. It's being opportunistic, locating Foyer in a supportive housing unit. It's possible to co-locate programs, incorporate it into an existing program. Young people aging out of foster care are another discrete group, like seniors. It's a good strategy for CDCs.


Somebody purporting to be a Nigerian banker (or various other stories) contacts you, offers you a chance to earn millions. This is called a "419" Scam - named after the relevant section of the criminal code of Nigeria.
Of course you never see these promised millions. Many people have believed the story and lost loads of their own money. Some have even lost their lives trying to recover their money.
Before getting your money you are asked to pay fees, bribes, taxes, governmental lubrication. Often they will tell you how much money that they have outlaid on your behalf to pay for everything ...there is just one teensy weensy little bill that they cannot cover. Do you think you could see your way clear to pay it? They will back this up with a multitude of false papers. This of course is when you lose your money.
What is this Baiting Game?
A Comedy - How long can you string them out for? Along the way making up the most ridiculous excuses and still be believed. Waste their time, keep them away from other prey. Better still reverse the scam with you as the targeted victim actually extracting money from the fraudster (see scam 2 & 3 on the baiting index).
Let's be clear here. Some people think I have made up this correspondence. But it is real. These fraudsters - nearly always Africans - really exist (their names are fake obviously) and they keep responding.
It's important to remember what's going on: this is not a case of making childish fun of simple thieves (although that bit is quite good). These people are, quite simply, outright criminals. There is only one reason why they engage in conversation with you: they intend to steal your money. And beyond the $200 million they extract annually from gullible and greedy victims (FBI statistics), news reports strongly suggest that some of those who are foolish enough to be lured to meetings with the fraudsters are robbed, kidnapped, and even murdered.


text:
Q: Angular flow when creating nested directive Suppose I have my-drtv1 directive which creates my-drtv2 in its view which creates my-drtv3 in its view and so on until my-drtv5 .
In the controller of my-drtv1 there is a $http calling which its callback throw an event which would be catch in listener in my-drtv5.
i.e
.directive('myDrtv1', function () {
    return {
        controller: function ($scope,$http) {
            $http.get(this.requestUrl,{params:params}).then(function() {
                $scope.$broadcast("Got it");
            })
        }
    }
})
.directive('myDrtv5', function () {
    return {
        controller: function ($scope) {
            $scope.$on('Got it', fucntion () {
                ...
            })
        }
    }
})

Does I have a guarantee that always the callback $http.then(...) would be occur after the $scope.$on('Got it', fucntion () {...}) has defined ?

A: To ensure drtv5 handle event you can notify drtv1 with the same mecanism :
.directive('myDrtv1', function () {
return {
    controller: function ($scope,$http) {
        $scope.$on('handled', fucntion () {
           $http.get(this.requestUrl,{params:params}).then(function() {
               $scope.$broadcast("Got it");
           })
        }
    }
}
})
.directive('myDrtv5', function () {
    return {
    controller: function ($scope) {
        $scope.$on('Got it', fucntion () {
            ...
        })
        $scope.emit('handled')
    }
  }
})

or if you don't use isolate scope call a method defined on drtv1 :
    .directive('myDrtv1', function () {
return {
    controller: function ($scope,$http) {
        $scope.ready = function() {
           $http.get(this.requestUrl,{params:params}).then(function() {
               $scope.$broadcast("Got it");
           })
        }
    }
}
})
.directive('myDrtv5', function () {
    return {
    controller: function ($scope) {
        $scope.$on('Got it', fucntion () {
            ...
        })
        $scope.ready();
    }
  }
})

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Systemd Service Restart When Program in Tmux Window Fails I have a dotnet program running inside of bash in tmux which occasionally fails with a non-zero error code. I am attempting to use a systemd service file to programmatically start my dotnet program inside of tmux.
Here is the service file:
[Unit]
Description=dotnet application

[Service]
Type=forking
ExecStart=/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl
Restart=always
User=root

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Here is the rofdl shell script:
#!/bin/bash
/usr/bin/tmux kill-session -t "rof" 2> /dev/null || true
/usr/bin/tmux new -s "rof" -d "cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run"

Now, when I start the service, systemd chooses the main PID as the tmux server, which I assume is because it was the first executed command. Therefore, when my program in the tmux window exits with ANY error code AND there are no more windows, the tmux server exits with a success error code, causing the systemd not to restart. Even if I were to Restart=always, the tmux server would only restart if my program fails AND there are no other windows.
  Process: 24980 ExecStart=/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
 Main PID: 24984 (tmux: server)
           ├─24984 /usr/bin/tmux new -s rofdl -d cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run -- start
           ├─24985 sh -c cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run -- start
           ├─24987 dotnet run -- start
           └─25026 dotnet exec /home/alpine_sour/rofdl/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.1/rofdl.dll start

So I'm wondering how I would get systemd to track the lowest level of the process fork rather than the higher level tmux server. I need a way to tell systemd to track the child process of the tmux server rather than the server itself and restart accordingly.

A: Preliminary notes

*

*This answer is based on experiments in Debian 9.

*I assume your service is a system service (in /etc/systemd/system).

*What you posted near the end of the question body looks like an excerpt from systemctl status …. It says nothing about cgroups. This answer assumes Control Groups are involved. I think systemd requires them, so they must be.

*The command itself may run in a loop, until it succeeds:
cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && while ! dotnet run; do :; done

but I understand you want a systemd solution.

Problems
First please read how tmux works. Understanding which process is whose child will be very helpful.
Which processes belong to the service
In your original case the service will be considered inactive (and ready to restart, if applicable) after all processes from its cgroup exit.
Your script tries to kill the old tmux session, not the old tmux server. Then tmux new (equivalent to tmux new-session) either starts a server or uses the old one.

*

*If it uses the old one then neither the server nor your command (dotnet …) will be a descendant of the script. These processes will not belong to the cgroup associated with the service. After the script exits, systemd will consider the service inactive.

*If it starts a new tmux server then the server and the command will be assigned to the cgroup associated with the service. Then our command may terminate but if there are other sessions/windows (created later) within the server, the server may remain and systemd will consider the service active.
If there is one main process, the whole cgroup gets killed after the main process exits. With Type=simple the main process is the one specified by ExecStart=. With Type=forking you need to use PIDFile= and pass a PID this way to specify the main process. And when you stop a service, systemd kills all processes that belong to the service. Therefore it's important to include only processes specific to the service in the cgroup. In your case you may want to exclude tmux server, even if it's started from within the service.
There are tools/ways to move processes between cgroups. Or you can run a separate tmux server specific to the service.
How systemd knows which exit status to use
Restart=on-failure sets dependency on the exit status of the main process. With Type=forking it's advised to use PIDFile= so systemd knows what exit status to use.
systemd may or may not be able to retrieve the exit status though.
Who retrieves exit status
After a child exits, its parent can retrieve the exit status (compare zombie process).
Regardless whether the tmux server is old or new, your command won't be a child of systemd unless it gets orphaned, the kernel sets its parent to PID 1 (or some other) and the new parent is the right systemd.
The command you provide to tmux new makes the tmux server run a shell, then the shell either runs dotnet and waits for it to exit, or execs to dotnet while keeping the tmux server as a parent. In any case dotnet has a parent which is not systemd.
You could orphan dotnet like this: nohup dotnet … &, then let the said shell exit. You would also need to store the PID, use PIDFile= in the unit configuration file, so the service knows which process to monitor. Then it might kinda work.
To be clear: in my tests nohup sleep 300 & was successfully adopted by systemd who could then retrieve its exit status (after I took care of cgroups).
But since you want to use tmux in the first place, I guess your command interacts with the terminal. So nohup is not the right tool here. Orphaning a process while keeping it connected to the terminal may be tricky. You want to orphan it but you cannot let the shell within tmux simply exit, because this will kill its pane (or leave it in a dead state).
Note Type=forking relies on adoption by systemd. The main service process is supposed to fork and exit. Then systemd adopts its child. Such daemon should not interact with any terminal though.
Another approach is to let the shell within the tmux server exec to dotnet. After it exits, the tmux server (as a parent) knows its exit status. In some circumstances we can query the server from another script and retrieve the exit status.
Or the shell triggered by tmux new may store the status in a file, so it can be retrieved by another script.
Because what you run with ExecStart= is a child of systemd for sure, this is the best candidate for "another script". It should wait until it can retrieve the exit status, then use it as its own exit status, so systemd gets it. Note the service should be Type=simple in this case.
Alternatively you can start dotnet … outside of tmux, then reptyr from the inside of the tmux server. This way dotnet can be a child of systemd from the very beginning, problems may appear when you try to steal its tty.

Solutions and examples
reptyr to tmux
This example runs the script in tty2. The script prepares tmux and execs to dotnet. Finally a shell within tmux tries to steal tty of what is now dotnet.
The service file:
[Unit]
Description=dotnet application
After=getty@tty2.service

[Service]
Type=simple
ExecStart=/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl
Restart=on-failure
User=root
StandardInput=tty
TTYPath=/dev/tty2
TTYReset=yes
TTYVHangup=yes

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl:
#!/bin/sh
tmux="/usr/bin/tmux"

"$tmux" kill-session -t "rof" 2> /dev/null
"$tmux" new-session -s "rof" -d "sleep 5; exec /usr/bin/reptyr $$" || exit 1

cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && exec dotnet run

Notes:

*

*My tests with htop instead of dotnet run revealed a race condition (htop changes settings of its terminal, reptyr can interfere; hence sleep 5 as a poor workaround) and problems with mouse support.

*It's possible to remove the tmux server from the cgroup associated with the service. You probably want to do this. See way below, where there is /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/ in the code.

Without tmux?
The above solution uses /dev/tty2 anyway. If you need tmux only to provide a controlling terminal, consider cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && exec dotnet run without reptyr, without tmux. Even without the script:
ExecStart=/bin/sh -c 'cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && exec dotnet run' rofdl

This is the simplest.
Separate tmux server
tmux allows you to run more than one server per user. You need -L or -S (see man 1 tmux) to specify a socket, then stick to it. This way your service can run an exclusive tmux server. Advantages:

*

*The server and everything you run within this tmux belongs to the cgroup of the service by default.

*The service can destroy the tmux server without a risk that anyone (or anything) else loses their sessions. Nobody else should use this server, unless they want to monitor/interact with the service. If anyone uses it for anything else, it's their problem.

The ability to kill the tmux server freely allows you to orphan processes that run in tmux. Consider the following example.
The service file:
[Unit]
Description=dotnet application

[Service]
Type=forking
ExecStart=/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl
Restart=on-failure
User=root
PIDFile=/var/run/rofdl.service.pid

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl:
#!/bin/sh
tmux="/usr/bin/tmux"
service="rofdl.service"

"$tmux" -L "$service" kill-server 2> /dev/null
"$tmux" -L "$service" new-session -s "rof" -d '
      trap "" HUP
      ppid="$PPID"
      echo "$$" > '" '/var/run/$service.pid' "'
      cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run
      status="$?"
   '" '$tmux' -L '$service' kill-server 2> /dev/null "'
      while [ "$ppid" -eq "$(ps -o ppid= -p "$$")" ]; do sleep 2; done
      exit "$status"
  ' || exit 1

Explanation:

*

*The main script kills the exclusive tmux server (if any) and starts it anew. After the server is started, the script exits. The service remains because there is at least one process left in the cgroup, the said server.

*The server spawns a shell to process the "inner" script. The script begins at ' after -d and ends at ' before ||. It's all quoted, but quoting changes from single- to double-quotes and back few times. It's because $tmux and $service need to be expanded by the shell processing the main script, other variables (e.g. $status) must not be expanded until in the "inner" shell, inside tmux. The following resource may be helpful: Parameter expansion (variable expansion) and quotes within quotes.

*The shell inside tmux prepares to ignore HUP signal.

*The shell registers its PID in the pidfile the service expects.

*Then it runs dotnet and stores its exit status (strictly, if cd fails then it will be the exit status of cd).

*The shell kills the tmux server. We could do this with kill "$PPID" as well (see this), but if somebody had killed the server and another process got its PID, we would kill a wrong process. Addressing tmux is safer. Because of the trap the shell survives.

*Then the shell loops until its PPID is different than what it was before. We cannot rely on comparing $ppid to $PPID because the latter is not dynamic; we retrieve the current PPID from ps.

*Now the shell knows it has a new parent, it should be systemd. Only now systemd is able to retrieve exit status from the shell. The shell exits with the exact exit status retrieved from dotnet earlier. This way systemd gets the exit status despite the fact dotnet was never its child.
Retrieving exit status from common tmux server
Your original approach uses a common (default) tmux server, it only manipulates a session named rof. In general other sessions may exist or arise, so the service should never kill the whole server. There are few aspects. We should:

*

*prevent systemd from killing the tmux server, even if the server was started from within the service;

*make systemd consider dotnet process a part of the service, even if it was started from tmux not started from within the service;

*retrieve the exit status from dotnet somehow.

The service file:
[Unit]
Description=dotnet application

[Service]
Type=simple
ExecStart=/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl
Restart=on-failure
User=root

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

Note it's Type=simple now, because the main script is the only assured child we can retrieve the exit status from. The script needs to find out the exit status of dotnet … and report it as its own.
/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl:
#!/bin/sh
tmux="/usr/bin/tmux"
service="rofdl.service"
slice="/sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/system.slice"

"$tmux" kill-session -t "rof" 2> /dev/null
( sh -c 'echo "$PPID"' > "$slice/tasks"
  exec "$tmux" new-session -s "rof" -d "
      '$tmux' set-option -t 'rof' remain-on-exit on "'
      echo "$$" > '" '$slice/$service/tasks' "'
      cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run
      exit "$?"
    ' || exit 1
)

pane="$("$tmux" display-message -p -t "rof" "#{pane_id}")"

while sleep 2; do
  [ "$("$tmux" display-message -p -t "$pane" "#{pane_dead}")" -eq 0 ] || {
    status="$("$tmux" display-message -p -t "$pane" "#{pane_dead_status}")"
    status="${status:-255}"
    exit "$status"
  }
done

Explanation:

*

*If tmux new-session creates a server (because there was none), we want it in another cgroup from the very beginning to prevent race condition when something else starts using the server and we haven't change its cgroup yet and systemd decides to kill the service for whatever reason. I tried to run tmux new-session with cgexec and failed; therefore another approach: a subshell which changes its own cgroup (by writing to /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/system.slice/tasks) and then execs to tmux new-session.

*The shell inside tmux starts by enabling remain-on-exit option for the session. After it exits, the pane remains and another process (the main script in our case) can retrieve its exit status from the tmux server.

*In the meantime the main script retrieves the unique ID of the pane the other shell runs in. If someone attaches to the session or creates new panes and plays with them, the main script will still be able to find the right pane.

*The shell inside tmux registers its PID in the cgroup associated with the service by writing it to /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/system.slice/rofdl.service/tasks.

*The shell inside tmux runs dotnet …. After dotnet terminates, the shell exits. Exit status retrieved from dotnet is reported by the shell to the tmux server.

*Because of remain-on-exit on, the pane remains in a dead state after the "inner" shell exits.

*In the meantime the main shell loops until the pane is dead. Then it queries the tmux server for the relevant exit status and reports it as its own. This way systemd gets the exit status from dotnet.
Notes:

*

*Again there are quotes within quotes.

*Instead of dotnet run it could be exec dotnet run. The last form is nice: dotnet replaces the inner shell, so there is one process instead of two. The problem is when dotnet is killed by a signal it cannot handle. It turns out #{pane_dead_status} will report an empty string if the process in the pane is forcefully killed by a signal. Maintaining a shell between dotnet and tmux prevents this: the shell transforms information (see this question) and returns a number.
Some shells (implementations?) run the very last command with implicit exec, something we don't want. That's why I used exit "$?" after dotnet ….
But if the shell itself is forcefully killed, the problem with empty #{pane_dead_status} reappears. As the last resort status="${status:-255}" converts empty status to 255 (although I'm not sure 255 is the best value in such case).

*There's a race condition: when the main script queries tmux for #{pane_id}, it may not be the right pane. If somebody attached and played inside the session after tmux new-session and before tmux display-message, we might get a wrong pane. The time window is small, still this is not as elegant as I wanted.
If tmux new-session could print #{pane_id} to the console like tmux display-message -p can, there should be no problem. With -PF it can show it within the session. There is no support for -p.

*You may want some logic in case the tmux server gets killed.
Retrieving exit status via file
The above example can be modified, so remain-on-exit on is not needed, #{pane_id} is not needed (race condition avoided, at least the described one).
The service file from the previous example remains.
/home/alpine_sour/scripts/rofdl:
#!/bin/sh
tmux="/usr/bin/tmux"
service="rofdl.service"
slice="/sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/system.slice"
statf="/var/run/$service.status"

rm "$statf" 2>/dev/null

"$tmux" kill-session -t "rof" 2> /dev/null
( sh -c 'echo "$PPID"' > "$slice/tasks"
  exec "$tmux" new-session -s "rof" -d '
      echo "$$" > '" '$slice/$service/tasks' "'
      cd /home/alpine_sour/rofdl && dotnet run
      echo "$?" > '" '$statf.tmp'
      mv '$statf.tmp' '$statf'
    " || exit 1
)

while sleep 2; do
  status="$(cat "$statf" 2>/dev/null)" && exit "$status"
done

The mechanism is pretty straightforward: the main shell removes the old status file (if any), triggers tmux and loops until the file reappears. The "inner" shell writes the exit status of dotnet to the file, when ready.
Notes:

*

*What if the inner shell is killed? What if the file cannot be created? It's relatively easy to get to a situation where the main script cannot exit the loop.

*Writing to a temporary file and then renaming is a good practice. If we did echo "$?" > "$statf", the file would be created empty, then written to. This might lead to a situation when the main script reads an empty string as status. In general the receiver might get incomplete data: reading until EOF while the sender is mid-write and the file is yet about to grow. Renaming makes the right file with the right content appear instantly.

Final notes

*

*If you cannot go without tmux, the solution with a separate tmux server seems most robust.

*This is what the documentation says about Restart=:

In this context, a clean exit means an exit code of 0, or one of the signals SIGHUP, SIGINT, SIGTERM or SIGPIPE, and […]

Note $? in a shell is just a number. Again: this link. If your dotnet exits because of a signal and restarting depends on (un-)clean exit, the solutions where systemd retrieves exit code directly from dotnet may behave differently than solutions where systemd retrieves exit status from an intermediary shell. Research SuccessExitStatus=, it may be useful.

A: Maybe you can use RestartForceExitStatus= in service file

Takes a list of exit status definitions that, when returned by the main service process, will force automatic service restarts, regardless of the restart setting configured with Restart=. The argument format is similar to RestartPreventExitStatus=.

https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.service.html


I keep seeing cauliflower everything around the internet, especially Pinterest. Cauliflower popcorn, pizza crusts, mashed "potatoes" and rice. The crust and rice one has been in the back of my mind to try for awhile. Rice and me don't really mix. I'll have some brown or wild every now and again, but I don't like the way my body feels after consuming too much of it. The key words there are too much of it. If I just have a small portion with whatever else we are eating, I'm good, but a bowl of rice is a no go.
Anyhoo- this was one of my first week foods after my juice fast. I was so looking forward to it and it didn't disappoint!
I've had it all kinds of ways, raw and cooked. I even found it wonderful as a scramble. Due to my son's sensitivity to soy, I've been avoiding it for the past 11 months. I've really missed my tofu scramble and I found that I get a similar taste with the cauliflower when I prepare it using the same seasonings. Who knew that I would find a tofu scramble substitute from cauliflower!
Next, I would like to try it as an omelette. If you have already, let me know how it turned out!
Before any application, I cut out the middle stem and leaves, then I rinse and drain the cauliflower.
Once I have it pared down to smaller pieces, I toss it in the food processor. If I'm preparing as a fried rice, I add a ginger nib, garlic clove and green onion to the processor as well. Take note that if you are cooking this on the stove top, it cooks very quickly, so if you don't like the taste of raw ginger and garlic, you can saute it in the pan 1st or use ground versions. When I'm dehydrating, I use ground versions.
For the raw version, I added coconut aminos, ground garlic and onion, sea salt, black pepper, 1tsp coconut oil, 1tsp sesame oil. I then spread on a dehydrator sheet and dehydrate at 115 until softened.
For the cooked fried rice, I sauteed some veggies first in coconut oil, then added the cauliflower mix along with coconut aminos and a little sesame oil. I mix this around for only about a minute and then remove from heat. It cooks extremely fast!
For the scramble, I process the cauliflower alone. I saute green onion and kale or spinach before adding in cauliflower, nutritional yeast, sea salt, black pepper, ground garlic and onion.


text:
Q: Tensorflow: share weights between graphs? I have two graphs, each running with its own tf.Session():
with tf.Graph().as_default():
  sess = tf.Session()
  ...

with tf.Graph().as_default():
  sess = tf.Session()
  ...

is there a way to send variables and weights from one graph to another?