We're all boat people, says Hawke - Yahoo!7
Bob For President !
We seem to be dreadfully short of "guts" these days, risk adverse, is the PC term, cowards is more accurate. Seems we replaced merinos with humans, thing is your average Merino Sheep has more brains and guts than the nominal human merino, especially the squatter sub species.
"We're all bloody boat people," he said.
"That's how we found the place."
Mr Hawke said he understood the frustration of many voters at "queue jumpers", but said "we have to look at the other side of the coin".
He said the coalition's approach to the boat people question was "nonsense".
"We cannot turn the boats back," Mr Hawke said.
"These people have got initiative, guts and courage and Australia needs people like that."
He pushed Indonesia as the location for an asylum seeker processing centre, saying it would be "fair enough, as long as the conditions there are humane".
Mr Hawke also spoke about his South Australian-based work with a centre focused on improving relations between the Islamic community and others, saying the real challenge for Australia in his eyes was not to "demonise Muslim people".
The former Labor prime minister repeated his attack on Mr Abbott describing him as "mad as a cut snake" and said Australia needed people like those arriving by boat to claim asylum because they had initiative and courage.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Friday, 13 August 2010
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Christian Fundamentalism (Again)
Went for Constitutional with the good lady wife this morning along the Amy Gillet Bike Track. (Very Nice Thank You. I feel spoiled every time. ) http://www.railtrails.org.au/news/news.php3?news&229&/news
My wife came out of the ladies at the Woodside end with a Christian Democratic Party Flyer , that had been stuck to the back of a cubical door.
Now apart from the soft core vandalism, and the tacky nature of the location, the contents of the A4 flyer, were enough for her to rip it down and stomp out, well, um, cross. Quite broke the serenity of what is a cheery late winter morning here in the Hills.
Both my wife and daughter are Christians who are increasingly distressed by organisations like the Catholic Church, Family First, and now this mob of "Holier Than Thou's " the Christian Democratic Party. "Gives all Christians a bad name". "There are Christians in the Greens ! " and some other decidedly un-churchy comments. (giggle)
I would scan the thing but its torn and not worth the effort.
Here are some highlights.The heading:(In ALLCAPS RED)
"This Election Could Spell The End Of Christian Freedoms and Values In Australia"
1 paragraph that covers how .. never mind its the normal fundamentalist confusions and paranoia. ... humanism is rampant... how soft the moslems get it ... conspiracy nonsense yada yada.
Then this piece of Christian promulgation/observation/poison ...
Quote:
"
Julia Gillard's public confession on national television that she does not believe in God, her de facto relationship and childless state at 49 by choice, and her usurping of authority over her male counterpart who she swore a week earlier she supported, all cry out judgement upon this nation, as does the Green's brazen support of depravity. These are all firsts for our nation that as Christians we should be alarmed at.
"
The "bill" is signed by Joseph Stephen
Acting CDP State Director
Reputedly a "Follower of Christ"
Perhaps all would be well in the CDP world if Julia hadn't "come out" National Television?
I truly cant be bothered typing the rest.
Its mostly creepy self reinforcing bullshit about Fred Nile and some nice quotes from scriptures. (OLD testament Isiah 3:9-12 for e.g)
If you would like more of this sort of Love and Enlightenment please see the following contacts with I transcribe faithfully from the paper.
You can phone these bundles of Joy and Love at:
0416 090 232 (ask for Joseph I guess)
of email at:
joestephen@faithfulgenerations.com
Maybe some non usurped male will send you a copy. Untouched by dirty green female usurping hands.
The final biblical quote :
" Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)"
Which I guess excuses the slander, hubris, judgement and malice of the flyer :)
Personally I wouldn't use it or them as mulch, way too toxic.Thursday, 5 August 2010
ABC The Drum Unleashed - Is it still a democracy if your vote doesn't count?
ABC The Drum Unleashed - Is it still a democracy if your vote doesn't count?
The above is a discussion about the Australian Electoral system, which to some extent the UK is moving to.
(though thats another issue)
The major points appear to be:
a/ Whats the point voting / most votes don't count
b/ Its rare for a government to actually gain power with a simple majority.
so
C/
Is our government truly representative ?
Our electoral system was built to accommodate geographical and therefore economic differences and still deliver a stable platform for leadership. To that extent it works and will probably continue to work. The time is probably near (or even past) where we might reasonably ask for more from it.
Aron Paul says at the ABC site :
Our electoral system fails to represent the genuine diversity or proportion of popular opinion because the percentage of votes a party wins is not proportional to the seats won in parliament.
Which of course brings into view proportional representation in the house of reps.
Usually Hare-Clarke or the Senate system or similar.
Some simple arguments for it include :
- represents a broader range of ideas
- enfranchises a larger proportion of the electorate
-- which in turn engages more people in the democratic process
Arguments against include:
- More complex to count
-- so slower to return a result
- leads to unstable parliaments
- allows fringe groups a voice
-- which implies dissent and conflict ?
The arguments against are actually nonsense or at most an inconvenience.
- Computers do the counting the booths need only enter raw data
- It may often take a couple of days, perhaps even longer.
This is not a serious problem we already have a caretaker government in action. It would need to be addressed though, there are sane limits.[1]
- The systems used in New Zealand and Germany , or even the ACT and Tasmanian have not lead to more failures of government.
(just some healthy biffo and even healthy compromise occasionally )[2]
-- yes the system in Italy _was_ a disaster
-- Should a 3rd major force (one that can command say 15% plus in the Senate and grab at least 5 or 6 Reps seats ) rise in Australia or should the big two splinter (DLP ? LIBs at formation)
Our system would be less stable. There is no actionable precedent. The major parties tolerate minor parties in the Senate but are likely to form an agressive and United front against another party in the Reps. (One Nation learnt that lesson, Joh for PM (LOL) similarly )
This argument against proportional representation, is actually an argument for a two party state.
- Technically a Prime Minister could form a government from any collection of members of the house in any case.
-- They need only convince the Governor General that they have the numbers and will play nice.
So our current system is mostly convention, and precedent easily changed, this does not lead to instability.
The upper house was designed as a stablising keel and States Representation (Rights ?) device.
Without it there probably would be no Federation as we currently know it.
It gives the smaller states disproportionate representation but it also has meant that we haven't had any serious conflict (as in armed ) between any states, even the larger two.
As QLD and eventually WA increase their proportion of the population this effect will become even more important.
The redistribution of state treasure to the smaller states has been central to the stability of Australia, though I wonder about how quickly QLD and WA forget about the NSW / Vic subsidy they enjoyed for 80 years or so and still benefit from.
(yeah the GST has eroded all that a little)
The Senate could continue as is (electors drawn from geographic states ) or be reformed around a population based model, the role of the States has been under question for many years in any case. There would need to be a house of review, and even a polity available to form an Emergency type government in case of serious deadlock, and or Constitutional / Supply crisis.
Personally I favor a geographic, environmental region basis for the senate (at least). These would need to overlap congregations of Reps areas very significantly though.
The simple fact is our preferential system is designed to deliver boring compromised stable government, with a focus on the middle ground, itself a compromise. One of the Arts of democratic government is working with compromise while developing and reforming legislation.
A proportional system will give voice to more ideas in that process.
It asks even sometimes demand that the citizenry engage with the concepts behind the nation and her legislation.
Maybe a compromise would be larger multi member electorates ?
I would argue that those would overlap state boundaries, after all this is the National House, we have a States house.
Certainly the current and all recent elections have shown a disproportionate value given to votes from marginally held seats and thereby undue emphasis (almost always) to fringe issues. This is worse than having somebody from a group you disagree with represented as you have no chance at all to change the distorted policy, it will be held in some form by both the big parties.
[1] Usually the caretaker period is about 1 month, Adding a maximum of one more month would be OK but longer may put undue emphasis on the Governor general role (or President :)
[2] While the dialog around the last Tasmanian minority government was less than enlightening it did expose to the local constituency the deep distrust and animosities between all parties and some individuals. Attitudes I would argue that these where / are neither Professional or healthy. The Oxygen of National and local exposure may help restore some sort of collective belief in the states governance. With Tasmanians rather less than diverse economic base I guess its only inevitable that unhealthy entrenched positions develop.
The above is a discussion about the Australian Electoral system, which to some extent the UK is moving to.
(though thats another issue)
The major points appear to be:
a/ Whats the point voting / most votes don't count
b/ Its rare for a government to actually gain power with a simple majority.
so
C/
Is our government truly representative ?
Our electoral system was built to accommodate geographical and therefore economic differences and still deliver a stable platform for leadership. To that extent it works and will probably continue to work. The time is probably near (or even past) where we might reasonably ask for more from it.
Aron Paul says at the ABC site :
Our electoral system fails to represent the genuine diversity or proportion of popular opinion because the percentage of votes a party wins is not proportional to the seats won in parliament.
Which of course brings into view proportional representation in the house of reps.
Usually Hare-Clarke or the Senate system or similar.
Some simple arguments for it include :
- represents a broader range of ideas
- enfranchises a larger proportion of the electorate
-- which in turn engages more people in the democratic process
Arguments against include:
- More complex to count
-- so slower to return a result
- leads to unstable parliaments
- allows fringe groups a voice
-- which implies dissent and conflict ?
The arguments against are actually nonsense or at most an inconvenience.
- Computers do the counting the booths need only enter raw data
- It may often take a couple of days, perhaps even longer.
This is not a serious problem we already have a caretaker government in action. It would need to be addressed though, there are sane limits.[1]
- The systems used in New Zealand and Germany , or even the ACT and Tasmanian have not lead to more failures of government.
(just some healthy biffo and even healthy compromise occasionally )[2]
-- yes the system in Italy _was_ a disaster
-- Should a 3rd major force (one that can command say 15% plus in the Senate and grab at least 5 or 6 Reps seats ) rise in Australia or should the big two splinter (DLP ? LIBs at formation)
Our system would be less stable. There is no actionable precedent. The major parties tolerate minor parties in the Senate but are likely to form an agressive and United front against another party in the Reps. (One Nation learnt that lesson, Joh for PM (LOL) similarly )
This argument against proportional representation, is actually an argument for a two party state.
- Technically a Prime Minister could form a government from any collection of members of the house in any case.
-- They need only convince the Governor General that they have the numbers and will play nice.
So our current system is mostly convention, and precedent easily changed, this does not lead to instability.
The upper house was designed as a stablising keel and States Representation (Rights ?) device.
Without it there probably would be no Federation as we currently know it.
It gives the smaller states disproportionate representation but it also has meant that we haven't had any serious conflict (as in armed ) between any states, even the larger two.
As QLD and eventually WA increase their proportion of the population this effect will become even more important.
The redistribution of state treasure to the smaller states has been central to the stability of Australia, though I wonder about how quickly QLD and WA forget about the NSW / Vic subsidy they enjoyed for 80 years or so and still benefit from.
(yeah the GST has eroded all that a little)
The Senate could continue as is (electors drawn from geographic states ) or be reformed around a population based model, the role of the States has been under question for many years in any case. There would need to be a house of review, and even a polity available to form an Emergency type government in case of serious deadlock, and or Constitutional / Supply crisis.
Personally I favor a geographic, environmental region basis for the senate (at least). These would need to overlap congregations of Reps areas very significantly though.
The simple fact is our preferential system is designed to deliver boring compromised stable government, with a focus on the middle ground, itself a compromise. One of the Arts of democratic government is working with compromise while developing and reforming legislation.
A proportional system will give voice to more ideas in that process.
It asks even sometimes demand that the citizenry engage with the concepts behind the nation and her legislation.
Maybe a compromise would be larger multi member electorates ?
I would argue that those would overlap state boundaries, after all this is the National House, we have a States house.
Certainly the current and all recent elections have shown a disproportionate value given to votes from marginally held seats and thereby undue emphasis (almost always) to fringe issues. This is worse than having somebody from a group you disagree with represented as you have no chance at all to change the distorted policy, it will be held in some form by both the big parties.
[1] Usually the caretaker period is about 1 month, Adding a maximum of one more month would be OK but longer may put undue emphasis on the Governor general role (or President :)
[2] While the dialog around the last Tasmanian minority government was less than enlightening it did expose to the local constituency the deep distrust and animosities between all parties and some individuals. Attitudes I would argue that these where / are neither Professional or healthy. The Oxygen of National and local exposure may help restore some sort of collective belief in the states governance. With Tasmanians rather less than diverse economic base I guess its only inevitable that unhealthy entrenched positions develop.
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
A collection about "Low Carbon Technologies"
Over at Scribd I have uploaded various documents, by people who know "stuff" about Earth Building , Green Economies and Timor Leste.
(so far :)
My Scribd Low Carbon Technology collection is at http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2558955
For Australians in particular perhaps the most important document is the first one:
Zero Carbon Australia - 2020 Stationary Energy Report v1
Comprehensive Overview of moving the Australian Fixed Energy System to a Zero carbon footprint. Produced by Zero Carbon Australia. While the focus is on the Australian Continent is has relevance for the rest of the planet and indeed draws on technologies and research from across the Globe.
It is the finest document of its type that I have seen (so far).
The others give context and perhaps outline some alternatives.
None is as comprehensive or as directly relevant though.
The Tom Bearden's (Zero Point Energy) document is for the "adventurous" or those looking for a single tech god like solution. Its there as a reminder to myself to explore alternatives even if just for the reason that new technologies even when unrealised have disruptive (positive and negative) effects. There are others across the energy field from breakthrough photovoltaic modes and realised products, to Fusion power. (do NOT hold your breath)
(so far :)
My Scribd Low Carbon Technology collection is at http://www.scribd.com/document_collections/2558955
For Australians in particular perhaps the most important document is the first one:
Zero Carbon Australia - 2020 Stationary Energy Report v1
Comprehensive Overview of moving the Australian Fixed Energy System to a Zero carbon footprint. Produced by Zero Carbon Australia. While the focus is on the Australian Continent is has relevance for the rest of the planet and indeed draws on technologies and research from across the Globe.
It is the finest document of its type that I have seen (so far).
The others give context and perhaps outline some alternatives.
None is as comprehensive or as directly relevant though.
The Tom Bearden's (Zero Point Energy) document is for the "adventurous" or those looking for a single tech god like solution. Its there as a reminder to myself to explore alternatives even if just for the reason that new technologies even when unrealised have disruptive (positive and negative) effects. There are others across the energy field from breakthrough photovoltaic modes and realised products, to Fusion power. (do NOT hold your breath)
Monday, 2 August 2010
Australia to take 900pc more refugees from Indonesia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Australia to take 900pc more refugees from Indonesia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
4 Corner does it again!
Man those guys are good.
Quote:
This unprecedented footage is the product of the bravery and ingenuity of a refugee who worked with Four Corners and wore a hidden camera into numerous meetings with smugglers and their accomplices.
This man says asylum-seekers are used as "commodities" by the smugglers. He is on a mission to expose the smugglers and break their networks.
"I must destroy these bad people and the people behind them," he says.
4 Corner does it again!
Man those guys are good.
Quote:
This unprecedented footage is the product of the bravery and ingenuity of a refugee who worked with Four Corners and wore a hidden camera into numerous meetings with smugglers and their accomplices.
This man says asylum-seekers are used as "commodities" by the smugglers. He is on a mission to expose the smugglers and break their networks.
"I must destroy these bad people and the people behind them," he says.
ABC The Drum - Labor policy make-up melting in political spotlight
ABC The Drum - Labor policy make-up melting in political spotlight
Wow Chris Uhlman copped flak in depth with above post .
__Excellent___
Quite deserved most of it :)
Must get myself a white Persian cat and work up an evil empire :)
Wow Chris Uhlman copped flak in depth with above post .
__Excellent___
Quite deserved most of it :)
Must get myself a white Persian cat and work up an evil empire :)
Sunday, 1 August 2010
What to do What to do
I know I am not alone in getting frustrated angry furious at the current facile bullshit that passes for discourse in the Australian polity.
What to do , what to do.
Well I reckon the time has come for cold hard steel :)
If the Libs get in we have at least 3 years of reverse gear and I suspect a LOT of noise.
If Labor gets in it will go better but still no where near quickly enough. The major upside is that at least there will be some progress, and from what I understand of the ALP policies it doesn't break much just SLOWS things down
No of course the Greens cant get into anything like power in the Reps.
They can have some effect in the Senate.
I think we need to "accent the positive and ELIMINATE the negative" .
We need to smother the reactionaries in their own CO2 !
We need to speak to and for the positive, and act where we can to undercut / disfranchise (?) the negative. i.e. Point to some real argument or data apposing their Point of View, expose the propaganda, and leave people to make up their own "moinds".
This means across the board in everything we do.
Choose the best products, cancel Newspaper subscriptions (and tell them why), Tell the shop assistant why you don't want that { widget } and instead are choosing another { widget } or even no { widget } at all.
What we dont want to do is what the greens did last election and start slagging others (In that case Peter Garret } . Adding more negatives always ends up in a negative.
Which is not the same as pointing forward a passionate even coherent argument.
Parliament can only do some much.
The Ranga's "people forum" has its heart in the right place , but is sure to be "white anted" by the "Tories", its their special talent.
Stay strong stay calm, lets get the bastards.
How ?
What to do , what to do.
Well I reckon the time has come for cold hard steel :)
If the Libs get in we have at least 3 years of reverse gear and I suspect a LOT of noise.
If Labor gets in it will go better but still no where near quickly enough. The major upside is that at least there will be some progress, and from what I understand of the ALP policies it doesn't break much just SLOWS things down
No of course the Greens cant get into anything like power in the Reps.
They can have some effect in the Senate.
I think we need to "accent the positive and ELIMINATE the negative" .
We need to smother the reactionaries in their own CO2 !
We need to speak to and for the positive, and act where we can to undercut / disfranchise (?) the negative. i.e. Point to some real argument or data apposing their Point of View, expose the propaganda, and leave people to make up their own "moinds".
This means across the board in everything we do.
Choose the best products, cancel Newspaper subscriptions (and tell them why), Tell the shop assistant why you don't want that { widget } and instead are choosing another { widget } or even no { widget } at all.
What we dont want to do is what the greens did last election and start slagging others (In that case Peter Garret } . Adding more negatives always ends up in a negative.
Which is not the same as pointing forward a passionate even coherent argument.
Parliament can only do some much.
The Ranga's "people forum" has its heart in the right place , but is sure to be "white anted" by the "Tories", its their special talent.
Stay strong stay calm, lets get the bastards.
How ?
Saturday, 31 July 2010
ALP Think Tank - Home
ALP Think Tank - Home
The ALP has a section of their website called the Think Tank.
Here members may suggest policy ideas, even discus and help refine them.
The tone of the site seems polite enough, perhaps surprisingly so.
here is a direct cut and paste :
Green Jobs and a Competitive Advantage in Renewable Technology
by Obutters from Sydney , NSW at Thursday, 15 July 2010
Australia should have a goal to foster a competitive advantage in developing renewable energy technology and to have the world's most skilled 'green' workforce.
The industrialisation of the world's most populous countries - India and China, will put an enormous premium on our natural resources, but also on alternative energy sources.
We keep talking about the 'Green Jobs' of the Future - but they are not going to come out of the ether with a market-knows-all approach only.
The Government needs to take an active role in helping our best and brightest people to develop the new technologies to provide the foundations for the jobs and new industries of the future through, (for instance):
- Coordinating Industry and education institutions to establish education and training courses to train and develop skilled workers.
- Establish special 'green economy' technology zones in coal dependent parts of the country (i.e. the NSW hunter, Latrobe Valley in VIC) to give incentive to the best and brightest in the world to work and establish their businesses in those places likely to be hit by the shift to renewables. Special tax concessions should be given.
-Keynesian style government investment in nation building solar, wind, water projects. Funding should be based on fostering local skills, technology and innovation.
These policies would prepare the economy for the inevitable shift to emissions trading. When the global market for carbon is eventually established, whether it is 5 years or 25 years, By implementing these policies now - Australia can get ahead of the curve and capitalise on the future global demand for clean energy, much in the same way as we have benefited through our natural endowment in primary resources.
Great stuff.
At least its a well thought out idea, and quite well put.
Perhaps this is the sort of thing the Citizens 150 panel will look into ?
Still no point hanging about while we all chat ... lets get on with it Julia and Penny.
(Please, Pretty please :)
References:
The think tank entry page
The ALP has a section of their website called the Think Tank.
Here members may suggest policy ideas, even discus and help refine them.
The tone of the site seems polite enough, perhaps surprisingly so.
here is a direct cut and paste :
Green Jobs and a Competitive Advantage in Renewable Technology
by Obutters from Sydney , NSW at Thursday, 15 July 2010
Australia should have a goal to foster a competitive advantage in developing renewable energy technology and to have the world's most skilled 'green' workforce.
The industrialisation of the world's most populous countries - India and China, will put an enormous premium on our natural resources, but also on alternative energy sources.
We keep talking about the 'Green Jobs' of the Future - but they are not going to come out of the ether with a market-knows-all approach only.
The Government needs to take an active role in helping our best and brightest people to develop the new technologies to provide the foundations for the jobs and new industries of the future through, (for instance):
- Coordinating Industry and education institutions to establish education and training courses to train and develop skilled workers.
- Establish special 'green economy' technology zones in coal dependent parts of the country (i.e. the NSW hunter, Latrobe Valley in VIC) to give incentive to the best and brightest in the world to work and establish their businesses in those places likely to be hit by the shift to renewables. Special tax concessions should be given.
-Keynesian style government investment in nation building solar, wind, water projects. Funding should be based on fostering local skills, technology and innovation.
These policies would prepare the economy for the inevitable shift to emissions trading. When the global market for carbon is eventually established, whether it is 5 years or 25 years, By implementing these policies now - Australia can get ahead of the curve and capitalise on the future global demand for clean energy, much in the same way as we have benefited through our natural endowment in primary resources.
Great stuff.
At least its a well thought out idea, and quite well put.
Perhaps this is the sort of thing the Citizens 150 panel will look into ?
Still no point hanging about while we all chat ... lets get on with it Julia and Penny.
(Please, Pretty please :)
References:
The think tank entry page
Friday, 30 July 2010
ACF - Scorecard
Nice graphs from The Australian Conservation Foundation
ACF - Scorecard
Randomness follows:
I can understand the greens being ahead, but Labor is also dropping the ball on environmental husbandry, let alone remediation or forward design. OK they are damaged by the poison they drank trying to build consensus with the "Libs"...
Its interesting that they chose the Grid for immediate , if somewhat timid, action. This seems sensible at least. The Cash 4 Clunkers thing is important for engaging the sovereign (people).
Nothing in Labors underpowered plan works against fast action , and relatively soon.
As for the libs, well I would Roll On the Floor Laughing if there were no chance of them winning this election.
Really Obstructionist Born-To-Rule White Ants should have a less mono-cultural view of the world.
Their plan seems to be do just enough to maintain a legal credibility for use in International Forums , as those forums may effect trade ...
... then um "Action" plan probably thing goes ...
Shudder
A: build 20+ Nuclear plants REAL fast I expect.
LOL probably from imported processed Uranium.
A.1 Exploit and sell side effect:
AU may as well use those strategically.
(after all Indonesia China Japan NKorea India Pakistan Iran (n+ others) will have U-plants...
make one or more the bad guy of the day)
B: AND / OR Roll out expensive and ineffective volumes Carbon Sequestration
- If the tech is still not ready blame the "overpaid" Consultants / "Scientists"
- Use this as an example of yet more "mismanagement"
- Throw a few Billion in tax / royalty / excise breaks at the Corporates as "Compensation"
innovation jobs creation, leadershi ... (keeps Unions and "Foriegn Investment" Happy.
- Blame resulting fall in dollar and rise in reserve rates on Socialism or something.
- Also a great excuse to run down the Balance of Trade again which is how they always fund non spending on Infrastructure. (that sentence is correctly structured)
C: AND: Make some legalese argument that Not mining/burning as much Coal == cuts to green house quotas.
D: spread cubic kilometers of lignite (Brown Coal) over some irrigation required (for productivity and social equity reasons you understand) farmland, and claim this is carbon sequestration (see C)
- the idea is not a bad one but you know they will manage to stuff up the environment even more with this. AKA "the only good gum scrub is firewood (oops biofuel)"
E: Plant rolling Mono-cultures of timber plantations, and ignore the Kyoto protocol cutoff dates. see D and read productivity synchronization or some other weasel speaks
E.1. Claim this is carbon storage, bio-fuel production.
E.2. Roll-out a 150% tax incentive scheme that underwrites the mod sized corporate (they will say rural) constituency/donor/lobby sector.
E.3. Then implement a Cap and Trade, so that the Market can create a whole new industry bubble to burst 2 years after they loose the last free election in what was Australia.
E.3.1 ( no one will really win that war )
E.4. Retire to the Walled and Secure zones where they will sit on management boards for life, if an non minister or receive deferred "NOT fees" for "Special Consultancies" if their Super is at the higher rate... Anybody left over and a little costly socially can be an Ambassador to say Italy.
;>
The sad scary observations:
- this fits their white colonialist / squatter mindset (well to be fair not all of them are like this)
- they will arrive inevitably at that Atomic "moment" with or without a "plan".
Funny thing is by the time they build any one of A or B it will probably be obsolete...
The Fusion project in Europe will probably be ready by then :)
(Sure it will)
OK hopefully E.3=>4 are Over the top
:)
ACF - Scorecard
Randomness follows:
I can understand the greens being ahead, but Labor is also dropping the ball on environmental husbandry, let alone remediation or forward design. OK they are damaged by the poison they drank trying to build consensus with the "Libs"...
Its interesting that they chose the Grid for immediate , if somewhat timid, action. This seems sensible at least. The Cash 4 Clunkers thing is important for engaging the sovereign (people).
Nothing in Labors underpowered plan works against fast action , and relatively soon.
As for the libs, well I would Roll On the Floor Laughing if there were no chance of them winning this election.
Really Obstructionist Born-To-Rule White Ants should have a less mono-cultural view of the world.
Their plan seems to be do just enough to maintain a legal credibility for use in International Forums , as those forums may effect trade ...
... then um "Action" plan probably thing goes ...
Shudder
A: build 20+ Nuclear plants REAL fast I expect.
LOL probably from imported processed Uranium.
A.1 Exploit and sell side effect:
AU may as well use those strategically.
(after all Indonesia China Japan NKorea India Pakistan Iran (n+ others) will have U-plants...
make one or more the bad guy of the day)
B: AND / OR Roll out expensive and ineffective volumes Carbon Sequestration
- If the tech is still not ready blame the "overpaid" Consultants / "Scientists"
- Use this as an example of yet more "mismanagement"
- Throw a few Billion in tax / royalty / excise breaks at the Corporates as "Compensation"
innovation jobs creation, leadershi ... (keeps Unions and "Foriegn Investment" Happy.
- Blame resulting fall in dollar and rise in reserve rates on Socialism or something.
- Also a great excuse to run down the Balance of Trade again which is how they always fund non spending on Infrastructure. (that sentence is correctly structured)
C: AND: Make some legalese argument that Not mining/burning as much Coal == cuts to green house quotas.
D: spread cubic kilometers of lignite (Brown Coal) over some irrigation required (for productivity and social equity reasons you understand) farmland, and claim this is carbon sequestration (see C)
- the idea is not a bad one but you know they will manage to stuff up the environment even more with this. AKA "the only good gum scrub is firewood (oops biofuel)"
E: Plant rolling Mono-cultures of timber plantations, and ignore the Kyoto protocol cutoff dates. see D and read productivity synchronization or some other weasel speaks
E.1. Claim this is carbon storage, bio-fuel production.
E.2. Roll-out a 150% tax incentive scheme that underwrites the mod sized corporate (they will say rural) constituency/donor/lobby sector.
E.3. Then implement a Cap and Trade, so that the Market can create a whole new industry bubble to burst 2 years after they loose the last free election in what was Australia.
E.3.1 ( no one will really win that war )
E.4. Retire to the Walled and Secure zones where they will sit on management boards for life, if an non minister or receive deferred "NOT fees" for "Special Consultancies" if their Super is at the higher rate... Anybody left over and a little costly socially can be an Ambassador to say Italy.
;>
The sad scary observations:
- this fits their white colonialist / squatter mindset (well to be fair not all of them are like this)
- they will arrive inevitably at that Atomic "moment" with or without a "plan".
Funny thing is by the time they build any one of A or B it will probably be obsolete...
The Fusion project in Europe will probably be ready by then :)
(Sure it will)
OK hopefully E.3=>4 are Over the top
:)
Thursday, 29 July 2010
ABC The Drum Unleashed - The politics-media death spiral
Tim Dunlop wraps up the apparent state of what passes for democracy <> 4th estate <> electorate
In one well crafted posting.
ABC The Drum Unleashed - The politics-media death spiral
In one well crafted posting.
ABC The Drum Unleashed - The politics-media death spiral
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
QandA
Watched ABC TVs QandA tonight. QandA http://abc.net.au/tv/qanda/
I haven't watched it for a long time as it often seemed to degenerate into a platform for politicians to strut in.
(in spite on Tonys efforts)
Tonight however was well worth watching. This was a return to real politics with debate and commitment.
Q&A
Monday 9.35pm
Joining Tony Jones on the panel were Penny Wong, Malcolm Turnbull, Christine Milne, Graham Richardson and Tom Switzer.
This was the first program after the "Great Debate" (cough).
There were many highlights, all participants went well at some point , with the notable exception of Tom Switzer whose idea of making an argument seems more like asking you to accept the assumption that any world view not does not correlate to Margret Thatcher's is suspiciously limp.
That said he did make his point well a couple of times. (though without offering any way forward).
Penny Wong was as cool/warm and brilliant as ever, I am increasingly a huge fan of hers.
Graham Richardson is still a "harden up and get on with it" sort of guy whose courage and honest pragmatism always impresses me. His defence of Penny Wongs stand on Gay Marriage was old school brilliant.
I agree with his defence: we ask leaders like Penny to self immolate to our own detriment.
I tire of this from people who never seem to see the achievement, guts, painful compromise and plain slog it takes to be an effective public figure. They never seem to get the difference between tactical and strategic. Though, hey I can usually understand the sentiment!
Malcolm Turnbull, is often above the stupid "new speak propaganda" "disney sloganeering" that passes for dialog from the Liberal Party in particular.
He is able to hold an informed and intelligent discussion with only just enough party speak to ensure I never could vote for him :)
I have a lot of respect for him in his current role and even more so for his past leadership on the Republic Issue. He may be the last liberal in the Liberal Party.
Then there is Christine Milne.
Sigh.
Over time I have actually mistaken her for a Liberal Party attack Harpie.
She is much better than that. Much better.
Her beliefs appear honest and are backed by good research and conviction.
I guess its just her way / style but whenever she debates she often resorts to "we're holier than thou" or even plain old " my footy club is better 'cause its not yours ... so there" arguments.
Just like the Libs.
(Though it must be said without the "born to rule" subtext.)
She has great knowledge and great communicative abilities, but even when asked a walk in gimme by a "non fan" in the audience, around an area she has almost expert knowledge, she chose instead to see the question as an attack on the greens as being "airy" or something.
After the launch of the Greens 2050 plan and the Zero Carbon 2020 plan I was expecting this guys lack of homework to have him enrolling in an engineering course at the very least.
Now yep, the question was negatively (almost rudely) premised, and it was a question asked from the safety of near anonymity, some ignorance [1], and with a hint of a sneer.
Mz. Milne could easily have rolled out more detail on the economical and technical advantages of a Carbon free economy AND got in the quote of the night which was "Without an Environment there is no Economy".
Unfortunately it looked defensive when in fact the Greens really are the only ones with a plan for a new economy _and_ a better environment.
Once again it seems we are all too stupid to understand a real answer or something...
Perhaps that is right, but couldn't she at least hope !
<
Using the Standard righteous Liberal party (page 27 in their "Actioning Argument" manual I expect) approach may win Senate votes from wettish Liberal voters though.
(I guess thats the idea ?) Perhaps this is Christine's constituency ?
Mind , she is at least consistent. :)
>
I think though that she is underselling herself and her party, more worrying she alienates her own core constituency which is to some extent at least looking to the Greens for a cleaner political approach.
The question was about "What are you going to do... what ARE your plans" not about "you stupid hippies have no idea" !
Penny Wongs final response to the same chap was more "contained" and I think a little stilted as a result of Christine's ramble. Though she answered only a subset of his question. Penny also had the opportunity to lift the level around this time but missed it.
It IS difficult. I certainly could not be a politician, you have to be part idealist part shonk part barrister and frankly, brave. I get anxious at small committee meetings.. and usually lose my temper or near pass out trying not too :)
QandA finally let some air and light into the issues around this election, it exposed the facile nature of much of the Professional Commentary... and the public conversation to date.
For what its worth thanks to all concerned. Its reassuring that the party marketing departments are not making all the policy.
p.s.
This blog will (eventually) contain other material.
There is an election on though, and I finally got round to using twitter, which led me to this thing, which i thought may be a good place to quietly but with some threat of scrutiny publish some Howtos ... so those later. :)
a Link or two:
Tom Switzer http://www.ipa.org.au/people/tom-switzer
[1] The guy hasn't even bothered to check the Greens web site.
Even it he was a neo-con stooge the answer was a missed opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)