Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, wankers, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Sep 30, 2011

Demand for only ‘correct’ opinion in newspapers.

Cartoon: By Pickering. (We take this opportunity to welcome Pickering back from retirement. He was Australia’s foremost political cartoonist until his retirement in the 80s. Possibly his absence for a generation could be the reason politics has gone to the dogs here.)



Australia’s media has come under the most sustained government attack in living memory. As the current government has blundered form one disaster to another the press have understandably reported on their antics, which has been interpreted by Gillard as an attempt at ‘regime change’ especially by News Limited. The Greens are even more demanding on this issue as they resent their policies being held up to the light since they gained the balance of power.

As result the Communications Minister, Steven Conroy has ordered an inquiry, which will among other things, ‘consider’ replacing the current press council with a government regulator. Conroy would not rule out licensing newspapers the way it is done in dictatorships, while the greens are mooting journalists licenses. This, it has been explained, is to ensure they act “in the public interest.”

Generally, a politician’s idea of the public interest is his own interest, projected into a collectivist setting.

Now Professor Robert Manne, is demanding that newspapers stop publishing the opinions of what he calls “average Australians:”
Professor Manne says they should report only the views of a "core" of experts in key debates.

At a book-signing in Sydney last night, he also urged the media to embrace greater contributions from controversial left-wing commentators such as US linguistics professor Noam Chomsky and Beirut-based commentator Robert Fisk.

Professor Manne is facing fierce criticism over his recently published Quarterly Essay, Bad News, in which he alleges that The Australian plays an "overbearing" and "unhealthy" role in national debates by publishing fringe views on controversial topics.

Professor Manne, who described climate change as the most serious threat facing the planet, has said only experts within the "core" of the scientific consensus should be heard. …
It sounds like the good professor feels it is in the ‘public interest’ to ensure that only one side of the issue is heard. We are meanwhile; all entitled to express our opinions as long as only those Manne agrees with are published.

The expert opinion on this blog, developed from within the core of our scientific consensus, is that Manne is an arrogant, elitist, dictatorial, intellectual snob.

Sep 29, 2011

Journalist found guilty under toxic law.

Image: Aboriginal plaintiffs celebrating Bolt verdict.

After a long saga in the courts, journalist, commentator and blogger, Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching Section 18C of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act. Bolt was sued in the Federal Court by nine Aboriginal people including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, academic Professor Larissa Behrendt, who is herself not above making disparaging comments about opponents, including aboriginal NT intervention supporter Bess Price.

Bolt wrote two articles, "It's so hip to be black" and "White fellas in the black" in the Herald and Weekly Times, implying light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain. The plaintiffs claimed that they were ‘hurt, insulted, offended’ and other appropriate buzzwords over the claims:

There were cheers and applause in the court when Justice Mordecai Bromberg read out his verdict.

He found that "fair-skinned Aboriginal people (or some of them) were reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to have been offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the imputations conveyed in the newspaper articles" published in the Herald Sun.

In a brief statement outside the Melbourne court after the judgment, Bolt said, ``This is a terrible day for freedom of speech in this country.
Bolt is quite correct in this assessment. There is no inherent right, not to be offended. Being offended is a natural reaction to any number of occurrences, such as comments, actions of others, and depending on how thin skinned the person is, just about anything.

Unless the judge is suggesting that only certain minority groups possess such a right, a belief of this nature would restrict the right of everyone to carry out normal daily activities for fear of causing offence, regardless of race, color, creed, or bigotry. The corollary is of course, that the most neurotic in society would hold the most rights.

The most incredible aspect of this being a racial discrimination matter is the paragraph:
In concluding the eight day proceedings, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”, rather they “constituted highly personal, highly derogatory and highly offensive attacks” on the nine individuals.

Sep 28, 2011

49% of Americans consider government a threat.

No man's life, liberty, or property, are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)

Gallup is reporting that several of its long-term trend lines on attitude to government in the US are at historic lows. The satisfaction level with how the nation is being governed, is the lowest recorded at 19%, as opposed to 81% dissatisfaction, or minus 62%. The previous lowest was in 1974 at the height of the Watergate aftermath when Nixon resigned, but that was only 26% - 66%, or minus 40%. At the nadir of the Bush years, it was only minus 42%.

A number of key findings are at lows never plumbed before. 69% have little or no confidence in the government, 53% have little or no confidence in those who seek or hold elected office, and Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar. Incredibly, 57% trust the government on handling international events, but only 43% do so on domestic issues.

Probably the figure that will cause the most angst among political commentators, especially those on MSNBC is that virtually half of the public, 49% think the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms. While this state of affairs lasts, the current administration has no hope of being reelected in 2012, and it will be a hard slog for the next one to pull that back quickly.

From a libertarian perspective though this is a great sign that the population at large is waking up to the facts. In most democracies it is normal for the majority of the people to rest in the comfort of the certain knowledge that the arms of old nanny are surrounding them protectively. Thanks to a decade of unprecedented state intervention, half of them are seeing the opposite. Menken would be pleased to see the degree people agree with:

It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men. – H. L. Mencken


The poll is reported here.

Sep 27, 2011

Roger Stone endorses Johnson.

Images: Gary Johnson (T), Roger Stone, (below).

The news just keeps getting better for Republican hopeful, Gary Johnson. Fresh from breaking into the polling and his acceptance into the debates, he has now picked up the endorsement of political strategist and consultant, Roger Stone. Stone has been prominent in many campaigns over the years, one of the most recent being that of Kristin Davis for NY Governor.






He had this to say on his website:


The most interesting thing in the debate was the national debut of Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, a pro-pot, anti-war libertarian with a record of cutting taxes and spending and creating more jobs than Mitt Romney in Massachusetts or Governor Rick Perry in Texas.

The STONEzone formally endorses Governor Gary Johnson for the Republican nomination for president in this very posting. Be sure to read this exceptional profile on Governor Gary Johnson from GQ.
Stone elaborated in an email:
“I am a Libertarian Republican in the Goldwater style, I favor the legalization of Marijuana. Government is wasting billions prosecuting people for the possession of small amounts intended for personal use and perpetuating the criminal organizations that sell it. I oppose the spending of trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan; I strongly oppose Islamic extremism but don’t believe that sending troops to die in two un-winnable wars makes sense. Gary Johnson is right on these issues. Additionally his record of tax reduction and job creation in NM is second to none. These are all the reasons I support Gary Johnson.”
He has made some interesting observations on the tactics of Bachman and Santorum:
One of the key reasons why Governor Rick Perry faired poorly in the FOX Florida Debate was the gang up of other “conservative” candidates on Perry, the front runner. This, of course, plays into Mitt Romney’s hands but does nothing to enhance the candidacies of Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann or even “moderate” Jon Huntsman Jr.

A wiser strategy for both Santorum and Bachmann would be to take on Romney, demonstrating to the conservative and Tea Party base an ability to take on the establishment candidate. Their goal should have been to be more effective on the attack against Romney than Rick Perry was.

Shooting Perry in the back makes little sense. I reject the idea of a “conservative intramural” to weed out who will face Romney. This race is wide open and Mitt Romney is the weakest front runner in recent history.

Cain hits the lead, Zogby.


Polls are fairly ‘fluid’ at present, requiring some discretion in our acceptance of the results of each individually.

The latest IBOPE Zogby poll has certainly tossed the cat among the pigeons though, with Herman Cain making a giant leap from 12% to 28% for the lead, well ahead of Rick Perry who has plummeted to 18%. Perry had a disastrous performance in the latest debate, which had an immediate effect on his numbers. Cain on the other hand shone and presented a real alternative to the business as usual candidates.

UTICA, NY--Rick Perry has tumbled by more than 20 percentage points over the past month among Republican presidential primary voters and is now second to Herman Cain, who leads the field with 28%.

Mitt Romney received little benefit from Perrys fall, garnering 17% of the vote for third place.

This poll was conducted after Perry's most recent subpar debate performance last Thursday, but the survey was still in the field when Cain won a Florida straw poll on Sunday. Cain was the top choice of only 8% a month ago.

Michele Bachmann continues her drop in our polling, falling from a first-place 34% on June 30 to just 4% now. While some other announced GOP candidates have had large fluctuations in their standing with party voters, since June 21 Romney has remained steadily between 12% and 17%.
It has to be noted that the numbers polled is not given, nor a margin of error. A 10 point lead though would be well outside the margin.

Update: Prominent radio and TV host Dennis Miler has endorsed Cain.

Liberal Party; Afraid to offer a contrasting vision.

A discussion today caused me to think a little deeper on some thoughts I have had for a while on the lack of conviction within the Liberal Party.

Abbott and the Liberal Party have not really drawn any sort of line in the sand to present a real alternative to what the Labor Party is doing. While they present plenty of objections to what Gillard and Co are doing, they are not presenting any real alternative, other than offering new ways to do the same things.

We could use this sort of contrasting vision. (H/t: Harrison J Bounel.)

Sep 26, 2011

The Carbon Tax Bills - Please Abandon These Foolish and Destructive Bills.


Cartoon: By Zeg.



A Submission to the Joint Selection Committee on the so-called "Clean Energy Future Legislation".
Presented to the committee on 22 September 2011 and slightly expanded and edited on 25th September, 2011





The Secretary
Joint Selection Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

RE: CARBON TAX LEGISLATION INQUIRY – PUBLIC SUBMISSION

This submission is made on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which is a voluntary Australian organization which opposes real pollution and also opposes the unjustified demonization of carbon minerals and energy.

We see no justification for imposing a tax on Australia's minute additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a harmless and beneficial atmospheric natural gas comprising less than a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere. There is no credible evidence that human production of it controls world climate. Nor is it a pollutant.

We are totally opposed to the imposition of a carbon tax because there is no scientific, climate or environmental justification for these bills.

We are also concerned at the impossibly short time allowed for the Australian public and opposition to examine these bills.

We object to the underhand and undemocratic way in which the government is trying to ensure a future government cannot repeal these bills, even when it soon becomes obvious that they are unnecessary, are not being followed by other countries, are destroying Australian jobs, industry and prosperity, and have no effect on climate. It offends the Precautionary Principle so beloved by the alarmist community that a temporary government should try to close off the means to escape when these bills prove to be a ghastly mistake. Australia is already lagging badly in realization that carbon dioxide does not control climate.

There is no credible cost benefit analysis of these proposals. In particular there is no demonstration that Australia's electricity could ever be supplied entirely by alternative energy such as wind and solar. No other country in the world has achieved this – what makes us think we can weave energy miracles?

The bills (if pursued at all) should include appropriate procedures for efficiently dismantling the tax and regulatory regimes proposed without undue financial penalty when they fail to achieve their stated objectives. Or there should be a Sunset Clause should global cooling become obvious.

This package of proposals is so significant and so divisive that it should not be introduced now, but should be the subject of a referendum or a new election.

The brief points below outline our main objections to the package. We can provide supporting documents or evidence for any of these points.


Why these Bills should be
resisted, rejected and, if needs be,
repealed.

1. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere controls the climate. However there is strong evidence that global temperature controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via the absorption or emission of this soluble gas from the vast oceans. 


2. There is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have encouraged a profusion of animal and plant life.


3. In the broad sweep of natural climate change it is clear that life on earth has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It is the ice ages that cause massive extinctions. In the long history of life on earth, global warming has never been a threat to the biosphere.


4. There is significant evidence that solar cycles have a notable effect on global temperature and rainfall. The sun, the clouds, the oceans, volcanic dust and the winds create our climate with its cycles, seasons, tides, unpredictable variations and occasional extremes. Carbon dioxide exists as a tiny trace of invisible gas in the atmosphere (1 part of CO2 per 2,500 parts of other gases). It exerts a steady, moderating, but very tiny influence on global temperatures. 


5. The effect of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not be measurable. The effect of a carbon tax on the sun, clouds, oceans, volcanoes and winds will be zero. Therefore a carbon tax will have no measurable effect on global climate, even if every country in the world introduced it. 


6. Many of the climate scares, such as loss of corals and rising sea levels, are inventions or exaggerations. Corals have survived for millions of years, have adapted to rising and falling sea levels, and have moved north and south as earth's temperatures changed. Sea levels have been rising slowly for thousands of years, long before steam engines were invented, and current changes are very gentle and not unusual. In fact recent credible studies show sea levels are gently falling.


7. It is nonsense to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is better called "The Gas of Life" as it provides the major source of food for all plant life which in turn supports all animal life. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than they have been many times in the past and significantly lower than is optimal for all life.


8. Every molecule of carbon dioxide released by burning coal today was once part of the atmosphere at a time of prolific growth of the huge forests that formed the coal in the first place, millions of years ago. Burning the coal just recycles the natural carbon and other minerals back to the biosphere where the next generation of plants can use them. Coal is as natural and "green" as the forests from which it came.


9. Mankind does clearly affect his environment with land clearing, cultivation, irrigation, sewerage, garbage, roads, railways, dams and his massive cities of bitumen, concrete, sky scrapers, schools, hospitals, houses and heat generating machines and appliances. The heat from the activities of people and their machines does cause minor but measurable urban heating. Man (and woman) also creates real pollution with smoke, dust and chemical gases, and pollutes waterways and landfill with various waste products. All sensible people want to see a reduction in this real pollution, but carbon dioxide plays no part in it, and a carbon tax will not reduce it.


10. Carbon dioxide has zero ability to produce heat in itself. It does not burn like carbon, coal or wood – it is a harmless and invisible gaseous by-product of burning these fuels. It is not a source of radioactive heat like uranium. All it can do is redirect some of the heat exchanged between the sun and the earth.


11. Carbon dioxide is generally transparent to most heat and light radiation. However, during the day, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can temporarily interrupt and redirect some of the heat flowing between the sun and the earth (generally keeping the surface cooler than it would have otherwise been). During the night, carbon dioxide again interrupts some of the heat escaping from the surface to space, thus keeping nights warmer than they would have otherwise been. Water vapour has a similar but far greater effect. The net effect on average global temperature is negligible and beneficial to the comfort of life on the surface of the earth.

12. Earth's climate is always changing and cycles of heating and cooling have been a regular feature of earth history for as long as geological and historical records exist. To suggest that man is suddenly causing every extreme weather event is just superstitious scare mongering.


13. To believe that a tax on some Australian businesses which emit carbon dioxide will have the slightest effect on global climate is ludicrous. 


14. It is obvious that the glib targets for 5-20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (in spite of rising populations) can NEVER be actually achieved without a massive depression of economic activity. A fake reduction may be achieved by forcing Australian companies to pay billions of dollars to foreign carbon sharps for promises to cut their production of carbon dioxide. In most cases, this will NOT result in any reduction in emissions – at best it will produce largely worthless promises to not increase emissions in future. At worst it will be a massive fraud on the Australian taxpayers and consumers. In all cases, it will see a massive transfer of Australian wealth to foreign countries for zero climate benefit.


15. We are told that most people and businesses will be compensated and thus will not feel any effects from the carbon tax. The whole purpose of the tax is to punish people who use carbon fuels, so they use less of them. If it does not hurt consumers, they will not change their behaviour and the whole thing becomes an exercise in redistributing wealth and enhancing the power of the bureaucracy.


16. It is false to claim that Australia lags the world in waging war on carbon. The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Only western Europe and New Zealand are moving with us on this suicidal path – they lead the energy lemmings. Perhaps New Zealand hopes to cope without too much pain by using more of their abundant hydro and geothermal energy while most European countries have access to significant hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy. 


17. Australia has NONE of these non-carbon energy sources ready to start producing electricity. Nuclear is feasible but politically unacceptable. It would take a decade at least to get political and regulatory approval, and probably as long again for construction, so nuclear is not really in our energy equation. And unlike Iceland and New Zealand, Australia has no easy geothermal sites – if we find any, it will be decades before it could make significant contributions to the electricity grid. We do produce hydro power, but the chances of getting the Greens to approve a dam anywhere, let alone in more mountainous country with gradients suitable for hydro power, is very low. Moreover, our best hydro sites are either already developed, or are sterilised in heritage areas and national parks. 

Therefore Australia's current and future energy needs depend solely on coal and gas, the very fuels that Bob Brown's green extremists want to tax, regulate and litigate to death. It is an act of national economic suicide to attempt to destroy our ability to generate low cost energy.


18. The computerised climate models so beloved by the UN IPCC and the CSIRO have never made successful predictions and there is no reason to believe they will ever mimic the complexity of factors affecting climate at any point.


19. Even if the warming projections from the scare forecasters were accepted, the minor changes in temperature envisaged are small compared to the actual daily and annual variations in temperature experienced at any point on earth. The difference in average temperature between Brisbane and Sydney or Melbourne is more than the worst global warming scares. The temperature change that occurs while we eat breakfast is probably greater than any global warming that could be caused by doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The idea that laughably small temperature changes will somehow do untold damage to life on earth is ludicrous.


20. It is obvious that there is no consensus on the science supporting the alarmist climate models. A very large and growing group of scientists with relevant knowledge or experience is actively challenging the alarmist models. They will not go away.

21. Wind and solar energy can never provide reliable electric power at a cost the consumers can afford or Australian businesses can use in a competitive world. They provide unreliable and intermittent power, at a high cost, and also need massive investment in backup carbon-based power facilities and new transmission lines.


22. All spending on carbon geo-sequestration should cease. This is an enormously costly program to do something that is unnecessary and which will waste much of our precious energy resources and community savings.


23. Our fleets of cars, tractors, trucks, trains, ships, dozers and aircraft are not going to run on sunbeams and sea breezes – they need coal, diesel, petrol or gas to keep moving. If they stop moving, our cities will starve in a few days.


24. Subsidising and mandating the use of ethanol produced from food crops is a foolish policy with no benefits for the climate or the environment.


25. The suggestion that emissions from farm livestock are net additions of carbon to the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Every atom of carbon emitted by livestock (in carbon dioxide or methane) is taken from the grass and grains the animal eats, which in turn is taken from the atmosphere by growing plants using photosynthesis and energy from the sun. Methane that returns to the atmosphere soon oxidises back to carbon dioxide which is then taken up by plants. It is a perpetual carbon cycle that has been going on since life began. Earth survived emissions from the vast mobs of ancient auroch cattle which roamed Europe, the bison and antelopes of the American grassland, the wild herds of grazing animals which roamed free over all the African plains, and the kangaroos and bushfires which regularly harvested the Australian grasslands. 


26. In the carbon cycle, trees are just like animals - temporary storehouses for carbon. They are not some special stand-alone life form to be worshipped unconditionally and subsidised thoughtlessly. Every molecule of carbon dioxide that is "captured" when the tree is growing creates the leaves, bark and wood and is stored there. While growing, the tree will shed bark, leaves and branches. These will fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon to the soil, to bacteria or back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Eventually, the tree itself will die or be used for timber structures. Eventually all of the tree will rot or be burnt and every carbon atom that was taken from the atmosphere will be end up back in the atmosphere. The same cyclic process occurs for all plant life, including food crops, grasses and algae. All that varies is the time for the complete cycle to occur.


27. The criticism that Australia leads the world in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide is a silly conclusion from nonsense calculations. Australians are very large suppliers of coal, minerals, food and fibre to consumers all over the world. We utilise large equipment fleets and have a massive transport network to move this food, fibre, energy and minerals to our own capitals and to world consumers. Those consumers should be the ones responsible for the emissions generated by a handful of productive Australians to produce our flood of raw materials. Moreover our grasslands, rivers, oceans and soils are net absorbers of carbon dioxide. A fair and more complete calculation would probably show that Australia is a net absorber of carbon dioxide. 


28. There is no justification for Australia to seek the role of the Pied Piper leading a diminishing band of climate lemmings over the cliffs of alarm onto the hard rocks of reality far below. The Europeans will rue the day they spent their savings on energy chimeras.

We do not claim confidentiality for this submission, and are happy for it to be published. We are also willing to appear before the Committee to answer questions or present material.

Authorised by Viv Forbes
Chairman,
The Carbon Sense Coalition



Labor preparing for night of the long knives.

Cartoon: By Bill Leak.

The penny seems to be dropping at last for Labor MPs who seem destined to lose their seats come the next election. The real desperation faced is indicated by estimates that the party faces the prospect of losing around thirty-six seats; half its strength, unless a miracle can eventuate. There is nothing on the horizon to give them any hope for this prospect.

Reports indicate that many are looking for the chance to roll Gillard and reinstall Rudd to the leadership. Rudd is probably their only option at this stage as he is about the only member of the party with sufficient hubris to think he can reverse their fortunes. Anyone else capable of doing the job would be acutely aware that his head would be on the chopping block post election.

A sign of the times is that Wayne Swan, freshly anointed as ‘the worlds greatest treasurer’ would lose his seat at present, as would many ministers:

Senior ministers who are backing Ms Gillard's leadership are also in the firing line. The Gillard Cabinet would be a political killing field on the basis of the polling with up to six ministers to lose their seats.

Ministers to go would include Treasurer Wayne Swan, Defense Minister Stephen Smith, Attorney-General Robert McClelland, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, Education Minister Peter Garrett and Trade Minister Craig Emerson. Special Minister of State Gary Gray and Childcare Minister Kate Ellis, who are not in Cabinet, are also in danger.

But the real action is among a growing number of backbenchers who never agreed with the leadership change. They want the Prime Minister to be given until Christmas to get a handle on the carbon tax and the asylum-seeker debate.

Even some factional powerbrokers who installed Gillard are despondent over the fate of the government. Backbench MPs on a knife-edge include NSW's Michelle Rowland, Deb O'Neill, David Bradbury, Daryl Melham, John Murphy, Janelle Saffin and Mike Kelly.
Most of the Labor members are totally focused on the shortcomings of their leaders in all of this and seem to be in denial of the possibility that they themselves may have had a part to play in their own imminent demise. All of them have been blindly following the leader in a headlong rush for the cliff face, none having ever considered the possibility of challenging the direction of the momentum.

Perhaps some of them would be in a better position for survival, had they ever questioned whether the policies that have reduced them to this, were the right thing to do. They have instead, gleefully shouted their ‘yeys’ as their ministers disparaged outraged members of the public as Teabaggers, rednecks, racists, climate deniers, inconsequential, incontinent, just to mention a few.

They have had their time in the sun, feeling smug and invulnerable. Now that the time has come to pay the price, they are projecting their own shortcomings onto their leader and hoping that this time it will be better.

Will any of them stand up to the carbon tax that the public hates? Not bloody likely!

Sep 25, 2011

Herman Cain Wins Florida straw poll.

Herman Cain has had a convincing win in the Florida Straw Poll. It was not just convincing, he handed the rest of the field a flogging:

Herman Cain: 37.11%
Governor Rick Perry: 15.43%
Governor Mitt Romney: 14%
Senator Rick Santorum: 10.88%
Congressman Ron Paul: 10.39%
Speaker Newt Gingrich: 8.43%
Governor Jon Huntsman: 2.26%
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann: 1.51%

Cain is probably the best of the ‘mainstream’ candidates, being the most convincing fiscal conservative in the race other than Johnson and Ron Paul. On social issues he tends to be conservative, however having spent his entire career outside politics, he will probably be better than the professional conservative politicians he is standing against.

Florida Governor Rick Scott predicted that the winner of the Presidency 5 Straw Poll would go on to win the GOP nomination. He based this prediction off history: every candidate to win the Republican Party of Florida's straw poll wins the GOP nomination, including Presidents Reagan and Bush!

That is probably a bit optimistic at present, there is a lot of difference between these polls and the scientific ones run by the professionals. He has however consistently led the polls on positive intensity in this cycle, meaning that where his message is heard people like it.

Ron Paul supporters “Let him die” comment; a leftist lie.

Cartoon: By Ramirez.

H/t: Newsbusters.




After the CNN-Tea Party Express there were a number of stories around, with varying details of the audience shouting “Let him die” in relation to a hypothetical uninsured man.

This is not something you tend to take a great deal of notice of, reports tend to be exaggerated, and there are always a few idiots in any audience. There is the odd complete audience of idiots, but normally it takes a speaker like Wasserman Schultz to bring them out.

Here is Paul Krugman on the subject:
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!” …

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy.
Let’s take a look:


Applause occurred following the statement by Paul, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody” -

On the Blitzer statement, (not as NYT commentator Michael Shear claimed, “chants of “let him die” from the crowd,”) “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” contrary to Krugman’s assertion, the crowd did not cheer, and there were only a handful of people who shouted ‘Yeah.”

It is clear that Ron Paul did not in any way attempt to evade the question. It is also clear that there was not the wild applause or the calls to let the guy die as has been claimed. You can get into a lot of trouble once you start believing your own spin, especially if you start reporting what you wish had happened.

Sep 24, 2011

Electricity grid fails to cope with solar power systems.


Every time this matter has been raised we have been told by solar advocates that it will work and to stop being alarmist. While the main issue has in the past been, the unreliability of alternative power, necessitating massive standby generation from conventional sources, here we see clear evidence that the grid itself cannot cope:

THE solar power revolution is in danger of stalling, with the State Government admitting the electricity grid is failing to cope with its green vision.

Energy Minister Stephen Robertson confirmed new applications for rooftop solar systems were being rejected in areas where Queensland's high uptake threatened the safety and reliability of its network. …

Energex said the state's electricity network since the 1950s had been designed to deliver power from the station to the home and the voltage now heading "the other way" was causing a huge dilemma.

Following advice from engineering experts, no more systems will be automatically approved when the penetration of solar photovoltaic systems hits 30 per cent in neighborhoods.
Shonky operators plague the installation industry, which has benefitted from a huge amount of money being poured in by the federal and state governments. There have been numerous complaints of poor workmanship, rip offs, hidden charges, and worthless warranties from companies that had disappeared.

Some of the worst offenders in the solar industry had previously been involved in the Commonwealth's failed pink bats insulation scheme that resulted in widespread rorting, burnt down houses and the deaths of four installers. It seems that the shonky bat installers have made the transition to shonky solar ones.

Prior to this, Queensland’s solar hot water rebates, became Bligh’s equivalent to the pink bats scheme:
More than 400 systems funded by the Government's solar hot water rebate scheme were found to be faulty or illegally installed on the Gold Coast alone, with hundreds more discovered in Brisbane.

Faults include a failure to install temper valves, which prevent people being scalded, and the use of plastic pipes instead of copper. Some systems have been installed by people with no proper qualifications.

A spokesman said the Government had been warned the systems should be inspected before the rebates were paid but this had been ignored.

Gold Coast City Council planning committee chairman Ted Shepherd said more than a third of the 1080 rebate-funded solar hot water systems installed on the Coast were found by council inspectors to be defective or installed by unlicensed or unqulaified plumbers.
Meanwhile we wait for the next big government funded idea.

Sep 23, 2011

Bligh; trampling farmer’s rights to protect farmland.


“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’- 
Ronald Reagan

Several days ago here in a post, “Protecting cropping land from mining, and farmers” we mentioned some of the nasties that were included in a Draft State Planning Policy for Strategic Cropping Land. A number of normal farming activities would be removed from local control and be subject to central government decisions.

Dale Stiler from ‘Just Grounds’ has sent in a link, which makes it clear that this is a whole lot more serious than the issues raised before. Now it appears that an incredible number of activities that farmers could be expected to carry out in the pursuit of diversification, will be illegal on land that is designated “Strategic cropping land.”

The National Farmers Federation is skeptical as to the degree of protection afforded, and Carbon Sense Coalition chairman Viv Forbes, has found serious problems in the draught:

Carbon Sense Coalition chairman Viv Forbes said the policy would stop farmers subdividing their land.

“Any other developments on their blighted land will be banned or difficult,” Mr Forbes said. “Imagine the obstacles should they want to develop a racehorse stud, a feedlot, a new house or a private forest?” he said.

“Farmers will be condemned to be pastoral peasants on cropping land controlled forever, paddock by paddock, by an anti-farming, anti-mining bureaucracy.

“If Queensland’s politicians were really concerned about food security they would not have sterilised millions of acres of grazing land under scrub clearing bans, conservation zones, heritage areas, national parks and other anti-farming bans,” Mr Forbes said.
In an effort to hose down Viv’s criticism, the department involved has unintentionally confirmed them:
A Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) spokesperson said the framework would not apply to subdivision applications already approved, nor to proposed subdivisions in areas already designated for urban development.

“If the land proposed to be subdivided is, in fact, strategic cropping land and the subdivision will permanently alienate the strategic cropping land, the subdivision will generally not be approved,” they said. Developments like feedlots were unlikely to be approved.
David Leyonhjelm from the LDP, has mentioned that one of the problems with the whole issue is that farmers have little personal control over their own properties, nothing to gain, and much to lose in both mining, and CSG. The situation would be very different were farmers to have some ownership rights over the deposits themselves.
It is no accident that the US has half of all the world’s oil wells, and that its coal seam gas industry is considerably more advanced than ours. A key difference is that landowners have skin in the game – ownership of mineral rights is a primary motivator for exploration and extraction.



For governments, the solution is to create an environment in which a market based approach can emerge. It was government actions preventing such an approach that created the current problem. More government tweaking will not help.


Essentially the heart of the problem here is that what the government considers the 'public interest' is allowed to take precedence over private property rights.

Greens clear way for replacing Gillard.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.



One of the major hurdles to replacing Julia Gillard as PM has been the danger of her coalition partners refusing to accept such a move. Now the Greens leader Bob Brown has indicated has announced that the replacement of Gillard would not necessarily be a deal breaker:

Amid fresh leadership rumblings in Labor, the Greens leader said the Labor leadership was "up to them."
“We are in an arrangement with the Labor government and we made that arrangement with Julia Gillard as leader of the Labor government,” said Senator Brown. “But who Labor appoints as their leader is up to them.”

The Greens' position could encourage supporters of former leader Kevin Rudd, who it's claimed is quietly working the phones to pave the way for a future leadership comeback. Senior Labor figures have rejected reports of leadership tensions.

However Labor MP Shayne Neumann today fuelled speculation that Mr Rudd was building support for a return to The Lodge when he repeatedly refused to say if he had spoken to the Foreign Minister about the leadership.
There will be speculation as to whether the independents will follow suit. Tony Windsor has stated that he is ambivalent on the issue. Rob Oakeshott, after initially indicating his acceptance of a new leader if it occurs, has now said that a change would cause him to reflect on his support for the minority Labor government:
Mr Oakeshott said Ms Gillard was central to his support for Labor as the “sole negotiator” with the crossbenchers after last year's cliffhanger election.

“I think, obviously, if they make any change of leadership that is a point of reflection for myself and other crossbenchers,” Mr Oakeshott told Sky News.
Oakeshott is a compulsive windbag and attention seeker, which is probably what this statement is all about. He will be looking for the opportunity to be the centre of attention after Gillard is rolled as well as another chance to make a long boring speech to a captive audience. It’s a safe bet he will stay with Labor.

Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania is probably the biggest risk for a new leader. He has stated in the past that a change from Gillard would be a deal breaker, although it is difficult to see him supporting the Liberals. He is however a zealot and therefore nothing can be ruled out. Were Abbott to agree to swap Liberal preferences in his seat in exchange for a no confidence vote to bring down the government he might play ball.

Sep 22, 2011

Greens use racial slurs against pro development Aborigines.

Image: Kimberley Land Council chief executive Nolan Hunter, in Perth yesterday. Picture: Ross Swanborough. Source: The Australian.

Over recent years a growing number of Aboriginal leaders have rejected the paternalistic policies of the past, which essentially condemn them to rent seeking and welfare dependency. They are anxious to have their people reap the benefits of the resources around them and advance themselves. On the other hand the Greens and the left in general want them as allies in their anti development agenda.

The Greens bizarre positions have set back the cause of Aboriginal development here. The ‘Wild Rivers’ legislation virtually prohibits the use of water resources by aborigines in North Queensland, a matter that is still being fought out. The left seem to nurse the concept of the ‘noble savage’ and want Aborigines to be some sort of living museum pieces, condemned to the current status quo.

Now a hate campaign has been launched against pro development Aborigines around Broome in the North West, who are in favor of a gas project:

A newsletter widely distributed in Broome labels Kimberley Land Council chief executive Nolan Hunter as Woodside's "chief coconut" for his role in securing a $1.5bn deal that will bring education, employment and social benefits to the region's indigenous population in return for their support for the gas hub project.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian yesterday, Mr Hunter told how the hate mail came so thick and fast he now instructed staff at the KLC office not to open letters with their bare hands.

Mr Hunter said green groups promised in 2007 to support a single site for a gas hub in the region, but now were campaigning hard against the project. "For them, the environment can stay pristine and the people in it can live in poverty and destitution," he said. "People who oppose the gas have housing, they have income and their kids have good educational opportunities. They want somewhere pristine to come and spend their money on holidays.”

The proposed project has been dogged by controversy since April 2009 when Kimberley traditional owners signed a heads of agreement with the state government and Woodside for a gas precinct at James Price Point. In May, the Goolarabooloo Jabbir Jabbir native title claim group voted to support the project. The KLC considers the deal "a landmark exercise in democratic decision making" that will lead directly to hundreds of jobs and guarantee a social justice package of health, education, housing and training.

The region's indigenous Labor MP, Carol Martin, is named along with nine others in the most recent newsletter as "black on the outside, white on the inside and full of the milk of white man's money". She said opponents of the development showed disrespect for Aborigines' rights to make decisions about their land.
The Australian Greens are probably the most illogical, ideologically driven, divisive, anti industrial, anti just about everything else, group of luddites in the world today. They oppose mining, oil exploration, gas production, nuclear, farming, irrigation, and any other sort of development. They are convinced that the nation would benefit from the total closure of the coal mining industry.

Barnaby Joyce, carbon tax speech.

It is nice to see someone in Canberra asking the heretical question, “How much will this tax reduce the temperature?” For those overseas readers, Barnaby was the guy who was pilloried in parliament and the press as an irresponsible fool for suggesting that the USA could stare down the barrel of a financial default. Calls for an apology to him during the ‘debt ceiling’ crisis have been met by the sounds of crickets chirping.

Sep 21, 2011

Why not skip Treasurer of the Year this time?

Cartoon: By Nicholson.



It must be the fiscal silly season, although with Keynesian economics, that is assumed to be a year round thing. There is conjecture that Wayne Swan will be Euromoney's 2011 finance minister of the year:



If Wayne Swan is chosen as Euromoney's 2011 finance minister of the year next week as tipped, it surely won't be because of the glowing endorsement of Australia's top bankers, even if they have performed at least as well as Canada's during the financial crisis.

Nor will it be because Swan has followed last year's winner, Russia's Alexei Kudrin, in quarantining a pre-crisis oil windfall into a budget stabilisation fund that proved "crucial" to Russia weathering the global storm better than most had expected. And neither is Euromoney likely to praise Swan for his "championing of the free market and fiscal prudence", as it suggested of the Russian liberal reformer.

Instead, the accolade would mostly amount to a "being there" award for the ALP operative who climbed up through the party's parliamentary ranks to become Treasurer and clung to his job as the global crisis claimed many of his G20 counterparts and as the local factional warlords claimed Kevin Rudd.
It is difficult to see what, if anything, there is to recommend Swan. He became Treasurer when Labor came to power, and inherited a basically buoyant economy. When the GFC hit, Australia was in a very good condition to handle it without much in the way of government intervention.

Instead of leaving well enough alone he panicked and began a massive stimulus program, which wasted billions. There were the $900 checks sent out with the governments advocacy to spend, spend; spend us into a better future. Those who followed the directions certainly stimulated the Asian manufacturers of electronic and other goods.

Then we had the copy of the US Cash for Clunkers scheme, which had a similar result, a lot of money wasted. Not to be put off by failure, he then backed an insulation scheme, with the primary purpose of getting money spent as fast as possible. The result of this was 200 homes burned down and four deaths. Countless millions have been spent since to undo the damage.

But wait, there’s more. The next grand plan was Building the Education Revolution, (BER). Under this scheme, school halls were to be fast tracked, even where they were not required, with the primary purpose of getting money spent as fast as possible. The result was buildings cost 3-4 times what they could be built for anywhere else. BER is still referred to as the “Builders Early Retirement scheme.”

The National Broadband Network is another grandiose scheme to spend at least $35 billion on a Rolls Royce high-speed broadband scheme, with fiber optic cable right into 95% of Australian homes. No cost benefit has ever been done on it as the government claims that it was an election promise, and is not necessary. One problem is, that by the time it is constructed, mobile devices will deliver better speeds and be more popular than fixed installations.

Since Labor came to power the country has been in the centre of an unprecedented mining boom, with record prices for our commodities, yet Swan has consistently failed to balance a budget. He has in fact run such massive deficits, that borrowings are running at $100 million per day since they gained office. They are introducing two massive taxes, and are holding yet another tax summit to raise others.

Seriously, if this guy is the best Euromoney can come up with; it would be better to simply not award the prize this year.

Sep 20, 2011

Leftist hysteria and double standards.

Cartoon, liberal civility on show.


Most liberals appear to be wimps, as any utterance by figures on the right seems to throw them into panic mode. It would probably not get cause the average reader much concern if he were to be threatened by Glen Beck, or Andrew Breitbart, or the equivalent over here, Andrew Bolt or Tim Andrews. Most of us feel they could handle them.

The most obvious aspect of their hysteria though seems to be the double standards they adopt in demanding civility in political discourse. In particular they appear too dishonest or too stupid to understand that their own sides actions are being alluded to by the right in some of these matters.

Take for example the claim that Breitbart was fantasizing about killing liberals. He supposedly said that conservatives outnumber Liberals, and are the ones who have guns. Lets look at what was said:
Tea Party darling Andrew Breitbart fantasized about killing Liberals — and especially union members — claiming that conservatives outnumber Liberals, and are the ones who have guns. The pseudo- journalist and media mogul also said he is the subject of death threats, and complained people on Twitter call him “gay.”
It is not difficult to link this to the statement by Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa while ‘warming up the crowd’ for Obama in Detroit:
"President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march," Hoffa said. "But everybody here's got to vote. If we go back, and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son-of-a-bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”
Obviously in this case he was alluding to this speech and giving the response of, “Bring it on.” Then we have this:
Shockingly, Breitbart seemed to threaten the children of ABC News journalist Katie Couric, saying, “What if we went to Katie Couric’s house, what if the Tea Party showed up at Katie Couric’s house and scared the living crap out of her teenaged kids?”
This sounds bad if it were to be taken in isolation with the assumption that it was a gratuitous remark with no background behind it. However it is an analogy to the action of SEIU thugs who raided the private residence of Greg Baer, deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America. Bauer’s fourteen-year-old son was in the house at the time:
14 busloads of riled up protesters unloaded on Baer’s private property and stormed up to his doorstep, while his teenage son was home alone. Easton is a neighbor of Baer’s and had called to check on her neighbor’s son when she heard and saw all the commotion outside.

“Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. …
If the Democrats want civility, they might at least act in that manner themselves.

Sep 19, 2011

The Carbon Tax – 19 Bills and 1,100 Pages.

But Opposition to them will never End.


IMPORTANT: Please email your opposition to the Carbon Tax Bills IMMEDIATELY (before Thurs 22nd September).
See how to do it below. Send a copy to your local MP and Senator.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,


The Gillard-Green Coalition and their "independent" allies are in temporary control of the Australian Parliament. But they are about to sign a death warrant for their parties and for many of their elected members by voting for the Carbon Tax package. It will take decades for this cabal to recover from the electoral venom they have unleashed. Despite enormous opposition from the public, especially from those outside the capital cities, and despite a specific election promise that "There will be no carbon tax", we are about to get a carbon tax mess so complex it takes 19 bills and 1,100 pages to document it.

What do we do?

First we need to let them know of our implacable opposition.

In an underhand move, they have revealed quietly that all public submissions on these massive bills must be made in just one week - submissions close on the 22nd of September. That's right - just one week to read and comment on over 1,100 pages of legislation. They have also decided to cancel public hearings around Australia. They hope that no Australian will find out about this or will not have the time or energy to write a submission. But let's prove them wrong. Let's flood the enquiry and the politicians with protests.

The nineteen bills on "Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation" are listed here:

Written submissions can be emailed to the Joint Select Committee at: jscacefl@aph.gov.au

The government's advice on preparing submissions is listed below but don't worry too much about it. Just tell them in your own words why you are opposed to this bill and what you will do if they pass it. Here is their advice:

Then we need to keep pressure on our politicians for the next few weeks until they vote on these bills - let every MP feel the heat in his or her electorate. Withhold financial support, encourage their opposition until they know their days are numbered if they support this bill.

The second stage of the carbon battle will start if they manage to force these bills through both houses of parliament. They can still be destroyed before they take effect in June 2012. To do that we need control of parliament to change - by a defection or a by-election. We need to encourage either event. Keep up the heat.

The final stage of the Carbon Tax War (which we hope not to see) will come if these bills become law. Using a number of underhand tricks and many related handouts, the government is trying to ensure that no future government can repeal these bills.

We should leave government and opposition in no doubt that a large and vocal constituency will never cease its opposition. None of the carbon credit assets, the carbon trading profits or the alternative energy handouts will ever be safe. No politician who votes to introduce or retain these bills will ever feel safe. We will record the voting and work ceaselessly to remove the guilty.

The points below will form the basis of our submission to the Select Committee on the Carbon Taxes. Please add your voices in your own way in your own words, long or short. Please feel free to use our ideas or words - there is no copyright on the words or the facts.


Why these Bills should be resisted, rejected 
and, if needs be, repealed.

1. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere controls the climate. There is strong evidence that global temperature controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via the absorption or emission of the gas from the vast oceans. 


2. There is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have seen a profusion of animal and plant life.


3. In the broad sweep of climate change it is clear that life on earth has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It is the ice ages that cause massive extinctions. In the long history of life on earth, global warming has never been a threat to the biosphere.


4. There is significant evidence that solar cycles have a notable effect on global temperature and rainfall. The carbon tax will have no effect on solar cycles.


5. Many of the climate scares, such as loss of corals and rising sea levels, are inventions or exaggerations. Corals have survived millions of years, have adapted to rising and falling sea levels, and have moved north and south as earth's temperatures changed. Sea levels have been rising slowly for thousands of years, long before steam engines were invented, and current changes are very gentle and not unusual.


6. It is nonsense to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is better called "The Gas of Life" as it provides the major source of food for all plant life which in turn supports all animal life. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than they have been many times in the past and significantly lower than is optimal for all life.


7. Every molecule of carbon dioxide released by burning coal today was once part of the atmosphere at a time of prolific growth of the huge forests that formed the coal in the first place, millions of years ago. Burning the coal just recycles the natural carbon and other minerals back to the biosphere where the next generation of plants can use them. Coal is as natural and "green" as the forests from which it came.


8. Carbon dioxide has zero ability to produce heat in itself. It does not burn like carbon, coal or wood – it is a harmless by-product of burning these fuels. It is not a source of radioactive heat like uranium. All it can do is redirect some of the heat exchanged between the sun and the earth.


9. Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas generally invisible to most heat and light radiation. However, during the day, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can temporarily interrupt and redirect some of the heat flowing between the sun and the earth (generally keeping the surface cooler than it would have otherwise been). During the night, carbon dioxide again interrupts some of the heat escaping from the surface to space, thus keeping nights warmer than they would have otherwise been. The net effect on average global temperature is negligible and beneficial to the comfort of life on the surface of the earth. 


10. The climate of the globe is always changing and natural disasters have been a regular feature of earth history for as long as geological and historical records exist. To suggest that man is suddenly causing every disturbing weather event is just superstitious scare mongering.

11. To believe that a tax on some Australian businesses which emit carbon dioxide will have the slightest effect on world climate is ludicrous. 


12. It is obvious that the glib targets for 5-20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (in spite of rising populations) can NEVER be actually achieved without a massive depression of economic activity. A fake reduction may be achieved by forcing Australian companies to pay billions of dollars to foreign carbon sharps for promises to cut their production of carbon dioxide. In most cases, this will NOT result in any reduction in emissions – at best it will produce largely worthless promises to not increase emissions in future. At worst it will be a massive fraud on the Australian taxpayers and consumers. In all cases, it will see a massive transfer of Australian wealth to foreign countries for zero climate benefit.


13. It is false to claim that Australia lags the world in waging war on carbon. The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Only western Europe and New Zealand are moving with us on this suicidal path. However New Zealand hopes to cope without too much pain using their abundant hydro and geothermal energy. Moreover, most European countries have access to significant hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy. Australia has NONE of these advantages. Our current and future energy needs depend solely on coal and gas, the very things that Bob Brown's green extremists want to tax and litigate to death. It is an act of national economic suicide to attempt to destroy our ability to generate low cost energy.


14. The computerised climate models so beloved by the UN IPCC and the CSIRO have never made successful predictions and there is no reason to believe they will ever mimic the complexity of factors affecting climate at any point.


15. Even if the warming projections from the scare forecasters were accepted, the minor changes in temperature envisaged are small compared to the actual daily and annual variations in temperature experienced at any point on earth. The difference in average temperature between Brisbane and Sydney or Melbourne is more than the worst global warming scares. The temperature change that occurs while we eat breakfast is probably greater than any global warming that could be caused by carbon dioxide. The idea that laughably small temperature changes will somehow do untold damage to life on earth is ludicrous.


16. It is obvious that there is no consensus on the science supporting the alarmist climate models. A very large and growing group of scientists with relevant knowledge or experience is actively challenging the alarmist models. They will not go away.


17. Wind and solar energy can never provide reliable electric power at a cost the consumers can afford or Australian businesses can use in a competitive world. They provide unreliable and intermittent power, at a high cost, and also need massive investment in backup power facilities and new transmission lines.


18. Our large fleets of cars, trucks, trains, ships, dozers and aircraft are not going to run on sunbeams and sea breezes – they need coal, diesel, petrol or gas to keep moving. 
If they stop moving, our cities will starve in a few days.


19. Subsidising and mandating the use of ethanol produced from food crops is a foolish policy with no benefits for the climate or the environment.


20. The suggestion that emissions from farm livestock are net additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Every molecule of carbon dioxide emitted by livestock is taken from the grass and grains the animal eats, which in turn is taken from the atmosphere by growing plants using photosynthesis and energy from the sun. It is a continual carbon cycle that has been going in since ancient auroch cattle roamed Europe, bison and antelopes roamed the American grassland, wild herds of grazing animals roamed free over all the African plains, and kangaroos and bushfires regularly harvested the Australian grasslands. 


21. In the carbon cycle, trees are just like animals - temporary storehouses for carbon. They are not some special stand-alone life form to be worshipped unconditionally and subsidised thoughtlessly. Every molecule of carbon dioxide that is "captured" when the tree is growing creates the leaves, bark and wood and is stored there. While growing, the tree will shed bark, leaves and branches. These will fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon to the soil, to bacteria or back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Eventually, the tree itself will die or be used for timber structures. Eventually all of the tree will rot or be burnt and every carbon atom that was taken from the atmosphere will be end up back in the atmosphere. The same cyclic process occurs for all plant life, including food crops, grasses and algae. All that varies is the time for the complete cycle to occur.


22. The criticism that Australia leads the world in per capital emissions of carbon dioxide is a silly conclusion from nonsense calculations. Australians are very large suppliers of coal, minerals, food and fibre to consumers all over the world. We have a massive transport network to move this food, fibre, energy and minerals to our own capitals and to world consumers. Those consumers should be the ones responsible for the emissions generated by a handful of productive Australians to produce our flood of raw materials. Moreover our grasslands, rivers, oceans and soils are net absorbers of carbon dioxide. A fair and more complete calculation would show that Australia is a net absorber of carbon dioxide. 


‘Ecocide’, and crimes against peace.


“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.”- Ayn Rand.



There was a time not so many years ago when the concept of animal land rights, a special category of environmental law, and the very idea of our legal process being hijacked by the UN and international agencies would have been too silly to be taken seriously. Even less time than that the mere suggestion that the balance of power in Canberra could be held by a party with a policy plank of closing down the coal industry within ten years, would have been laughed at.

Now all are in the wings, and the way things are going give us little reason for optimism that common sense will prevail:
CORPORATE polluters would be forced to stand before the International Criminal Court to answer for crimes against the environment under a proposed United Nations law change.

Environmental lawyer and activist Polly Higgins is campaigning for ecocide – damage caused to the environment – to be classed as a crime against peace under United Nations law, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes. …

Ms Higgins said under the proposed laws, damaging and destructive activity to the environment would be criminalized.

"By creating a law of ecocide, what we do is we impose a legal duty of care on not just corporations but also governments to assist those who are at risk of ecocide, or have adversely been impacted by it," she said.

Environmental protection agencies such as Queensland’s EPA, operated with laws that did not fit their purpose, she said. Penalties only existed if the culprit was caught.
Fascists like Polly, love international law and national law set up under international auspices, such as the various Human Rights Commissions, as the concept of due process is much more relaxed than those of a western society. We tend to take the view that it is up to the crown to prove that an offense has occurred and that the defendant committed it.

You can make a pretty good bet that under international jurisdiction it will be up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Under what is proposed this seems to be the case.

Note the remark: “Penalties only existed if the culprit was caught.”

Sep 18, 2011

Attackwatch, or was that narcissism watch?

Image: By Maksim – The Peoples Cube.

It seems incredible that after the nonsense of the old ‘Fight the smears’ website used in the past, the Paranoid in Chief has launched a similar site to prep supporters for his reelection bid. This one, attackwatch.com appears to have been set up with the aim of rooting out any element that reports anything other than laudatory reports on Dear Leader.

Like any good website it is conveniently divided into sections, the first being an introduction and a ‘news feed’ dealing with what sort of pricks Glen Beck, Romney, and Perry are. The ‘Attack Files’ section follows this. This gives party acolytes a ready reference to the current truth, talking points, and party spin as it stands at the moment.

After this we get down to the serious business, (oops, bad word) that the site is intended for. Section three is for reporting, and has a user friendly form which can accommodate deviations from correct positions, thought crimes, casual snitching, reporting on family members, right through to denouncements of party members. After this there is a joiners section Attack Wire, which allows you to register.

Then we get to the all important donation section, once again with a user friendly form with which supporters can give till it hurts. We have not tested this section but may try the denouncement form later. As a libertarian site, RWL feels that it is in our interests to be listed here; not just as the standard ‘Regime Opponent’ but in the coverted ‘Enemy of the State’ section.

The reality is that this site is a great source of fun for the right, especially as the Twitter feed gives a great opportunity for taking the piss out of it. Some good ones are:

Hey #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATM's in an alley, killing a Job. It looked like a hate crime!

Loving our robust Economy? NEVER forget that Obama once referred to the private sector as the "ENEMY." #attackwatch.

I've seen many tweets saying "First Candidate who self reports to #attackwatch gets my vote!" Ding! We have a Winner!

Have you done your patriotic duty? Somewhere, someone is saying something about Obama. Report it to #attackwatch immediately!

Hi #attackwatch did you know Obama puts the seat down when he pees? And:

#tcot RT @Brunette_W #attackwatch My neighbor flies the American flag in his front yard can you come get him? And then can I have his stuff?
It really sounds like the site is getting the sort of respect it thoroughly deserves.

Sep 17, 2011

Climate change induced, just about everything nasty.



After a while it becomes difficult to keep up with all of the frantic and hysterical hyperbole launched against us in relation to all of the terrible things that are going to happen to us if we fail to cut emissions by (insert whatever figure represents the current truth.) Most of us tend to tune them out like background noise after seeing so many extravagant claims come to nothing.


By about 10-20 years ago we were supposed to be inundated by hundreds of millions of climate change refugees. OK so that didn’t happen. Tim Flannery, climate guru, predicted that there would be constant drought here forever. All of our cities were going to run out of water. Greens leader Bob Brown came to his rescue over the recent floods that were never going to happen by blaming them on coal miners.

Today’s Australian exposes the increasing tendency to link all things bad, to global warming:
This script is not used simply by environmentalists insisting that we adopt a low-carbon lifestyle. Virtually any campaign on any issue can gain a hearing through adopting the tactic of linking their cause to that of raising concern about climate change. An example of joined-up scaremongering was provided by the Australian Climate Institute, which last month published a report, A Climate of Suffering.

A Climate of Suffering argues that climate change has a devastating effect on the mental health of Australians, particularly of children. The report suggests that catastrophic weather episodes are causing anxiety and insecurity for Australian children. As an illustration of this claim, it indicates that one in 10 primary school pupils exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress in the aftermath of Cyclone Larry in 2006. The transformation of climate change into a causal agent of childhood trauma is only one example of the numerous health, social and security problems blamed on global warming.

Joining up an alleged health problem with scare-mongering about the environment sometimes takes on an extravagant form. Take a "flesh-eating virus": scary enough in its own right. Then link it up with contemporary anxieties about climate change, and we get a headline like "Global warming 'spawns flesh-eating virus' in Britain."
The issue of childhood trauma has been dealt with here before, and is largely due to the indoctrination on GW by the education system, which uses them as hostages in the debate. Fifty years ago, cyclones happened, floods happened, as did bushfires and droughts. They are part of life and you dealt with it, even if you were a kid you accepted that. Back then though, we were not nannied to today’s extent.

The histrionics adopted in the anti carbon agenda may have exacerbated the effect of the flooding. Flannery’s prediction of endless drought probably had some impact on the decision, not to release water from the major dams above Brisbane for flood mitigation purposes, resulting in emergency releases of water into the flood peak.

In the case of the Lockyer Valley flooding, warnings from residents of huge rainfall were ignored by the Weather Bureau who were relying on the most modern, up to date modeling available. The locals were after all, were depending on primitive technology like rain gauges for their readings.

Update: Angry Exile has left a comment referring to a list of things that zealots have blamed on global warming. John Brignell has done a great job in compiling it in alphabetical order with an incredible number of entries, many of these claims contradicting each other. It looked like a ‘piss take’ at first, but every item is linked to an article claiming just that.

It is part of the ‘Number Watch’ site, which if you visit it, be sure to read “March of the zealots.”

Protecting cropping land from mining, and farmers.

Cartoon: By Leahy.

The Bligh government has responded to concerns of farmers about the intrusion of mining into prime agricultural land. They have just released a Draft State Planning Policy for Strategic Cropping Land, which is open for consultation. Southern Downs Mayor Ron Bellingham has warned the community to take a good hard look at it.

In the fine print it becomes clear that miners are not the only industry being kept under tight control there. It limits what farmers themselves can do on their own property:

“We applaud the intent of this new policy to protect our best agricultural land from heavy industry like mining,” Cr Bellingham said. “However, when you look at the fine print, it has major implications for what producers themselves can do with their land and for Council’s planning schemes.” “It effectively removes local decision making for anything other than basic farming activities.”

“It effectively removes local decision making for anything other than basic farming activities.” The proposed policy applies to farming land only, not towns and urban areas, and restricts new buildings and developments, except in exempt categories. …

For example, you could build a winery, which is exempt, but if you wanted to have a restaurant or craft outlet associated with that winery it would not be allowed. You also can’t add a few cabins to an existing farm to supplement income, for instance. While animal keeping is allowed, this essentially only applies where no new buildings need to be built. So feedlots and free range pig or chook farms would be OK; poultry sheds and piggeries would not.

The policy could also have major impacts in the Granite Belt, with new sheds associated with a rural industry allowed, but only if they are less than 750m2 in floor space, the Mayor said. “That’s a very small shed in the orchard or horticulture industry,” Cr Bellingham said. “A number of producers have packing sheds over 4,000 square meters in size. ...
The Greens have ‘allied’ themselves with farmers in relation to this matter, so there are few prizes for guessing that they have had some input into this draught. The government has done the usual thing, in presenting a ‘solution’ to the concerns of the rural community while indulging in a power grab.

In the process they are ingratiating themselves to their Green allies in imposing the rather dour outlook of Bob Brown onto the future of farming in the area.

Herman Cain’s economic plan.


Presidential candidate Herman Cain has been talking for some time about his vision for tax reform and encouraging investment. The creation of private sector jobs is one of the keys to recovery; public sector ones or those propped up by government spending actually create a greater burden on the economy. This is his plan:


This is the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression. If the Obama administration's aim was to merely tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, it would have created eight million more jobs, based on comparative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era, as former Sen. Phil Gramm reported in April, we would have 14 million more jobs today.

"Cain's Vision for Economic Growth," also known as the 9-9-9 Plan, is founded upon three guiding economic principles: Production drives the economy. Risk-taking creates growth. Units of measurement must be dependable.

The plan begins with restructuring the tax code to include the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. The elements are:
A 9% corporate flat tax. Businesses would deduct purchases from other businesses and all capital investment. The resulting gross income is taxed at 9%.

A 9% personal flat tax. Individuals would deduct charitable contributions, then pay 9% on the rest of their income. Capital gains are excluded.

A 9% national sales tax. This levy would be placed on the consumption of all new goods. Used goods purchased would be excluded.
My plan would also permanently eliminate taxes on repatriated profits, as well as payroll taxes and the estate tax.

All of these measures would free up capital, spur production, and incentivize risk-taking, thereby fueling the economy and creating jobs. The plan has been designed to be revenue neutral initially, and then revenues would grow in line with the economy.

But these policies must be coupled with sound money. A dollar must be worth the same tomorrow as it is today. Stabilizing the dollar's value starts with the federal government taking significant measures to rein in its spending and pay down the national debt. Americans must be assured that the federal government will live within its means and get serious about eliminating our crippling debt. Repealing ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Dodd-Frank bank-regulation bill would be critical steps.

Finally, my plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as "empowerment zones." Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.

Each job lost today is not merely a statistic. Americans are struggling to determine whether to pay their mortgages or buy groceries, whether to buy school uniforms or pay the electric bill.
Such despair is unfitting for the greatest nation the world has ever known. After all, it is inherently American to work, to risk and to dream. Our government's policies should encourage that, not stifle it.

Mr. Cain, a Republican, is running for president of the United States. He is a former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a former chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.