Mar 29, 2014
By Viv Forbes, Chairman,
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that coal not candles should be the symbol of Earth Hour.
It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion and open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh.
Much of the third world still suffers choking fumes and smog because they do not have clean electric power and burn wood, cardboard, unwashed coal, rubber and cow dung for home heat.
It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters.
It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps.
It was coal that produced the steel that replaced shingles on the roof, timber props in the mines, wooden fence posts on the farms and the bark on the old bark hut.
In Australia today, coal provides at least 75% of our lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, rail transport and steel. Without it, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure.
Coal is fossil sunshine as clean as the green plants it came from, and less damaging to the environment than its green energy alternatives.
Earth Hour candles are green tokenism for rich applause-seekers and nostalgic dreamers.
We should spend Earth Hour saluting the real people who produce the coal on which most people on earth depend.
Mar 15, 2014
We have alluded to the Nathan Bedford Forrest style tactics of the left here before. Some time ago, Andrew Sullivan made the rather curious claim that if Virginia and Florida were to go to the Republicans, the Confederacy would be reborn and the South would rise again.
Over here we have similar tactics from the left with Labor’s demented assertions of a Liberal war on women and the recent Greens claim that Abbott was homophobic, racist, and every other buzz-word that will scare low information voters.
Here is Chris ‘Leg Thrill’ Mathews giving a bit of helpful advice on how to keep the public scared:
Many of us have known for a long time how statists spin the relatively innocuous positions of opponents into a worst-case scenario. Mathews is letting the cat out of the bag with his advice to exaggerate the positions of opponents and state the result as a fact. A sensible person engaging in such underhand activities, or advising on the tactic would normally keep it ‘in house’. Mathews though is no Einstein.
Given the failure of the Obama Presidency and the absurd disaster of Obama care, the left has little to hang its hat on as far as its record is concerned. As result, its shills and apologists have resorted once again to the aphorism of the old general, "Git 'em skeered and keep the skeer in 'em.”
Expect more of the same here.
Mar 14, 2014
The possibility of Rand Paul running for President in 2016 has been mooted ever since he won his senate spot. From hope, to speculation, to an item of faith, his name has been present in the calculations.
His request to be on the ballot in Kentucky twice and its approval seems to seal the deal:
The Courier-Journal reports that Kentucky Senate committee voted Wednesday to allow Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to place his name on the 2016 ballot twice, once for his reelection as a senator and once for president of the United States.
Paul made the request because Kentucky’s state law states that he would have to leave the Senate if he wanted his name on the Kentucky GOP presidential primary ballot. The Senate State & Local Government Committee voted 8-2, with the two nay votes being Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Damon Thayer said there would likely be a floor vote on the issue next week. GOP supporters said that the U.S. Constitution does not allow states to decide who can run in federal elections.
The original bill, written by Thayer, stated that anyone running for federal office could appear twice on a state ballot, but during the committee’s meeting, he changed the wording so that only a presidential or vice-presidential candidate could take advantage of the opportunity. Thayer noted that Sen. Morgan McGarvey, a Democrat from Louisville, voted for the bill; Thayer said, “It gives me a bipartisan bill.” …
One of the concerns about his standing for the top job has been the risk of losing his presence in politics, were he to lose in the race. This move goes close to ensuring he continues as a senator in that case.
Although popular, he is far from a shoe-in owing to disunity within the Republicans, some of whom can be expected to throw a hissy fit and stay home if their preferred nominee fails to get up.
There is also the problem of his being a one-term senator. Recent experience of the disastrous results from the last time a such a person was elected will still be front and centre during the election and may put people off voting for him.
Mar 10, 2014
There is some sweet revenge for gun enthusiasts for the draconian Howard gun laws, with the possibility of the Victorian government falling over one of its members falling foul of them. The Victorian government is barely hanging on by the skin of its teeth and cannot afford to lose a member.
Now one of its members has been charged with possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence.
The Coalition's hold on power in Victoria could be under threat after a National party MP was charged with firearms offences.
Mildura MP Peter Crisp is due to face court in May over a number of charges including the possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence.
He was charged after reporting the theft of three guns from his farm in New South Wales.If convicted, Mr Crisp would be ineligible to sit in Parliament, which would force a by-election and could threaten the Coalition's ability to govern. …
Mr Crisp says he has always held the appropriate NSW and Victorian licences and had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of his guns.
In fairness to MR. Crisp, he has not shot anyone, threatened anyone, robbed anyone other than taxpayers in his role as an MP, nor has he engaged in any other inappropriate activities with his guns. The ‘crime’ if it can be called that, is simply owning them.
This highlights the stupidity of making a criminal offense of ownership of an object without a requirement of proving any intent to commit a crime.
The Howard gun laws were implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre in which a schizophrenic gunman killed 35 people and wounded another 23. Despite the fact that out of the hundreds of people there, none other than the crazy guy was armed, the government took the view that fewer law abiding gun owners was a viable solution to criminals and the insane owning firearms.
Curiously, Howard is seen as one of our better PMs, which is probably an indication of the paucity of political talent in Australia.
There is little to cheer about however, as at this point it is unlikely that the only party with a rational view on gun ownership, the Liberal Democrats, will be able to take power there.
2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root has raised the issue of just how bad those poll numbers are for President Obama in his Fox News Column:
Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? They are among the lowest in history. As of today, Obama’s approval rating is at 38%. That’s just barely above Richard Nixon.
Keep in mind Obama has the support of about 35% to 40% of the population that will NEVER abandon him, no matter what he does, no matter how bad the jobs numbers look, no matter how low the economy goes, no matter how much scandal and corruption is exposed, no matter how strong the facts are against him. Nothing will ever change their minds. These are the “low information voters” of the Democratic Party.
So just think about that for a moment. Let those numbers sink in. If 35% to 40% of the population would support a Democrat for President if he ran from a prison cell…if 35% to 40% would support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how far America sinks under his leadership, how could Obama’s approval rating be at only 38%?
That means that among the rest of America, outside of loyal, lifelong, Kool-Aid drinking Democrats, Obama’s ratings are nil. Among non-partisan voters, he is the lowest-rated President in history. No numbers like this have ever been recorded, if you filter out the crazies.
Obama’s approval among “the Heartland of America” (non partisan middle class Americans) is lower than Nixon. Lower than W. Lower than Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. Lower than Jimmy Carter at the height of the Iranian hostage crisis, with the added burden of an economy in misery and malaise. …
… Remember that about 47% of Americans get entitlement checks from government. Obama is PAYING for their support and he still only has 38% approval. You know you’re unpopular when even bribes don’t work anymore!
This man has managed to pull off something remarkable and historical- he has alienated almost every single American who actually works for a living and pays taxes. He has virtually zero support among the 53% who aren’t getting a check from government. You can’t find another instance of that in the history of American politics.
Mar 1, 2014
With drought biting hard in much of Queensland and NSW, many farmers are attempting to improve water distribution on their properties in order to give starving stock access to larger areas of grazing. While this is happening, bureaucrats in the capital cities are fretting over whether this will threaten the environment:
As the government steps up its drought relief, there's concern a move by the federal environment department might actually make it harder for graziers to roll out emergency water infrastructure.
Millions of dollars have already been spent installing bores, pipes and troughs to keep starving stock alive and yesterday's federal package increased the government's contribution from half to 75 per cent.
Yet, the federal environment department is currently investigating whether the 'proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points' represents a threat to the environment.
It's a move that's incensed graziers and land managers who are questioning the department's decision to consider a nomination under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act.
Northern Gulf NRM chief executive officer Grant Fawcett- based in Georgetown, about 400 kilometres west of Cairns - says getting the balance between economic and environmental benefits should be left to land managers. …
… But graziers such as former Cattle Council president Greg Brown, who've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars improving waters on his property, 'Meadowbank', says it shows federal bureaucrats are out of touch and he hopes the review is ignored.
"I think it's a rather strange sort of assertion myself. I would have thought that additional water in country would actually enhance the survival of wildlife and biodiversity."
"Obviously people are entitled to establish watering points on their own property... it's entirely up to you with regard to putting watering points around the place and I have some doubts as to whether they're going to be consulting the federal department of environment.” …
The greatest single asset of most farmers and graziers is their land, which is what they rely on to provide the majority, if not all of their income. They would be cutting their own throats economically were they to damage its productivity by carrying out actions with poor environmental outcomes.
They also understand the land and its workings far better than the average big city bureaucrat even though they don’t work for a government department and are not trained to apply theoretical ideas to hypothetical situations using self-righteousness as a guide.