Folks, forgive this off-topic post but this is fresh news that needs to be spread far and wide. I received it from a very good source. Normally I would eschew such stuff as gossip however in this case I have a high degree of confidence in the source that provided the info.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father†entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen†and “Natural Born Citizen†using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask†in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen†provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
I’m highly sympathetic to those who wish to democratically un-elect Obama at the Nov 2012 presidential elections.
Obama is the most incompetent president since Carter, the most corrupt since Nixon. His presidency is a catastrophe. But he won the presidency fairly, Americans self-inflicted themselves with Obama fully aware of his relationships with American racial extremists and former homegrown terrorists and with his vague past. It was all out there and Obama still won. Americans were told about the controversy surrounding Obama’s legal status to run in 2008 and they didn’t care.
The Birther movement is a huge strategic error on the part of the far right, because it seeks to emulate the same anti-democratic techniques of the far left. There can be no winners in this battle and the biggest loser will be the American democracy itself.
Since the Bush election of 2000 the tendency to refer presidential election disputes to the unelected court system has been growing. It’s as an irreversible process, each step sets precedents in a downward spiral of disrespect for the election process. Those who wish to preserve the legitimacy of elections would do well to respect the will of the people as represented in the vote rather than to challenge it at every opportunity.
Today, the circa 46% of Americans who still support the president believe Obama is a rightful US citizen and they will never accept that he’s an illegal usurper to the American presidency. Obama has a birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii. The constitutional argument over the definition of what a “natural citizen” meant in 1776 seems academic and disingenuous to them.
The Americans who support the Birther movement need to ask themselves what do they possibly hope to achieve by dividing the nation into two fiercely adversarial camps with no democratic avenue to solve their dispute? That’s the real issue.
Are things really so bad in America that starting what will amount to a civil war and permanently damaging the rule of constitutional law is worth ousting Obama outside the democratic process? Because that’s exactly what the practical results of the Birther movement would be if they’re successful.
What if the lawsuit in Georgia is successful? What if other deeply conservative states also cast Obama off the ballot? Say, a dozen states in the deep south follow suit. Then all the blue states up north will confirm he is on the ballot.
Then it goes to the supreme court which will decide in favour of Obama not because that’s the academically correct legal interpretation but because the supreme court will see it as a practical matter….either strike Obama from the ballot in November and start a civil war destroying the republic or strike down the minority extremists who challenge Obama’s legitimacy and muddle through the election with the republic preserved…
If Americans really love their country and their constitution and wish to preserve it into the future they won’t set a divisive precedent which will be used against America in every coming election cycle.
I’m highly sympathetic to those who wish to democratically un-elect Obama at the Nov 2012 presidential elections.
Obama is the most incompetent president since Carter, the most corrupt since Nixon. His presidency is a catastrophe. But he won the presidency fairly, Americans self-inflicted themselves with Obama fully aware of his relationships with American racial extremists and former homegrown terrorists and with his vague past. It was all out there and Obama still won. Americans were told about the controversy surrounding Obama’s legal status to run in 2008 and they didn’t care.
All well and good wes — except for one thing: The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
If a majority of the population want to change the constitution, they can (and have) — through the process specified in the Constitution itself. However, until they do that, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the USA is to remain a nation ruled by law, then a majority of the population cannot legally elect a Constitutionally ineligible candidate to office.
It is unlikely that state court decisions will force Obama to step down, but if enough states remove him from the 2012 ballot, the Democratic party will have no choice but to nominate someone else, as Obama would surely lose.
This, even, might not stop the court cases, and if the Supreme Court ever rules that Obama was ineligible for office it could invalidate all the laws he signed.
The Birther movement is a huge strategic error on the part of the far right, because it seeks to emulate the same anti-democratic techniques of the far left.
I’ve yet to see anyone on the far left argue for a strict adherence to the Constitution (or the Rule of Law in general), so I think your comparison is wrong.
For the last 3 years, I feel we’ve been living a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale — and the little boy has just shouted “But, he has no clothes!”.
All good points, Bob C, but don’t confuse your terms. A constitutional republic is a subset of possible forms of democracy, so the USA actually is a democracy.
I agree that if Obama isn’t a US “natural born” citizen then he was ineligible for the office he holds. But even if the Birthers come up with Obama’s Kenyan passport it isn’t going to convince half the country. All they have to do is claim it’s a fraud. Heck, conspiracy sells like hotcakes nowadays.
Even the birthers seem to have given up on the false birth certificate claim and now are relying on an “originalist” interpretation of the constitutional meaning of “natural born” in 1776. But that’s not going to fly with Obama supporters, since the original interpretation of the Constitution also allowed slavery to continue for almost a century.
I’m not arguing how the Constitution should be interpreted. I’m saying that if you really cared about preserving The Republic and the constitution values of respecting the will of the people as expressed in free and fair elections you’d give this one up. Because Obama has been president for 3 years and the US is coming up to its most contentious election since 1968, this is no longer an academic question for constitutional scholars, but one of realpolitik.
It is unlikely that state court decisions will force Obama to step down, but if enough states remove him from the 2012 ballot, the Democratic party will have no choice but to nominate someone else, as Obama would surely lose.
No, what would happen is that the US would be thrown into the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War and a whole bunch of people would die fighting in the streets. The fabric of civil society would be rip asunder and who knows what lies just beneath? You really want to find out?
The end result is that everyone loses, even whoever wins loses. The American union emerging would be crippled. Only Obama’s “spiritual advisor” would be pleased. “God damn, God damn America.”
Fortunately, I trust cooler heads will prevail and this won’t rise to crisis proportions.
In the meanwhile, shouldn’t you guys be focusing 110% on how to win an election rather than how to avoid one?
My post vanished into the aether. I repost it here:
wes george
January 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm
All good points, Bob C, but don’t confuse your terms. A constitutional republic is a subset of possible forms of democracy, so the USA actually is a democracy.
It’s a limited democracy, in which the will of the people (as expressed in elections) is subservient to the Constitution. The Founders were rightfully suspect of pure democracies, such as Athens, because they all too often turn into tyranny (as Athens did). Their goal was to maximize individual liberty under a practical government — a goal not compatible with pure democracy, which often becomes a “tyranny of the majority”.
Therefore, the position that Obama is effectively (despite the Constitution) a legal president only because he was elected is in conflict with the basic principle of the Rule of Law and the Founder’s desire for the protection of liberty. For him to be legally President he must both be elected and be legally eligible. That’s what this court case is attempting to address.
Even the birthers seem to have given up on the false birth certificate claim
No, what would happen is that the US would be thrown into the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War and a whole bunch of people would die fighting in the streets. The fabric of civil society would be rip asunder and who knows what lies just beneath? You really want to find out?
I’m guessing you don’t live in the US. (If I’m wrong, forgive me — but what part do you live in?) Just because a lot of US citizens are armed doesn’t mean that we aren’t dedicated to the Rule of Law. In fact, the ones who are armed are generally the most dedicated to the Rule of Law (despite the spin outsiders try to put on it) — just compare the videos of Tea Party rallies (certainly a subgroup that is more highly armed than average) with the Occupy Whatever (a group with a higher than average percentage of gun control proponents).
Bob…we are starting to talk past each other. Your last post doesn’t address my main point.
Let me put it to you again and I’ll hope for a more direct reply:
If the Truthers are successful in striking Obama off the ballot in conservative states that will cause a cascading failure of the democratic process resulting in a constitutional crisis which will divided the American nation into two fiercely hostile camps with no electoral process available to solve their differences. So the decision of who will be the next American president will devolve to the unelected supreme court. (It’s a bit like the Roman Senate’s willingness to appoint dictatorships in times of trouble, which eventually led to the end of the Roman Republic.)
Do you think that’s an unreasonable view?
If the decision were to go against Obama, you and I know that would mean something akin to civil war and it would so divide the union that it’s possible that there might never again be a Presidential election which would pass unchallenged in the streets and the courts again.
If you disagree with that statement, please explain why?
The challenge Obama’s legitimacy – no matter how noble the constitutional cause that motives it – is a recipe for the destruction of fabric which holds America together.
If you really want to serve the intention of the constitution, “the basic principle of Rule of Law” and preserve the Union you simply wouldn’t risk it all over what you can never prove to the satisfaction of about half the American people–that Obama is a Kenyan or Indonesian usurper. Or at least that’s how they’ll see it…No matter how powerful your evidence, they’ll simply put it off as a racist conspiracy to destroy the first black American president.
Few are going to respect the parsing of constitutional details at this late date over the realpolitik facts.
They’ll simply see through your arguments as disingenuous. I’ve already pointed out that the original version of the Constitution lived fine for a hundred years with the cognitive dissonance of slavery, so appeals to “the basic principle of the Rule of Law and the Founder’s desire for the protection of liberty” misrepresents the diversity of interpretations are possible within the Constitution… You’re talking about submerging a whole nation into civil war in order to avoid an election on a legal point that can easily be argued either way.
Again I am not arguing the constitutional merits of the court challenges but that the political reality has eclipsed any possibility of Obama stepping down as president peacefully.
Please don’t hand wave off the suggestion that striking Obama off the ballot would result in the worse civil unrest in the US since the Civil War. How do you morally and ethically justify taking such a risk?
And finally…. It’s widely assumed that cooler heads will prevail and the Birther court contests will go nowhere. So the end result is more likely just a political campaign to make known to a wider public the issues surrounding Obama’s legitimacy.
If this is so, I think the project will backfire. Why?
Because the Birther campaign is only going get court hearings in hugely conservative states that are lost to Obama anyway, so no converts made there will help win the election since it’s the electoral college vote count that matters. Georgia, for instance, is already going to fall against Obama. If the Birthers convince 99% of Georgians to vote against Obama it doesn’t matter in the end.
But, Birther court cases might generate national media attention and thereby help electrify Obama supporters to turn out for the vote in marginal states…. Note to Aussies: Americans don’t have to turn up to vote, so when a candidate like Obama is a lack-luster loser his political base, who in spirit still support his worldview, often aren’t fired up enough to turn out for the ballot…. To Obama supporters who have cooled on him, Birtherism is nothing but a racist conspiracy to foul their man, thus a powerfully motivational call to turn up for Obama in greater numbers nationally.
Obama can lose the popular vote and still win the election on the electoral college vote. If the Birthers inspire higher Obama voter turn out in marginal or blue states then the fact that Birthers are successful in the deep south is worse than meaningless.
Bob C are you worried that Birtherism might do real political damage by inspiring more outrage among otherwise listless Obama supporters than converts in the critical blue-leaning states?
If the Truthers [I think you must have meant “Birthers”] are successful in striking Obama off the ballot in conservative states that will cause a cascading failure of the democratic process resulting in a constitutional crisis which will divided the American nation into two fiercely hostile camps…
IMO, ignoring or winking at a clear violation of the Constitution is more likely to have such a cascading failure effect. It’s the “camel’s nose under the tent” idea — once such a precedent is begun, where does it end? Eventually, we would have a Constitution about as meaningful as the old USSR’s.
…with no electoral process available to solve their differences. So the decision of who will be the next American president will devolve to the unelected supreme court.
Do you think that’s an unreasonable view?
You are simply mistaken here. Your view is not unreasonable, it’s just not informed by American law. There is, in law, a clear line of Presidental Succession that goes through 18 people. In the fantastically unlikely event that none of those 18 people could serve or were eligible, then we would have somewhat of a crisis. Probably Congress would pick someone (since the Constitution charges it with providing for succession law) and a special election would be held ASAP.
If the decision were to go against Obama, you and I know that would mean something akin to civil war…
A civil war would have to have a goal and a leader. The only conceivable goal would be to re-install Obama as dictator and he would have to be the leader. There is essentially zero chance that this could gain enough traction to be the cause of more than some riots.
…and it would so divide the union that it’s possible that there might never again be a Presidential election which would pass unchallenged in the streets and the courts again.
And what would be the problem with challenges? Did you not notice the rather extreme charges hurled at G.W.Bush? Perhaps you don’t remember Al Gore’s challenge of the 2000 election? The ACLU has been trying to put Bush officials in prison for the last 3 years. This is why we have a court system.
How do you morally and ethically justify taking such a risk?
If this were the way Americans thought, wes, we’d still be part of the British Empire.
As to whether this might backfire and result in Obama’s re-election — of course it might. In that case, Obama would be president for the next four years, unless the birthers prevailed at the Supreme Court. It’s not likely they would drop it.
Some other of your points:
I’ve already pointed out that the original version of the Constitution lived fine for a hundred years with the cognitive dissonance of slavery, so appeals to “the basic principle of the Rule of Law and the Founder’s desire for the protection of liberty” misrepresents the diversity of interpretations are possible within the Constitution
It’s not a matter of interpretation: The original Constitution allowed slavery. It was a necessary compromise to form a union against England. ( Here is a description of the negotiations that transpired.) Since the passage and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, slavery has been explicitly outlawed — no interpretation required.
No matter how powerful your evidence, they’ll simply put it off as a racist conspiracy to destroy the first black American president.
Heck, that’s what his supporters say about any criticism. They have done the nation a favor by finally destroying the effectiveness of the “race card” — nobody cares anymore.
The challenge Obama’s legitimacy – no matter how noble the constitutional cause that motives it – is a recipe for the destruction of fabric which holds America together.
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of America. All public officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Every member of the armed forces swears an oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic”.
It is belief in the Constitution that is the fabric holding America together.
A constitutional republic is a subset of possible forms of democracy, so the USA actually is a democracy.
A constitutional Republic is not a subset of possible forms of democracy. Therefore, with all respect for one of my favorite people on the site, your conclusion that the USA is a democracy is false.
The word democracy is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States but is found in the Federalist Papers.
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”.
God help us all if Obama is reelected!
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10
In my humble opinion, any president who is willing to destroy the economies of the world to decrease a potential catastrophic warming by a few tenths of a degree is incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous.
I know where you guys are coming from with this “America ain’t a democracy, it’s a republic” trip. You don’t want to confuse constitutional republicanism with spirit finger “democracy” as practiced by the OWS moonbats. Right? Fair enough. 🙂
The word “Democracy” doesn’t appear in the Constitution and the French Revolution was fought for “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” not democracy.
Plato used the example of the Spartan forum one day sending their army into battle and then very next day recalling them home. Plato argued if it was moral to send them to war one day, why would it be not be so the following day? There must be higher rules to judge how men should organise their affairs rather then on the shifting emotions of public opinion.
Today we watch America send its troops into just wars one year only to recall them a few years later without conclusion because a new President and Congress decide the war is no longer justified.
This is where the term Demagogue comes from, a leader who plays to popular fears and prejudices rather than reason will inevitable rise in a democracy, just like Obama, George Wallace, William Jennings Bryan and even Ron Paul did…
Ol ‘Abe described the Union as “Government by the people for the people” at Gettysburg.
The US is definitely a variety of representative democracy, no matter what the latest politically correct fashion is.
Since you guys want to go all classical on my ass. We should recall that that the Romans called their form of Democracy a Republic simply because Athenian-style pure democracy had such a bad rap with Aristotle and Plato. But we all know that the Roman Republic led to dictatorship so might have a bit of pause that the New American Right are so eager to declare the US is NOT a democracy.
We would do well to remember that Plato’s “Republic” was a favourite of Nazi and commies because it envisions communal property, abolition of the family unit and religion, but the line the authors of the Constitution seem to have picked up on (perhaps by way of Francis Hutchison) was the “pursuit of happiness” as a central theme of good governance.
The founding fathers also liked Plato’s ideas about a natural oligarchy with diverse interests interacting to allow the best and brightest to rise to the top. That’s how Washington and his buds saw themselves.
Let’s footnote the Jews, Moslems and Christians in here too, because they were also reading Aristotle and Plato’s Republic. Their solution to find a moral authority to good government was divine revelation combined with an extremely limited democracy among their religious oligarchies. Religion is a constant tune in the background of the founding of the US.
Obviously, the original Roman Republic was based upon moderation by diverse but harmonious power sources as inspired by Plato’s Republic.
Much later Machiavelli was the first guy to defy Plato’s idea of political harmony…. Good governance is the result of conflicting interests rather than harmonies of oligarchies growing lazy and fat… He saw in the Roman Republic that people were free and free people will fight each other and they’ll fight for their nation better than serfs.
This was emulated in the US constitution by dividing the branches of government into three parts, two subject to the whims of democratic forces and the Judiciary by appointment only. The philosophical idea is that – unlike in consensus – the most rational ideas will survive the clash of conflicting argument. Kind of like a memetic natural selection process. But all this great clash of institution is only justified because of “the consent of the governed.” Of course, only members of the oligarchy originally had the right to vote. This democratic “consent of the govern” is the ONLY Great Moral Force which can substitute for Christian revelation, according the Enlightenment philosophers.
This feeds into the whole idea that rhetoric and argument is the way to find the most rational course of action rather than consensus and harmony. Logic and dialog become the most important theme of the Renaissance and here in the 14 th century is where Western Civilisation takes off and leave the rest of the world in the dust, because the idea of rational discourse and logical debate never captures the imagination of the world east of Italy and they fall further and further behind technologically and culturally thereafter. Some Scholars have argued that this was because the Ottoman world was multi-cultural, Jews, several brands of Muslims and dozens of Christian sects, not to mention Zoroasterians, etc. all lived peaceable side by side as long as no one dissed the Sultan everyone was happy. But Europe was all Judeo/Christian so diversity of opinion was forced into open rhetorical debate with each other to fight for its existence in a much narrower spectrum of tolerance. Of course this led to religious civil wars and Hobbes realised that a new philosophy of governance had be developed at the lowest common dominator. We could get into the Concilatory movement, etc. But I digress.
Locke is considered the philosopher who most influenced the Founding Fathers. Hobbes had reasoned revolution was always tragic, but Locke said that people are reasonable individuals and if the government is unjust then at some point a revolution can be just. Locke assumes optimistically that just revolution will lead to just governance. Connect Locke’s reasonable revolutionaries with consent of the governed replacing Christian Revelation plus Machiavelli’s idea of conflicting power base and you got yourself 1776 in New England.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
It’s disingenuous to pretend that anyone other than OWS is using the word democracy in the Enlightenment era sense of Athenian direct democracy in the year 2012. After all if you actually spelled out what the Athenians meant by democracy any modern person would instantly recognise citizens acting directly in a forum as judges, adminstrators, tax accessors and war planners is not what the word implies in common usage today.
What you guys are up to is creating a secret Libertarian club handshake to exclude anyone not in on the lingo, right? 😉
I’ve read the Federalist paper and the lot of Enlightenment era philosophy and am well aware of the critiques of classical democracy as well as the fact that the founding father were in no way wished to extend franchise to anyone but white landowners. So in that sense they were not democrats, it’s true. They unleashed the revolution then a decade later with cooler heads leashed the democratic demons they had set loose with the constitution. That’s the great tension in the founding of the US. The initial tea party direct action toward democracy and the later constitutionalism, which highly limited exactly how far the oligarchy was going to let this democracy thing roll. That was a good thing.
But they created a way for their political pragmatism to be modified by future generations to better conform with their fondest idealism, if it ever became possible.
So while it’s true they weren’t interested in extending to vote to men without property or women nor extend their ideals of liberty to include indentured servants, the slaves or Indians, if you read the personal musings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, et al, they recognised the cognitive dissonances in the Constitution with regards to the Declaration of Independence and the Enlightenment philosophers which inspired them, especially the Scots, David Hume, Francis Hutchison (pursuit of Happiness) and Adam Smith.
By 1800, when Thomas Jefferson wrote “We are all Democrats now!” the swing of the pendulum was already moving away from the strict oligarchical constitutionalism of the 1780’s to what is called Jacksonian Democracy of the 1820s-60 which extended the franchise to the poor. This widening of the franchise in America spread to England with the great reforms acts of the 19th century culminating with women get the vote just after WWI.
And it’s not too far of a stretch to imagine that if you could go back in time and have a beer with founding fathers, talk future history, they would have been pleased to hear of an “utopian” future America where the Constitution had been amended to include all those things. In fact, that’s why the Constitution was amended to free the slaves and eventually to extend the vote to all citizens, because it’s easy enough to read into the philosophy expressed in the bill of rights and the Constitutions that these things are implied!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
So why don’t you guys explain to me again, this time slowly so I’ll understand, why Obama should be throw out of office without the moral authority of referral to the “consent of the governed.”
What you guys are up to is creating a secret Libertarian club handshake to exclude anyone not in on the lingo, right? 🙂
Ha, ha! (Eddy! Call the Enforcers!)
Really, real tour de force there, wes. I applaud your extensive knowledge of the American Revolution.
So why don’t you guys explain to me again, this time slowly so I’ll understand, why Obama should be throw out of office without the moral authority of referral to the “consent of the governed.”
I think you already explained it yourself:
Plato used the example of the Spartan forum one day sending their army into battle and then very next day recalling them home. Plato argued if it was moral to send them to war one day, why would it be not be so the following day? There must be higher rules to judge how men should organise their affairs rather then on the shifting emotions of public opinion.
The moral authority of the “consent of the governed” resides in the Constitution, not one particular election. The Constitution can (and has) been changed by the consent of the governed, but it is (on purpose) a long and involved process.
To cast aside the Constitution based on a single election (Obama’s) would fly in the face of the entire design of America’s government. This is not a likely way to ensure the continuation of the American experiment in freedom.
So why don’t you guys explain to me again, this time slowly so I’ll understand, why Obama should be throw out of office without the moral authority of referral to the “consent of the governed.”
If the electorate were deceived about O’s eligibility do you think they all would vote for him again?
Further, our laws PROTECT minority opinion. It isn’t always “majority rule” or more correctly laws based on democracy. It is laws based on the Constitutional test. All of them MUST be Constitutional. If one wants to argue that “natural born” should no longer be a valid Constitutional requirement for a Presidential candidate, then there is a process to change that. As it stands there IS such a requirement and permitting the continued disregard for such an egregious violation (if true) is extremely upsetting for a very significant number of “governed”.
People might want to “brush this under the carpet” because that is easier. You may be right that the matter could be a tactical error if only Right-sided. However I gather, from talking to many people, that it isn’t solely a right left issue here. It is a matter of profound principle. Only the far left would be willing to ignore the matter of principle in favor of political advantage.
It boggles my mind to imagine what becomes of legislation passed by his hand if it turns out he is not legitimate.
On the matter of our form of government we are a “Federal Constitutional Republic” No doubt there are interests that would love to see it changed (neutered) to a pure Democracy form. It is much easier to get a mass of people worked up than it is to deal with the fact that legislation must pass a constitutional test.
You might also need to be reminded that considerable time was spent by the founders in giving States Rights and moving the democratic processes closer to the governed. The founders understood what might happen if too much authority was placed in the Federal body. This of course has been usurped and abused continually by Congress ever since but that is a matter for another thread.
If the electorate were deceived about O’s eligibility do you think they all would vote for him again?
The Birther claims were well known before the election of 2008, the electorate frankly didn’t give a damn. Nor did they care that some of his best mates were ex-terrorists turned academics or that his spiritual advisor was racial hate preacher who believed AIDS was a government plot to exterminate blacks. Nor did they care that Obama’s dad was a communist. Or that his wife said she had never been proud of America in her whole life, that is, until Obama was nominated. Or that Obama’s plan was to “spread the wealth around,”….Etc. Etc.
So, no, if you found Obama’s Kenyan passport tomorrow that wouldn’t convince about 48% of the American population of anything other than some “vast right-wing conspiracy” was afoot.
To cast aside the Constitution based on a single election (Obama’s) would fly in the face of the entire design of America’s government. This is not a likely way to ensure the continuation of the American experiment in freedom.
If the Republicans had half a chance to win, the political expediency of resorting to a legalistic tactic to avoid an election at the cost of polarising the country for a generation and perhaps even sparking a civil war wouldn’t appeal to anyone but Charles Manson.
I wonder if Paul Ryan or Chris Christie we’re leading the primary race, if they wouldn’t be ahead in the national polls against Obama by a wide margin? And we would be having an “USA is not a Democracy” debate.
The great Irony here is that if the US was just a little bit more directly democratic then there would still be a good chance to defeat Obama at the polls in November.
But, alas, thanks to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans would like to show Obama the door.
All that matters is what the 270 electors say and recent counts put about 240 of them squarely on side with Obama, so he only has to swing onside another 30. Republican only have about 102 reliable electors from 13 states, so they have convince 168 electors to come over to their side, but this is highly improbably since there simply aren’t that many swing states up for grabs.
This is the horrible secret about the 2012 election.
Obama has almost no chance of losing no matter how badly he performs. But he won’t perform badly because he already has close to a BILLION DOLLARS to spend on the election. And since he only has to win another 30 electors over, he can concentrate all that fire power on very precise targets. The Republicans not only have less cash to spend they face the mainstream media bias headwind and they have to fight every battle in almost every state with all they have. They’ll be spread too thin.
No wonder some would rather not have an election at all!
Ironically, if the Republican candidate performs well it’s very possible he might win the popular election.
You worry too much, wes. You should quit thinking so hard all the time, kick back and have a couple of beers. 🙂
First: No Republican candidate will touch the Birther issue with a 1000 foot pole. They will all genteelly pretend that it’s just an issue among the fringe groups. They will run against Obama’s record, which is a target-rich environment. In the meantime, the Birther issue will move steadly closer to the mainstream and will eat away at Obama’s support among independents. (The little boy has just called out “But he has no clothes!”. People are starting to notice and it will snowball. Hans Christian Andersen knew something about Human nature.)
Second: About Obama’s background. Most whites who voted for Obama did so, in part, because it made them feel virtuous. Many of them (especially independents) now feel betrayed by the explicitly racist nature of his regime, his divisiveness, and his incompetence. There is a bumper sticker which says, “You voted for Obama to prove you weren’t racist — now you need to vote for someone to prove you aren’t insane”.
Most blacks voted for Obama out of pride, and many (but not all) will vote for him again — but blacks cannot carry the day without significant help from other minorities and whites (especially the Independents), which Obama is losing fast.
BTY: Most of the competent black politicians are in the Republican party. When one of them runs for President, expect to see a tidal wave of raw racism from the Left: The Left’s only interest in Obama is his radical politics — they used his race to slip him in without scrutiny. They used the “race card” (calling people racist) to deflect criticism. That tactic has been overused and isn’t working anymore.
And — what do you mean by:
…the political expediency of resorting to a legalistic tactic to avoid an election…
The Presidential election would take place regardless of what the outcomes of the Birther lawsuits were. If the Supreme Court ruled Obama ineligible after he was re-elected, then the vice president would take over as president. If a number of states remove him from the ballot before the election, the Democrats would run someone else.
And as for:
…polarising the country for a generation and perhaps even sparking a civil war…
Maybe even have a glass of wine, wes 🙂 Did you see the Left pausing for even a second before using a “legalistic tactic” to force Nixon out? Did we have a civil war? (In fact, as the pressure on Nixon built, former Army general and Secretary of State Alexander Haig had a secret meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon where they decided to meet for discussion before acting on any “strange” orders from Nixon. The military are sworn to defend the Constitution, and they take it seriously.)
The most likely result of Obama’s losing, either electorially (likely) or in court (a long shot) would be to initiate a “gold rush” of black candidates for President and other offices. In fact, this is getting set to happen even if Obama wins another term. There are a lot of very impressive black politicians out there (mostly Republicans) and the country would be more than ready to promote a competent black to high office. Their numbers increased in 2010, with all the black candidates who ran for state houses and Congress with Tea Party support — one of the (many) reasons that the Left really hates the Tea Party.
Oh sure — the Left would scream and yell and call for revolution and civil war — but they have been doing that since the 1960’s. Nothing much will come of it.
The military and the great majority of the population will support the Constitution. I know that sounds fantastic to non-Americans, but it’s the way we are.
Wes, I don’t follow how insisting on lawfulness begets democratic chaos? I believe just the opposite that permitting someone to hold a high office that they were ineligible to attain will provoke lawlessness and chaos.
Other than that I fully agree with your observation that Obama is the least competent since Carter.
I know where you guys are coming from with this “America ain’t a democracy, it’s a republic” trip. You don’t want to confuse constitutional republicanism with spirit finger “democracy” as practiced by the OWS moonbats. Right? Fair enough. 😉
Although I never said it you read my mind. So far so good. 😉
The word “Democracy” doesn’t appear in the Constitution and the French Revolution was fought for “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” not democracy.
True, the word “democracy” does not appears in the US Constitution. None of the subsequent forms of government after the french revolution were a democracy. They were either a constitutional monarchy or a republic.
Plato used the example of the Spartan forum one day sending their army into battle and then very next day recalling them home. Plato argued if it was moral to send them to war one day, why would it be not be so the following day? There must be higher rules to judge how men should organise their affairs rather then on the shifting emotions of public opinion.
Today we watch America send its troops into just wars one year only to recall them a few years later without conclusion because a new President and Congress decide the war is no longer justified.
Circular reasoning, bad analogy, sweeping generalization.
Sparta was an oligarchy with two kings and some elements of a republic (gerousia, apella). America is a Constitutional Republic. They are two different forms of government. The fact that the Spartan Government, in Plato’s opinion, made a bad decision on when to start or end a war doesn’t mean that another governments decision to start or end a war is right or wrong. Plato’s opinion is not an infallible statement.
This is where the term Demagogue comes from…
Non sequitur, as it is based on the previous bad analogy
dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/
Noun:
A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
(in ancient Greece and Rome) A leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
A demagogue in ancient Greece was not the same as a demagogue today. You have employed a fallacy known as equivocation.
a leader who plays to popular fears and prejudices rather than reason will inevitable rise in a democracy, just like Obama, George Wallace, William Jennings Bryan and even Ron Paul did…
Often true but not always so. William Jennings Bryan was a congressman and a secretary of state, but despite three attempts never became president. Howard Dean (Yeee Haaaaa) couldn’t even win the nomination. Dean is still a demagogue but nobody pays much attention to him.
The remainder of your comments were a commentary on history, none of which changes the fact that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
Your original statement regarding a “subset of democracy” is just as false as the first time you wrote it. Your comments on history, although intriguing and thought provoking, doesn’t change the facts.
Your last question I don’t believe applies to me as it is premised on a statement I never made.
I should like to formally concede near absolute defeat on this point and while I briefly considered seppuku, I have instead opted to sue for terms of surrender since my cheese knife is dull.
* * *
Obviously the USA is a kind of extremely highly limited democracy where the citizens are only asked what they think about 2 people once every 1460 days, the other 1459 days the vast machine of constitutional government rolls on crushing everything in its path, therefore I concede the USA is primarily a constitutional republic of laws and bureaucracy. (Eddie: Don’t even try to pretend I don’t know congressional elections happen every 730 days.)
Normally – internationally speaking – the finer details of the various subtle gradations of democratic systems are overshadowed by the critical distinction between government by consent and the various kinds of authoritarianism which prevail globally. However, I concede that in domestic American affairs “democracy” is too blunt an instrument to dissect the specimen.
The Eskimos have 47 words for snow. I accept that you guys are debating at an intellectual depth that simply won’t cotton broad shorthands like “Australia is a democracy”, but demand a much more refined parsing of definitions…. I concur that particularly in the current US political situation this is a useful attitude and I’ll adopt the paradigm accordingly going forward.
Consider your lesson well taught.
Don’t mistake my skeptical approach as support for the forces that are arrayed against human freedom. Or that I am in need of conversion. I’m deeply committed to the same causes you are and believe that rational debate is how we exchange ideas and become stronger, move closer to the truth.
That said I’m not satisfied that ya’ll have answered to my points about the Birther Movement so I’ll return to that issue tomorrow morning armed with a newly sharpened cheese knife.
I’d like you to consider my arguments from a pragmatic realpolitik position rather than an idealistic or legalistic point of view, which we have now covered in depth and I conceded your constitutional arguments are sound, even if the evidence is still under question.
Consider that the goal is to unseat Obama if possible and if not preserve the peace and the union in the best health possible over the next four years. It might be helpful to keep in mind that if Obama does win the next election, all is not lost because the Republicans are likely to control both houses, which of course means total deadlock.
And deadlock might well be the best outcome possible.
Wes, A malted whiskey is a least a quick and enjoyable way to go! 😉 Me? I can’t buy the world’s (IMHO) greatest beer, Pliny the Elder, and have to settle for less! And dear God knows that I mean no offense to the great people of the Lone Star State!
NUMBER: 1593
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
(Eddie: Don’t even try to pretend I don’t know congressional elections happen every 730 days.)
Actually, Wes, if you will…. JUST KIDDING! 😉
So, these unthreaded wekends are nice! Is it my diseased imagination or are the trolls taking the weekend off? I kind of feel lonely without them. I feel like the maytag repair man, nothing broken to fix or in ned of repair! 😉
I always enjoy reading your comments, as well as Bob C’s.
Ah ha! that explains the brilliant thinking. 🙂 Highland, lowland, islay or speyside?
I should like to formally concede near absolute defeat on this point
If you don’t mind I’ll print this out and frame it. Might look good on my office wall. Autographed would be even better.
and while I briefly considered seppuku,
That would be a terrible loss if for no other reason that any American reading your posts would have, by doing so, a better education about our history than the one they got in the public school system.
I have instead opted to sue for terms of surrender
I don’t know about Eddy or Bob but other than the autographed concession above, I’d be happy with gold bullion (any quantity)
since my cheese knife is dull
I’m sorry, there is no excuse for this. It does make me wonder what you Ozzies make your cheese out of…….
wes george
February 1, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Mark, Eddie and Bob,
I went for a single malt whisky instead.
Excellent choice! When talking to Americans, it helps to remember this basic rule: Americans really are crazy — why else would a rag-tag group of farmers have taken on the world’s superpower (in 1776)?
(The motto on the auto licence plates in Massachusetts — not known for being a hot bed of right-wingers — is “Live free or die!”)
Obviously the USA is a kind of extremely highly limited democracy where the citizens are only asked what they think about 2 people once every 1460 days, the other 1459 days the vast machine of constitutional government rolls on crushing everything in its path…
Never thought of it that way before, but it’s a pretty good description. (Just remember that the campaign takes up about 700 days of that 1460, so it’s on our minds a lot.)
It’s kind of like steering a large boat, or flying an airplane through turbulence — you don’t want to move the controls around a lot when you can’t tell what they’re doing, so you set them where you think they should be and wait until you can tell what is happening before applying a correction.
Also, I think that politics at the state and local level are much more important in America than most other democratic countries. This gives us choices, and a reason to keep the Federal government hobbled.
It might be helpful to keep in mind that if Obama does win the next election, all is not lost because the Republicans are likely to control both houses, which of course means total deadlock.
I seriously think that frequent deadlock is a design feature of the American system. Since the Founders apparently couldn’t figure out how to incorporate Plato’s “higher rules” to organize society (to replace the “shifting emotions of public opinion”), they just built in a lot of inertia.
Only the Progressives (who think the Constitution is an impediment anyway) are bothered by this.
(I swear I don’t know who’s giving you the thumbs down — I really enjoy these conversations.)
Thanks guys for all the kind words. Salve for my bleeding ego. 🙂
I always savour your comments and I’m always glad when you join the debate because even if we don’t exactly concur I know that we are allies. I reckon you blokes are among the best and most astute commenters on Jo’s blog along with the mad Kiwi Rereke, Winston, Baa humbug, Bulldust, Tony, lew Jones, brc, Lionell, Tel (Tel still mad at me?) etc. and even that arse Memoryvault 😉 not to leave out my old pals Louis Hissinks, Janama and Cohenite. Although, let’s face it, Louis with his electric universe is pretty far out. Louis, if you’re reading this remember that I’m part of the plate tectonics conspiracy with contacts at Rio Tinto…
By now you know that I’m pigheaded and enjoy a good rhetorically robust debate. But I also really strive to remain curious and objective, not that I always succeed. I sincerely wish to approach every debate as receptive as a child to learning. Of course, I’m a cranky pants old bastard who thinks he knows it all in real life. I’m at that age (54) when I bump into old friends online I loved decades ago and they send me pictures and I am shocked. They look so old! Then I look in the mirror and I see I’m not exactly what I use to be either. I’ll bet you guys know the feeling too. At heart we are still young, if we can just remember how to be.
When I wake up on a beautiful morning and hop out of bed, assuming all the joints are working, I feel the same as I did when I was 24. Or maybe not. I’m not sure I can remember that far back.
My point is that while I am here primarily to score coup. I wish to play fairly against honourable and worthy opponents who are more than my equal. And you blokes are just that.
When I read the Ron Paul article, ‘Sorry Ben, We are all Democrats Now’, it dawned on me that I was arguing from an uninformed position and updated accordingly. Unfortunately, this required me to admit that I’m, well, if not exactly wrong, certainly arguing in the wrong direction about democracy.
The biggest thrill of all at our age is to learn something new.
Thanks for that.
btw, One false rhetorical move and I’ll be having your liver for dinner in the next thread. 😉
When I wake up on a beautiful morning and hop out of bed, assuming all the joints are working, I feel the same as I did when I was 24. Or maybe not. I’m not sure I can remember that far back.
At a certain age (approximately 20 years ago, for me), if you get up in the morning and nothing hurts, it means you died during the night. 🙂
…A primary ballot for Mr. Gingrich is a vote for an entertaining election, not a Republican in the White House….
…The core difference between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama: For the governor, the convictions are the veneer. For the president, the pragmatism is. Voters always see through this. They usually prefer the man who stands for something.
What about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? They are owed some respect, especially for the contrast between their willingness to take a stand for principle against the front-runners’ willingness to say anything. But Messrs. Santorum and Paul are two tedious men, deep in conversation with some country that’s not quite America, appealing to a devoted base but not beyond it. Sorry, gentlemen: You’re not going anywhere.
Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.
What should readers who despair of a second Obama term make of all this? Hope ObamaCare is repealed by the High Court, the Iranian bomb is repealed by the Israeli Air Force, and the Senate switches hands, giving America a healthy spell of Hippocratic government.
All perfectly plausible. And the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers.
Gosh, that’s a hilarious ad, Janama. The “cattle stop” bit at the end is the killer line. 😉
This one’s not as good, but you can’t take your eyes off it. The tires rolling up the ramps against gravity really broke suspension-of-disbelief for me.
Idiot outcomes of the Renewable energy schemes and other stupid Climate Change claims!
1. British electricity network operator National Grid paid 12.8 million pounds to wind farm operators last year to compensate them for switching off their turbines when the grid was overloaded during stormy days – in the Climate Spectator.
2. The report also warned that Britain’s stocks of cod – a key component of the nation’s beloved fish and chips – to run out?? Brisbane Times.
What else will these government sponsored schemes and reports serve up on the bowl of stupidity?
We proudly flew the flag on Australia Day. Something that we noticed was the lack of flags flying on cars or whatever this year.
I recall some study from WA that indicated that people who proudly display the national flag on Australia Day are mostly racist. Really?
I’m outraged! People have fought and died to maintain our national identity and now our freedom to express our patriotism is being attacked. I believe the same suspects that are propagating the AGW myth are also behind this insanity.
This is not an opportunity to open debate on the events of the last few days. Best left to the chattering classes.
I recall some study from WA that indicated that people who proudly display the national flag on Australia Day are mostly racist. Really?
Hi Scaper,
Don’t get too worked up about it.
Although the MSM reporting “suggested” that people who “display the national flag on Australia Day” were “more likely to be racist” (NOT “mostly”), the truth is, on careful reading of the actual paper, that it ONLY referred to people who displayed the flag on their vehicle, AND who attended some kind of Australia Day rally or outing.
This left it open for the young lady conducting the “survey” for her PhD, to check out arrivals at the event, and only interview tanked-to-the-gills, redneck young white males falling out of American-built pick-up trucks, that happened to be flying Aussie flags.
In other words,very selective reporting by the MSM on an even more selective “survey”.
The real tragedy of the story is that the young lady lady will probably get her PhD on the strength of it.
She probably will which is symptomatic of the sort of moronic activities that go on in the halls of learning these days. Most of those inhabiting the social science departments, staff and students, would in more intellectually rigorous times have been kicked out of secondary school when they were 15 years old or so and been employed in factories and behind the counters of retail outlets where their natural abilities were better suited.
This is the story I read. Elsewhere I read that the lady researcher with the very Anglo, Union Jack loving name of Farida Fozdar has received $2million in government grants for these brilliant sorts of discoveries.
“People who fly Australian flags on their cars in the leadup to Australia Day express more racist attitudes than others without flags, University of Western Australia research has found.
UWA sociologist and anthropologist Farida Fozdar and a team of assistants surveyed 513 people at last year’s Australia Day Skyworks extravaganza on Perth’s Swan River foreshore.”
The questions themselves were more suggestive, IMO, of (possibly excessive) patriotism and national sovereignty, rather than racism. How surprising then that people who fly their national flags proudly are more likely to be patriotic- who’d have thought it? Such surprising, insightful findings- $2 million well spent!
Of course the lady in question, doing a PhD in sociology (what else?!) predetermined no doubt that positive answers to such questions were indicative of racism (since some racists hold some of those views- QED!) when they clearly were more indicative of her viewing the world through the prism of her own prejudices. And, also ignoring the fact that the “general population” obviously includes a percentage of people originating from other countries and other cultures, who of course are unlikely to answer in the affirmative on questions of sovereignty, unless of course they were asked the self same questions in their own country of origin, in which case a different answer no doubt would be forthcoming in at least some of the responders (after all hypocrisy is the universal language!).
No doubt JB or Matt or Tristan would find this “study” a fascinating insight into the human condition, seeing as it plays beautifully into their own prejudiced view of Australians, who are admittedly parochial but who are, I believe, no more racist than any other country in the world, and less than some who will largely remain nameless.
By a curious coincidence, I am currently seeking $2 million in funding to finance a study into whether students or teachers in the sociology and behavioural sciences, ever actually completed a productive days work in their lives. I am expecting some startling contributions to our anthropological understanding with this “ground-breaking” study.
An interesting and useful conversation on sociology. It would seem that you all believe “sociology” to be a close relative of that other ugly animal “politics”.
And what better way could politicians find of ingratiating themselves into a specific community group than to spend two million on a project like the one you have been discussing.
Besides the science I think most of us here, see Global Warming as an indicator or example of how badly our leaders have been messing up. We have no forward planning, the law is unevenly applied, we have a continuing ferry service from Indonesia to Australia, money is thrown around by politicians as if nobody had to work to earn it.
Julia Gillard has spent billions on our education system but we are still the poor white trash of the world “educationally’ speaking. She doesn’t understand that Steel Sun Shelters have no impact on education.
The one thing needed to improve our education system and give it a kick start is to demand discipline of students.
At present there is some idea that is politically useful that goes like this;
” students in Australia are behind almost every other nation in the world academically, even Khazakstan. This is a result of very poor quality teaching.”
Lots of votes there. more students and parents than teachers, figure it out for yourself.
Sociology should not be confused with that other branch of study “Psychology”.
Sociology looks at What people think – it disturbs me.
Psychology examines only HOW people think. Looking at thought content is not on the table.
That certainly would be a better use of 2 million.
I’m not a flag waver but I like to think of myself as the inheritor of things like the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the best legal system in the world. When I’m forced, by recipients of our tax money in grants like Fozdar gets and other history starved and history slanted academics, to think about the flag Anzac and sporting events never come to mind but rather that little square in the top left hand corner and what it represents of my history, Boadicea excepted of course.
Oh I forgot the “universal” language which we share with the US and most Commonwealth countries who also all get their basic legal system from the same source.
The flag when I get around to thinking of it reminds me of all that. History will judge what we as a nation made of that rich inheritance. Pity the pom’s present leaders are squandering all that history on an inanity like combating CAGW.
Many reasons to be critical of where it has been , how it has been misused etc but the little square at the top representing Great Britain reminds me that we must never let go of “democracy”, the right to be heard and the right to have our votes counted.
I tend to feel that those who want to replace it simply want to install their own version of democracy, perhaps a more “guided” democracy since we really aren’t smart enough to govern ourselves.
We have undoubtedly lost touch with the ideals of a good community eg our legal system, currently offers little support or protection from violence or theft and when used is very expensive.
Common sense adjustments are needed, not a total removal of our legal system.
Our youth is currently aimless (apart from partying) discouraged by a hypocritical society, lacking in discipline and generally increasingly poorly educated.
We once, in NSW , had one of the largest and most effective education systems in the world. It’s now a politically inspired, equal opportunity, no fault shambles.
Again, small commonsense a adjustments are needed.
Where did common sense go to – is he hiding behind Malcolm Turnbulls coat tails waiting for the Republic???
Hi there, MV. Shouldn’t take it to heart but the media ran with it and I believe it has had an adverse effect.
So many battles on so many fronts. I suspect the protaganist’s career might be somewhat curtailed in the future…on the list, so to speak.
You know what? I enjoy reading this blog and I admit, here and now that when it comes to intellect and knowledge I feel somewhat inferior.
The mission is to beat these people at their own game and the first innings is to neutralise the media. I would say, “two wickets down.”
A one hour segment going head to head at 9:00 on Sunday morning might just dry up the runs. In time there might be new commentary by ‘Fairfacts’. Who knows? There might be an opportunity in the future for a circus that will Pack-er a punch. Simple as ABC.
By the way…love your work except for one entry. I’ll leave it at that.
Not sure what that as about but a quick look at scapers link prompts me to go all economic.
Because of the National failure to have a future vision for our country we currently have a wonderful mining boom for a couple more years followed by ” ” what?? no plans.
Every other country in the world is dropping their exchange rate while our dollar is at record highs against every other major currency.
It might sound good to have a “strong’ currency but IT IS DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY AND SENDING OUR CHILDREN’S JOBS OVERSEAS.
Still there is not a murmur or indication from government about forward planning to stave off this future crisis.
At present we have international banks borrowing money (printed by the US government) at less than 1% and lending it to Australian banks at 3 or 4 %.
If anyone knows of some vast federal government master-plan for our future here could they let me know urgently.
Racism – The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist
Maybe the young lady should be looking at intolerance as a better description of the behaviour she is researching
I hear conflicting accounts about this.
For example, I’ve heard the statement that, scientifically, race does not even exist because the DNA variance between any two random individuals is greater than the DNA variance between (e.g.) the average “white” person and the average “black” person. The argument being that ethnic breeding group ancestry is vastly insignificant compared to individuality in DNA, so it ought to be considered insignificant generally. I’m not sure if the statement was constructed in a statistically correct manner, although it is certainly the kind of catchy headline that many people would like to believe.
If it is true, it would tell us that race is only in the mind of the racist. It’s then exactly the flip side of the coin to beauty – it’s in the eye of the beholder. Yet I find it hard to believe because it is easy to visually spot the difference between the ancestries of southern europeans, central europeans, chinese, japanese, malayans, australian aborigines, indians, africans, polynesians, and papua new guineans.
It’s just another indication that a few genes can have a big difference, in this case in both appearance and metabolism.
For example, I’ve also heard it’s only white people who have a mutation that allows them to continue to digest milk well into adulthood, whereas in most human phenotypes this ability disappears within a few years of being weaned off their mother’s milk. The stereotype is then that africans and asians prefer not to eat foods with high dairy content “because it gives them gas”. But lactose intolerance isn’t a medical condition because it’s the original human condition – it’s actually lactose tolerance that is unusual amongst humans. As a whitey I would never have known this if I hadn’t read about it.
So is race real? Well I think based on the above evidence it must be. But in today’s connected world race differences are still no excuse to yield to ancient tribal instincts of fear or to discriminate against people because of factors they could not freely choose. Reality is not a reason to do anything, so the reality of race doesn’t automatically justify its use for any purpose.
Racism is a kind of bigotry based upon the ethnic group bias, especially bias expressed invidiously. Ethnic groups are real phenomena even if they don’t have an genetic DNA basis, they do have a cultural basis.
That’s why when I see an aussie flag on someone’s car I think they are probably a racist nationalist nut.
So, Andrew, your bigotry against what you label as boganism isn’t really any different than racist bigotry.
Except that today most racial bigots are consciously aware of their bigotry and don’t reveal themselves in polite company, whereas you believe your kind of bigotry is merely enlightened superiority. Order another glass of Chardonnay!
It’s all about isolating people as something other than what your privileged group is and then dehumanising them so that its OK to hate them.
Internet off all day, but I was keen to respond to Andrew with this rather long reply about so-called Aussie racism, which I believe is no more prevalent here than anywhere else- with apologies in advance for length-
Racism is a term bandied about too easily, Andrew, thoughtlessly at times and often with little justification. It is ever present in every nation and society on Earth, and it is sometimes obvious xenophobia, while at other times it takes much more insidious and subtle forms.
On the whole, perhaps white so-called “Bogan” males are more likely to brandish our flag more brazenly just because they are more brazen individuals. They are also, by their inclination, more prone to alcohol-fueled aggression and brash vocal disruptions, unfortunately. I am quite sure that many are not inherently racist in their beliefs or attitudes- but some certainly are, and to varying degrees. Mostly, however, it is my belief that Australians more broadly are actually extremely inclusive as a general rule, and possibly even less inclined to divide people on racial grounds than other cultures.
We are often more parochial on the basis of state based rivalry (NSW vs Qld, Vic vs SA, etc) than we are on international or cultural or even religious ones. As a South Australian living in NSW, who played and followed AFL 30 years ago, I can certainly attest to a level of separatism I felt there. People of any race or religion are (generally) accepted in this country if they embrace (or at least are open to) inclusion in (or at least show respect for) our culture. It is preferable, but not in any way obligatory, if a person shows some passing interest in our sport and pastimes, and shares some of our basic attitudes toward personal liberty and democracy, if only to allow one to “break the ice” in general conversation. Rightly or wrongly, people do look for common ground in their ideas and interests when conversing with others. This fact of human nature is similarly true for anyone emigrating from Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) whether it be to Canada (my personal experience again to the fore, so I can sympathize knowing that changing cultures is difficult no matter how closely aligned or how open that society is), or France, or Kenya, or Kuwait, or Brazil, etc, etc. When in Rome, as they say.
I can also readily identify those people who will struggle for acceptance in Australia on the basis of their personality, as opposed to those of the same racial or religious group who will have little problem in gaining friends and being accepted- it has more to do with such things as a shared laconic sense of humour, a lack of pretentiousness and a lack of arrogance or sense of entitlement- Aussies hate these latter two especially! By way of example, if you are a white American who emigrates to our country and attempt to deride our culture as somewhat secondary to the good ol’ USA, you will be given the toughest of initiations and duly ostracized if you don’t mend your ways. If you are from South Africa or the UK, and fail to hide an air of superiority, the rejection will be swift and sure- it has nothing to do with race in those instances, having personally witnessed these sorts of occurrences during my schooling and even in my working life. You are more likely, IMO, to suffer derision and be socially ostracized in Australia if you are not physically attractive, are obese, have bad teeth, are disabled (especially physically, but also mentally), or have a speech impediment or have mental issues (especially schizophrenia), than you do as a result of race. Nothing of which to be proud, of course, but the focus on supposed racial divisions I think detracts from addressing these more real divisions and iniquities in our society.
I would like to add that I don’t see any Australians who forbid their sons or daughters to marry outside their own racial or religious group. I also don’t see Australians living in other countries that have set up an enclave of their own national group, have changed the signage to reflect only their language, and have made the locals who’ve lived there for decades feel uncomfortable to walk their own streets, or looked with derision upon them if they dared to enter one of their stores (of note- I was married in the suburb of Cabramatta, my wife having grown up in neighbouring Fairfield- so I would respectfully suggest that this certainly happened there in our supposedly “racist” country- it was not a shining example of the inclusiveness of some recent immigrants, IMO).
I also don’t see Australians who congregate in a particular suburban area, wander the streets and threaten violence to the local populace because they now “own” the area and openly state that former locals are no longer welcome (personally experience this in Bankstown quite recently- the fact that my friend’s family- originally Russian immigrants- had lived in the area for 40 years was apparently irrelevant).
Nor do I see Australians overseas aggressively harassing and abusing local café staff that they should have a special Halal menu to cater specifically for them, because “Muslims are now the “majority” in this country, so you’d better get used to it”. (Charming, and demographically wildly inaccurate. How to win friends and influence people!)
And I also don’t see Australians overseas suggesting that Jews should not celebrate Hanukkah in Israel, or that Muslims shouldn’t undertake Ramadan in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, because this was somehow “offensive” to them as new arrivals to their respective countries. I do see Australians, by contrast, ridiculously pandering to this mentality by refusing to allow our teachers in schools to say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”, instead forcing them to say “Happy Holidays”, “Happy egg day” or other such PC rubbish. To quote the much maligned Charlton Heston- “Political correctness is just tyranny with manners” – spot on.
On a personal note regarding my own small contributions to inclusion and multiculturalism, my very first ever “girlfriend” (and first kiss for that matter) at 9yo was a pretty Costa Rican girl named Rosemary, while my best friend at Primary School was a Croatian (whose dad was in gaol for murdering a Serbian (!) and whose mother lived in Australia for 20 years and couldn’t speak a word of English, having never left the kitchen in the entire time they lived there, I’m sure), at High School my best friends were an Indian homosexual and a Hong Kong Chinese, at University two of my close mates were Lebanese, another Maltese and another from Sri Lanka. Like most Aussies of my generation, I have had a fairly cosmopolitan upbringing, and as a result I don’t believe that the cherry-picked minority of white supremacists is really a representative sample of the broader Australian community.
The reason, IMO, that Muslims have had such a “tough” initiation in this country (and I believe this is a media driven exaggeration), has more to do with an air of moral and religious superiority some of their number project, plus an arms length rejection of Western values in general, as well as our rejection (as a society) of chauvinism/paternalism, which is unfortunately entrenched in Islam’s fundamentalist interpretation of their Qu’ran and in their way of life in their countries of origin. There is a resentment in our society directed toward such ideology as arranged marriages, honour killings, polygamy (for males only of course! – How does one reconcile this with equality and feminism, I wonder, in the leftist world view?- please enlighten me, by all means), the latter which Muslim leaders like Keyser Trad have publically advocated, alongside some of the divisive and frankly insensitive and stupid comments from religious leaders (about rape of non- Muslims, for example), which are incompatible with a largely atheist and agnostic society that frowns on religious intolerance and prejudices (including Christian ones). Unfortunately, a silent majority of presumably tolerant Muslims are just that- silent. The vocal, boorish, separatist, insulting and churlish minority are directly responsible for the attitudes leveled toward them- it is difficult to be inclusive with someone who refuses to acknowledge you as an equal, or fails to recognize your rights to maintain the ethos of your homeland built up over the last 200 years, or fails to comprehend that half the population deserve the right to dress in public in any way that they like (within legal boundaries) without this having to be vetted against their particular social, religious or moral standards.
If any individual doesn’t approve of the moral climate into which they have immigrated, then they should leave and settle somewhere more to their personal tastes and mores. It is really that simple. No one forces anybody to live in this country, with its particular cultural environment, when there is a very diverse range of nations and cultures in the world to choose from. If I lived in Saudi Arabia, for example, I personally would not drink alcohol at all, period. This is because that is the social expectations of that particular nation, which they are perfectly entitled to uphold. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar level of respect in return from those who seek acceptance here.
In general, immigration has been to the betterment of Australia, but there are many negatives that should not be glossed over, and the local populace have generally received little acknowledgement for their tolerance, their inclusiveness and their willingness to change and accommodate. On the other hand, those who have immigrated here have generally had a soft run (in the media especially) with little expectation of their standards of behaviour, and many intolerances and injustices often going unreported, and even unsaid. So I find “mea culpa” statements of Australians being exceptionally racist coming from the white, middle-class intelligentsia to be somewhat one-eyed, guilt ridden and lacking perspective. That is, in itself, a subtle form of racism, by not holding other racial groups accountable to the same standards of behaviour as you would hold your own racial group. There is a fine line between understanding and pandering, between empathy and paternalism, and between compassion and tokenism.
Everyone should be held to account for better standards of tolerance, generosity of spirit, and behaviour- Caucasians, Aborigines, “Bogans” and Muslims included. The race card should not be played as readily and reflexively as it is, and especially not to downplay or mitigate any wrong doing by any one individual or racial group, or to cast unwarranted aspersions on one particular societal group over and above another.
Skimmed through it and it looks good. Will have to read it all later.
Great stuff like :
“That is, in itself, a subtle form of racism, by not holding other racial groups accountable to the same standards of behaviour as you would hold your own racial group. There is a fine line between understanding and pandering, between empathy and paternalism, and between compassion and tokenism.”
This has always been the Elephant in the room that in the last 40 years we have been brow beaten with political correctness like that.
Despite all that, the Sun will probably come up again tomorrow and it will be a great day.
Just a parting word about one of the most egregious recent examples of Aussies receiving an ill-considered and unjustified racism allegation.
The case of the erstwhile, unlamented Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo, who reached the apex of his own incompetence during his short but poorly received tenure as Czar of our telecommunications icon. His parting shot was to suggest that Australians were racially prejudiced against him as a Mexican American. Of course, he seems to have harboured the delusion the vast majority of the population were even remotely aware of his nationality, and those few who knew of this salient point could have quite frankly cared less about his ethnicity- you see, that was the ONLY thing they actually liked about him!
So much easier to throw dirt at your critics hoping some will stick than take a good sobering look in the mirror and admit that you are a rank failure, now isn’t it, don’t you agree KK?
Why did you bring up Telstra? I was having a good night until then. 🙂
Having to change homes a few times back in the 70s I came to be aware of the old Telstra before it became telstra.
Our phone systems here have always been very expensive on a world comparison.
One of the reasons became obvious to me when I wanted to connect.
You could not make an appointment.
The procedure was this; you called them, they then made a point of waiting till you weren’t at home and then they knocked on the door.
No doubt they were signed out for a two hour connection job. Time to relax.
Surprise, nobody home. So the next step was they leave a card asking you to call and make a firm appointment. they then turned up at the appointed time.
I had three uncles who worked at the Newcastle State Dockyard before they priced themselves out of existence. They knew the drill.
The phone workers knew the drill.
Whatever had to happen at Pre Telstra was necessary but you are right Sol wasn’t the man.
On the other hand to demonstrate that we aren’t being racist and picking on Mexican Americans lets look somewhere else.
I know someone who recently resigned from the Health Services Union. I think we all know the drill there too.
I should relax but we all want a better world where we get paid sensibly for our work, where government plan for our society, where advertising and TV soundbites don’t govern our view of politics and where are taxes are spent for the common good, not that of politicians.
They are most likely socialists who came up with that study. Socialists have only negative feelings raging inside them because they feel need something to be unhappy about or somebody to blame. They think with emotion and lack rationality.
Thank god the number of bogans with Australian flags flying out of their car windows are down! Personally, I’ve always wanted to fly the Swiss or Russian flag on Yaday*.
I have never waved an Australian flag on Australia Day, or any other day that I can remember. But now alerted that to how it rankles political correctness and the socialist anti-Australians (same thing really), I will make sure I have one next year.
If you wish to assume superiority, John, and your curious smugness shows that you do, why not at least try to demonstrate that supposed superiority with good argument, instead of just puerile sneers? That will make you sound less delusional when you call others yobbos.
> They are most likely socialists who came up with that study.
>
Anyone who has both the capability and willingness to attack national symbols and divide national cohesion will be of use to the One World Government globalists and their useful idiots in the green-left. People who would have been complete patriots in the days of nationalist socialism are no longer useful, as the new world order demands allegiance to an even greater tribal unit than the sovereign state of old. The nationalist socialist has been replaced by the new socialist gunning for a planet-sized Green State. Nationalism is a road block for such people.
Just went through my backlog of emails and followed up one from Germany’s ADAC; one of their main motoring associations. I’d given up on them as being terminally green-minded when this popped up (in German).
Motor vehicles not meeting strict environmental standards have been banned from driving in some cities. The cost of compliance is onerous unless one has recently bought a new car.
The ADAC finds that after several years of such vehicle exclusions, there is no difference in air quality compared to similar cities without such draconian regulations. Still, more cities scramble to impose the useless “Environment Zones”.
It seems that when you’re green-minded, measureable outcomes are irrlevant. As is punishing those who cannot afford new cars or to retrofit their old ones to bring them up to spec.
Taking the easy route, the ADAC issues stern words, but doesn’t follow up with pressure on the city governments to dismantle their festering bureaucracies which serve nobody but the bureaucrats and fulfill no useful function.
“I’m outraged! People have fought and died to maintain our national identity and now our freedom to express our patriotism is being attacked.”
but unless you live on a farm somewhere remote from what loosely passes as “civilization” these days you could hardly fail to notice and try to avoid modern Australia at its finest.
Where I live you could be excused for believing that Australia day was was an excuse for a giant piss up.
Groups of 15 or so young intoxicated Australians in their late teens heading home along the main street.
Some wearing Aussie flag T shirts, some with the flag on their shorts and all in all a thorough embarrassment to the Nation and the flag.
They have the freedom to embarrass themselves and our country, the freedom d to urinate in shop entry areas, they have the freedom to desecrate the Flag.
As you point out many have fought and died for the flag, just what homage is paid these people by the current Australia day “Celebrations”.
Hi KK, just imgine if your screen name was KinkyKiethKares…how un-PC would that be?
An interesting point you raise about the fifteen. I can’t really put them down because in times gone by I might have been one of those guys.
I’ll call it a rite of passage. For one transgression beyond my control I was alienated by my siblings whom resulted in not being notified that my father (never got on) passed away five years after the fact! A money thing.
Was taken in by my aunt after the transgression and became a part of her family. My cousins were my mentors, gravitated towards the arts and this fortified my soul. One posts comments here. I’m outing him, he is Sean McHugh.
One of the things that concerns me about Australia is the lack of vision for the future and large groups of drunken kids walking down the street is not a good omen.
In recent years, late at night such groups have attacked and punched and kicked people in the head until they bled from the ears.
Medical science “saved” these victims from death but of course they are now in wheel chairs and being looked after by their devastated families.
Of course few of these people died and so it was not murder, just unfortunate consequences of politicians and their friends selling vast quantities of alcohol.
Wrapping yourself in the Australian flag while you vomit over a shop front is also not a good look.
Enough I become embittered, life is too short.
To other matters. My father was worn by the depression, by the tropical diseases he got while fighting in New Guinea and seems to have achieved equilibrium by drinking at least four schooners a day; he was quiet, funny and loved life but we never spoke about things.
I sometime wish I could dig him so that I could give him a big hug and thank him for being my father. We all have losses, but it seems that there are good things that make up for the disappointments.
I am very flattered. I honestly never thought of it like that. While guessing that you are largely referring to music, I don’t recall that you needed too much persuasion in gravitating towards it, or push in progressing with it. I’m glad I was able to help a bit.
Some German professors are beginning to speak up against the climate shenanigans. Take for example Prof. Dr. Dr.Knut Löschke, physicist, who gave a speech on Climate Policy titled “Give Reason Another Chance!” at the University of Passau last Friday.
Löschke:
Man-made climate change as a hypothesis is in the end one that has never been confirmed by any single experiment and does not harmonize in any way with existing physical theory. But even so, the hypothesis is implemented in real politics. Representatives of the IPCC do not shy away from using fraud and falsifications in its effort to fulfill its political agenda: which is to show that man influences the global climate. This is proven by the Climategate Scandal, and an especially crass example of a falsification that Professor Löschke introduced in his presentation. By spreading the hypothesis of man-made climate change and the “solution proposals” for global “climate control”, dangerous limits that go beyond the absurd have long since been over-stepped.”
Interesting that this sort of insanity dates back to 2000. Giving more substance to the criticisms of the renewable energy industry in Germany.
” To do this, the former Socialist-Green coalition government, led by Gerhard Schröder, enacted the so-called Renewable Energy Feed-In Act (EEG) in 2000. This Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years..”
Well if we don’t get a seat in the UN it isn’t such a bad thing but on the contrary we certainly shouldn’t be handing our country over to the Aboriginals. Many of them have a continual victim status which does not lend itself to Reconciliation.
INDIGENOUS activists are threatening to scuttle Australia’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council unless Julia Gillard signs a sovereignty treaty handing ownership of the nation’s lands back to Aboriginal people.
At the risk of being labelled a “racist” for expressing a politically incorrect view, but isn’t it considered an act of war when one group of people demand another group of people “hand over” (surrender) sovereignty of their country?
And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the guy in the following related news clip clearly state in the first ten seconds that discussion about Australian sovereignty has “nothing to do with the Australian people”?
My grandfather was the first schoolteacher at the Aboriginal settlements in the Meekatharra – Wiluna area in WA. He built the first school-house, planted the orange groves that are still there today, and dug the wells to water the trees.
I grew up wanting to follow in his footsteps, and after uni, spent five years trying to do so, before I gave it up as a lost cause. Even then, I later went back to the effort twice, only to eventually be beaten down by reality.
Since then I have spent around thirty years working all over remote Australia. And although I have found in most cases most Australians – whether by birth or naturalisation – to be an extremely tolerant group overall, I have encountered what I might call “spot” racism just about everywhere:
Australians who don’t like Japanese, Japanese who don’t like Chinese, Chinese who don’t like Indians, Indians who don’t like Pakastanis, Pakastanis who don’t like Libyans, and even Libyans who don’t like Papua New Guineans (I never did work that one out). For no particular reason other than their cultural history.
But these have all been “localised” to an individual or a small group. In comparison, no matter where one goes in rural Australia, one will find systemic, overwhelming, all-consuming racism, amongst the Aboriginals, towards EVERYBODY ELSE.
And by “everyone else” I mean exactly that. In the north of QLD, the NT and elsewhere the Aboriginals even vent their anger on the Samoan and Fijian communities, amongst whom I have many friends. This causes great hurt to these people,especially the Samoans, who see the Australian Aboriginal as their half-brothers and simply cannot comprehend the all-encompassing hatred.
It was all perhaps best summed-up for me by a Samoan guy I only knew by his nickname – “Tiny”. Tiny was a good head and shoulders taller than me – and I’m six feet. He didn’t have a neck. His little finger was thicker than my big toe. And yet Tiny was an instrument fitter who specialised in shimming up turbines and gen sets – a job requiring an accuracy measured in thousandths of an inch and he was considered one of the three top specialists in the trade working in the Southern Hemisphere.
Tiny’s explanation of the “problem”:
Your Australian Kooris don’t accept that to have a feast, someone has to go out and catch the fish.
Actually, John Brooks, if you cared to study any actual real history, you’d know that the Australian Aboriginal was a dying, endangered species when the white man arrived.
A totally patriarchal society, coupled with an entirely male-dominated “elder” system had ensured the destruction of the race.
History has demonstrated time and again that tribes/nations that do not defend/support/feed/nurture their women – the “breeders” is doomed to failure.
That’s right about where the Australian Aboriginals were when the white man arrived.
I experienced it first in the Fifties – as a child – the son of the local cop – in Kalgoorlie.
JB might wake from the delusion of the proud native living in perfect balance with nature within a caring society that nurtured its own, allowing each to live a life to their full potential.
A recent wake up call arrived from an unexpected direction last week.
I had recorded a “Where do You come from or who do you think you are” episode about Christine Anu.
She was embarrassed that one of her distant relatives from the Torres Straits (actually New Guinea is more apt) was trained by the white man as a missionary.
Later written comment on the situation painted a picture of tribes living in fear of raids from each other and that the “missionary” view offered to the natives, and apparently taken up, was that living in constant fear, and being unable to sleep because of it was something that needed to change. Apparently there was change.
The main point: we may have created an unreal image of the “noble savage” that did not exist.
In PNG in the last 100 years there has been cannibalism and ritual eating of the enemies brain. Look up Kooka Kookas I think.
It would have been a brutal environment, jonnyboy, fear, mixed with ignorance and hardship. You, could never imagine just how miserable it would have been, with your warm and safe suburban ethos.
Misguided urber-humanists, feeling guilty for their hubris, greed and cowardice, attempt to absolve themselves, claiming dignity for Aboriginal people. By doing it you have locked them into the past, fear, mixed with ignorance and hardship. They have never been lost in their walkabouts, before you came along and sent them down the wrong path.
Your mentality squashes their dignity, you strip them of the knowledge and development needed to claw out of humpties.
Your quaint, effeminate makeup, says it all, you know nothing about my brothers. You leave this place, you have no right to walk with us.
Some of them could be. Firstly, memoryvault did say that his post would look somewhat politically incorrect. Secondly, it is often true in what memoryvault says. Much of what memoryvault says actually coincides with what Aboriginal, Noel Pearson has said in the past that Aboriginals too easily feel they are victims and do not want to change their ways. Many in the rural communities still live in primal aboriginal ways where they do not want to be apart of modern Australia but would rather keep their hunter-gatherer style. To other cultures this looks lazy. The problem is with the whole situation is with Aboriginals is firstly the leftists only wanting to do the politically correct, tokenistic things such as acknowledgments at every public event, apologising to the Aboriginals (which I don’t agree with) and then wanting to put Aboriginals in the Constitution which is again plain stupid. On the other hand, direct intervention has some effect but ultimately you are fighting a losing battle because many do not want to change to modern Australia’s way of life and/or they become too reliant on the help that things only get worse. I personally think that Governments can only do so much too help the Aboriginals. Sorry for drifting off topic but I think this issue is very divisive but interesting to discuss.
What’s striking in this report is Ms. Fozdar’s incredulous statement:
“…people took out of it that I’m saying they shouldn’t fly a flag for Australia Day because it’s racist and that we shouldn’t celebrate Australia Day.”
.
“That was just nowhere in the research and so that is what has surprised me.”
.
Having it spread over all the newspapers and radio channels in the run up to Australia Day wasn’t calculated to have any effect on Australia Day then, was it ?
.
(Sorry I seem to have lost in-line commenting)
For what it’s worth I can totally believe Ms Fozdar’s research. A group which is defined by their demonisation of an excluded Other is also going to adopt a symbol that unites their in-group, and for white Australian racists that is typically the flag. IIRC, the swastika was originally used in ancient Hindu writings and the Nazis never bothered to politely ask the Indians whether they could adopt that symbol with a new name and assign it a very different meaning than it had 800 years earlier. Similarly, the bogans never asked the rest of us if they could adopt the Australian flag and the Southern Cross as their symbols of (perceived) white supremacy. They just assumed it already had that meaning, and given how long the White Australia policy was in effect it’s an assumption that’s not entirely without foundation.
Quite aside from racism, there’s a lot of other political baggage in that flag. It makes me think of the ANZACs and the more recent “overseas adventures” of our armed forces. It’s unfortunately the lot in life of aussie soliders to be sent to faraway places to die so some politician can use more power to enrich his bankster owners. It should be obvious why our sports teams elect instead to wear the green and gold. The aussie flag ought to be a symbol of self-determination, but that union jack in the corner is a reminder of the national servitude that is so awkwardly, reluctantly, and rapidly activated when Washington’s red phone rings a whitey out of the blue.
That’s why when I see an aussie flag on someone’s car I think they are probably a racist nationalist nut. Of course, ultimately, it is just a symbol that means whatever we want it to mean. If there is a memetic battle for control of the flag, I think the bogans and the jingoists are winning.
Whether it’s on bogan cars or at boot camp, it’s because our flag has so often been abused as the banner of awful methods and inequitable goals that it is difficult for me to see flag-waving as anything other than a sickening sign of misguided patriotism. Religion and patriotism are so easily co-opted for irrational and dastardly means, such as genocide, fascism, and offensive wars, which is why they both should be regarded with suspicion. It is so easy to live a life that is free from such superstitions as the supremacy of one’s god and state, thus making oneself more immune to traditional propagandistic control techniques.
If we are to ever beat back the globalists, I do wonder how we are going to mobilise public energy without resorting to nationalism. At the very least a boxing kangaroo may have to leap into action. It’s a propaganda tool to be used sparingly.
Australia is one of the best countries to live in, certainly in my personal top two. Even by the UN’s peculiar HDI metric it usually ranks in the top five. The beach isn’t for every body, but I like a moderately free press instead of censorship, the snags on barbecues instead of snails on garlic, relaxed workplace attitudes instead of boiler rooms, queuing instead of crowding, sun instead of snow, publicly subsidised healthcare, and strawberry pavlovas. There is lots to love about this country. Waving our flag is a sadly ambiguous way of expressing it.
If I remember my lectures (a while ago now), the Hindu swastika is one of the 32 symbols of Buddha.
It was introduced into China around 700AD. The Romans and Greeks also used the swastika to symbolise the cycle of life, and it can be seen repeating as a border around friezes in temples and other ancient buildings.
The Hindu swastika was left handed, as was Han dynasty version in China, and the Roman and Greek versions. In all cultures it implied good fortune.
In Tibet, the right handed version meant changelessness and eternity. That was the reason why the Nazi Party in Germany adopted it as their own; it symbolised the Reich “that would last a thousand years”.
Ah yes, thanks, I was too lazy to do the research as the exact origin was not pertinent to the point I was trying to make. The Buddhism connection was rattling around in the upstairs department but I overrode my first instinct and broadened the statement from Buddhist to Hindu to be on the safe side, heh.
Had no idea it went back to Ancient Greece, yikes. Lucky the 3rd Reich didn’t last more than a decade, but it may be 1000 years before anyone will be able to use the swastika for its original meaning.
The only superiority I implied was to not be a “bogan”, which anyone who knows me would confirm. As to how you might end up feeling slighted or inferior as a result is a process only you can explain, because I sure as hell can’t.
I’ve visited Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, and Vanuatu. The DoD can probably remember more about the extent of my travels than I can right now.
How many was that? I lost count. Us sheltered bogans can only count on our fingers you know.
There’s 192 countries out there and, no, I haven’t gotten to the Indian or African continents yet. The last time I was in Bali I was five months too young to go out drinking on the town, although the local pottery was interesting. If I missed seeing anything culturally important in my travels it’s probably because I had budgeted too little time and spent too much of it looking through camera lenses.
I’ve stayed in Vanuatu villages for a week and drunk kava with them, navigated from the Tokyo airport to the Narita-san temple gardens and back again between international flights 8 hours apart despite not being able to speak the language, I’ve eaten the famous Swedish meatballs in Sweden and snails in Paris, attended the bizarre triennial killing of the pigs on Tanna, and I lived in PNG for six years. But to paraphrase H.G. Nelson, too much travel is barely enough.
You knew nothing about me and you seized upon the slightest excuse to spew hateful generalisations towards my character. I predict you won’t even apologise.
The Flag is always a touchy issue and rightly or wrongly it’s one of those situations where I am able to associate with the more positive and useful aspects of it’s symbolism.
But not always.
One of the weirdest things I can recall was my visit to Westminster Abbey in London.
A house of religion, of God.
Every nook and cranny had a memorial to someone who had either opened up new trade in some remote part of the world or been a member of the East India Company.
It was like visiting a business memorial which may say something about Colonial Britain. It felt uncomfortable and incongruous.
Still, the flag reminds me of Winston Churchill’s comment about Britain’s democratic system; that it was the worst system of government in the world, except for all the others.
To travel.
We have some countries in common.
My wife and I have been to the top of the Volcano on Tanna and felt the Earth shake under us.
You couldn’t do this in the West because of insurance issues.
Amazing but a month after we were there a French visitor was hit by a lump of lava on it’s descent.
I lived in Nuku, halfway between Aitape and Wewak, but just for three weeks.
Toughest pig I’ve ever eaten, biggest yams I’ve ever seen.
My father was stationed in Wewak for a while during WW11.
Bit into a bouai seed and was instantly hit as soon as the skin was broken, yet the old women chew it all day.
KK, my hat’s off to you. The jungles of the Sepik region are not to be travelled lightly. About 1001 ways to die.
By comparison I lived in the luxury of a mining town near the coast. The few people who went bushwalking would always keep to the trails and go as a large group. The only time I ever heard of anyone camping overnight was on a trek to the volcano Mt Bagana.
If the GBR is ever in trouble PNG can make a mint from coral tourism because the only bit of the GBR I’ve seen off Cairns was a bare grey disappointment compared to the colour and variety I saw in PNG. Amazing stuff. The sea snakes were never a problem in my experience – they are too afraid of humans to get close enough to bite, just don’t corner them.
Yes, it was all fun and games (for the expats) until the revolutionary army shut down the mine. Considering the nightmarish pollution the company had done to the local river, that was probably fair enough.
I love the surf but even back here I don’t swim in rivers or lakes so your coral exploration in something is PNG is something I would think twice about.
My wife and I went to Tahiti (Moorea) and paddled across the lagoon to get up close to some tame rays and she had a close encounter with a reef shark.
Nuku was in 1970 when things outside Moresby were a bit more stable, the influence of the patrol officers was still there. Also I flew in and out and was the guest of a student (From Goroka) who was going back to his home village. The airstrip was similar to Tanna – uphill.
Chemical pollution – it’s almost invisible so easy to get away with. Then people get sick and so on.
That’s what bugs me so much about the CO2 pollution thing; people are being distracted, probably deliberately, from the real pollution issues.
You knew nothing about me and you seized upon the slightest excuse to spew hateful generalisations towards my character. I predict you won’t even apologise.
Hello? I didn’t spew “hateful generalisations” towards you at all. I merely suggested that you’re not nearly as superior to an ordinary “bogan” as you imagine.
It was you who characterised anyone who flies the Aussie flag as a racist bogan.
…the bogans never asked the rest of us if they could adopt the Australian flag and the Southern Cross as their symbols of (perceived) white supremacy….
That’s why when I see an aussie flag on someone’s car I think they are probably a racist nationalist nut.
Even though you know nothing more about someone flying the flag, that’s all you need to know “to spew hateful generalisation towards” their “character.”
I’ve visited Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, and Vanuatu.
You actually travelled to Singapore, Japan, Bali, Indonesia and Malaysia — all of which are countries you can’t even take a cab from the airport to the hotel without seeing Svastikas on buildings — yet you were too incurious to even notice?
it may be 1000 years before anyone will be able to use the swastika for its original meaning.
Duh….
Apparently, you don’t have to be a “bogan” to be ignorant and you provided the evidence.
To stereotype people who love Australia and are proud of our history and flag as racist bogans is “spewing hateful generalisation towards” their character and I resent it.
So it was my pleasure to point out your superiority complex is ill-founded and hypocritical.
Btw, some of my best mates are proud bogans but would be surprised to learn they’re racists since they are married into indigenous families.
To be sure, the concept of boganism can be used with hilarious results in a comedic format.
What I object to is when it is invoked in a political context to show one’s cultural values are superior to someone else’s.
Gosh, Andrew, is it really that bad to be proud of Australia and the good things that the flag stands for, like our freedom, our heritage and our language and culture and judeo-christian traditional values, not to mention our legal and parliamentary systems we inherited from Britain, in fact, the whole bloody Australian way of life?
You would throw all that out because some bogan wrapped himself in a flag? Of course, another type of hate-filled bogan burnt the flag just the other day, so in all fairness the extremists cancel themselves out. Neither represents real Australians or what the Australia flag represents and to pretend they do is a disingenuous assault on the Aussie way of life.
I’m proud of western civilisation and Britain’s contribution to it and I am proud to be an Australian. I’m hardly a bogan or a racist. There is far more good in the land of the fair go than vileness and hatred.
Does that mean that we’re perfect? Hell, no. We’re human!
Fair dinkum criticism is fine. That’s how we grow as a nation, but black armband self-loathing is an extension of our historical “cultural cringe,” and is an irrational approach to our modern situation.
It’s a well understood technique of oppression that to destroy a culture first you must take away a people’s pride. Apparently, the Aussie left want to do it by equating Aussie pride with racist hate. The process of cultural deconstruction involves stripping a people of their symbols. Soviets and Serbians simply killed anyone displaying their local colours. Our lefties can’t do that, so they make a point to equate the flag with exploitation, war and racial hate.
Everyone should be proud of their heritage and culture whether it is white, black, asian or religious. And everyone should respect other people’s pride in themselves as well.
What we should condemn is not pride or the Australian flag but appropriation of the symbols of our freedom and culture by extremist groups who don’t respect the democratic values which bind us together as a nation.
And this can be done without impugning the nature of Australia and Australians as one of the world’s most tolerant and free nations and cultures.
Some of those good things you mention are what I associate with the word “Australian”, but not with the flag. The flag has just been guilty by association; seems like every time I see it it is under unfortunate circumstances.
> we should condemn …. appropriation of the symbols of our freedom and culture
> by extremist groups who don’t respect the democratic values which bind us together as a nation.
>
Such as every federal government of the last 15 years? I see them doing wrong things under that flag a helluva lot more often than the public. It is not even particularly Australian as I find national pride to be sickening regardless of which country it is, though the Americans were more nauseating in their jingoism than most.
I guess there are a lot more things to appreciate about Australia but I probably take them for granted. Perhaps if I’d ever lived in Vietnam or Bosnia I’d be more inclined to overlook Australian negatives.
Jo, you missed completely my point that flag-waving is ineffective. Flag waving is for people who want to be seen to be patriotic, regardless of what it might imply about the full range of Australia’s history. As I said in an earlier comment, this conformity is also the back door into nationalism, which has a chequered history.
The actual pattern on the flag doesn’t matter because it’s the associated meaning that is important. There is no point in changing the flag unless we secede from the monarchy. Fly that flag if you must, it’s the most popular one we have.
The purpose of Australia Day is not to identify yourself as Australian, since we kindof know that already. There is something more to it than mere identification. That’s only the foundation for a positive statement.
To represent only the good and not the bad on Australia Day you would have to forget the inconvenient facts of history whilst flying the flag, or else find some other way of expressing only the good bits of “Australia”. If one absolutely must be sickeningly patriotic on Australia Day, the most patriotic and sickening way is to wave the flag at every opportunity, and the least sickening way is to just do something Australian, like have a BBQ as many people did.
Easy.
A contrary argument, which oddly enough nobody on this thread has presented, is that the patriots are encouraged to be sickening on just one day per year and “what’s so bad about that Mr killjoy??” In effect this argues that we enjoy the benefits of living in Australia every day of the year, but the national holiday is specifically for drawing attention to those benefits. Well on one day per year I am therefore permitted to say how sickening patriotism is to me and that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance – even against nationalism. Indeed I could even argue mischievously that the ultimate expression of our freedoms and Australian values on Australia day is to badmouth the government and the country and get away with it.
I find the mental agility of people to edit the meaning of the flag to be impressive, but I can’t seem to do that. The symbol doesn’t mean to me what it means to others. It is supposed to mean everything about Australia and yet I don’t want to celebrate everything about Australia, so I can never fly the flag outside of war. Sounds logical.
To represent only the good and not the bad on Australia Day you would have to forget the inconvenient facts of history whilst flying the flag, or else find some other way of expressing only the good bits of “Australia”. If one absolutely must be sickeningly patriotic on Australia Day, the most patriotic and sickening way is to wave the flag at every opportunity, and the least sickening way is to just do something Australian, like have a BBQ as many people did.
Easy.
Hi AM
Do you celebrate birthdays at all? If not, I applaud your consistency.
If you do however, I fear you’d be the person who makes a speech about the birthday person warts and all, the good and the bad. e.g.
She is a good cook the wife is, but it’s not all wine and roses. The bitch had an affair 5 years ago, and wasted 20 grand on a car I told her not to buy.
Sorry about the crude e.g. But is that the type of speech you make on birthday occasions?
I don’t find anything to argue with in that post except that perhaps being older (perhaps) I understand what the flag represents to people who want good government.
I don’t want the flag changed for the simple reason that it represnts to me that I have the right to express myself and further “that the ultimate expression of our freedoms and Australian values on Australia day is to badmouth the government and the country and get away with it”.
My fear is that if we change the flag is is probably going to represent someone elses personal interests or hobby horse.
Just imagine what sort of flags Bob Le Brun or KRudd or Malcolm T would inflict on us; there would probably be a move to change them withing a few years.
The photograph at the link says a lot about modern society.
The lady herself has an attractive smile, and you can see all of her face, I hope I’m not being sexist.
The Tokenism needed to pay homage to the Grant Money (our taxes at work) is evident sitting on the seat behind her. Facing away from us, hopefully not for any cultural reasons, are three people wearing The Head Scarf, a beautiful subtle touch.
Nobody gives a hoot for the cultural shock I feel at being confronted by someone wearing a hood and face cover on the streets of Newcastle. In our culture such dress was representative of witches and instilled fear in children and a sense of ‘not to be trusted” and “living outside the community”.
28 Jan: WaPo: Maxwell T. Boykoff: A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric
(Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”)
What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?
The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary…
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010…
. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”
In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to non-technical audiences.”
These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011…
The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed rebranding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”
But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions…
But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions…
That says to me that the clean energy lobby has stolen the initiative.
The move from GW to Climate Change was so unsubtle that it wasn’t hard to keep working to discredit the bad science.
This latest move is going to need a complete shift of focus to cost comparisons of energy from all sources.
The public will again be confused because we will have wind mills and solar electricity costs quoted as price at your front door, not actual cost to produce.
We need some smart engineers here (Tony Oz ?) along with some accountants to make a story the public can come to grips with.
Take the link to the following image. Right click and open it in a new tab, so you can refer to the image and then come back here and read the text. I linked to the original in an earlier post, but as it was a pdf document that makes it difficult for some, so I have just saved the relevant image here. While I linked to it in an earlier Comment in another Post of Joanne’s, this is a different point that you should be aware of here.
As always a lot of information, while the truth, and in plain sight, is displayed in a manner that the average person does not really understand, something they rely upon, because in that manner they can say they are open and transparent, when in actual fact no one has a clue what is really being shown.
Now, note especially the orange highlighted cost under each of the States.
That is the WHOLESALE cost of electricity, and note here how it’s expressed in dollars per MWH. (MegaWattHour)
So, in the case of the first one mentioned here Queensland is that $34/MWh. This translates to 3.4 cents per KWH. (KiloWattHour)
Hmm!
Right about now, some of you are reaching for your most recent Power bill, so go on, all of you root around in a drawer somewhere for where you’ve put that most recent bill and have a look at it.
Mine quotes the price I am being charged for electricity at almost 21 cents per KWH.
See now how they don’t really want you to put two and two together, and I’ll come back to that later.
That cost of the $34/MWh is the total cost of the sale of all electricity from every plant to the grids in each of those States.
So, the States with the most number of the cheapest form of producing power (coal fired power) have the cheapest cost for electricity.
Coal fired power is on average around 3 cents per KWH to produce, perhaps a little under.
Of note here is South Australia, and look at that cost, $51/MWh. South Australia has the largest amount of power produced from Wind Power, so straight away you can see how the cost of Wind Power is not cheap.
Tasmania imports a lot of its power from Victoria, so again, that bumps up the price there, and they also do not have much in the way of coal fired power at all.
While here I am concentrating on the cost, its worthwhile looking at which State is supporting another State that has assiduously avoided constructing any new power plants in their own State, Tasmania and S.A. the latter needing steady and reliable amounts of power (from Victoria) to supplement what is not being delivered from the variability of Wind Power.
Now refer back to your own power bill, and correlate that to the cost of the actual generation.
Individual plants sell their power to the grids, in the main owned by the States, who also own the power lines etc etc. The States then onsell that power to the providers, the headline name at the top of your Bill, mine being Ergon Energy. The States add on their costs, eg the power lines and infrastructure for power delivery, plus some for their profit margin.
The providers then onsell it to you, plus their costs, plus their profit margin plus the GST.
So you can see how the cost has blown out in some cases by a factor between 6 and 7.
Now, you as Residential consumers (38% of all consumption) pay the most for electricity.
Commerce (37%) pays a little less, and Industry (24%) gets their power at the cheapest rate, and these are the retail costs as that wholesale cost is relatively static.
In a way this is understandable, and it’s really only a few cents here and there (at the retail cost) as there is a huge number of individual consumers at the Residential level, so they can spread it out a bit more, adding a couple of cents on that won’t really be noticed.
There are lot less number of consumers at the Commerce level, and then considerably less at the Industrial level. Actual consumption rises considerably in Commerce (think just Coles and Woolies) and the largest consumers would be at that Industrial level, hence they can bargain directly with the provider for that lesser price. (eg huge consumption levels costed at a large bulk rate, same as for Coles and Woolies etc, which would also bargain directly with providers for a cheaper rate as enormous consumers)
So, now enter the CO2 tax. Now that fits in at the front end, raising the cost of the actual generation, and in fact probably doubling it in most cases.
Note how a doubling at that front end may only mean a few extra cents per KWH on your retail bill, but keep in mind, that small front end rise is added to at each level in between, and as the Residential sector pays the most, then you are up for the greatest increase.
Now, while seemingly small in comparison (retail vs wholesale) consider the effect on the actual generating end, where the increase is not small but has actually doubled.
It’s only aimed at CO2 emitting plants so very cleverly, it makes them more expensive wrt renewables, which are still between five, seven and ten times higher than producing coal fired power.
See how the Government has cleverly aimed their selling point spin for the CO2 Tax at the (seemingly) tiny overall end cost increase at the individual single household residential level, hence it seems that it may actually be only a small increase.
That increase might only end up extrapolating to maybe 5 cents extra on your bill, but even that is around 25%, and keep in mind that this is at the base level, because I have an idea it might actually be around 30 to 33%, and now look at the headline total amount you have to pay, and add a third to that.
Now think pensioners etc.
Now think Commerce especially, as huge consumers like Coles and Woolies etc have to pay huge increases, and do not tell me that those costs also will not be passed on.
Market mechanism! Bullshit! (sorry, but that’s what it is.)
That image I linked to says so much on just that one page that it would take ages to correctly explain.
The average person has no idea whatsoever what is being indicated there.
This is a con on so many levels.
I know I’ve gone on at length and it reminds me of Max listening to the Chief under the Cone Of Silence. The chief has just intricately told Max the plan and Max has just replied to the chief that he missed a bit. When the chief asks Max which bit, Max replies, “that bit right after ‘Now listen carefully’.”
I go on at length, but if it is carefully explained in a manner most can understand, then you are getting one extra piece of the puzzle that becomes a little less opaque.
Maybe you would like to comment on the following taken from a comment by “Robber of Glen Waverley” on Andrew Bolt’s blog here.
In the Dept of Resources, Energy and Tourism Draft Energy White Paper 2011 – Strengthening the Foundation for Australia’s Energy Future, they say:
Page 34: Energy?intensive industries are expected to continue to prosper, supported by transitional assistance under the Clean Energy Future package. Over time, growth is expected to slow as some emissions intensive, trade?exposed activities that depend heavily on low?cost electricity (such as aluminium production) face competitive pressures from countries that have access to cheaper low?emissions power (such as hydroelectricity).
Page xxi: While clean energy outcomes have enormous potential, they are far from predetermined and the success of individual technologies hinges on addressing current technical, social and cost issues. The challenge and scale of the clean energy transformation should not be underestimated. For example, the Australian Treasury has forecast that under carbon pricing, some 260 terawatt hours of clean energy generation could be delivered by 2050. Taking into account current clean energy generation, this would equate to the average annual output of around an additional 43 new 750 megawatt hour coal?fired power stations – a significant investment task.
Page xxxii: The Australian Government has committed up to $17 billion in funding to support the development, commercialisation and deployment of clean energy technologies. This includes the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as well as support for large?scale carbon capture and storage demonstration.
Page 110: The Australian Government’s Clean Energy Future package includes an energy security component to assist this process and ensure that energy security risks are minimised. This includes:
– the establishment of an Energy Security Fund to provide $5.5 billion in transitional assistance through to 2016–17 and funding under the Contract for Closure initiative to support the negotiated closure of up to 2000 megawatts of highly emissions?intensive generation capacity before 2020.
Page 162: The Productivity Commission identified more than 230 climate?related measures in operation at the national and subnational levels. While these measures are clearly not all energy related, and while the extent to which they have a material effect on market prices is not known with certainty, they are generally not transparent and add to market complexity. Given that the carbon price has been legislated, the range of measures should be reviewed against the COAG principles of complementarity to ensure that inefficiencies leading to unnecessary costs are avoided. Governments at all levels should review existing measures, consistent with COAG’s agreed complementarity principles for climate change mitigation measures and agree not to introduce any new non?complementary measures.
And if I might (politely) correct KinkyKeith here, I am not a full Engineer. I only have a very lowly Associate Diploma in Electrical Engineering from 25 years in that electrical trade. In my case here, I’ve just been researching all of this and writing about it for 4 years. My knowledge about these particular aspects of the electrical trade has increased (exponentially) in that time.
Sometimes its as dry as the Simpson, and my task is to attempt to get it to a level that the average person can understand.
That’s what we need, more clear breakdowns of cost bases.
Actual cost of production is till quite low compared to retail costs but does this include distribution costs (ie transformers, lines, poles etc) ?
Actually being able to quantify the profits being taken out by private interests ( as opposed to state governments) would be a great tool to have for the next elections.
The individual generators sell their power to the grid, and as I mentioned those are in the main Government owned.
The distributions costs (transformers, sub stations, poles and lines etc) are then added on by Governments who now pass the new cost (plus their profit, handling, and admin costs) onto the providers, (eg the Ergons etc) who then add on their bit and sell it to you at the new retail cost.
Okay then, just why is Wind Power so costly to generate when compared with coal fired power.
Let’s compare the proposed Musselroe Plant in Tassie with say Bayswater. (for the purpose of my using that one Bayswater constant)
Musselroe will have 56 towers with 3MW Nacelles for a total Nameplate of 168MW. It will produce for consumption 420GWH each year, and that’s at a CF of close to 30%. It has a best case scenario life span of 25 years, so at that theoretical total it will produce for consumption a total of 10,500GWH
10,500GWH.
Bayswater produces 17,500GWH each year, and has a projected (base) life span of 50 years, which with refurbishment can actually extend out to 60 years if needed. So, in its lifetime it will produce for consumption a total of 845,000GWH
850,000GWH.
This is more than 80 times as much power.
The costs for both plants now need to be extrapolated out over the life of the plant plus all associated costs.
Musselroe will cost $400 Million, (Base, projected, hoped for minimum)
Bayswater cost X in the late 70’s and in today’s dollars for an equivalent that could be as high as $2 Billion. However, Bayswater has to purchase the coal to fuel the critical furnace. That amounts to around 6 million tons of coal at whatever steaming coal costs. Keep in mind, this Plant also owns the nearby coal mine, so they are using their own coal, but even at the current market price that is a considerable yearly cost.
So, Musselroe has to extrapolate 10,500GWH over 25 years plus all their extras and then translate that to a per unit MWH cost.
Bayswater has to extrapolate 850,000GWH over 50 years plus the cost of the coal and all other costs as well, and then translate that to a per unit MWH cost.
Even with the considerable cost of the coal, then coal fired power is a quantum level cheaper, more reliable, and is actually available on a 24/7/3656 basis.
Now add on the CO2 Tax, an extra $500 million a year, or an extra $25 Billion over the life of the plant if it stays at that $23. (Ha! Fat chance that) and the cost per unit rises. Even so, it is still (considerably) cheaper than Wind Power.
Now also add on (the totally unobtainable dream of) CCS, and it raises the cost per unit for coal fired power even further again, and it is still considerably cheaper than Wind Power.
Everything they possibly can do to make renewables cost competitive cannot make them competitive, and even if they ever did, coal fired power would still win, because of its reliability and availability of that 24/7/365 basis.
Nuclear power, a long long way off here is even better than coal again.
They generate their power at a much higher CF hence far more GWH per year, and the fuel, the nuclear rod assemblies are considerably (far and away in fact) cheaper than the coal required to be burned in the coal fired plants.
Even so, they are still doing everything they can to make Nuclear power more expensive.
Either of the major forms of Solar power are considerably more expensive even than Wind.
Nothing that they do can ever make renewables of current flavour of the month competitive.
They fail at every level.
These costs I have mentioned here are simplified for ease of understanding.
Tony, one of the other objections I’ve heard (from an engineer) against wind power and solar is that with variable outputs, and a much larger number of them feeding into the grid, it is difficult to impossible to control the grid in both the 50Hz timing and the overall second-by-second output. The emphasis was that being off by a millisecond or three would lead to arcing or violent equipment failure.
In this thread someone asks about the grid feed problem and the top rated answer (by Pumpizmus) says this is not a problem for nukes because as long as there’s already other generators running, the grid basically synchronizes the generator to it anyway.
Is that the same deal in coal plants?
Does the problem still exist for solid-state inverter solar grid feed-in?
Is there a synch problem from having very large numbers of windmills or solar rooftops?
Has any renewables plant solved it by putting a DC motor >==> AC generator between the windmills and grid?
I kept reading some of the other answers in that thread and they kindof half-answer my above questions, just wondering what your opinion is on the scale and solution of the grid synch problem.
As this Post has almost run its course, I suppose not many readers will come back here to see this, but it’s worth replying to, and again, as you can all see, electrical power is more complex than just turning the switch on the ‘hole in the wall’ and having the power there.
Because of the nature of that complexity, I’ll (attempt to) answer your question with two separate replies, because this needs careful explanation.
The first comment will (hopefully) address the ‘synching’ of the many Plants on line that supply a grid overall.
Now, while Wind power is a combination of individual towers, each with its own generator, it may seem here that there are many of them to watch wrt the correct frequency of output.
(That output frequency is 50 Hz (cycles per second) here in Australia and 60 Hz in the U.S. so that translates to 3000RPM here and 3600RPM in the U.S.)
A Wind Plant is still treated as ONE plant on the grid, even though it may have numerous generators, some up in the hundreds.
While some towers may not be spinning and supplying an output, there is still some output at all times from Wind Plants, eg as shown at this link for Wind Performance. You can untick the boxes shown there to show performance for individual Plants as required.
So, even though all the generators (Towers) might not be producing their full power, at least some of them are. When a Wind Plant is commissioned (delivering power to the grid) it stays connected to the grid all the time, and all that varies is the total power being delivered. While the plant may have many towers, it is controlled as the one deliverer of power, if you can see that, as all towers are coordinated so that delivery is at that one constant and in synch frequency.
Because the plant is delivering some power all the time, there is no major problem with synch wrt to the grid overall. They control onsite the numerous towers as they drop in and out.
Now wrt to the overall synching question, the major times this would be carefully carried out is during those Peaking Power periods, a couple of hours in the morning, and from 4PM till around 10PM.
Other plants come on line to add power to the grids to cover increased demand, and when they come on line, they must be frequency synched to the grid before ‘flicking the switch’ to start delivering. So, run up the turbine/generator complex, get the frequency the same as for the grid, and then connect the plant to the grid. Each one is done individually at each plant.
When it comes to large scale coal fired power, those plants are delivering their power 24/7/365, so the only time there would be a synch problem there would be after maintenance etc, when bringing one of the generators back on line, and again, that is done on site, getting all that right before adding that generator back onto the overall power from that plant to the grid.
All that is required after all the plants are connected to the grid is for the generator speed to be maintained at that 3000RPM (for Australia) and again, that is done onsite for each plant.
Tony.
(While I have called them generators in every comment I make, they are in fact AC Generators, Alternators, or in the case of power plants Turbo Alternators)
Now, this second comment will deal with rooftop solar power.
It’s electrical theory, so again my task is to (try to anyway) explain it in as simple a manner as I can, so all you electrical engineers out there reading this, don’t you be laughing out too loud now.
The electrical power generated by a plant connected to the grid delivers its power at 50Hertz (or 50 cycles per second) and think of that as a pulse of electrical current coming down the line, 50 pulses each second. That pulse is not like a river flowing, eg one amount of water moving over a distance, as electrical current is the movement of electrons, and here the electron does not move over the full distance. The electron moves from one atom to next, and replaces the electron that has moved to the next atom if you can see that. That speed of travel is at the speed of light, 186,000 Miles per SECOND.
So, 50 pulses per second, and that pulse is AC, a sine wave, so that’s a pulse of one hundredth of a second in one direction and then one hundredth of a second in the reverse direction.
At the speed of light that’s a distance of around 1860 miles each hundredth of a second.
Now, why I mentioned that is that while all the power plants are synchronised to the same frequency, there are hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of tiny little ‘generators’ adding power to grids all over.
These are those rooftop solar power installations. Some just supply power that is being consumed by the individual residence, but with more and more large scale installations being connected, that excess power being generated is being fed back to the grid.
Now the problem that is arising is one of power being fed back the other way, if you can see that, and also that synchronisation with the existing power on the grid already.
Rooftop panel power is DC, and an inverter is used to convert it to ‘regular’ 240V 50Hz household supply.
What is remaining is fed back to the grid.
You’ll get quality inverters and average inverters, and no all of them are the same.
I’m actually beginning to hear of problems with the increasing number of rooftop systems wrt the grid supply.
So, while they may seem to be a good ‘green’ thing, they may in actual fact be causing problems that could soon become major.
Again, there will be ‘green’ supporters who will say I am scaremongering, but as you can see, even when explained in such a basic manner, the supply of electrical power is more complex than is thought.
Now some of you may actually be putting two and two together and thinking a pulse of power travelling 1860 miles in one hundredth of a second, and thinking there must be a limit to this.
Extrapolate that out to overall distance. There are (significant) power losses over distance, so the calls for filling central Australia with hundreds of square miles of solar panels and this could power all Australia, it might (pretty big might) produce the power that Australia consumes, but there’s no way to get that power, all of it to where it is being consumed, on the Eastern Sea Board. The same applies with Wind Power. Fill the Great Australian Bight from Perth to Adelaide with wind turbines. Again, there’s no way to get all that power to where it is needed for consumption.
That’s why we have grids and power plants connected to the grids enough for the area they are servicing.
“Clean energy” can only work as long as they can say there is something “dirty” about conventional energy. When coal or gas fired plants only put out CO2, and CO2 has been exonerated, they haven’t got much to go on.
That was the whole point about CO2 induced global warming in the first place.
“Despite the Climategate scandal that has thrown the man-made global warming theory
into disrepute, Pope Benedict XVI is still a believer in the discredited claims being made about the alleged role of man in creating a hotter planet. He has been labeled the
“Green Pope” and some Catholic parishes in the U.S. following his lead are advocating
a “carbon fast” for Lent, the period before Easter. Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, says Benedict’s views “are motivated by theology not politics.”
However, acting more like a politician than a religious leader, the Pope greeted
ambassadors to the Vatican during his new year’s address to the diplomatic corps by
complaining about the failure at the 2009 Copenhagen conference to come up with a
new treaty to punish Western nations, led by the United States, that have used fossil
fuels for industrial development.
Referring to “the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment,” he said, “This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City, it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”
Lee Penn, who previously wrote the book, False Dawn, about global religion, notes in
this report for America’s Survival, Inc. that the Pope’s agenda goes beyond global
warming. He writes: When the Pope agrees with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Henry Kissinger, the new President of the European Union, and other secular leaders on the need for global governance and new world order, we can know that the world has indeed experienced a “harmonic convergence” and entered a new age….”
U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize a new form of state religion which holds that natural resources have to be protected for the sake of Gaia, a so-called Earth spirit. This religious movement, which has cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations.
Gore, who as a member of the U.S. Senate participated in the 1992 U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit, is the most prominent member of what appears to be an environmental cult built around the concept of reverence for the Earth. Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship….”
The pope is entitled to his opinion. The fact that the church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals does not make him a weatherman.
The biggest mistake the church ever made, in my humble opinion, occurred in 800 AD when Leo III ambushed Charlamagne and crowned him as the first holy roman emperor. The church then became a secular power always in need of a protector. The donation of Constantine is the global warming fraud of it’s time. The world would have been a better place if the pope would have remained a spiritual leader. The inherent conflict of interst sill continues to haunt the church and probably always will.
Topher’s calling for help to defend free speech
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/help_topher_to_defend_free_speech/
there are 2 videos at the link, one where he explains the project and one updating us on where he’s at with his fundraising
he needs another $10,000 by end of January, in his words ‘very very achievable’
Actually what’s REALLY amusing is that you guys (Temp AND Tristan) are so “brave” that you have to take your cheap, unsubstantiated shots at the contents of a three day old thread on an entirely unrelated, two day old thread.
Why didn’t you make your comments on the Archibald thread where the author might notice, and respond to them?
Or
Why don’t you make them on the current thread where all the readers are now, so they can be responded to?
.
Can you spell “abject cowardice” children?
How about “morally bankrupt”?
Well CTS that’s probably because what constitutes for debate at WUWT mostly consists of ad homs, gish gallops, false equivalences and accusations of dishonesty.
(You have made a goof in posting this scurrilous attack.Do you know why we are now laughing at you?) CTS
Why don’t you (or Jo) show us just how brave you are, by posting at SkS?
(I HAVE posted there before and they were quickly deleted) CTS
(The Archibald post in question originated at WUWT.Therefore it is the place to go to debate the author of the presentation who will be present to defend it.Jo picks upon it and brought it here.David has commented here a few times.But spend most of his time at WUWT.That should have been obvious even for you,No?) CTS
Interesting that Dana has two degrees from US universities and still can’t put a scientific discussion together on her own.
Her thesis that Man Did It via CO2 rests on the ridiculous assumptions about residence times of water and CO2 in the air and apparently on the fact that she has two degrees.
For some unknown reason her table shows water as being “normal” or being in the atmosphere for so fleeting a moment that it can’t react.
On the other hand CO2 has such a long “residence” time that it does superhuman damage to the atmosphere?
You have made a goof in posting this scurrilous attack.Do you know why we are now laughing at you?
Always happy to entertain.
I HAVE posted there before and they were quickly deleted
It’s not that hard to post in adherence with the comments policy. The staff at SkS are currently looking at a way to preserve deleted posts, I look forward to that. Pity it won’t be able to be retroactively applied, that would have given me great joy.
The Archibald post in question originated at WUWT.Therefore it is the place to go to debate the author of the presentation who will be present to defend it.Jo picks upon it and brought it here.David has commented here a few times.But spend most of his time at WUWT.That should have been obvious even for you,No?
Posting here and at WUWT is an unpleasant experience for people accustomed to a higher standard of dialogue. I know it’s strange but sneers and nastiness aren’t everyone’s cup of tea. For whatever reason, JB and I have a tolerance for it.
(If you think you are being mistreated here.You can report it and describe why you made the report.The REPORT THIS link right there in front of you.You should not have to tolerate nasty personal attacks) CTS
I’m beginning to think your skull is little more than an empty echo chamber.
Forget CTS – you and I personally have traded posts many times on the futility of unbelievers posting over a Septic Science. If one is lucky, one only gets deleted. If one has REALLY made a point, the person is simply “disappeared” – as I was.
As I have pointed to you before (with links), the blogosphere is awash with tales (including screen dumps)of John Crook’s Cook’s propensity to delete, disappear, and/or alter skeptical posts, as well as “editing” his own articles – sometimes months after the fact – to make the poster appear incorrect.
At one stage when confronted with these FACTS you stated your intention to talk with John Crook Cook about these extra-editorial activities.
That was months ago, and since then, despite regular prompting from me – and others – we have seen nothing, nada, zip.
While I normally don’t agree with any form of censorship of on-topic posts save as is necessary to protect the webmaster from legal action, I honestly believe on the subject of skeptics posting at Septic Science, the time has come for any comment made by you about it to simply be snipped on the basis that we have heard it all before, and you have NEVER made good on offering any form of rational explanation by John Crook Cook.
.
In other words, it’s time for you to put up or shut up.
“Amusing to see that neither John Cook or Dana1981 have the courage to debate the paper at WUWT blog or here.”
and your response: “I dare say they’ve got much better things to do.”
Well I checked out Dana’s web site and his outline of CO2 driven incineration drivel which I commented on above, or was it below.
The person claims to have two degrees but as one commentator said about Dana’s qualifications, they don’t mean much. He then went on to list the “hard science” which has been lost from University Science Courses in the US.
Dana is the epitome of the American Science Dream gone bad.
Bad science is bad science and Dana probably has no idea he is sprouting bad science.
So Kinky K why don’t you put them all to rights an publish some “good” science?? Of course we know the answer to that don’t we? I doubt you could get a paper within a bull’s roar of peer review. You seem to have endless time to post on this blog so you can’t use limited time as an excuse.
The shining example of the new Science Lite, the Torch bearer for the Global Warming movement.
Below is a comment from an earlier US graduate commenting on science standards and course sequences relevant to the Dana situation:
“My own undergraduate institution, S*** College, now offers a BS of astrophysics in addition to a BS of physics.
S*** College formerly provided the standard undergraduate curriculum in physics as prerequisite for a BS, as developed by the APS, including Physics I-IV, elctrodynamics 1,2, mechanics 1,2, modern optics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, thermal physics, solid state physics, math physics 1,2.
Most of those have unfortunately disappeared from the curriculum offered, and what is offered is an admixture of “astrophysics” courses without a curriculum set by any educational accreditation entity.
The problem is that many rather “fringe” subjects such as Planetary Climatology[!] have crept into the curriculum, the product of the curriculum being a dumbed down version of a BS science student.
There are no standards left in “science” any more, it’s a free-for-all to go do what “feels good” and call it “science” .”
Why bother?! HUHH? You’ve got to be kidding right? You are the ones always bitching about bad science but you say that it’s not worth the bother to correct it? Give me a break, you spend your whole time here whining about how doing anything about climate change is going to destroy the free world. So when someone suggests you ought to make a correction to that you say “why bother?”. Wow that takes the prize. Quit your bitching then mate if you couldn’t be fagged to do anything about it.
So Kinky K why don’t you put them all to rights an publish some “good” science??
Not really any need, Temp. Lots of reasonably “good” science is starting to be published these days as all and sundry try and protect their arses and distance themselves and their reputations from “the team”, and “the cause”.
The CRU released info the other day confirming temps haven’t risen for the last 15 years, and the British Met office has confirmed we are moving into a prolonged period of a “quiet sun”.
Of course, naturally, they claim their computer models show that this will not make a big difference since any cooling will be more than offset by CAGW.
But when one factors in that they are using much the SAME CAGW-orientated computer model that they used to predict those “mild winters” when England ground to a halt under record snowfalls and freezing temperatures, punctuated by their predicted “bbq summers” when the country drowned, and will overall be best remembered for the infamous “snow will be a thing of the past” line, I’m not all that confident about the CAGW offset stuff.
Not much point talking science to “space makers”, they don’t understand science unless it’s in context for them eg SkS or Professor Cooks blogg that is so scientifically childish you wouldn’t let kindergarten kids near it.
“space makers” must be getting paid to make Jo’s blogg look chaotic to random visitors.
One recent comment actually made the observation that there was more “conflict” here than “scientific discussion” if I have paraphrased him correctly.
That’s enough to turn around a significant number of people.
Just imagine page after page of Tristan, Johnny B Good, MattyB and Temp — a visitor may get the wrong impression that they had arrived at a lawyers blogg.
“Reasonably good science”. Baaaaaaaaaaah Haaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
Seriously you guys are hilarious! You ought to give up your day jobs and take up comedy.
Thank you.
Given that I was quoting the findings of the Hadley CRU (home of Phil Jones), and the British Met Office (MET), two of the five “backbones” of modern CAGW “science”, I’ll take your post as an obvious vote of no confidence in these two institutions and the phoney “science” they promote.
The only joke I am aware of on this site is you, Temp! Will you ever contribute anything to the conversation or will you continue to seek attention through your juvenile antics because you obviously feel that your patents didn’t give you enough of it?
Gillard used a disposable junior PR staff member to leak the opposition leader’s location to the Aborigines in an attempt to get him attacked personally for a previous comment and also to get herself sympathy by pictures of her rapid evacuation when the protestors showed up. Afterwards the junior staffer was dumped in the usual politically-correct manner.
The official word of course is that the junior member acted alone in leaking the information. Well that would have to be one of the most courageous and daring moves from a junior in a job that is typically occupied by grovelling serfs. The only other plausible explanation is that the seniors set up the junior and that the PM really didn’t know. Tough game, politics.
Not that they will ever prove me wrong about this opinion because that would require holding an actual police inquiry to find out who said what to whom.
And really, it’s just pathetic. When the USA neocons hold a false flag attack, 3000 people die. When the Australian green-left party stages a false flag attack, one woman loses a shoe! We’ve really got to lift our game if we want to mix with the big dogs on the block.
SBS2 is featuring a program “Science under attack” with Paul Nurse lamenting the failure of people to prostrate themselves before their climate scientist deities.
Missus and I have just enjoyed a roast lamb dinner and it’s staying IN my stomach.
The burden of proof is on the proponent of a hypothesis. If you can provide empirical evidence that would be refreshing. An appeal to authority is illogical and not proof. As the moderator pointed out, The topic is about unhappy people. You are obviously a miserable person so tell us why and maybe we can help you to get the help you need.
Temp – If you do want to talk science I’m always up for it (though goofing off into EU politics is fun too).
In my view this paper from 1996 killed CAGW stone dead 16 years ago. And this one last year put the stake through the heart of the quivering corpse. Then this one also from last year chopped its head off. And this one stuffed it into a garbage bin. Enjoy.
(The links are nice but… The topic is not about the science but about unhappy people who are reacting to what is happening around them) CTS
(You are a determined thread hijacker with all of your comments being well off topic.Keep it up and you will be put into the pending bin where the moderators will decide if you are sufficiently back on topic to have it approved) CTS
Really? I have better things to do than type away at a keyboard only to have it “snipped” by some hard working “volunteer”. I don’t expect perfection from anyone but enough is enough! When it gets to being a little less capricious and arbitrary around here drop me a line! This isn’t my site so adios! Best of luck.
Perhaps we should be a little more moderate in the application of moderation.
I have to work around censorship of one form or another during my working day. And in fact, one of the interesting observations about the topic of this thread is the lack of coverage in the international MSM about the protests in Sicily. Censorship of a very serious and worrying kind.
People go off-topic because they have nothing useful to contribute to the current subject, and sometimes nothing useful to contribute at all. My grandmother used to say that empty vessels make the most noise, and that certainly applies to the trolls we get here – especially now the quality of trolling has dropped through the floor – we only deserve the B-team reserves? Gimme a break.
The best thing to do is simply ignore them – leave them shouting into an empty room. People who are serious about coming to this blog will see them for what they are.
But however bad and inept they are, I still do not advocate arbitrarily removing them (or anybody else for that matter). Let’s leave that to the Cook and Bottlewasher over on SepticScience.
Sorry for the double posting – I am not sure how that happened.
I understand what you had to do, and can imagine why you had to do it. But snipping a regular is not a terribly charitable thing to do, if you get my meaning. Eddy makes some very useful contributions when he doesn’t get his gander up. My comments were partly aimed at him for getting sucked into the game. Much better to ignore the idiots.
(It does not matter if it is a regular or a first time commenter.The standard for everyone is the same.We are expected to be reasonably on topic and make comments that is about any part of the topic) CTS
(Normally I overlook scattered off topic comments because it does not derail the discussion of the topic.But there is one commenter who was ALWAYS off topic and getting others involved in that distraction.Then the topic of discussion slows to a crawl or die out.That is when I have to make a stand in trying to get people to get back towards the topic at hand) CTS
(What is snipped is off topic AND useless to the conversation.I am following the blog owners guideline on it and what is discussed through the e-mails.The best way to keep moderators away is to work the topic conversationally and be reasonably civil) CTS
(It does not matter if it is a regular or a first time commenter.The standard for everyone is the same.We are expected to be reasonably on topic and make comments that is about any part of the topic)
In bold above………..this is an unthreaded thread so no one is ON topic correct?
(When Rereke and myself made these comments.It was in a topic based thread.Jo moved them here.You can post anything decent in a un threaded entry) CTS
Well the final tally is in and it is over 1,000,000 this of course does not include the 500 odd thousand that died from the sanctions in the 1990’s the Iraqi government did the only sane thing they could and kicked the US out.
But fear not all you misanthropists, The US government has commandeered two islands to shore up the straight of Hormuz and more US warships have just gone through the Suez canal to join the already massive flotilla.
Israel is as always banging the drum beats for war and is now talking about “closing windows of opportunity” so all the pieces for Iranian invasion are in place and will happen at a time of our choosing.
So fear not fellow misanthropists the body count clock will begin ticking again shortly.
I understand your frustration with the American war machine.
War is ugly but sadly war is also the human experience and if any country is not prepared to go to war it will be the object of predators of all types.
Recent news out of Libya suggests that the ugly Gaddafi government has been replaced by one equally as brutal; bit of score settling going on.
It’s good to keep the US under scrutiny but don’t forget to apply the same standards to all.
I know that there are millions of people in Iran who would want to be rid of the present partisan government, but getting there without doing another “Libya” will not be easy.
For a moment I thought the body count was above that debated on the other thread; seems not.
Whether 6 million Jews were gassed during WW11 was the debate.
The how many and the how is not near as important as the why, the how many and the how varies depending on which part of our shameful history one wishes to look at but the why is always the same.
War is ugly but sadly war is also the human experience and if any country is not prepared to go to war it will be the object of predators of all types.
Look at the current situation with Iran, there is no credible evidence to suggest Iran are making a bomb but yet here we are on their door step itching to invade based on that premise and in light of your quote i highlighted it would seem that if Iran were/did build a bomb you would condone it after all they are merely preparing for war? If they really were trying to build a bomb could you not blame them? After all no one wants to the object of predators do they?
Rather than say “well war is inevitable lets all do it” shouldnt we look at an alternative? I understand what you say Hitler marched through Poland and beyond, the global war of terror is currently marching through the middle east and the only way to stop both is to take up arms against them and well it worked against Hitler.
Call the Iranian government what you will but Iran has not invaded anyone for at least 200 years, its antagonisers however have the stench of fresh blood on them. So rather than suggest Iran build a bigger and better army to protect itself when eventually attacked should not we be asking the question *why* are we attacking?
Why KK, that is the question. Look through history as to why wars start and you will see nothing has changed so rather than create another arms race “to protect ourselves” we should be trying to stop the next arms race.
The Rothschild family is slowly but surely having their Central banks established in every country of this world, giving them incredible amount of wealth and power.
In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
It is not a coincidence that these country, which are listed above were and are still being under attack by the western media, since one of the main reasons these countries have been under attack in the first place is because they do not have a Rothschild owned Central Bank yet. The first step in having a Central Bank establish in a country is to get them to accept an outrageous loans, which puts the country in debt of the Central Bank and under the control of the Rothschilds. If the country does not accept the loan, the leader of this particular country will be assassinated and a Rothschild aligned leader will be put into the position, and if the assassination does not work, the country will be invaded and have a Central Bank established with force all under the name of terrorism.
Rothschild owned Central Bank:
Central banks are illegally created private banks that are owned by the Rothschild banking family. The family has been around for more than 230 years and has slithered its way into each country on this planet, threatened every world leader and their governments and cabinets with physical and economic death and destruction, and then emplaced their own people in these central banks to control and manage each country’s pocketbook. Worse, the Rothschilds also control the machinations of each government at the macro level, not concerning themselves with the daily vicissitudes of our individual personal lives. Except when we get too far out of line.
The only countries left in 2003 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family were:
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
The Attacks of September 11th were an inside job to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to then establish a Central Bank in those countries.
The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
After the instigated protests and riots in the Arab countries the Rothschild finally paved their way into establishing Central Banks, and getting rid of many leaders, which put them into more power.
Homeland Security is making more enemies after seizing two British tourists over ridiculously misconstrued tweets. Leigh Van Bryan, age 26, tweeted to a friend that he was free to talk before he was going to “destroy” America. He was excited to visit Hollywood and perform the British slang “destroy,” which is to party hard and “get trashed.” …
Can it get any sillier than this?, oh hang on we shut down Sydney airport because of suspicious package which turned out to be a sausgage roll in a paper bag………….
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
I think i get what he is saying for example if i want to know how much the sun affects the Earth’s climate i would consult an Astro physicist.
crackar – because I’ve moved comments to this thread from another that were nested, it’s blitzed the organisation of this thread and the comments below are orphans from another thread. They will remain at the bottom of all new comments posted. Sigh. If people stick to topic, I can move whole nests of comments together and the system doesn’t break, but I can’t split up a nest and move some. I thought I might get away with it, because they were all replies to one reply to a comment, but I have to move the master comment as well 🙁
Jo – You have a mention in a new Drum/Desmogblog post by Graham Readfearn. And a fruity mix Mr Readfearn has produced too. The comments also are real grassy knoll stuff.
Wow, has Gina Rinehart put the cat amongst the activist pigeons or what?
Folks, forgive this off-topic post but this is fresh news that needs to be spread far and wide. I received it from a very good source. Normally I would eschew such stuff as gossip however in this case I have a high degree of confidence in the source that provided the info.
00
I forgot links:
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4149#more-4149
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
00
Mark,
I’m highly sympathetic to those who wish to democratically un-elect Obama at the Nov 2012 presidential elections.
Obama is the most incompetent president since Carter, the most corrupt since Nixon. His presidency is a catastrophe. But he won the presidency fairly, Americans self-inflicted themselves with Obama fully aware of his relationships with American racial extremists and former homegrown terrorists and with his vague past. It was all out there and Obama still won. Americans were told about the controversy surrounding Obama’s legal status to run in 2008 and they didn’t care.
The Birther movement is a huge strategic error on the part of the far right, because it seeks to emulate the same anti-democratic techniques of the far left. There can be no winners in this battle and the biggest loser will be the American democracy itself.
Since the Bush election of 2000 the tendency to refer presidential election disputes to the unelected court system has been growing. It’s as an irreversible process, each step sets precedents in a downward spiral of disrespect for the election process. Those who wish to preserve the legitimacy of elections would do well to respect the will of the people as represented in the vote rather than to challenge it at every opportunity.
Today, the circa 46% of Americans who still support the president believe Obama is a rightful US citizen and they will never accept that he’s an illegal usurper to the American presidency. Obama has a birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii. The constitutional argument over the definition of what a “natural citizen” meant in 1776 seems academic and disingenuous to them.
The Americans who support the Birther movement need to ask themselves what do they possibly hope to achieve by dividing the nation into two fiercely adversarial camps with no democratic avenue to solve their dispute? That’s the real issue.
Are things really so bad in America that starting what will amount to a civil war and permanently damaging the rule of constitutional law is worth ousting Obama outside the democratic process? Because that’s exactly what the practical results of the Birther movement would be if they’re successful.
What if the lawsuit in Georgia is successful? What if other deeply conservative states also cast Obama off the ballot? Say, a dozen states in the deep south follow suit. Then all the blue states up north will confirm he is on the ballot.
Then it goes to the supreme court which will decide in favour of Obama not because that’s the academically correct legal interpretation but because the supreme court will see it as a practical matter….either strike Obama from the ballot in November and start a civil war destroying the republic or strike down the minority extremists who challenge Obama’s legitimacy and muddle through the election with the republic preserved…
If Americans really love their country and their constitution and wish to preserve it into the future they won’t set a divisive precedent which will be used against America in every coming election cycle.
You can’t destroy America to save America.
00
All well and good wes — except for one thing: The USA is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.
If a majority of the population want to change the constitution, they can (and have) — through the process specified in the Constitution itself. However, until they do that, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the USA is to remain a nation ruled by law, then a majority of the population cannot legally elect a Constitutionally ineligible candidate to office.
It is unlikely that state court decisions will force Obama to step down, but if enough states remove him from the 2012 ballot, the Democratic party will have no choice but to nominate someone else, as Obama would surely lose.
This, even, might not stop the court cases, and if the Supreme Court ever rules that Obama was ineligible for office it could invalidate all the laws he signed.
I’ve yet to see anyone on the far left argue for a strict adherence to the Constitution (or the Rule of Law in general), so I think your comparison is wrong.
For the last 3 years, I feel we’ve been living a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale — and the little boy has just shouted “But, he has no clothes!”.
00
All good points, Bob C, but don’t confuse your terms. A constitutional republic is a subset of possible forms of democracy, so the USA actually is a democracy.
I agree that if Obama isn’t a US “natural born” citizen then he was ineligible for the office he holds. But even if the Birthers come up with Obama’s Kenyan passport it isn’t going to convince half the country. All they have to do is claim it’s a fraud. Heck, conspiracy sells like hotcakes nowadays.
Even the birthers seem to have given up on the false birth certificate claim and now are relying on an “originalist” interpretation of the constitutional meaning of “natural born” in 1776. But that’s not going to fly with Obama supporters, since the original interpretation of the Constitution also allowed slavery to continue for almost a century.
I’m not arguing how the Constitution should be interpreted. I’m saying that if you really cared about preserving The Republic and the constitution values of respecting the will of the people as expressed in free and fair elections you’d give this one up. Because Obama has been president for 3 years and the US is coming up to its most contentious election since 1968, this is no longer an academic question for constitutional scholars, but one of realpolitik.
No, what would happen is that the US would be thrown into the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War and a whole bunch of people would die fighting in the streets. The fabric of civil society would be rip asunder and who knows what lies just beneath? You really want to find out?
The end result is that everyone loses, even whoever wins loses. The American union emerging would be crippled. Only Obama’s “spiritual advisor” would be pleased. “God damn, God damn America.”
Fortunately, I trust cooler heads will prevail and this won’t rise to crisis proportions.
In the meanwhile, shouldn’t you guys be focusing 110% on how to win an election rather than how to avoid one?
00
My post vanished into the aether. I repost it here:
It’s a limited democracy, in which the will of the people (as expressed in elections) is subservient to the Constitution. The Founders were rightfully suspect of pure democracies, such as Athens, because they all too often turn into tyranny (as Athens did). Their goal was to maximize individual liberty under a practical government — a goal not compatible with pure democracy, which often becomes a “tyranny of the majority”.
Therefore, the position that Obama is effectively (despite the Constitution) a legal president only because he was elected is in conflict with the basic principle of the Rule of Law and the Founder’s desire for the protection of liberty. For him to be legally President he must both be elected and be legally eligible. That’s what this court case is attempting to address.
Re-read Mark D’s post — expert witnesses testified that the birth certificate on the White House web site is blatantly forged. You can even test this claim yourself if you have a copy of PhotoShop. The denial of this incontrovertable fact is what I was referring to as “living a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale”.
I’m guessing you don’t live in the US. (If I’m wrong, forgive me — but what part do you live in?) Just because a lot of US citizens are armed doesn’t mean that we aren’t dedicated to the Rule of Law. In fact, the ones who are armed are generally the most dedicated to the Rule of Law (despite the spin outsiders try to put on it) — just compare the videos of Tea Party rallies (certainly a subgroup that is more highly armed than average) with the Occupy Whatever (a group with a higher than average percentage of gun control proponents).
00
Oops! I guess my post(s) were “awaiting moderation”.
Have I trangressed some of the rules? If so, I hereby apologize.
(This is a glitch or mistake.Many are suddenly in moderation.I will free them as fast as I can) CTS
00
Bob…we are starting to talk past each other. Your last post doesn’t address my main point.
Let me put it to you again and I’ll hope for a more direct reply:
If the Truthers are successful in striking Obama off the ballot in conservative states that will cause a cascading failure of the democratic process resulting in a constitutional crisis which will divided the American nation into two fiercely hostile camps with no electoral process available to solve their differences. So the decision of who will be the next American president will devolve to the unelected supreme court. (It’s a bit like the Roman Senate’s willingness to appoint dictatorships in times of trouble, which eventually led to the end of the Roman Republic.)
Do you think that’s an unreasonable view?
If the decision were to go against Obama, you and I know that would mean something akin to civil war and it would so divide the union that it’s possible that there might never again be a Presidential election which would pass unchallenged in the streets and the courts again.
If you disagree with that statement, please explain why?
The challenge Obama’s legitimacy – no matter how noble the constitutional cause that motives it – is a recipe for the destruction of fabric which holds America together.
If you really want to serve the intention of the constitution, “the basic principle of Rule of Law” and preserve the Union you simply wouldn’t risk it all over what you can never prove to the satisfaction of about half the American people–that Obama is a Kenyan or Indonesian usurper. Or at least that’s how they’ll see it…No matter how powerful your evidence, they’ll simply put it off as a racist conspiracy to destroy the first black American president.
Few are going to respect the parsing of constitutional details at this late date over the realpolitik facts.
They’ll simply see through your arguments as disingenuous. I’ve already pointed out that the original version of the Constitution lived fine for a hundred years with the cognitive dissonance of slavery, so appeals to “the basic principle of the Rule of Law and the Founder’s desire for the protection of liberty” misrepresents the diversity of interpretations are possible within the Constitution… You’re talking about submerging a whole nation into civil war in order to avoid an election on a legal point that can easily be argued either way.
Again I am not arguing the constitutional merits of the court challenges but that the political reality has eclipsed any possibility of Obama stepping down as president peacefully.
Please don’t hand wave off the suggestion that striking Obama off the ballot would result in the worse civil unrest in the US since the Civil War. How do you morally and ethically justify taking such a risk?
And finally…. It’s widely assumed that cooler heads will prevail and the Birther court contests will go nowhere. So the end result is more likely just a political campaign to make known to a wider public the issues surrounding Obama’s legitimacy.
If this is so, I think the project will backfire. Why?
Because the Birther campaign is only going get court hearings in hugely conservative states that are lost to Obama anyway, so no converts made there will help win the election since it’s the electoral college vote count that matters. Georgia, for instance, is already going to fall against Obama. If the Birthers convince 99% of Georgians to vote against Obama it doesn’t matter in the end.
But, Birther court cases might generate national media attention and thereby help electrify Obama supporters to turn out for the vote in marginal states…. Note to Aussies: Americans don’t have to turn up to vote, so when a candidate like Obama is a lack-luster loser his political base, who in spirit still support his worldview, often aren’t fired up enough to turn out for the ballot…. To Obama supporters who have cooled on him, Birtherism is nothing but a racist conspiracy to foul their man, thus a powerfully motivational call to turn up for Obama in greater numbers nationally.
Obama can lose the popular vote and still win the election on the electoral college vote. If the Birthers inspire higher Obama voter turn out in marginal or blue states then the fact that Birthers are successful in the deep south is worse than meaningless.
Bob C are you worried that Birtherism might do real political damage by inspiring more outrage among otherwise listless Obama supporters than converts in the critical blue-leaning states?
00
wes, I’ll try to answer your points as I see it:
IMO, ignoring or winking at a clear violation of the Constitution is more likely to have such a cascading failure effect. It’s the “camel’s nose under the tent” idea — once such a precedent is begun, where does it end? Eventually, we would have a Constitution about as meaningful as the old USSR’s.
You are simply mistaken here. Your view is not unreasonable, it’s just not informed by American law. There is, in law, a clear line of Presidental Succession that goes through 18 people. In the fantastically unlikely event that none of those 18 people could serve or were eligible, then we would have somewhat of a crisis. Probably Congress would pick someone (since the Constitution charges it with providing for succession law) and a special election would be held ASAP.
A civil war would have to have a goal and a leader. The only conceivable goal would be to re-install Obama as dictator and he would have to be the leader. There is essentially zero chance that this could gain enough traction to be the cause of more than some riots.
And what would be the problem with challenges? Did you not notice the rather extreme charges hurled at G.W.Bush? Perhaps you don’t remember Al Gore’s challenge of the 2000 election? The ACLU has been trying to put Bush officials in prison for the last 3 years. This is why we have a court system.
If this were the way Americans thought, wes, we’d still be part of the British Empire.
As to whether this might backfire and result in Obama’s re-election — of course it might. In that case, Obama would be president for the next four years, unless the birthers prevailed at the Supreme Court. It’s not likely they would drop it.
Some other of your points:
It’s not a matter of interpretation: The original Constitution allowed slavery. It was a necessary compromise to form a union against England. ( Here is a description of the negotiations that transpired.) Since the passage and adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, slavery has been explicitly outlawed — no interpretation required.
Heck, that’s what his supporters say about any criticism. They have done the nation a favor by finally destroying the effectiveness of the “race card” — nobody cares anymore.
I think you have a deep misunderstanding of America. All public officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Every member of the armed forces swears an oath to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic”.
It is belief in the Constitution that is the fabric holding America together.
00
A constitutional Republic is not a subset of possible forms of democracy. Therefore, with all respect for one of my favorite people on the site, your conclusion that the USA is a democracy is false.
The word democracy is found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States but is found in the Federalist Papers.
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths”.
God help us all if Obama is reelected!
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10
In my humble opinion, any president who is willing to destroy the economies of the world to decrease a potential catastrophic warming by a few tenths of a degree is incompetent, dishonest and disingenuous.
00
—1801, Thomas Jefferson
Look Eddie,
I know where you guys are coming from with this “America ain’t a democracy, it’s a republic” trip. You don’t want to confuse constitutional republicanism with spirit finger “democracy” as practiced by the OWS moonbats. Right? Fair enough. 🙂
The word “Democracy” doesn’t appear in the Constitution and the French Revolution was fought for “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” not democracy.
Plato used the example of the Spartan forum one day sending their army into battle and then very next day recalling them home. Plato argued if it was moral to send them to war one day, why would it be not be so the following day? There must be higher rules to judge how men should organise their affairs rather then on the shifting emotions of public opinion.
Today we watch America send its troops into just wars one year only to recall them a few years later without conclusion because a new President and Congress decide the war is no longer justified.
This is where the term Demagogue comes from, a leader who plays to popular fears and prejudices rather than reason will inevitable rise in a democracy, just like Obama, George Wallace, William Jennings Bryan and even Ron Paul did…
Ol ‘Abe described the Union as “Government by the people for the people” at Gettysburg.
The US is definitely a variety of representative democracy, no matter what the latest politically correct fashion is.
Since you guys want to go all classical on my ass. We should recall that that the Romans called their form of Democracy a Republic simply because Athenian-style pure democracy had such a bad rap with Aristotle and Plato. But we all know that the Roman Republic led to dictatorship so might have a bit of pause that the New American Right are so eager to declare the US is NOT a democracy.
We would do well to remember that Plato’s “Republic” was a favourite of Nazi and commies because it envisions communal property, abolition of the family unit and religion, but the line the authors of the Constitution seem to have picked up on (perhaps by way of Francis Hutchison) was the “pursuit of happiness” as a central theme of good governance.
The founding fathers also liked Plato’s ideas about a natural oligarchy with diverse interests interacting to allow the best and brightest to rise to the top. That’s how Washington and his buds saw themselves.
Let’s footnote the Jews, Moslems and Christians in here too, because they were also reading Aristotle and Plato’s Republic. Their solution to find a moral authority to good government was divine revelation combined with an extremely limited democracy among their religious oligarchies. Religion is a constant tune in the background of the founding of the US.
Obviously, the original Roman Republic was based upon moderation by diverse but harmonious power sources as inspired by Plato’s Republic.
Much later Machiavelli was the first guy to defy Plato’s idea of political harmony…. Good governance is the result of conflicting interests rather than harmonies of oligarchies growing lazy and fat… He saw in the Roman Republic that people were free and free people will fight each other and they’ll fight for their nation better than serfs.
This was emulated in the US constitution by dividing the branches of government into three parts, two subject to the whims of democratic forces and the Judiciary by appointment only. The philosophical idea is that – unlike in consensus – the most rational ideas will survive the clash of conflicting argument. Kind of like a memetic natural selection process. But all this great clash of institution is only justified because of “the consent of the governed.” Of course, only members of the oligarchy originally had the right to vote. This democratic “consent of the govern” is the ONLY Great Moral Force which can substitute for Christian revelation, according the Enlightenment philosophers.
This feeds into the whole idea that rhetoric and argument is the way to find the most rational course of action rather than consensus and harmony. Logic and dialog become the most important theme of the Renaissance and here in the 14 th century is where Western Civilisation takes off and leave the rest of the world in the dust, because the idea of rational discourse and logical debate never captures the imagination of the world east of Italy and they fall further and further behind technologically and culturally thereafter. Some Scholars have argued that this was because the Ottoman world was multi-cultural, Jews, several brands of Muslims and dozens of Christian sects, not to mention Zoroasterians, etc. all lived peaceable side by side as long as no one dissed the Sultan everyone was happy. But Europe was all Judeo/Christian so diversity of opinion was forced into open rhetorical debate with each other to fight for its existence in a much narrower spectrum of tolerance. Of course this led to religious civil wars and Hobbes realised that a new philosophy of governance had be developed at the lowest common dominator. We could get into the Concilatory movement, etc. But I digress.
Locke is considered the philosopher who most influenced the Founding Fathers. Hobbes had reasoned revolution was always tragic, but Locke said that people are reasonable individuals and if the government is unjust then at some point a revolution can be just. Locke assumes optimistically that just revolution will lead to just governance. Connect Locke’s reasonable revolutionaries with consent of the governed replacing Christian Revelation plus Machiavelli’s idea of conflicting power base and you got yourself 1776 in New England.
It’s disingenuous to pretend that anyone other than OWS is using the word democracy in the Enlightenment era sense of Athenian direct democracy in the year 2012. After all if you actually spelled out what the Athenians meant by democracy any modern person would instantly recognise citizens acting directly in a forum as judges, adminstrators, tax accessors and war planners is not what the word implies in common usage today.
What you guys are up to is creating a secret Libertarian club handshake to exclude anyone not in on the lingo, right? 😉
I’ve read the Federalist paper and the lot of Enlightenment era philosophy and am well aware of the critiques of classical democracy as well as the fact that the founding father were in no way wished to extend franchise to anyone but white landowners. So in that sense they were not democrats, it’s true. They unleashed the revolution then a decade later with cooler heads leashed the democratic demons they had set loose with the constitution. That’s the great tension in the founding of the US. The initial tea party direct action toward democracy and the later constitutionalism, which highly limited exactly how far the oligarchy was going to let this democracy thing roll. That was a good thing.
But they created a way for their political pragmatism to be modified by future generations to better conform with their fondest idealism, if it ever became possible.
So while it’s true they weren’t interested in extending to vote to men without property or women nor extend their ideals of liberty to include indentured servants, the slaves or Indians, if you read the personal musings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, et al, they recognised the cognitive dissonances in the Constitution with regards to the Declaration of Independence and the Enlightenment philosophers which inspired them, especially the Scots, David Hume, Francis Hutchison (pursuit of Happiness) and Adam Smith.
By 1800, when Thomas Jefferson wrote “We are all Democrats now!” the swing of the pendulum was already moving away from the strict oligarchical constitutionalism of the 1780’s to what is called Jacksonian Democracy of the 1820s-60 which extended the franchise to the poor. This widening of the franchise in America spread to England with the great reforms acts of the 19th century culminating with women get the vote just after WWI.
And it’s not too far of a stretch to imagine that if you could go back in time and have a beer with founding fathers, talk future history, they would have been pleased to hear of an “utopian” future America where the Constitution had been amended to include all those things. In fact, that’s why the Constitution was amended to free the slaves and eventually to extend the vote to all citizens, because it’s easy enough to read into the philosophy expressed in the bill of rights and the Constitutions that these things are implied!
So why don’t you guys explain to me again, this time slowly so I’ll understand, why Obama should be throw out of office without the moral authority of referral to the “consent of the governed.”
00
Ha, ha! (Eddy! Call the Enforcers!)
Really, real tour de force there, wes. I applaud your extensive knowledge of the American Revolution.
I think you already explained it yourself:
The moral authority of the “consent of the governed” resides in the Constitution, not one particular election. The Constitution can (and has) been changed by the consent of the governed, but it is (on purpose) a long and involved process.
To cast aside the Constitution based on a single election (Obama’s) would fly in the face of the entire design of America’s government. This is not a likely way to ensure the continuation of the American experiment in freedom.
00
If the electorate were deceived about O’s eligibility do you think they all would vote for him again?
Further, our laws PROTECT minority opinion. It isn’t always “majority rule” or more correctly laws based on democracy. It is laws based on the Constitutional test. All of them MUST be Constitutional. If one wants to argue that “natural born” should no longer be a valid Constitutional requirement for a Presidential candidate, then there is a process to change that. As it stands there IS such a requirement and permitting the continued disregard for such an egregious violation (if true) is extremely upsetting for a very significant number of “governed”.
People might want to “brush this under the carpet” because that is easier. You may be right that the matter could be a tactical error if only Right-sided. However I gather, from talking to many people, that it isn’t solely a right left issue here. It is a matter of profound principle. Only the far left would be willing to ignore the matter of principle in favor of political advantage.
It boggles my mind to imagine what becomes of legislation passed by his hand if it turns out he is not legitimate.
On the matter of our form of government we are a “Federal Constitutional Republic” No doubt there are interests that would love to see it changed (neutered) to a pure Democracy form. It is much easier to get a mass of people worked up than it is to deal with the fact that legislation must pass a constitutional test.
You might also need to be reminded that considerable time was spent by the founders in giving States Rights and moving the democratic processes closer to the governed. The founders understood what might happen if too much authority was placed in the Federal body. This of course has been usurped and abused continually by Congress ever since but that is a matter for another thread.
00
The Birther claims were well known before the election of 2008, the electorate frankly didn’t give a damn. Nor did they care that some of his best mates were ex-terrorists turned academics or that his spiritual advisor was racial hate preacher who believed AIDS was a government plot to exterminate blacks. Nor did they care that Obama’s dad was a communist. Or that his wife said she had never been proud of America in her whole life, that is, until Obama was nominated. Or that Obama’s plan was to “spread the wealth around,”….Etc. Etc.
So, no, if you found Obama’s Kenyan passport tomorrow that wouldn’t convince about 48% of the American population of anything other than some “vast right-wing conspiracy” was afoot.
If the Republicans had half a chance to win, the political expediency of resorting to a legalistic tactic to avoid an election at the cost of polarising the country for a generation and perhaps even sparking a civil war wouldn’t appeal to anyone but Charles Manson.
I wonder if Paul Ryan or Chris Christie we’re leading the primary race, if they wouldn’t be ahead in the national polls against Obama by a wide margin? And we would be having an “USA is not a Democracy” debate.
The great Irony here is that if the US was just a little bit more directly democratic then there would still be a good chance to defeat Obama at the polls in November.
But, alas, thanks to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it doesn’t matter that the majority of Americans would like to show Obama the door.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
All that matters is what the 270 electors say and recent counts put about 240 of them squarely on side with Obama, so he only has to swing onside another 30. Republican only have about 102 reliable electors from 13 states, so they have convince 168 electors to come over to their side, but this is highly improbably since there simply aren’t that many swing states up for grabs.
This is the horrible secret about the 2012 election.
Obama has almost no chance of losing no matter how badly he performs. But he won’t perform badly because he already has close to a BILLION DOLLARS to spend on the election. And since he only has to win another 30 electors over, he can concentrate all that fire power on very precise targets. The Republicans not only have less cash to spend they face the mainstream media bias headwind and they have to fight every battle in almost every state with all they have. They’ll be spread too thin.
No wonder some would rather not have an election at all!
Ironically, if the Republican candidate performs well it’s very possible he might win the popular election.
Thank God, America not a Democracy! Eh?
;-(
00
You worry too much, wes. You should quit thinking so hard all the time, kick back and have a couple of beers. 🙂
First: No Republican candidate will touch the Birther issue with a 1000 foot pole. They will all genteelly pretend that it’s just an issue among the fringe groups. They will run against Obama’s record, which is a target-rich environment. In the meantime, the Birther issue will move steadly closer to the mainstream and will eat away at Obama’s support among independents. (The little boy has just called out “But he has no clothes!”. People are starting to notice and it will snowball. Hans Christian Andersen knew something about Human nature.)
Second: About Obama’s background. Most whites who voted for Obama did so, in part, because it made them feel virtuous. Many of them (especially independents) now feel betrayed by the explicitly racist nature of his regime, his divisiveness, and his incompetence. There is a bumper sticker which says, “You voted for Obama to prove you weren’t racist — now you need to vote for someone to prove you aren’t insane”.
Most blacks voted for Obama out of pride, and many (but not all) will vote for him again — but blacks cannot carry the day without significant help from other minorities and whites (especially the Independents), which Obama is losing fast.
BTY: Most of the competent black politicians are in the Republican party. When one of them runs for President, expect to see a tidal wave of raw racism from the Left: The Left’s only interest in Obama is his radical politics — they used his race to slip him in without scrutiny. They used the “race card” (calling people racist) to deflect criticism. That tactic has been overused and isn’t working anymore.
And — what do you mean by:
The Presidential election would take place regardless of what the outcomes of the Birther lawsuits were. If the Supreme Court ruled Obama ineligible after he was re-elected, then the vice president would take over as president. If a number of states remove him from the ballot before the election, the Democrats would run someone else.
And as for:
Maybe even have a glass of wine, wes 🙂 Did you see the Left pausing for even a second before using a “legalistic tactic” to force Nixon out? Did we have a civil war? (In fact, as the pressure on Nixon built, former Army general and Secretary of State Alexander Haig had a secret meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon where they decided to meet for discussion before acting on any “strange” orders from Nixon. The military are sworn to defend the Constitution, and they take it seriously.)
The most likely result of Obama’s losing, either electorially (likely) or in court (a long shot) would be to initiate a “gold rush” of black candidates for President and other offices. In fact, this is getting set to happen even if Obama wins another term. There are a lot of very impressive black politicians out there (mostly Republicans) and the country would be more than ready to promote a competent black to high office. Their numbers increased in 2010, with all the black candidates who ran for state houses and Congress with Tea Party support — one of the (many) reasons that the Left really hates the Tea Party.
Oh sure — the Left would scream and yell and call for revolution and civil war — but they have been doing that since the 1960’s. Nothing much will come of it.
The military and the great majority of the population will support the Constitution. I know that sounds fantastic to non-Americans, but it’s the way we are.
00
Wes, I don’t follow how insisting on lawfulness begets democratic chaos? I believe just the opposite that permitting someone to hold a high office that they were ineligible to attain will provoke lawlessness and chaos.
Other than that I fully agree with your observation that Obama is the least competent since Carter.
00
I was unable to find a link to the above quote.
However, I did find the following.
Although I never said it you read my mind. So far so good. 😉
True, the word “democracy” does not appears in the US Constitution. None of the subsequent forms of government after the french revolution were a democracy. They were either a constitutional monarchy or a republic.
Circular reasoning, bad analogy, sweeping generalization.
Sparta was an oligarchy with two kings and some elements of a republic (gerousia, apella). America is a Constitutional Republic. They are two different forms of government. The fact that the Spartan Government, in Plato’s opinion, made a bad decision on when to start or end a war doesn’t mean that another governments decision to start or end a war is right or wrong. Plato’s opinion is not an infallible statement.
Non sequitur, as it is based on the previous bad analogy
A demagogue in ancient Greece was not the same as a demagogue today. You have employed a fallacy known as equivocation.
Often true but not always so. William Jennings Bryan was a congressman and a secretary of state, but despite three attempts never became president. Howard Dean (Yeee Haaaaa) couldn’t even win the nomination. Dean is still a demagogue but nobody pays much attention to him.
The remainder of your comments were a commentary on history, none of which changes the fact that the US is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
Your original statement regarding a “subset of democracy” is just as false as the first time you wrote it. Your comments on history, although intriguing and thought provoking, doesn’t change the facts.
Your last question I don’t believe applies to me as it is premised on a statement I never made.
00
Mark, Eddie and Bob,
I went for a single malt whisky instead. 😉
Dang! I would have sworn Jefferson said “We are all Democrats now.” I was so sure I didn’t even google it….. Ooooops!
Although while I was desperately googling around just now I found this article by the honourable Ron Paul, titled “Sorry, Ben, We Are All Democrats Now.”
I’m tuning into the wavelength now.
* * *
I should like to formally concede near absolute defeat on this point and while I briefly considered seppuku, I have instead opted to sue for terms of surrender since my cheese knife is dull.
* * *
Obviously the USA is a kind of extremely highly limited democracy where the citizens are only asked what they think about 2 people once every 1460 days, the other 1459 days the vast machine of constitutional government rolls on crushing everything in its path, therefore I concede the USA is primarily a constitutional republic of laws and bureaucracy. (Eddie: Don’t even try to pretend I don’t know congressional elections happen every 730 days.)
Normally – internationally speaking – the finer details of the various subtle gradations of democratic systems are overshadowed by the critical distinction between government by consent and the various kinds of authoritarianism which prevail globally. However, I concede that in domestic American affairs “democracy” is too blunt an instrument to dissect the specimen.
The Eskimos have 47 words for snow. I accept that you guys are debating at an intellectual depth that simply won’t cotton broad shorthands like “Australia is a democracy”, but demand a much more refined parsing of definitions…. I concur that particularly in the current US political situation this is a useful attitude and I’ll adopt the paradigm accordingly going forward.
Consider your lesson well taught.
Don’t mistake my skeptical approach as support for the forces that are arrayed against human freedom. Or that I am in need of conversion. I’m deeply committed to the same causes you are and believe that rational debate is how we exchange ideas and become stronger, move closer to the truth.
That said I’m not satisfied that ya’ll have answered to my points about the Birther Movement so I’ll return to that issue tomorrow morning armed with a newly sharpened cheese knife.
I’d like you to consider my arguments from a pragmatic realpolitik position rather than an idealistic or legalistic point of view, which we have now covered in depth and I conceded your constitutional arguments are sound, even if the evidence is still under question.
Consider that the goal is to unseat Obama if possible and if not preserve the peace and the union in the best health possible over the next four years. It might be helpful to keep in mind that if Obama does win the next election, all is not lost because the Republicans are likely to control both houses, which of course means total deadlock.
And deadlock might well be the best outcome possible.
00
Wes, A malted whiskey is a least a quick and enjoyable way to go! 😉 Me? I can’t buy the world’s (IMHO) greatest beer, Pliny the Elder, and have to settle for less! And dear God knows that I mean no offense to the great people of the Lone Star State!
Ron Paul was, by the way, quoting Benjamin Franklin. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html
Actually, Wes, if you will…. JUST KIDDING! 😉
So, these unthreaded wekends are nice! Is it my diseased imagination or are the trolls taking the weekend off? I kind of feel lonely without them. I feel like the maytag repair man, nothing broken to fix or in ned of repair! 😉
I always enjoy reading your comments, as well as Bob C’s.
00
Ah ha! that explains the brilliant thinking. 🙂 Highland, lowland, islay or speyside?
If you don’t mind I’ll print this out and frame it. Might look good on my office wall. Autographed would be even better.
That would be a terrible loss if for no other reason that any American reading your posts would have, by doing so, a better education about our history than the one they got in the public school system.
I don’t know about Eddy or Bob but other than the autographed concession above, I’d be happy with gold bullion (any quantity)
I’m sorry, there is no excuse for this. It does make me wonder what you Ozzies make your cheese out of…….
00
Eddy says:
Damn I’m off your “A” list? What did I say? what did I do?
00
Excellent choice! When talking to Americans, it helps to remember this basic rule: Americans really are crazy — why else would a rag-tag group of farmers have taken on the world’s superpower (in 1776)?
(The motto on the auto licence plates in Massachusetts — not known for being a hot bed of right-wingers — is “Live free or die!”)
Never thought of it that way before, but it’s a pretty good description. (Just remember that the campaign takes up about 700 days of that 1460, so it’s on our minds a lot.)
It’s kind of like steering a large boat, or flying an airplane through turbulence — you don’t want to move the controls around a lot when you can’t tell what they’re doing, so you set them where you think they should be and wait until you can tell what is happening before applying a correction.
Also, I think that politics at the state and local level are much more important in America than most other democratic countries. This gives us choices, and a reason to keep the Federal government hobbled.
I seriously think that frequent deadlock is a design feature of the American system. Since the Founders apparently couldn’t figure out how to incorporate Plato’s “higher rules” to organize society (to replace the “shifting emotions of public opinion”), they just built in a lot of inertia.
Only the Progressives (who think the Constitution is an impediment anyway) are bothered by this.
(I swear I don’t know who’s giving you the thumbs down — I really enjoy these conversations.)
00
Bob, Eddie and Mark,
Thanks guys for all the kind words. Salve for my bleeding ego. 🙂
I always savour your comments and I’m always glad when you join the debate because even if we don’t exactly concur I know that we are allies. I reckon you blokes are among the best and most astute commenters on Jo’s blog along with the mad Kiwi Rereke, Winston, Baa humbug, Bulldust, Tony, lew Jones, brc, Lionell, Tel (Tel still mad at me?) etc. and even that arse Memoryvault 😉 not to leave out my old pals Louis Hissinks, Janama and Cohenite. Although, let’s face it, Louis with his electric universe is pretty far out. Louis, if you’re reading this remember that I’m part of the plate tectonics conspiracy with contacts at Rio Tinto…
By now you know that I’m pigheaded and enjoy a good rhetorically robust debate. But I also really strive to remain curious and objective, not that I always succeed. I sincerely wish to approach every debate as receptive as a child to learning. Of course, I’m a cranky pants old bastard who thinks he knows it all in real life. I’m at that age (54) when I bump into old friends online I loved decades ago and they send me pictures and I am shocked. They look so old! Then I look in the mirror and I see I’m not exactly what I use to be either. I’ll bet you guys know the feeling too. At heart we are still young, if we can just remember how to be.
When I wake up on a beautiful morning and hop out of bed, assuming all the joints are working, I feel the same as I did when I was 24. Or maybe not. I’m not sure I can remember that far back.
My point is that while I am here primarily to score coup. I wish to play fairly against honourable and worthy opponents who are more than my equal. And you blokes are just that.
When I read the Ron Paul article, ‘Sorry Ben, We are all Democrats Now’, it dawned on me that I was arguing from an uninformed position and updated accordingly. Unfortunately, this required me to admit that I’m, well, if not exactly wrong, certainly arguing in the wrong direction about democracy.
The biggest thrill of all at our age is to learn something new.
Thanks for that.
btw, One false rhetorical move and I’ll be having your liver for dinner in the next thread. 😉
00
At a certain age (approximately 20 years ago, for me), if you get up in the morning and nothing hurts, it means you died during the night. 🙂
00
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178594236642420.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_1
00
Americans make better TV adverts than we do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD6ghskNKa8
Therefore, I predict the decline and fall of Pax Americana is over rated.
00
Not a beer ad, but a better ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OovSKEtfs
00
Not a beer ad, but the BEST ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhGJvGhIzaw
00
Not an ad, but climate-related.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3M_k9kaHWE&feature=related
00
A New Zealand ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oypGGaMUVhs
00
Gosh, that’s a hilarious ad, Janama. The “cattle stop” bit at the end is the killer line. 😉
This one’s not as good, but you can’t take your eyes off it. The tires rolling up the ramps against gravity really broke suspension-of-disbelief for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHHTB2MR1Is&feature=related
00
OK, imo, Toyota NZ make the best ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2GzjjiiFBw
Absolutely walks all over anything australian, other than maybe the sam kekovich australia day ads occasionally.
00
Idiot outcomes of the Renewable energy schemes and other stupid Climate Change claims!
1. British electricity network operator National Grid paid 12.8 million pounds to wind farm operators last year to compensate them for switching off their turbines when the grid was overloaded during stormy days – in the Climate Spectator.
2. The report also warned that Britain’s stocks of cod – a key component of the nation’s beloved fish and chips – to run out?? Brisbane Times.
What else will these government sponsored schemes and reports serve up on the bowl of stupidity?
00
Hey!
I thought that ‘The Goodies’ already won the Cod War!
Tony.
00
WARNING
Watching the Goodies is a health hazard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo9EkuaNuE
00
The Cod Wars.
Goodies 1
England 1
Iceland 1
A great game!
00
Took a while –
The Cod Wars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neF-FUIGuCI
00
Nice take on the ‘Priceless’ TV ad.
President Obama visits a plant that is constructing clean and green trucks to announce a new subsidy for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oB1ZxyhO9p0
Tony.
00
And, going by past efforts,
.. to hammer home the first nail in the coffin.
00
We proudly flew the flag on Australia Day. Something that we noticed was the lack of flags flying on cars or whatever this year.
I recall some study from WA that indicated that people who proudly display the national flag on Australia Day are mostly racist. Really?
I’m outraged! People have fought and died to maintain our national identity and now our freedom to express our patriotism is being attacked. I believe the same suspects that are propagating the AGW myth are also behind this insanity.
This is not an opportunity to open debate on the events of the last few days. Best left to the chattering classes.
00
Hi Scaper,
Don’t get too worked up about it.
Although the MSM reporting “suggested” that people who “display the national flag on Australia Day” were “more likely to be racist” (NOT “mostly”), the truth is, on careful reading of the actual paper, that it ONLY referred to people who displayed the flag on their vehicle, AND who attended some kind of Australia Day rally or outing.
This left it open for the young lady conducting the “survey” for her PhD, to check out arrivals at the event, and only interview tanked-to-the-gills, redneck young white males falling out of American-built pick-up trucks, that happened to be flying Aussie flags.
In other words,very selective reporting by the MSM on an even more selective “survey”.
The real tragedy of the story is that the young lady lady will probably get her PhD on the strength of it.
00
She probably will which is symptomatic of the sort of moronic activities that go on in the halls of learning these days. Most of those inhabiting the social science departments, staff and students, would in more intellectually rigorous times have been kicked out of secondary school when they were 15 years old or so and been employed in factories and behind the counters of retail outlets where their natural abilities were better suited.
00
This is the story I read. Elsewhere I read that the lady researcher with the very Anglo, Union Jack loving name of Farida Fozdar has received $2million in government grants for these brilliant sorts of discoveries.
“People who fly Australian flags on their cars in the leadup to Australia Day express more racist attitudes than others without flags, University of Western Australia research has found.
UWA sociologist and anthropologist Farida Fozdar and a team of assistants surveyed 513 people at last year’s Australia Day Skyworks extravaganza on Perth’s Swan River foreshore.”
http://www.oneperth.com.au/2012/01/23/australia-day-flag-drivers-more-racist-uwa/
00
The questions themselves were more suggestive, IMO, of (possibly excessive) patriotism and national sovereignty, rather than racism. How surprising then that people who fly their national flags proudly are more likely to be patriotic- who’d have thought it? Such surprising, insightful findings- $2 million well spent!
Of course the lady in question, doing a PhD in sociology (what else?!) predetermined no doubt that positive answers to such questions were indicative of racism (since some racists hold some of those views- QED!) when they clearly were more indicative of her viewing the world through the prism of her own prejudices. And, also ignoring the fact that the “general population” obviously includes a percentage of people originating from other countries and other cultures, who of course are unlikely to answer in the affirmative on questions of sovereignty, unless of course they were asked the self same questions in their own country of origin, in which case a different answer no doubt would be forthcoming in at least some of the responders (after all hypocrisy is the universal language!).
No doubt JB or Matt or Tristan would find this “study” a fascinating insight into the human condition, seeing as it plays beautifully into their own prejudiced view of Australians, who are admittedly parochial but who are, I believe, no more racist than any other country in the world, and less than some who will largely remain nameless.
By a curious coincidence, I am currently seeking $2 million in funding to finance a study into whether students or teachers in the sociology and behavioural sciences, ever actually completed a productive days work in their lives. I am expecting some startling contributions to our anthropological understanding with this “ground-breaking” study.
00
Nationalism. Yes that was my first reaction. Then I thought that also is probably “sinful” in the crazy cultural ethos that pervades academia.
I suggest climate science, bedded as it is in ecology and to a degree in the social sciences as well, is no less intellectually sloppy.
00
Hi Winston and Llew
An interesting and useful conversation on sociology. It would seem that you all believe “sociology” to be a close relative of that other ugly animal “politics”.
And what better way could politicians find of ingratiating themselves into a specific community group than to spend two million on a project like the one you have been discussing.
Besides the science I think most of us here, see Global Warming as an indicator or example of how badly our leaders have been messing up. We have no forward planning, the law is unevenly applied, we have a continuing ferry service from Indonesia to Australia, money is thrown around by politicians as if nobody had to work to earn it.
Julia Gillard has spent billions on our education system but we are still the poor white trash of the world “educationally’ speaking. She doesn’t understand that Steel Sun Shelters have no impact on education.
The one thing needed to improve our education system and give it a kick start is to demand discipline of students.
At present there is some idea that is politically useful that goes like this;
” students in Australia are behind almost every other nation in the world academically, even Khazakstan. This is a result of very poor quality teaching.”
Lots of votes there. more students and parents than teachers, figure it out for yourself.
Sociology should not be confused with that other branch of study “Psychology”.
Sociology looks at What people think – it disturbs me.
Psychology examines only HOW people think. Looking at thought content is not on the table.
🙂
00
That certainly would be a better use of 2 million.
I’m not a flag waver but I like to think of myself as the inheritor of things like the Enlightenment, the Reformation and the best legal system in the world. When I’m forced, by recipients of our tax money in grants like Fozdar gets and other history starved and history slanted academics, to think about the flag Anzac and sporting events never come to mind but rather that little square in the top left hand corner and what it represents of my history, Boadicea excepted of course.
Oh I forgot the “universal” language which we share with the US and most Commonwealth countries who also all get their basic legal system from the same source.
The flag when I get around to thinking of it reminds me of all that. History will judge what we as a nation made of that rich inheritance. Pity the pom’s present leaders are squandering all that history on an inanity like combating CAGW.
00
Hi Llew
I have the same feeling about the flag.
Many reasons to be critical of where it has been , how it has been misused etc but the little square at the top representing Great Britain reminds me that we must never let go of “democracy”, the right to be heard and the right to have our votes counted.
I tend to feel that those who want to replace it simply want to install their own version of democracy, perhaps a more “guided” democracy since we really aren’t smart enough to govern ourselves.
We have undoubtedly lost touch with the ideals of a good community eg our legal system, currently offers little support or protection from violence or theft and when used is very expensive.
Common sense adjustments are needed, not a total removal of our legal system.
Our youth is currently aimless (apart from partying) discouraged by a hypocritical society, lacking in discipline and generally increasingly poorly educated.
We once, in NSW , had one of the largest and most effective education systems in the world. It’s now a politically inspired, equal opportunity, no fault shambles.
Again, small commonsense a adjustments are needed.
Where did common sense go to – is he hiding behind Malcolm Turnbulls coat tails waiting for the Republic???
00
Hi there, MV. Shouldn’t take it to heart but the media ran with it and I believe it has had an adverse effect.
So many battles on so many fronts. I suspect the protaganist’s career might be somewhat curtailed in the future…on the list, so to speak.
You know what? I enjoy reading this blog and I admit, here and now that when it comes to intellect and knowledge I feel somewhat inferior.
The mission is to beat these people at their own game and the first innings is to neutralise the media. I would say, “two wickets down.”
A one hour segment going head to head at 9:00 on Sunday morning might just dry up the runs. In time there might be new commentary by ‘Fairfacts’. Who knows? There might be an opportunity in the future for a circus that will Pack-er a punch. Simple as ABC.
By the way…love your work except for one entry. I’ll leave it at that.
00
Don’t be like that – you have to at least give me a clue.
I didn’t think I’d ever written anything to offend anybody.
.
No seriously – I’d like to know.
00
http://www.andev-project.org/
00
Scaper
Thank you for the honesty.
Here is not the place, and it is late.
Tomorrow I will write a personal explanation and forward it to Jo with a request to forward it to you.
00
Hi MV and Scaper
Not sure what that as about but a quick look at scapers link prompts me to go all economic.
Because of the National failure to have a future vision for our country we currently have a wonderful mining boom for a couple more years followed by ” ” what?? no plans.
Every other country in the world is dropping their exchange rate while our dollar is at record highs against every other major currency.
It might sound good to have a “strong’ currency but IT IS DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY AND SENDING OUR CHILDREN’S JOBS OVERSEAS.
Still there is not a murmur or indication from government about forward planning to stave off this future crisis.
At present we have international banks borrowing money (printed by the US government) at less than 1% and lending it to Australian banks at 3 or 4 %.
If anyone knows of some vast federal government master-plan for our future here could they let me know urgently.
It’s starting to worry me.
00
Looks like the incremental push on Fair-facts is on.
A few or so lefty reporters might be quivering at the thought they might lose their jobs and rightly so!
00
Racism – The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist
Maybe the young lady should be looking at intolerance as a better description of the behaviour she is researching
00
I hear conflicting accounts about this.
For example, I’ve heard the statement that, scientifically, race does not even exist because the DNA variance between any two random individuals is greater than the DNA variance between (e.g.) the average “white” person and the average “black” person. The argument being that ethnic breeding group ancestry is vastly insignificant compared to individuality in DNA, so it ought to be considered insignificant generally. I’m not sure if the statement was constructed in a statistically correct manner, although it is certainly the kind of catchy headline that many people would like to believe.
If it is true, it would tell us that race is only in the mind of the racist. It’s then exactly the flip side of the coin to beauty – it’s in the eye of the beholder. Yet I find it hard to believe because it is easy to visually spot the difference between the ancestries of southern europeans, central europeans, chinese, japanese, malayans, australian aborigines, indians, africans, polynesians, and papua new guineans.
It’s just another indication that a few genes can have a big difference, in this case in both appearance and metabolism.
For example, I’ve also heard it’s only white people who have a mutation that allows them to continue to digest milk well into adulthood, whereas in most human phenotypes this ability disappears within a few years of being weaned off their mother’s milk. The stereotype is then that africans and asians prefer not to eat foods with high dairy content “because it gives them gas”. But lactose intolerance isn’t a medical condition because it’s the original human condition – it’s actually lactose tolerance that is unusual amongst humans. As a whitey I would never have known this if I hadn’t read about it.
So is race real? Well I think based on the above evidence it must be. But in today’s connected world race differences are still no excuse to yield to ancient tribal instincts of fear or to discriminate against people because of factors they could not freely choose. Reality is not a reason to do anything, so the reality of race doesn’t automatically justify its use for any purpose.
00
Andrew,
Racism is a kind of bigotry based upon the ethnic group bias, especially bias expressed invidiously. Ethnic groups are real phenomena even if they don’t have an genetic DNA basis, they do have a cultural basis.
So, Andrew, your bigotry against what you label as boganism isn’t really any different than racist bigotry.
Except that today most racial bigots are consciously aware of their bigotry and don’t reveal themselves in polite company, whereas you believe your kind of bigotry is merely enlightened superiority. Order another glass of Chardonnay!
It’s all about isolating people as something other than what your privileged group is and then dehumanising them so that its OK to hate them.
00
Internet off all day, but I was keen to respond to Andrew with this rather long reply about so-called Aussie racism, which I believe is no more prevalent here than anywhere else- with apologies in advance for length-
Racism is a term bandied about too easily, Andrew, thoughtlessly at times and often with little justification. It is ever present in every nation and society on Earth, and it is sometimes obvious xenophobia, while at other times it takes much more insidious and subtle forms.
On the whole, perhaps white so-called “Bogan” males are more likely to brandish our flag more brazenly just because they are more brazen individuals. They are also, by their inclination, more prone to alcohol-fueled aggression and brash vocal disruptions, unfortunately. I am quite sure that many are not inherently racist in their beliefs or attitudes- but some certainly are, and to varying degrees. Mostly, however, it is my belief that Australians more broadly are actually extremely inclusive as a general rule, and possibly even less inclined to divide people on racial grounds than other cultures.
We are often more parochial on the basis of state based rivalry (NSW vs Qld, Vic vs SA, etc) than we are on international or cultural or even religious ones. As a South Australian living in NSW, who played and followed AFL 30 years ago, I can certainly attest to a level of separatism I felt there. People of any race or religion are (generally) accepted in this country if they embrace (or at least are open to) inclusion in (or at least show respect for) our culture. It is preferable, but not in any way obligatory, if a person shows some passing interest in our sport and pastimes, and shares some of our basic attitudes toward personal liberty and democracy, if only to allow one to “break the ice” in general conversation. Rightly or wrongly, people do look for common ground in their ideas and interests when conversing with others. This fact of human nature is similarly true for anyone emigrating from Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) whether it be to Canada (my personal experience again to the fore, so I can sympathize knowing that changing cultures is difficult no matter how closely aligned or how open that society is), or France, or Kenya, or Kuwait, or Brazil, etc, etc. When in Rome, as they say.
I can also readily identify those people who will struggle for acceptance in Australia on the basis of their personality, as opposed to those of the same racial or religious group who will have little problem in gaining friends and being accepted- it has more to do with such things as a shared laconic sense of humour, a lack of pretentiousness and a lack of arrogance or sense of entitlement- Aussies hate these latter two especially! By way of example, if you are a white American who emigrates to our country and attempt to deride our culture as somewhat secondary to the good ol’ USA, you will be given the toughest of initiations and duly ostracized if you don’t mend your ways. If you are from South Africa or the UK, and fail to hide an air of superiority, the rejection will be swift and sure- it has nothing to do with race in those instances, having personally witnessed these sorts of occurrences during my schooling and even in my working life. You are more likely, IMO, to suffer derision and be socially ostracized in Australia if you are not physically attractive, are obese, have bad teeth, are disabled (especially physically, but also mentally), or have a speech impediment or have mental issues (especially schizophrenia), than you do as a result of race. Nothing of which to be proud, of course, but the focus on supposed racial divisions I think detracts from addressing these more real divisions and iniquities in our society.
I would like to add that I don’t see any Australians who forbid their sons or daughters to marry outside their own racial or religious group. I also don’t see Australians living in other countries that have set up an enclave of their own national group, have changed the signage to reflect only their language, and have made the locals who’ve lived there for decades feel uncomfortable to walk their own streets, or looked with derision upon them if they dared to enter one of their stores (of note- I was married in the suburb of Cabramatta, my wife having grown up in neighbouring Fairfield- so I would respectfully suggest that this certainly happened there in our supposedly “racist” country- it was not a shining example of the inclusiveness of some recent immigrants, IMO).
I also don’t see Australians who congregate in a particular suburban area, wander the streets and threaten violence to the local populace because they now “own” the area and openly state that former locals are no longer welcome (personally experience this in Bankstown quite recently- the fact that my friend’s family- originally Russian immigrants- had lived in the area for 40 years was apparently irrelevant).
Nor do I see Australians overseas aggressively harassing and abusing local café staff that they should have a special Halal menu to cater specifically for them, because “Muslims are now the “majority” in this country, so you’d better get used to it”. (Charming, and demographically wildly inaccurate. How to win friends and influence people!)
And I also don’t see Australians overseas suggesting that Jews should not celebrate Hanukkah in Israel, or that Muslims shouldn’t undertake Ramadan in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, because this was somehow “offensive” to them as new arrivals to their respective countries. I do see Australians, by contrast, ridiculously pandering to this mentality by refusing to allow our teachers in schools to say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”, instead forcing them to say “Happy Holidays”, “Happy egg day” or other such PC rubbish. To quote the much maligned Charlton Heston- “Political correctness is just tyranny with manners” – spot on.
On a personal note regarding my own small contributions to inclusion and multiculturalism, my very first ever “girlfriend” (and first kiss for that matter) at 9yo was a pretty Costa Rican girl named Rosemary, while my best friend at Primary School was a Croatian (whose dad was in gaol for murdering a Serbian (!) and whose mother lived in Australia for 20 years and couldn’t speak a word of English, having never left the kitchen in the entire time they lived there, I’m sure), at High School my best friends were an Indian homosexual and a Hong Kong Chinese, at University two of my close mates were Lebanese, another Maltese and another from Sri Lanka. Like most Aussies of my generation, I have had a fairly cosmopolitan upbringing, and as a result I don’t believe that the cherry-picked minority of white supremacists is really a representative sample of the broader Australian community.
The reason, IMO, that Muslims have had such a “tough” initiation in this country (and I believe this is a media driven exaggeration), has more to do with an air of moral and religious superiority some of their number project, plus an arms length rejection of Western values in general, as well as our rejection (as a society) of chauvinism/paternalism, which is unfortunately entrenched in Islam’s fundamentalist interpretation of their Qu’ran and in their way of life in their countries of origin. There is a resentment in our society directed toward such ideology as arranged marriages, honour killings, polygamy (for males only of course! – How does one reconcile this with equality and feminism, I wonder, in the leftist world view?- please enlighten me, by all means), the latter which Muslim leaders like Keyser Trad have publically advocated, alongside some of the divisive and frankly insensitive and stupid comments from religious leaders (about rape of non- Muslims, for example), which are incompatible with a largely atheist and agnostic society that frowns on religious intolerance and prejudices (including Christian ones). Unfortunately, a silent majority of presumably tolerant Muslims are just that- silent. The vocal, boorish, separatist, insulting and churlish minority are directly responsible for the attitudes leveled toward them- it is difficult to be inclusive with someone who refuses to acknowledge you as an equal, or fails to recognize your rights to maintain the ethos of your homeland built up over the last 200 years, or fails to comprehend that half the population deserve the right to dress in public in any way that they like (within legal boundaries) without this having to be vetted against their particular social, religious or moral standards.
If any individual doesn’t approve of the moral climate into which they have immigrated, then they should leave and settle somewhere more to their personal tastes and mores. It is really that simple. No one forces anybody to live in this country, with its particular cultural environment, when there is a very diverse range of nations and cultures in the world to choose from. If I lived in Saudi Arabia, for example, I personally would not drink alcohol at all, period. This is because that is the social expectations of that particular nation, which they are perfectly entitled to uphold. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar level of respect in return from those who seek acceptance here.
In general, immigration has been to the betterment of Australia, but there are many negatives that should not be glossed over, and the local populace have generally received little acknowledgement for their tolerance, their inclusiveness and their willingness to change and accommodate. On the other hand, those who have immigrated here have generally had a soft run (in the media especially) with little expectation of their standards of behaviour, and many intolerances and injustices often going unreported, and even unsaid. So I find “mea culpa” statements of Australians being exceptionally racist coming from the white, middle-class intelligentsia to be somewhat one-eyed, guilt ridden and lacking perspective. That is, in itself, a subtle form of racism, by not holding other racial groups accountable to the same standards of behaviour as you would hold your own racial group. There is a fine line between understanding and pandering, between empathy and paternalism, and between compassion and tokenism.
Everyone should be held to account for better standards of tolerance, generosity of spirit, and behaviour- Caucasians, Aborigines, “Bogans” and Muslims included. The race card should not be played as readily and reflexively as it is, and especially not to downplay or mitigate any wrong doing by any one individual or racial group, or to cast unwarranted aspersions on one particular societal group over and above another.
00
Hi Winston
January 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm
That’s huge.
Skimmed through it and it looks good. Will have to read it all later.
Great stuff like :
“That is, in itself, a subtle form of racism, by not holding other racial groups accountable to the same standards of behaviour as you would hold your own racial group. There is a fine line between understanding and pandering, between empathy and paternalism, and between compassion and tokenism.”
This has always been the Elephant in the room that in the last 40 years we have been brow beaten with political correctness like that.
Despite all that, the Sun will probably come up again tomorrow and it will be a great day.
🙂
00
Hi, KK.
Just a parting word about one of the most egregious recent examples of Aussies receiving an ill-considered and unjustified racism allegation.
The case of the erstwhile, unlamented Telstra CEO, Sol Trujillo, who reached the apex of his own incompetence during his short but poorly received tenure as Czar of our telecommunications icon. His parting shot was to suggest that Australians were racially prejudiced against him as a Mexican American. Of course, he seems to have harboured the delusion the vast majority of the population were even remotely aware of his nationality, and those few who knew of this salient point could have quite frankly cared less about his ethnicity- you see, that was the ONLY thing they actually liked about him!
So much easier to throw dirt at your critics hoping some will stick than take a good sobering look in the mirror and admit that you are a rank failure, now isn’t it, don’t you agree KK?
00
Hi Winston
Why did you bring up Telstra? I was having a good night until then. 🙂
Having to change homes a few times back in the 70s I came to be aware of the old Telstra before it became telstra.
Our phone systems here have always been very expensive on a world comparison.
One of the reasons became obvious to me when I wanted to connect.
You could not make an appointment.
The procedure was this; you called them, they then made a point of waiting till you weren’t at home and then they knocked on the door.
No doubt they were signed out for a two hour connection job. Time to relax.
Surprise, nobody home. So the next step was they leave a card asking you to call and make a firm appointment. they then turned up at the appointed time.
I had three uncles who worked at the Newcastle State Dockyard before they priced themselves out of existence. They knew the drill.
The phone workers knew the drill.
Whatever had to happen at Pre Telstra was necessary but you are right Sol wasn’t the man.
On the other hand to demonstrate that we aren’t being racist and picking on Mexican Americans lets look somewhere else.
I know someone who recently resigned from the Health Services Union. I think we all know the drill there too.
I should relax but we all want a better world where we get paid sensibly for our work, where government plan for our society, where advertising and TV soundbites don’t govern our view of politics and where are taxes are spent for the common good, not that of politicians.
Is there such a place?
00
Bravo, Winston!
For bravely pointing out the elephant in the living room we are told is forbidden to discuss.
00
They are most likely socialists who came up with that study. Socialists have only negative feelings raging inside them because they feel need something to be unhappy about or somebody to blame. They think with emotion and lack rationality.
00
Thank god the number of bogans with Australian flags flying out of their car windows are down! Personally, I’ve always wanted to fly the Swiss or Russian flag on Yaday*.
*Yobbo Australia Day.
00
John, you must know that the term ‘bogan’ relates to a sub class of Australians…akin to peasants.
Let it go.
00
jonnyboy, saying things like that, in Australia, leads to violence. Mine.
You are a hateful little person, no fit to walk on our track. I know you father would be disappointed.
00
The Constitution of 1901 federated the Colonies but when is Australia’s independence day celebrated?
00
I have never waved an Australian flag on Australia Day, or any other day that I can remember. But now alerted that to how it rankles political correctness and the socialist anti-Australians (same thing really), I will make sure I have one next year.
If you wish to assume superiority, John, and your curious smugness shows that you do, why not at least try to demonstrate that supposed superiority with good argument, instead of just puerile sneers? That will make you sound less delusional when you call others yobbos.
00
> They are most likely socialists who came up with that study.
>
Anyone who has both the capability and willingness to attack national symbols and divide national cohesion will be of use to the One World Government globalists and their useful idiots in the green-left. People who would have been complete patriots in the days of nationalist socialism are no longer useful, as the new world order demands allegiance to an even greater tribal unit than the sovereign state of old. The nationalist socialist has been replaced by the new socialist gunning for a planet-sized Green State. Nationalism is a road block for such people.
00
Just went through my backlog of emails and followed up one from Germany’s ADAC; one of their main motoring associations. I’d given up on them as being terminally green-minded when this popped up (in German).
Motor vehicles not meeting strict environmental standards have been banned from driving in some cities. The cost of compliance is onerous unless one has recently bought a new car.
The ADAC finds that after several years of such vehicle exclusions, there is no difference in air quality compared to similar cities without such draconian regulations. Still, more cities scramble to impose the useless “Environment Zones”.
It seems that when you’re green-minded, measureable outcomes are irrlevant. As is punishing those who cannot afford new cars or to retrofit their old ones to bring them up to spec.
Taking the easy route, the ADAC issues stern words, but doesn’t follow up with pressure on the city governments to dismantle their festering bureaucracies which serve nobody but the bureaucrats and fulfill no useful function.
00
Hi Scaper,
I understand your comment
“I’m outraged! People have fought and died to maintain our national identity and now our freedom to express our patriotism is being attacked.”
but unless you live on a farm somewhere remote from what loosely passes as “civilization” these days you could hardly fail to notice and try to avoid modern Australia at its finest.
Where I live you could be excused for believing that Australia day was was an excuse for a giant piss up.
Groups of 15 or so young intoxicated Australians in their late teens heading home along the main street.
Some wearing Aussie flag T shirts, some with the flag on their shorts and all in all a thorough embarrassment to the Nation and the flag.
They have the freedom to embarrass themselves and our country, the freedom d to urinate in shop entry areas, they have the freedom to desecrate the Flag.
As you point out many have fought and died for the flag, just what homage is paid these people by the current Australia day “Celebrations”.
None.
00
Hi KK, just imgine if your screen name was KinkyKiethKares…how un-PC would that be?
An interesting point you raise about the fifteen. I can’t really put them down because in times gone by I might have been one of those guys.
I’ll call it a rite of passage. For one transgression beyond my control I was alienated by my siblings whom resulted in not being notified that my father (never got on) passed away five years after the fact! A money thing.
Was taken in by my aunt after the transgression and became a part of her family. My cousins were my mentors, gravitated towards the arts and this fortified my soul. One posts comments here. I’m outing him, he is Sean McHugh.
Never could lay bare my gratitude.
00
Hi Scaper
One of the things that concerns me about Australia is the lack of vision for the future and large groups of drunken kids walking down the street is not a good omen.
In recent years, late at night such groups have attacked and punched and kicked people in the head until they bled from the ears.
Medical science “saved” these victims from death but of course they are now in wheel chairs and being looked after by their devastated families.
Of course few of these people died and so it was not murder, just unfortunate consequences of politicians and their friends selling vast quantities of alcohol.
Wrapping yourself in the Australian flag while you vomit over a shop front is also not a good look.
Enough I become embittered, life is too short.
To other matters. My father was worn by the depression, by the tropical diseases he got while fighting in New Guinea and seems to have achieved equilibrium by drinking at least four schooners a day; he was quiet, funny and loved life but we never spoke about things.
I sometime wish I could dig him so that I could give him a big hug and thank him for being my father. We all have losses, but it seems that there are good things that make up for the disappointments.
The real KKK
🙂
00
Never could lay bare my gratitude. it seems you have.
should be ” dig up”
00
Hi Tony,
I am very flattered. I honestly never thought of it like that. While guessing that you are largely referring to music, I don’t recall that you needed too much persuasion in gravitating towards it, or push in progressing with it. I’m glad I was able to help a bit.
Cheers,
Sean
00
NoTrickZone reports that recently in Germany
As the real winter cold bites in Western Europe, the prospect of electricity shortages and inevitable disruption to industry will provide a very unpleasant reality check.
00
Interesting that this sort of insanity dates back to 2000. Giving more substance to the criticisms of the renewable energy industry in Germany.
” To do this, the former Socialist-Green coalition government, led by Gerhard Schröder, enacted the so-called Renewable Energy Feed-In Act (EEG) in 2000. This Feed-In Act requires electric utilities to buy all renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, from all producers at fixed, exorbitant rates and to feed it into the power grid for a period of 20 years..”
00
The roofing industry doesn’t seem too impressed with Julia, the CO2 Tax or BlueScope!
Hitler on Roofing – bad swearing in video – be warned!
00
Dave,
A a BSL holder I can symathise with the Feuhrer.
He is a always right on the money.
00
Just curious Dave,
Do you know whether Adolphe took up the BSL options?
00
Nope!
He just lost a QUOTE to BSL & is now importing steel himself.
00
I just followed up the Quote.
Hilarious but too close to the truth and sad for Australia.
Without colorbond, Bluescope would be stuffed.
Im hoping they will roof a lot of homes in Asia over the next few years.
00
This article somewhat relates to our forum.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/indigenous-activists-threaten-australias-bid-for-un-seat/story-fn9hm1pm-1226254470485
Well if we don’t get a seat in the UN it isn’t such a bad thing but on the contrary we certainly shouldn’t be handing our country over to the Aboriginals. Many of them have a continual victim status which does not lend itself to Reconciliation.
00
From the linked article:
At the risk of being labelled a “racist” for expressing a politically incorrect view, but isn’t it considered an act of war when one group of people demand another group of people “hand over” (surrender) sovereignty of their country?
And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the guy in the following related news clip clearly state in the first ten seconds that discussion about Australian sovereignty has “nothing to do with the Australian people”?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-28/embassy-defends-protest/3798290
My grandfather was the first schoolteacher at the Aboriginal settlements in the Meekatharra – Wiluna area in WA. He built the first school-house, planted the orange groves that are still there today, and dug the wells to water the trees.
I grew up wanting to follow in his footsteps, and after uni, spent five years trying to do so, before I gave it up as a lost cause. Even then, I later went back to the effort twice, only to eventually be beaten down by reality.
Since then I have spent around thirty years working all over remote Australia. And although I have found in most cases most Australians – whether by birth or naturalisation – to be an extremely tolerant group overall, I have encountered what I might call “spot” racism just about everywhere:
Australians who don’t like Japanese, Japanese who don’t like Chinese, Chinese who don’t like Indians, Indians who don’t like Pakastanis, Pakastanis who don’t like Libyans, and even Libyans who don’t like Papua New Guineans (I never did work that one out). For no particular reason other than their cultural history.
But these have all been “localised” to an individual or a small group. In comparison, no matter where one goes in rural Australia, one will find systemic, overwhelming, all-consuming racism, amongst the Aboriginals, towards EVERYBODY ELSE.
And by “everyone else” I mean exactly that. In the north of QLD, the NT and elsewhere the Aboriginals even vent their anger on the Samoan and Fijian communities, amongst whom I have many friends. This causes great hurt to these people,especially the Samoans, who see the Australian Aboriginal as their half-brothers and simply cannot comprehend the all-encompassing hatred.
It was all perhaps best summed-up for me by a Samoan guy I only knew by his nickname – “Tiny”. Tiny was a good head and shoulders taller than me – and I’m six feet. He didn’t have a neck. His little finger was thicker than my big toe. And yet Tiny was an instrument fitter who specialised in shimming up turbines and gen sets – a job requiring an accuracy measured in thousandths of an inch and he was considered one of the three top specialists in the trade working in the Southern Hemisphere.
Tiny’s explanation of the “problem”:
00
They must have just gone hungry before white fellas came and did everything for them?
00
Actually, John Brooks, if you cared to study any actual real history, you’d know that the Australian Aboriginal was a dying, endangered species when the white man arrived.
A totally patriarchal society, coupled with an entirely male-dominated “elder” system had ensured the destruction of the race.
History has demonstrated time and again that tribes/nations that do not defend/support/feed/nurture their women – the “breeders” is doomed to failure.
That’s right about where the Australian Aboriginals were when the white man arrived.
I experienced it first in the Fifties – as a child – the son of the local cop – in Kalgoorlie.
00
shhh…
JB might wake from the delusion of the proud native living in perfect balance with nature within a caring society that nurtured its own, allowing each to live a life to their full potential.
00
Hi MV
A recent wake up call arrived from an unexpected direction last week.
I had recorded a “Where do You come from or who do you think you are” episode about Christine Anu.
She was embarrassed that one of her distant relatives from the Torres Straits (actually New Guinea is more apt) was trained by the white man as a missionary.
Later written comment on the situation painted a picture of tribes living in fear of raids from each other and that the “missionary” view offered to the natives, and apparently taken up, was that living in constant fear, and being unable to sleep because of it was something that needed to change. Apparently there was change.
The main point: we may have created an unreal image of the “noble savage” that did not exist.
In PNG in the last 100 years there has been cannibalism and ritual eating of the enemies brain. Look up Kooka Kookas I think.
Maybe we have improved their lives.
00
It would have been a brutal environment, jonnyboy, fear, mixed with ignorance and hardship. You, could never imagine just how miserable it would have been, with your warm and safe suburban ethos.
Misguided urber-humanists, feeling guilty for their hubris, greed and cowardice, attempt to absolve themselves, claiming dignity for Aboriginal people. By doing it you have locked them into the past, fear, mixed with ignorance and hardship. They have never been lost in their walkabouts, before you came along and sent them down the wrong path.
Your mentality squashes their dignity, you strip them of the knowledge and development needed to claw out of humpties.
Your quaint, effeminate makeup, says it all, you know nothing about my brothers. You leave this place, you have no right to walk with us.
Markus Fitzhenry.
00
Unfair and unworthy. There are many aborigines in Australia who could rightly be offended by this characterisation.
00
Some of them could be. Firstly, memoryvault did say that his post would look somewhat politically incorrect. Secondly, it is often true in what memoryvault says. Much of what memoryvault says actually coincides with what Aboriginal, Noel Pearson has said in the past that Aboriginals too easily feel they are victims and do not want to change their ways. Many in the rural communities still live in primal aboriginal ways where they do not want to be apart of modern Australia but would rather keep their hunter-gatherer style. To other cultures this looks lazy. The problem is with the whole situation is with Aboriginals is firstly the leftists only wanting to do the politically correct, tokenistic things such as acknowledgments at every public event, apologising to the Aboriginals (which I don’t agree with) and then wanting to put Aboriginals in the Constitution which is again plain stupid. On the other hand, direct intervention has some effect but ultimately you are fighting a losing battle because many do not want to change to modern Australia’s way of life and/or they become too reliant on the help that things only get worse. I personally think that Governments can only do so much too help the Aboriginals. Sorry for drifting off topic but I think this issue is very divisive but interesting to discuss.
00
What’s striking in this report is Ms. Fozdar’s incredulous statement:
“…people took out of it that I’m saying they shouldn’t fly a flag for Australia Day because it’s racist and that we shouldn’t celebrate Australia Day.”
.
“That was just nowhere in the research and so that is what has surprised me.”
.
Having it spread over all the newspapers and radio channels in the run up to Australia Day wasn’t calculated to have any effect on Australia Day then, was it ?
.
(Sorry I seem to have lost in-line commenting)
00
For what it’s worth I can totally believe Ms Fozdar’s research. A group which is defined by their demonisation of an excluded Other is also going to adopt a symbol that unites their in-group, and for white Australian racists that is typically the flag. IIRC, the swastika was originally used in ancient Hindu writings and the Nazis never bothered to politely ask the Indians whether they could adopt that symbol with a new name and assign it a very different meaning than it had 800 years earlier. Similarly, the bogans never asked the rest of us if they could adopt the Australian flag and the Southern Cross as their symbols of (perceived) white supremacy. They just assumed it already had that meaning, and given how long the White Australia policy was in effect it’s an assumption that’s not entirely without foundation.
Quite aside from racism, there’s a lot of other political baggage in that flag. It makes me think of the ANZACs and the more recent “overseas adventures” of our armed forces. It’s unfortunately the lot in life of aussie soliders to be sent to faraway places to die so some politician can use more power to enrich his bankster owners. It should be obvious why our sports teams elect instead to wear the green and gold. The aussie flag ought to be a symbol of self-determination, but that union jack in the corner is a reminder of the national servitude that is so awkwardly, reluctantly, and rapidly activated when Washington’s red phone rings a whitey out of the blue.
That’s why when I see an aussie flag on someone’s car I think they are probably a racist nationalist nut. Of course, ultimately, it is just a symbol that means whatever we want it to mean. If there is a memetic battle for control of the flag, I think the bogans and the jingoists are winning.
Whether it’s on bogan cars or at boot camp, it’s because our flag has so often been abused as the banner of awful methods and inequitable goals that it is difficult for me to see flag-waving as anything other than a sickening sign of misguided patriotism. Religion and patriotism are so easily co-opted for irrational and dastardly means, such as genocide, fascism, and offensive wars, which is why they both should be regarded with suspicion. It is so easy to live a life that is free from such superstitions as the supremacy of one’s god and state, thus making oneself more immune to traditional propagandistic control techniques.
If we are to ever beat back the globalists, I do wonder how we are going to mobilise public energy without resorting to nationalism. At the very least a boxing kangaroo may have to leap into action. It’s a propaganda tool to be used sparingly.
Australia is one of the best countries to live in, certainly in my personal top two. Even by the UN’s peculiar HDI metric it usually ranks in the top five. The beach isn’t for every body, but I like a moderately free press instead of censorship, the snags on barbecues instead of snails on garlic, relaxed workplace attitudes instead of boiler rooms, queuing instead of crowding, sun instead of snow, publicly subsidised healthcare, and strawberry pavlovas. There is lots to love about this country. Waving our flag is a sadly ambiguous way of expressing it.
00
If I remember my lectures (a while ago now), the Hindu swastika is one of the 32 symbols of Buddha.
It was introduced into China around 700AD. The Romans and Greeks also used the swastika to symbolise the cycle of life, and it can be seen repeating as a border around friezes in temples and other ancient buildings.
The Hindu swastika was left handed, as was Han dynasty version in China, and the Roman and Greek versions. In all cultures it implied good fortune.
In Tibet, the right handed version meant changelessness and eternity. That was the reason why the Nazi Party in Germany adopted it as their own; it symbolised the Reich “that would last a thousand years”.
00
Ah yes, thanks, I was too lazy to do the research as the exact origin was not pertinent to the point I was trying to make. The Buddhism connection was rattling around in the upstairs department but I overrode my first instinct and broadened the statement from Buddhist to Hindu to be on the safe side, heh.
Had no idea it went back to Ancient Greece, yikes. Lucky the 3rd Reich didn’t last more than a decade, but it may be 1000 years before anyone will be able to use the swastika for its original meaning.
It’s all a little bit Dan Brown isn’t it?
00
And you’re the the bloke with highly refined sense of superiority ranting on about dumb bogans???
Maybe you should get out a bit more. You know, see the world.
Last time I was in India, the Svaskita was common as chips, actually more common, since good chips are hard to find in India.
In Singapore and Kuala Lumpur you see it all over in the form of cement-cast bricks used to build walls. Same in Tibet, Nepal and China.
Even bogans who like to party in Bali know that much.
00
The only superiority I implied was to not be a “bogan”, which anyone who knows me would confirm. As to how you might end up feeling slighted or inferior as a result is a process only you can explain, because I sure as hell can’t.
I’ve visited Austria, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, USA, and Vanuatu. The DoD can probably remember more about the extent of my travels than I can right now.
How many was that? I lost count. Us sheltered bogans can only count on our fingers you know.
There’s 192 countries out there and, no, I haven’t gotten to the Indian or African continents yet. The last time I was in Bali I was five months too young to go out drinking on the town, although the local pottery was interesting. If I missed seeing anything culturally important in my travels it’s probably because I had budgeted too little time and spent too much of it looking through camera lenses.
I’ve stayed in Vanuatu villages for a week and drunk kava with them, navigated from the Tokyo airport to the Narita-san temple gardens and back again between international flights 8 hours apart despite not being able to speak the language, I’ve eaten the famous Swedish meatballs in Sweden and snails in Paris, attended the bizarre triennial killing of the pigs on Tanna, and I lived in PNG for six years. But to paraphrase H.G. Nelson, too much travel is barely enough.
You knew nothing about me and you seized upon the slightest excuse to spew hateful generalisations towards my character. I predict you won’t even apologise.
00
Hi Andrew
The Flag is always a touchy issue and rightly or wrongly it’s one of those situations where I am able to associate with the more positive and useful aspects of it’s symbolism.
But not always.
One of the weirdest things I can recall was my visit to Westminster Abbey in London.
A house of religion, of God.
Every nook and cranny had a memorial to someone who had either opened up new trade in some remote part of the world or been a member of the East India Company.
It was like visiting a business memorial which may say something about Colonial Britain. It felt uncomfortable and incongruous.
Still, the flag reminds me of Winston Churchill’s comment about Britain’s democratic system; that it was the worst system of government in the world, except for all the others.
To travel.
We have some countries in common.
My wife and I have been to the top of the Volcano on Tanna and felt the Earth shake under us.
You couldn’t do this in the West because of insurance issues.
Amazing but a month after we were there a French visitor was hit by a lump of lava on it’s descent.
I lived in Nuku, halfway between Aitape and Wewak, but just for three weeks.
Toughest pig I’ve ever eaten, biggest yams I’ve ever seen.
My father was stationed in Wewak for a while during WW11.
Bit into a bouai seed and was instantly hit as soon as the skin was broken, yet the old women chew it all day.
PNG doesn’t seem to be doing too well.
Loved the pyramids but Egypt is not for tourists.
00
KK, my hat’s off to you. The jungles of the Sepik region are not to be travelled lightly. About 1001 ways to die.
By comparison I lived in the luxury of a mining town near the coast. The few people who went bushwalking would always keep to the trails and go as a large group. The only time I ever heard of anyone camping overnight was on a trek to the volcano Mt Bagana.
If the GBR is ever in trouble PNG can make a mint from coral tourism because the only bit of the GBR I’ve seen off Cairns was a bare grey disappointment compared to the colour and variety I saw in PNG. Amazing stuff. The sea snakes were never a problem in my experience – they are too afraid of humans to get close enough to bite, just don’t corner them.
Yes, it was all fun and games (for the expats) until the revolutionary army shut down the mine. Considering the nightmarish pollution the company had done to the local river, that was probably fair enough.
00
Hi Andrew,
You’ve been around.
I love the surf but even back here I don’t swim in rivers or lakes so your coral exploration in something is PNG is something I would think twice about.
My wife and I went to Tahiti (Moorea) and paddled across the lagoon to get up close to some tame rays and she had a close encounter with a reef shark.
Nuku was in 1970 when things outside Moresby were a bit more stable, the influence of the patrol officers was still there. Also I flew in and out and was the guest of a student (From Goroka) who was going back to his home village. The airstrip was similar to Tanna – uphill.
Chemical pollution – it’s almost invisible so easy to get away with. Then people get sick and so on.
That’s what bugs me so much about the CO2 pollution thing; people are being distracted, probably deliberately, from the real pollution issues.
🙂
00
Hello? I didn’t spew “hateful generalisations” towards you at all. I merely suggested that you’re not nearly as superior to an ordinary “bogan” as you imagine.
It was you who characterised anyone who flies the Aussie flag as a racist bogan.
Even though you know nothing more about someone flying the flag, that’s all you need to know “to spew hateful generalisation towards” their “character.”
You actually travelled to Singapore, Japan, Bali, Indonesia and Malaysia — all of which are countries you can’t even take a cab from the airport to the hotel without seeing Svastikas on buildings — yet you were too incurious to even notice?
Duh….
Apparently, you don’t have to be a “bogan” to be ignorant and you provided the evidence.
To stereotype people who love Australia and are proud of our history and flag as racist bogans is “spewing hateful generalisation towards” their character and I resent it.
So it was my pleasure to point out your superiority complex is ill-founded and hypocritical.
Btw, some of my best mates are proud bogans but would be surprised to learn they’re racists since they are married into indigenous families.
To be sure, the concept of boganism can be used with hilarious results in a comedic format.
What I object to is when it is invoked in a political context to show one’s cultural values are superior to someone else’s.
That’s a working definition of bigotry.
I predict that Andrew won’t apologise.
00
Gosh, Andrew, is it really that bad to be proud of Australia and the good things that the flag stands for, like our freedom, our heritage and our language and culture and judeo-christian traditional values, not to mention our legal and parliamentary systems we inherited from Britain, in fact, the whole bloody Australian way of life?
You would throw all that out because some bogan wrapped himself in a flag? Of course, another type of hate-filled bogan burnt the flag just the other day, so in all fairness the extremists cancel themselves out. Neither represents real Australians or what the Australia flag represents and to pretend they do is a disingenuous assault on the Aussie way of life.
I’m proud of western civilisation and Britain’s contribution to it and I am proud to be an Australian. I’m hardly a bogan or a racist. There is far more good in the land of the fair go than vileness and hatred.
Does that mean that we’re perfect? Hell, no. We’re human!
Fair dinkum criticism is fine. That’s how we grow as a nation, but black armband self-loathing is an extension of our historical “cultural cringe,” and is an irrational approach to our modern situation.
It’s a well understood technique of oppression that to destroy a culture first you must take away a people’s pride. Apparently, the Aussie left want to do it by equating Aussie pride with racist hate. The process of cultural deconstruction involves stripping a people of their symbols. Soviets and Serbians simply killed anyone displaying their local colours. Our lefties can’t do that, so they make a point to equate the flag with exploitation, war and racial hate.
Everyone should be proud of their heritage and culture whether it is white, black, asian or religious. And everyone should respect other people’s pride in themselves as well.
What we should condemn is not pride or the Australian flag but appropriation of the symbols of our freedom and culture by extremist groups who don’t respect the democratic values which bind us together as a nation.
And this can be done without impugning the nature of Australia and Australians as one of the world’s most tolerant and free nations and cultures.
00
Some of those good things you mention are what I associate with the word “Australian”, but not with the flag. The flag has just been guilty by association; seems like every time I see it it is under unfortunate circumstances.
> we should condemn …. appropriation of the symbols of our freedom and culture
> by extremist groups who don’t respect the democratic values which bind us together as a nation.
>
Such as every federal government of the last 15 years? I see them doing wrong things under that flag a helluva lot more often than the public. It is not even particularly Australian as I find national pride to be sickening regardless of which country it is, though the Americans were more nauseating in their jingoism than most.
I guess there are a lot more things to appreciate about Australia but I probably take them for granted. Perhaps if I’d ever lived in Vietnam or Bosnia I’d be more inclined to overlook Australian negatives.
00
Andrew, so which flag should we fly then?
Jo
00
Jo, you missed completely my point that flag-waving is ineffective. Flag waving is for people who want to be seen to be patriotic, regardless of what it might imply about the full range of Australia’s history. As I said in an earlier comment, this conformity is also the back door into nationalism, which has a chequered history.
The actual pattern on the flag doesn’t matter because it’s the associated meaning that is important. There is no point in changing the flag unless we secede from the monarchy. Fly that flag if you must, it’s the most popular one we have.
The purpose of Australia Day is not to identify yourself as Australian, since we kindof know that already. There is something more to it than mere identification. That’s only the foundation for a positive statement.
To represent only the good and not the bad on Australia Day you would have to forget the inconvenient facts of history whilst flying the flag, or else find some other way of expressing only the good bits of “Australia”. If one absolutely must be sickeningly patriotic on Australia Day, the most patriotic and sickening way is to wave the flag at every opportunity, and the least sickening way is to just do something Australian, like have a BBQ as many people did.
Easy.
A contrary argument, which oddly enough nobody on this thread has presented, is that the patriots are encouraged to be sickening on just one day per year and “what’s so bad about that Mr killjoy??” In effect this argues that we enjoy the benefits of living in Australia every day of the year, but the national holiday is specifically for drawing attention to those benefits. Well on one day per year I am therefore permitted to say how sickening patriotism is to me and that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance – even against nationalism. Indeed I could even argue mischievously that the ultimate expression of our freedoms and Australian values on Australia day is to badmouth the government and the country and get away with it.
I find the mental agility of people to edit the meaning of the flag to be impressive, but I can’t seem to do that. The symbol doesn’t mean to me what it means to others. It is supposed to mean everything about Australia and yet I don’t want to celebrate everything about Australia, so I can never fly the flag outside of war. Sounds logical.
00
The flag is meant to represent or be symbolic of Australia so ultimately what you associate with the flag you assosicate with the out country.
00
Hi AM
Do you celebrate birthdays at all? If not, I applaud your consistency.
If you do however, I fear you’d be the person who makes a speech about the birthday person warts and all, the good and the bad. e.g.
Sorry about the crude e.g. But is that the type of speech you make on birthday occasions?
00
Hi Andrew McRae January 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I don’t find anything to argue with in that post except that perhaps being older (perhaps) I understand what the flag represents to people who want good government.
I don’t want the flag changed for the simple reason that it represnts to me that I have the right to express myself and further “that the ultimate expression of our freedoms and Australian values on Australia day is to badmouth the government and the country and get away with it”.
My fear is that if we change the flag is is probably going to represent someone elses personal interests or hobby horse.
Just imagine what sort of flags Bob Le Brun or KRudd or Malcolm T would inflict on us; there would probably be a move to change them withing a few years.
🙂
00
Quite a Profile.
What’s a Future Fellow when its at home ? Someone aspiring to be a fellow or a fellow seeking to shape the future ?
00
By perpetuating stereotypes, bigotry social division and racism.
That guarantees a future for sociologists.
00
The photograph at the link says a lot about modern society.
The lady herself has an attractive smile, and you can see all of her face, I hope I’m not being sexist.
The Tokenism needed to pay homage to the Grant Money (our taxes at work) is evident sitting on the seat behind her. Facing away from us, hopefully not for any cultural reasons, are three people wearing The Head Scarf, a beautiful subtle touch.
Nobody gives a hoot for the cultural shock I feel at being confronted by someone wearing a hood and face cover on the streets of Newcastle. In our culture such dress was representative of witches and instilled fear in children and a sense of ‘not to be trusted” and “living outside the community”.
Arrrrrrrrggh
00
Is a sociologist anything other than a socialist with a need to feel better about themselves , not to mention the cushy job & the acadaemic status ?
I wonder how many sociologists aren’t in fact socialists.
(Sorry to perpetuate the stereotype 😉
00
if only Orwell was still around:
28 Jan: WaPo: Maxwell T. Boykoff: A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric
(Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”)
What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?
The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary…
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010…
. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”
In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to non-technical audiences.”
These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011…
The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed rebranding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”
But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-dangerous-shift-in-obamas-climate-change-rhetoric/2012/01/26/gIQAYnwzVQ_story.html
00
That says to me that the clean energy lobby has stolen the initiative.
00
Pat
The move from GW to Climate Change was so unsubtle that it wasn’t hard to keep working to discredit the bad science.
This latest move is going to need a complete shift of focus to cost comparisons of energy from all sources.
The public will again be confused because we will have wind mills and solar electricity costs quoted as price at your front door, not actual cost to produce.
We need some smart engineers here (Tony Oz ?) along with some accountants to make a story the public can come to grips with.
00
Take the link to the following image. Right click and open it in a new tab, so you can refer to the image and then come back here and read the text. I linked to the original in an earlier post, but as it was a pdf document that makes it difficult for some, so I have just saved the relevant image here. While I linked to it in an earlier Comment in another Post of Joanne’s, this is a different point that you should be aware of here.
Australian Power Costs
As always a lot of information, while the truth, and in plain sight, is displayed in a manner that the average person does not really understand, something they rely upon, because in that manner they can say they are open and transparent, when in actual fact no one has a clue what is really being shown.
Now, note especially the orange highlighted cost under each of the States.
That is the WHOLESALE cost of electricity, and note here how it’s expressed in dollars per MWH. (MegaWattHour)
So, in the case of the first one mentioned here Queensland is that $34/MWh. This translates to 3.4 cents per KWH. (KiloWattHour)
Hmm!
Right about now, some of you are reaching for your most recent Power bill, so go on, all of you root around in a drawer somewhere for where you’ve put that most recent bill and have a look at it.
Mine quotes the price I am being charged for electricity at almost 21 cents per KWH.
See now how they don’t really want you to put two and two together, and I’ll come back to that later.
That cost of the $34/MWh is the total cost of the sale of all electricity from every plant to the grids in each of those States.
So, the States with the most number of the cheapest form of producing power (coal fired power) have the cheapest cost for electricity.
Coal fired power is on average around 3 cents per KWH to produce, perhaps a little under.
Of note here is South Australia, and look at that cost, $51/MWh. South Australia has the largest amount of power produced from Wind Power, so straight away you can see how the cost of Wind Power is not cheap.
Tasmania imports a lot of its power from Victoria, so again, that bumps up the price there, and they also do not have much in the way of coal fired power at all.
While here I am concentrating on the cost, its worthwhile looking at which State is supporting another State that has assiduously avoided constructing any new power plants in their own State, Tasmania and S.A. the latter needing steady and reliable amounts of power (from Victoria) to supplement what is not being delivered from the variability of Wind Power.
Now refer back to your own power bill, and correlate that to the cost of the actual generation.
Individual plants sell their power to the grids, in the main owned by the States, who also own the power lines etc etc. The States then onsell that power to the providers, the headline name at the top of your Bill, mine being Ergon Energy. The States add on their costs, eg the power lines and infrastructure for power delivery, plus some for their profit margin.
The providers then onsell it to you, plus their costs, plus their profit margin plus the GST.
So you can see how the cost has blown out in some cases by a factor between 6 and 7.
Now, you as Residential consumers (38% of all consumption) pay the most for electricity.
Commerce (37%) pays a little less, and Industry (24%) gets their power at the cheapest rate, and these are the retail costs as that wholesale cost is relatively static.
In a way this is understandable, and it’s really only a few cents here and there (at the retail cost) as there is a huge number of individual consumers at the Residential level, so they can spread it out a bit more, adding a couple of cents on that won’t really be noticed.
There are lot less number of consumers at the Commerce level, and then considerably less at the Industrial level. Actual consumption rises considerably in Commerce (think just Coles and Woolies) and the largest consumers would be at that Industrial level, hence they can bargain directly with the provider for that lesser price. (eg huge consumption levels costed at a large bulk rate, same as for Coles and Woolies etc, which would also bargain directly with providers for a cheaper rate as enormous consumers)
So, now enter the CO2 tax. Now that fits in at the front end, raising the cost of the actual generation, and in fact probably doubling it in most cases.
Note how a doubling at that front end may only mean a few extra cents per KWH on your retail bill, but keep in mind, that small front end rise is added to at each level in between, and as the Residential sector pays the most, then you are up for the greatest increase.
Now, while seemingly small in comparison (retail vs wholesale) consider the effect on the actual generating end, where the increase is not small but has actually doubled.
It’s only aimed at CO2 emitting plants so very cleverly, it makes them more expensive wrt renewables, which are still between five, seven and ten times higher than producing coal fired power.
See how the Government has cleverly aimed their selling point spin for the CO2 Tax at the (seemingly) tiny overall end cost increase at the individual single household residential level, hence it seems that it may actually be only a small increase.
That increase might only end up extrapolating to maybe 5 cents extra on your bill, but even that is around 25%, and keep in mind that this is at the base level, because I have an idea it might actually be around 30 to 33%, and now look at the headline total amount you have to pay, and add a third to that.
Now think pensioners etc.
Now think Commerce especially, as huge consumers like Coles and Woolies etc have to pay huge increases, and do not tell me that those costs also will not be passed on.
Market mechanism! Bullshit! (sorry, but that’s what it is.)
That image I linked to says so much on just that one page that it would take ages to correctly explain.
The average person has no idea whatsoever what is being indicated there.
This is a con on so many levels.
I know I’ve gone on at length and it reminds me of Max listening to the Chief under the Cone Of Silence. The chief has just intricately told Max the plan and Max has just replied to the chief that he missed a bit. When the chief asks Max which bit, Max replies, “that bit right after ‘Now listen carefully’.”
I go on at length, but if it is carefully explained in a manner most can understand, then you are getting one extra piece of the puzzle that becomes a little less opaque.
Tony.
00
Tony,
Maybe you would like to comment on the following taken from a comment by “Robber of Glen Waverley” on Andrew Bolt’s blog here.
In the Dept of Resources, Energy and Tourism Draft Energy White Paper 2011 – Strengthening the Foundation for Australia’s Energy Future, they say:
Page 34: Energy?intensive industries are expected to continue to prosper, supported by transitional assistance under the Clean Energy Future package. Over time, growth is expected to slow as some emissions intensive, trade?exposed activities that depend heavily on low?cost electricity (such as aluminium production) face competitive pressures from countries that have access to cheaper low?emissions power (such as hydroelectricity).
Page xxi: While clean energy outcomes have enormous potential, they are far from predetermined and the success of individual technologies hinges on addressing current technical, social and cost issues. The challenge and scale of the clean energy transformation should not be underestimated. For example, the Australian Treasury has forecast that under carbon pricing, some 260 terawatt hours of clean energy generation could be delivered by 2050. Taking into account current clean energy generation, this would equate to the average annual output of around an additional 43 new 750 megawatt hour coal?fired power stations – a significant investment task.
Page xxxii: The Australian Government has committed up to $17 billion in funding to support the development, commercialisation and deployment of clean energy technologies. This includes the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as well as support for large?scale carbon capture and storage demonstration.
Page 110: The Australian Government’s Clean Energy Future package includes an energy security component to assist this process and ensure that energy security risks are minimised. This includes:
– the establishment of an Energy Security Fund to provide $5.5 billion in transitional assistance through to 2016–17 and funding under the Contract for Closure initiative to support the negotiated closure of up to 2000 megawatts of highly emissions?intensive generation capacity before 2020.
Page 162: The Productivity Commission identified more than 230 climate?related measures in operation at the national and subnational levels. While these measures are clearly not all energy related, and while the extent to which they have a material effect on market prices is not known with certainty, they are generally not transparent and add to market complexity. Given that the carbon price has been legislated, the range of measures should be reviewed against the COAG principles of complementarity to ensure that inefficiencies leading to unnecessary costs are avoided. Governments at all levels should review existing measures, consistent with COAG’s agreed complementarity principles for climate change mitigation measures and agree not to introduce any new non?complementary measures.
00
And if I might (politely) correct KinkyKeith here, I am not a full Engineer. I only have a very lowly Associate Diploma in Electrical Engineering from 25 years in that electrical trade. In my case here, I’ve just been researching all of this and writing about it for 4 years. My knowledge about these particular aspects of the electrical trade has increased (exponentially) in that time.
Sometimes its as dry as the Simpson, and my task is to attempt to get it to a level that the average person can understand.
Tony.
00
TonyfromOz
Hi Tony, thanks.
That’s what we need, more clear breakdowns of cost bases.
Actual cost of production is till quite low compared to retail costs but does this include distribution costs (ie transformers, lines, poles etc) ?
Actually being able to quantify the profits being taken out by private interests ( as opposed to state governments) would be a great tool to have for the next elections.
00
KinkyKeith,
those distribution costs are in the middle.
The individual generators sell their power to the grid, and as I mentioned those are in the main Government owned.
The distributions costs (transformers, sub stations, poles and lines etc) are then added on by Governments who now pass the new cost (plus their profit, handling, and admin costs) onto the providers, (eg the Ergons etc) who then add on their bit and sell it to you at the new retail cost.
Tony.
00
Okay then, just why is Wind Power so costly to generate when compared with coal fired power.
Let’s compare the proposed Musselroe Plant in Tassie with say Bayswater. (for the purpose of my using that one Bayswater constant)
Musselroe will have 56 towers with 3MW Nacelles for a total Nameplate of 168MW. It will produce for consumption 420GWH each year, and that’s at a CF of close to 30%. It has a best case scenario life span of 25 years, so at that theoretical total it will produce for consumption a total of 10,500GWH
10,500GWH.
Bayswater produces 17,500GWH each year, and has a projected (base) life span of 50 years, which with refurbishment can actually extend out to 60 years if needed. So, in its lifetime it will produce for consumption a total of 845,000GWH
850,000GWH.
This is more than 80 times as much power.
The costs for both plants now need to be extrapolated out over the life of the plant plus all associated costs.
Musselroe will cost $400 Million, (Base, projected, hoped for minimum)
Bayswater cost X in the late 70’s and in today’s dollars for an equivalent that could be as high as $2 Billion. However, Bayswater has to purchase the coal to fuel the critical furnace. That amounts to around 6 million tons of coal at whatever steaming coal costs. Keep in mind, this Plant also owns the nearby coal mine, so they are using their own coal, but even at the current market price that is a considerable yearly cost.
So, Musselroe has to extrapolate 10,500GWH over 25 years plus all their extras and then translate that to a per unit MWH cost.
Bayswater has to extrapolate 850,000GWH over 50 years plus the cost of the coal and all other costs as well, and then translate that to a per unit MWH cost.
Even with the considerable cost of the coal, then coal fired power is a quantum level cheaper, more reliable, and is actually available on a 24/7/3656 basis.
Now add on the CO2 Tax, an extra $500 million a year, or an extra $25 Billion over the life of the plant if it stays at that $23. (Ha! Fat chance that) and the cost per unit rises. Even so, it is still (considerably) cheaper than Wind Power.
Now also add on (the totally unobtainable dream of) CCS, and it raises the cost per unit for coal fired power even further again, and it is still considerably cheaper than Wind Power.
Everything they possibly can do to make renewables cost competitive cannot make them competitive, and even if they ever did, coal fired power would still win, because of its reliability and availability of that 24/7/365 basis.
Nuclear power, a long long way off here is even better than coal again.
They generate their power at a much higher CF hence far more GWH per year, and the fuel, the nuclear rod assemblies are considerably (far and away in fact) cheaper than the coal required to be burned in the coal fired plants.
Even so, they are still doing everything they can to make Nuclear power more expensive.
Either of the major forms of Solar power are considerably more expensive even than Wind.
Nothing that they do can ever make renewables of current flavour of the month competitive.
They fail at every level.
These costs I have mentioned here are simplified for ease of understanding.
Tony.
00
Tony, one of the other objections I’ve heard (from an engineer) against wind power and solar is that with variable outputs, and a much larger number of them feeding into the grid, it is difficult to impossible to control the grid in both the 50Hz timing and the overall second-by-second output. The emphasis was that being off by a millisecond or three would lead to arcing or violent equipment failure.
In this thread someone asks about the grid feed problem and the top rated answer (by Pumpizmus) says this is not a problem for nukes because as long as there’s already other generators running, the grid basically synchronizes the generator to it anyway.
Is that the same deal in coal plants?
Does the problem still exist for solid-state inverter solar grid feed-in?
Is there a synch problem from having very large numbers of windmills or solar rooftops?
Has any renewables plant solved it by putting a DC motor >==> AC generator between the windmills and grid?
I kept reading some of the other answers in that thread and they kindof half-answer my above questions, just wondering what your opinion is on the scale and solution of the grid synch problem.
00
Andrew,
nice link, thanks for that one.
As this Post has almost run its course, I suppose not many readers will come back here to see this, but it’s worth replying to, and again, as you can all see, electrical power is more complex than just turning the switch on the ‘hole in the wall’ and having the power there.
Because of the nature of that complexity, I’ll (attempt to) answer your question with two separate replies, because this needs careful explanation.
The first comment will (hopefully) address the ‘synching’ of the many Plants on line that supply a grid overall.
Now, while Wind power is a combination of individual towers, each with its own generator, it may seem here that there are many of them to watch wrt the correct frequency of output.
(That output frequency is 50 Hz (cycles per second) here in Australia and 60 Hz in the U.S. so that translates to 3000RPM here and 3600RPM in the U.S.)
A Wind Plant is still treated as ONE plant on the grid, even though it may have numerous generators, some up in the hundreds.
While some towers may not be spinning and supplying an output, there is still some output at all times from Wind Plants, eg as shown at this link for Wind Performance. You can untick the boxes shown there to show performance for individual Plants as required.
So, even though all the generators (Towers) might not be producing their full power, at least some of them are. When a Wind Plant is commissioned (delivering power to the grid) it stays connected to the grid all the time, and all that varies is the total power being delivered. While the plant may have many towers, it is controlled as the one deliverer of power, if you can see that, as all towers are coordinated so that delivery is at that one constant and in synch frequency.
Because the plant is delivering some power all the time, there is no major problem with synch wrt to the grid overall. They control onsite the numerous towers as they drop in and out.
Now wrt to the overall synching question, the major times this would be carefully carried out is during those Peaking Power periods, a couple of hours in the morning, and from 4PM till around 10PM.
Other plants come on line to add power to the grids to cover increased demand, and when they come on line, they must be frequency synched to the grid before ‘flicking the switch’ to start delivering. So, run up the turbine/generator complex, get the frequency the same as for the grid, and then connect the plant to the grid. Each one is done individually at each plant.
When it comes to large scale coal fired power, those plants are delivering their power 24/7/365, so the only time there would be a synch problem there would be after maintenance etc, when bringing one of the generators back on line, and again, that is done on site, getting all that right before adding that generator back onto the overall power from that plant to the grid.
All that is required after all the plants are connected to the grid is for the generator speed to be maintained at that 3000RPM (for Australia) and again, that is done onsite for each plant.
Tony.
(While I have called them generators in every comment I make, they are in fact AC Generators, Alternators, or in the case of power plants Turbo Alternators)
00
Now, this second comment will deal with rooftop solar power.
It’s electrical theory, so again my task is to (try to anyway) explain it in as simple a manner as I can, so all you electrical engineers out there reading this, don’t you be laughing out too loud now.
The electrical power generated by a plant connected to the grid delivers its power at 50Hertz (or 50 cycles per second) and think of that as a pulse of electrical current coming down the line, 50 pulses each second. That pulse is not like a river flowing, eg one amount of water moving over a distance, as electrical current is the movement of electrons, and here the electron does not move over the full distance. The electron moves from one atom to next, and replaces the electron that has moved to the next atom if you can see that. That speed of travel is at the speed of light, 186,000 Miles per SECOND.
So, 50 pulses per second, and that pulse is AC, a sine wave, so that’s a pulse of one hundredth of a second in one direction and then one hundredth of a second in the reverse direction.
At the speed of light that’s a distance of around 1860 miles each hundredth of a second.
Now, why I mentioned that is that while all the power plants are synchronised to the same frequency, there are hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of tiny little ‘generators’ adding power to grids all over.
These are those rooftop solar power installations. Some just supply power that is being consumed by the individual residence, but with more and more large scale installations being connected, that excess power being generated is being fed back to the grid.
Now the problem that is arising is one of power being fed back the other way, if you can see that, and also that synchronisation with the existing power on the grid already.
Rooftop panel power is DC, and an inverter is used to convert it to ‘regular’ 240V 50Hz household supply.
What is remaining is fed back to the grid.
You’ll get quality inverters and average inverters, and no all of them are the same.
I’m actually beginning to hear of problems with the increasing number of rooftop systems wrt the grid supply.
So, while they may seem to be a good ‘green’ thing, they may in actual fact be causing problems that could soon become major.
Again, there will be ‘green’ supporters who will say I am scaremongering, but as you can see, even when explained in such a basic manner, the supply of electrical power is more complex than is thought.
Now some of you may actually be putting two and two together and thinking a pulse of power travelling 1860 miles in one hundredth of a second, and thinking there must be a limit to this.
Extrapolate that out to overall distance. There are (significant) power losses over distance, so the calls for filling central Australia with hundreds of square miles of solar panels and this could power all Australia, it might (pretty big might) produce the power that Australia consumes, but there’s no way to get that power, all of it to where it is being consumed, on the Eastern Sea Board. The same applies with Wind Power. Fill the Great Australian Bight from Perth to Adelaide with wind turbines. Again, there’s no way to get all that power to where it is needed for consumption.
That’s why we have grids and power plants connected to the grids enough for the area they are servicing.
Tony.
00
“Clean energy” can only work as long as they can say there is something “dirty” about conventional energy. When coal or gas fired plants only put out CO2, and CO2 has been exonerated, they haven’t got much to go on.
That was the whole point about CO2 induced global warming in the first place.
00
Catholic Pope – A True AGW Believer –
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Global_Religion.pdf
“Despite the Climategate scandal that has thrown the man-made global warming theory
into disrepute, Pope Benedict XVI is still a believer in the discredited claims being made about the alleged role of man in creating a hotter planet. He has been labeled the
“Green Pope” and some Catholic parishes in the U.S. following his lead are advocating
a “carbon fast” for Lent, the period before Easter. Rev. Thomas J. Reese, S.J., a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, says Benedict’s views “are motivated by theology not politics.”
However, acting more like a politician than a religious leader, the Pope greeted
ambassadors to the Vatican during his new year’s address to the diplomatic corps by
complaining about the failure at the 2009 Copenhagen conference to come up with a
new treaty to punish Western nations, led by the United States, that have used fossil
fuels for industrial development.
Referring to “the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment,” he said, “This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City, it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”
Lee Penn, who previously wrote the book, False Dawn, about global religion, notes in
this report for America’s Survival, Inc. that the Pope’s agenda goes beyond global
warming. He writes: When the Pope agrees with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Henry Kissinger, the new President of the European Union, and other secular leaders on the need for global governance and new world order, we can know that the world has indeed experienced a “harmonic convergence” and entered a new age….”
00
AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,
AND THE CULT OF GAIA (1999)
By Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival, Inc.
http://www.USAsurvival.org
Executive Summary
U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize a new form of state religion which holds that natural resources have to be protected for the sake of Gaia, a so-called Earth spirit. This religious movement, which has cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations.
Gore, who as a member of the U.S. Senate participated in the 1992 U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit, is the most prominent member of what appears to be an environmental cult built around the concept of reverence for the Earth. Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship….”
http://www.usasurvival.org/cultofgaia.html
00
The pope is entitled to his opinion. The fact that the church teaches that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals does not make him a weatherman.
The biggest mistake the church ever made, in my humble opinion, occurred in 800 AD when Leo III ambushed Charlamagne and crowned him as the first holy roman emperor. The church then became a secular power always in need of a protector. The donation of Constantine is the global warming fraud of it’s time. The world would have been a better place if the pope would have remained a spiritual leader. The inherent conflict of interst sill continues to haunt the church and probably always will.
00
Topher’s calling for help to defend free speech
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/help_topher_to_defend_free_speech/
there are 2 videos at the link, one where he explains the project and one updating us on where he’s at with his fundraising
he needs another $10,000 by end of January, in his words ‘very very achievable’
and if you want to see an example of his work http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=853#comment-32101
Topher is brilliant and funny in my view
BTW correct link to the donation page is http://www.pozible.com/index.php/archive/index/4352/description/0/0
00
sorry here’s the link to Andrew Bolt’s post http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/help_topher_to_defend_free_speech/
But note the link to the donation page is on my previous comment
00
Amusing to see Skeptical Sciences demolition job on the Archibald “paper”. What a joke, you guys can’t be serious!!!
(Amusing to see that neither John Cook or Dana1981 have the courage to debate the paper at WUWT blog or here) CTS
00
Energy & Environment
Tag line:
“Science” by “Scientists”
00
Actually what’s REALLY amusing is that you guys (Temp AND Tristan) are so “brave” that you have to take your cheap, unsubstantiated shots at the contents of a three day old thread on an entirely unrelated, two day old thread.
Why didn’t you make your comments on the Archibald thread where the author might notice, and respond to them?
Or
Why don’t you make them on the current thread where all the readers are now, so they can be responded to?
.
Can you spell “abject cowardice” children?
How about “morally bankrupt”?
.
I just KNEW you could.
00
Well CTS that’s probably because what constitutes for debate at WUWT mostly consists of ad homs, gish gallops, false equivalences and accusations of dishonesty.
(You have made a goof in posting this scurrilous attack.Do you know why we are now laughing at you?) CTS
Why don’t you (or Jo) show us just how brave you are, by posting at SkS?
(I HAVE posted there before and they were quickly deleted) CTS
(The Archibald post in question originated at WUWT.Therefore it is the place to go to debate the author of the presentation who will be present to defend it.Jo picks upon it and brought it here.David has commented here a few times.But spend most of his time at WUWT.That should have been obvious even for you,No?) CTS
00
Interesting that Dana has two degrees from US universities and still can’t put a scientific discussion together on her own.
Her thesis that Man Did It via CO2 rests on the ridiculous assumptions about residence times of water and CO2 in the air and apparently on the fact that she has two degrees.
For some unknown reason her table shows water as being “normal” or being in the atmosphere for so fleeting a moment that it can’t react.
On the other hand CO2 has such a long “residence” time that it does superhuman damage to the atmosphere?
What is going on in American universities.
00
I dare say they’ve got much better things to do.
00
Always happy to entertain.
It’s not that hard to post in adherence with the comments policy. The staff at SkS are currently looking at a way to preserve deleted posts, I look forward to that. Pity it won’t be able to be retroactively applied, that would have given me great joy.
Posting here and at WUWT is an unpleasant experience for people accustomed to a higher standard of dialogue. I know it’s strange but sneers and nastiness aren’t everyone’s cup of tea. For whatever reason, JB and I have a tolerance for it.
(If you think you are being mistreated here.You can report it and describe why you made the report.The REPORT THIS link right there in front of you.You should not have to tolerate nasty personal attacks) CTS
00
Tristan,
I’m beginning to think your skull is little more than an empty echo chamber.
Forget CTS – you and I personally have traded posts many times on the futility of unbelievers posting over a Septic Science. If one is lucky, one only gets deleted. If one has REALLY made a point, the person is simply “disappeared” – as I was.
As I have pointed to you before (with links), the blogosphere is awash with tales (including screen dumps)of John
Crook’sCook’s propensity to delete, disappear, and/or alter skeptical posts, as well as “editing” his own articles – sometimes months after the fact – to make the poster appear incorrect.At one stage when confronted with these FACTS you stated your intention to talk with John
CrookCook about these extra-editorial activities.That was months ago, and since then, despite regular prompting from me – and others – we have seen nothing, nada, zip.
While I normally don’t agree with any form of censorship of on-topic posts save as is necessary to protect the webmaster from legal action, I honestly believe on the subject of skeptics posting at Septic Science, the time has come for any comment made by you about it to simply be snipped on the basis that we have heard it all before, and you have NEVER made good on offering any form of rational explanation by John
CrookCook..
In other words, it’s time for you to put up or shut up.
00
Tristan
I searched SKS regarding this preserving deleted posts etc – Nothing on the website?
Where is this stated on SKS Tristan?
00
Really? We all thought you liked it, since it is your main M.O.
00
Hi temp
Glad you didn’t miss the exchange:
“Amusing to see that neither John Cook or Dana1981 have the courage to debate the paper at WUWT blog or here.”
and your response: “I dare say they’ve got much better things to do.”
Well I checked out Dana’s web site and his outline of CO2 driven incineration drivel which I commented on above, or was it below.
The person claims to have two degrees but as one commentator said about Dana’s qualifications, they don’t mean much. He then went on to list the “hard science” which has been lost from University Science Courses in the US.
Dana is the epitome of the American Science Dream gone bad.
Bad science is bad science and Dana probably has no idea he is sprouting bad science.
That’s what makes it so scary.
00
So Kinky K why don’t you put them all to rights an publish some “good” science?? Of course we know the answer to that don’t we? I doubt you could get a paper within a bull’s roar of peer review. You seem to have endless time to post on this blog so you can’t use limited time as an excuse.
00
Ah yes , the new paradigm for the 21st Century.
Science Lite.
Guaranteed to not give students headaches during the course.
🙂
I did like Dana’s green wind breaker. A nice touch.
00
Didn’t think you’d be able to step up. Not quite a real scientist eh?
00
Why bother.
Your just a space taker.
Are you paid to create spaces between the real blogging that goes on here or do you do
it because you are making money out of “science lite”?
00
Now Dana
The shining example of the new Science Lite, the Torch bearer for the Global Warming movement.
Below is a comment from an earlier US graduate commenting on science standards and course sequences relevant to the Dana situation:
“My own undergraduate institution, S*** College, now offers a BS of astrophysics in addition to a BS of physics.
S*** College formerly provided the standard undergraduate curriculum in physics as prerequisite for a BS, as developed by the APS, including Physics I-IV, elctrodynamics 1,2, mechanics 1,2, modern optics, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, particle physics, thermal physics, solid state physics, math physics 1,2.
Most of those have unfortunately disappeared from the curriculum offered, and what is offered is an admixture of “astrophysics” courses without a curriculum set by any educational accreditation entity.
The problem is that many rather “fringe” subjects such as Planetary Climatology[!] have crept into the curriculum, the product of the curriculum being a dumbed down version of a BS science student.
There are no standards left in “science” any more, it’s a free-for-all to go do what “feels good” and call it “science” .”
End of quote.
End of Dana’s Credentials.
00
Why bother?! HUHH? You’ve got to be kidding right? You are the ones always bitching about bad science but you say that it’s not worth the bother to correct it? Give me a break, you spend your whole time here whining about how doing anything about climate change is going to destroy the free world. So when someone suggests you ought to make a correction to that you say “why bother?”. Wow that takes the prize. Quit your bitching then mate if you couldn’t be fagged to do anything about it.
00
Now now Temp, slow down or you’ll bust a woo-foo valve.
Analysis of post by Temp
January 30, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Total scientific content: Zero.
00
Still no science I see Kinky? I suspect right now you’re looking like a rabbit in the headlights!!
00
Hi Temp
“”I suspect right now you’re looking like a rabbit in the headlights!!””
Huh?
I don’t think any rabbit would be blinded by the lights from Dana’s electric motor scooter.
00
Not really any need, Temp. Lots of reasonably “good” science is starting to be published these days as all and sundry try and protect their arses and distance themselves and their reputations from “the team”, and “the cause”.
The CRU released info the other day confirming temps haven’t risen for the last 15 years, and the British Met office has confirmed we are moving into a prolonged period of a “quiet sun”.
Of course, naturally, they claim their computer models show that this will not make a big difference since any cooling will be more than offset by CAGW.
But when one factors in that they are using much the SAME CAGW-orientated computer model that they used to predict those “mild winters” when England ground to a halt under record snowfalls and freezing temperatures, punctuated by their predicted “bbq summers” when the country drowned, and will overall be best remembered for the infamous “snow will be a thing of the past” line, I’m not all that confident about the CAGW offset stuff.
00
Hi MV
Not much point talking science to “space makers”, they don’t understand science unless it’s in context for them eg SkS or Professor Cooks blogg that is so scientifically childish you wouldn’t let kindergarten kids near it.
“space makers” must be getting paid to make Jo’s blogg look chaotic to random visitors.
One recent comment actually made the observation that there was more “conflict” here than “scientific discussion” if I have paraphrased him correctly.
That’s enough to turn around a significant number of people.
Just imagine page after page of Tristan, Johnny B Good, MattyB and Temp — a visitor may get the wrong impression that they had arrived at a lawyers blogg.
00
“Reasonably good science”. Baaaaaaaaaaah Haaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
Seriously you guys are hilarious! You ought to give up your day jobs and take up comedy.
00
Thank you.
Given that I was quoting the findings of the Hadley CRU (home of Phil Jones), and the British Met Office (MET), two of the five “backbones” of modern CAGW “science”, I’ll take your post as an obvious vote of no confidence in these two institutions and the phoney “science” they promote.
00
The only joke I am aware of on this site is you, Temp! Will you ever contribute anything to the conversation or will you continue to seek attention through your juvenile antics because you obviously feel that your patents didn’t give you enough of it?
00
Jo anne you need Gillard to see this its major. Seemsa finally MSM its awakening
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
There is also a new movie by phil valentine an inconsistent truth
00
A who’s who of how the USA Constitution was invalidated.
http://mises.org/media/6825/The-Mises-Circle-in-Houston-2012-gtgt-Why-the-Constitution-Had-to-Be-Destroyed
The Mises Circle in 2012
Ludwig Von Mises Institute
00
One of the least effective “false flag” attacks I’ve seen in Australia.
Gillard used a disposable junior PR staff member to leak the opposition leader’s location to the Aborigines in an attempt to get him attacked personally for a previous comment and also to get herself sympathy by pictures of her rapid evacuation when the protestors showed up. Afterwards the junior staffer was dumped in the usual politically-correct manner.
The official word of course is that the junior member acted alone in leaking the information. Well that would have to be one of the most courageous and daring moves from a junior in a job that is typically occupied by grovelling serfs. The only other plausible explanation is that the seniors set up the junior and that the PM really didn’t know. Tough game, politics.
Not that they will ever prove me wrong about this opinion because that would require holding an actual police inquiry to find out who said what to whom.
And really, it’s just pathetic. When the USA neocons hold a false flag attack, 3000 people die. When the Australian green-left party stages a false flag attack, one woman loses a shoe! We’ve really got to lift our game if we want to mix with the big dogs on the block.
00
Just noticed:
SBS2 is featuring a program “Science under attack” with Paul Nurse lamenting the failure of people to prostrate themselves before their climate scientist deities.
Missus and I have just enjoyed a roast lamb dinner and it’s staying IN my stomach.
00
Don’t know if anybody has posted this before, but Steven Goddard has noticed some of Hansen’s artistry.
00
Hi Temp
I have only been posting on here for the last little bit to illustrate a point.
You have not made one comment on the science. Total science content of all comments : Nil.
You have used SkS type comments to suggest others provide You with the science but have nothing to supply yourself.
It is obvious you are just here to make space and try to discourage new involvement with this site.
They must be getting real desperate if the have to pay you to run interference here all day.
(The topic is not about the science but about unhappy people who are reacting to what is happening around them) CTS
00
(Snipped) (You are completely off topic) CTS
00
The burden of proof is on the proponent of a hypothesis. If you can provide empirical evidence that would be refreshing. An appeal to authority is illogical and not proof. As the moderator pointed out, The topic is about unhappy people. You are obviously a miserable person so tell us why and maybe we can help you to get the help you need.
00
Temp – If you do want to talk science I’m always up for it (though goofing off into EU politics is fun too).
In my view this paper from 1996 killed CAGW stone dead 16 years ago. And this one last year put the stake through the heart of the quivering corpse. Then this one also from last year chopped its head off. And this one stuffed it into a garbage bin. Enjoy.
(The links are nice but… The topic is not about the science but about unhappy people who are reacting to what is happening around them) CTS
00
Like I said Bruce, (Snipped the rest)
(You are a determined thread hijacker with all of your comments being well off topic.Keep it up and you will be put into the pending bin where the moderators will decide if you are sufficiently back on topic to have it approved) CTS
00
There is a (Snipped the rest.It not on topic or that is worth being read about for a topic based discussion) CTS
00
Really? I have better things to do than type away at a keyboard only to have it “snipped” by some hard working “volunteer”. I don’t expect perfection from anyone but enough is enough! When it gets to being a little less capricious and arbitrary around here drop me a line! This isn’t my site so adios! Best of luck.
00
Temp – Sorry about that, we’ll have to take it up on an appropriate climate thread some time.
CTS – And apology for making life & moderation more difficult.
00
Perhaps we should be a little more moderate in the application of moderation.
I have to work around censorship of one form or another during my working day. And in fact, one of the interesting observations about the topic of this thread is the lack of coverage in the international MSM about the protests in Sicily. Censorship of a very serious and worrying kind.
People go off-topic because they have nothing useful to contribute to the current subject, and sometimes nothing useful to contribute at all. My grandmother used to say that empty vessels make the most noise, and that certainly applies to the trolls we get here – especially now the quality of trolling has dropped through the floor – we only deserve the B-team reserves? Gimme a break.
The best thing to do is simply ignore them – leave them shouting into an empty room. People who are serious about coming to this blog will see them for what they are.
But however bad and inept they are, I still do not advocate arbitrarily removing them (or anybody else for that matter). Let’s leave that to the Cook and Bottlewasher over on SepticScience.
00
CTS
Sorry for the double posting – I am not sure how that happened.
I understand what you had to do, and can imagine why you had to do it. But snipping a regular is not a terribly charitable thing to do, if you get my meaning. Eddy makes some very useful contributions when he doesn’t get his gander up. My comments were partly aimed at him for getting sucked into the game. Much better to ignore the idiots.
(It does not matter if it is a regular or a first time commenter.The standard for everyone is the same.We are expected to be reasonably on topic and make comments that is about any part of the topic) CTS
(Normally I overlook scattered off topic comments because it does not derail the discussion of the topic.But there is one commenter who was ALWAYS off topic and getting others involved in that distraction.Then the topic of discussion slows to a crawl or die out.That is when I have to make a stand in trying to get people to get back towards the topic at hand) CTS
(What is snipped is off topic AND useless to the conversation.I am following the blog owners guideline on it and what is discussed through the e-mails.The best way to keep moderators away is to work the topic conversationally and be reasonably civil) CTS
00
Question to CTS,
In bold above………..this is an unthreaded thread so no one is ON topic correct?
(When Rereke and myself made these comments.It was in a topic based thread.Jo moved them here.You can post anything decent in a un threaded entry) CTS
00
Well the final tally is in and it is over 1,000,000 this of course does not include the 500 odd thousand that died from the sanctions in the 1990’s the Iraqi government did the only sane thing they could and kicked the US out.
http://uruknet.com/?p=m85271&hd=&size=1&l=e
But fear not all you misanthropists, The US government has commandeered two islands to shore up the straight of Hormuz and more US warships have just gone through the Suez canal to join the already massive flotilla.
Israel is as always banging the drum beats for war and is now talking about “closing windows of opportunity” so all the pieces for Iranian invasion are in place and will happen at a time of our choosing.
So fear not fellow misanthropists the body count clock will begin ticking again shortly.
Sorry just had to vent a little.
00
Hi Crakar
I understand your frustration with the American war machine.
War is ugly but sadly war is also the human experience and if any country is not prepared to go to war it will be the object of predators of all types.
Recent news out of Libya suggests that the ugly Gaddafi government has been replaced by one equally as brutal; bit of score settling going on.
It’s good to keep the US under scrutiny but don’t forget to apply the same standards to all.
I know that there are millions of people in Iran who would want to be rid of the present partisan government, but getting there without doing another “Libya” will not be easy.
For a moment I thought the body count was above that debated on the other thread; seems not.
Whether 6 million Jews were gassed during WW11 was the debate.
One person illegally gassed was too much.
00
KK,
The how many and the how is not near as important as the why, the how many and the how varies depending on which part of our shameful history one wishes to look at but the why is always the same.
Look at the current situation with Iran, there is no credible evidence to suggest Iran are making a bomb but yet here we are on their door step itching to invade based on that premise and in light of your quote i highlighted it would seem that if Iran were/did build a bomb you would condone it after all they are merely preparing for war? If they really were trying to build a bomb could you not blame them? After all no one wants to the object of predators do they?
Rather than say “well war is inevitable lets all do it” shouldnt we look at an alternative? I understand what you say Hitler marched through Poland and beyond, the global war of terror is currently marching through the middle east and the only way to stop both is to take up arms against them and well it worked against Hitler.
Call the Iranian government what you will but Iran has not invaded anyone for at least 200 years, its antagonisers however have the stench of fresh blood on them. So rather than suggest Iran build a bigger and better army to protect itself when eventually attacked should not we be asking the question *why* are we attacking?
Why KK, that is the question. Look through history as to why wars start and you will see nothing has changed so rather than create another arms race “to protect ourselves” we should be trying to stop the next arms race.
00
The Rothschild family is slowly but surely having their Central banks established in every country of this world, giving them incredible amount of wealth and power.
In the year of 2000 there were seven countries without a Rothschild owned Central Bank:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
It is not a coincidence that these country, which are listed above were and are still being under attack by the western media, since one of the main reasons these countries have been under attack in the first place is because they do not have a Rothschild owned Central Bank yet. The first step in having a Central Bank establish in a country is to get them to accept an outrageous loans, which puts the country in debt of the Central Bank and under the control of the Rothschilds. If the country does not accept the loan, the leader of this particular country will be assassinated and a Rothschild aligned leader will be put into the position, and if the assassination does not work, the country will be invaded and have a Central Bank established with force all under the name of terrorism.
Rothschild owned Central Bank:
Central banks are illegally created private banks that are owned by the Rothschild banking family. The family has been around for more than 230 years and has slithered its way into each country on this planet, threatened every world leader and their governments and cabinets with physical and economic death and destruction, and then emplaced their own people in these central banks to control and manage each country’s pocketbook. Worse, the Rothschilds also control the machinations of each government at the macro level, not concerning themselves with the daily vicissitudes of our individual personal lives. Except when we get too far out of line.
More about Central Banks: http://flipthepyramid.com/index.php/information/population-control/central-banking-system
The only countries left in 2003 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family were:
Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
The Attacks of September 11th were an inside job to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to then establish a Central Bank in those countries.
The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
After the instigated protests and riots in the Arab countries the Rothschild finally paved their way into establishing Central Banks, and getting rid of many leaders, which put them into more power.
MORE ON: http://flipthepyramid.com/index.php/entry/the-rothschilds-have-central-banks-in-almost-every-country-now
00
Can it get any sillier than this?, oh hang on we shut down Sydney airport because of suspicious package which turned out to be a sausgage roll in a paper bag………….
00
From watts,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/31/on-dentists-cardiologists-climatologists-and-evidence-based-remedies/
selected quote from Trenberth:
I think i get what he is saying for example if i want to know how much the sun affects the Earth’s climate i would consult an Astro physicist.
00
Why does it insert my comments inside the thread and not at the end?
00
crackar – because I’ve moved comments to this thread from another that were nested, it’s blitzed the organisation of this thread and the comments below are orphans from another thread. They will remain at the bottom of all new comments posted. Sigh. If people stick to topic, I can move whole nests of comments together and the system doesn’t break, but I can’t split up a nest and move some. I thought I might get away with it, because they were all replies to one reply to a comment, but I have to move the master comment as well 🙁
Jo
00
Ceterum censeo that Matt Ridley’s THE RATIONAL OPTIMIST is a good read
00
Jo – You have a mention in a new Drum/Desmogblog post by Graham Readfearn. And a fruity mix Mr Readfearn has produced too. The comments also are real grassy knoll stuff.
Wow, has Gina Rinehart put the cat amongst the activist pigeons or what?
00
Monbiot troll
00