Greens policies, a secret agenda that is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.

Well it seems that I am not the only person to like what Kevin Andrews has to say about those nasty Greens because Janet Albrechtsen has a high opinion of his analysis of the Greens as well:

Janet Albrechtsen

“Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution . . . What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within Western civilisation itself,” Andrews said. By looking closely at Greens policies, he has uncovered what he calls the new coercive utopianism.

It becomes clear that behind every stated purpose – and an increasing number of anodyne motherhood statements – set out in Greens policies through the years is a secret agenda that, at its core, is anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-consumption and anti-growth.

The Greens’ latest bill to stop banks raising interest rates beyond the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate is just the latest example. It fits the Greens’ agenda to reduce the flow of credit in an effort to reduce consumption. Drawing on the Greens de facto think tank, the Australia Institute, new Greens member Adam Bandt wants us to work less, too, presumably so we earn less money and consume less material goods.

For too long, Greens extremism has been hidden from the Australian public under a cuddly shroud of green goodwill.

As success brings more scrutiny, the Greens may well go the way of earlier “new forces” in Australian politics. But just as the Greens would be foolish to take their continuing success for granted, we would be unwise to treat their demise as a given.

 

Hmm I bet that a certain rather desperate minion of that party (who is nonetheless rather tardy about paying his party dues) will be writing a piece denouncing Janet’s opinion as a ” Green smear” at a Totally Toxic website.That said I think that the Greens certainly need to have their true agendas exposed and denounced at every opportunity so that care and concern for the environment can be reclaimed by those of us who don’t have a Marxist agenda and a misanthropic desire to destroy the future for humanity.
Cheers Comrades

 

 

Questions of Government unanswered in question time

 

Julia Gillard needs to sack her fashion designer

What a farce question time was today.

Gillard wore a colourful blue suit, probably the one pictured, which contrasted with her bright red hair and her bright red top underneath. Quite frankly, she looked ridiculous. As Prime Minister, she should learn how to dress more conservatively, so that she appears more respectable and less clownish.

Gillard further made a mockery of herself when she blasted Tony Abbott for continually using three-word focus group tested slogans, a reference to Abbott’s “stop the boats” mantra. Gillard said that simple three word slogans “are not for me”, and strictly speaking, she is of course right: her speciality is the two-word focus group slogan: “moving forward”.

Gillard also showed a compulsive inability to answer simple and direct questions. Questions about her deceptiveness on carbon prices and electricity price increases and her refusal to submit the NBN to the Productivity Commission for an independent cost-benefit analysis among others were left unanswered by the PM, who used such opportunities to attack the Opposition instead.

But the biggest dunce of the session would probably have to be Wayne Swan, who claimed that putting a price of carbon was essential to our prosperity, and that failing to do so would make us lose our international competitiveness. As anyone with even a basic understanding of economics would know, the exact opposite to what Swan was stating is the reality.

The claim that the push for “Gay” marriage is all about “love” is just utter bollocks

What it is about is homosexuals wanting public affirmation that their sexuality is more than just OK or acceptable to the wider community. However in this country there is almost no problem at all with homosexuals being out and proud. We have done a damn good job of accepting people who are openly homosexual. There is almost universal acceptance of the recent changes to the way that homosexual couples are treated under the law here.

Greens MP Adam Bandt has introduced a motion to the House of Representatives calling for members to recognise community support for gay marriage in Australia.

The motion urges MPs to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue.

The Opposition is against the motion and Prime Minister Julia Gillard says Labor policy recognises marriage only between a man and a woman.

But Mr Bandt says he believes if MPs were to go out into their electorates they would find the public has a different view.

“It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality,” Mr Bandt told Parliament.

“And it is the power of love that will force this Parliament and this country to face the reality of what marriage and love means in the 21st century.”

Mr Bandt moved that Parliament should note the growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry and the widespread support for equal marriage in the community.

If the likes of Adam Brandt are so sure that the community supports their position why are they not advocating that this be put to a popular vote at a referendum? Well it probably has something to do with the fact that although a lot of  people support the right for anyone to fuck any other consenting adult and for  anyone to set up whatever sort of household they please they are actually quite content with the definition of marriage in the current marriage act and they see no reason to change it.

The only reason that this “debate” is getting any traction from Labor members of parliament is that it is a convenient distraction from that party’s more general policy  malaise. That and the fact that having this debate is obviously part of the pound of flesh demanded by the Greens for their support to a Gillard minority government. When it comes down to I think that Phillip Ruddock is right on the money:

Philip Ruddock, who was attorney-general in 2004, said marriage should be limited to those who could procreate.

“The Opposition does have a clear position on that question, and it believes marriage is a union between a man and woman,” Mr Ruddock said.

“And the Opposition does not support any change to Commonwealth law that could diminish the institution of marriage and will continue to oppose any action that would alter that status.”

He said civil unions were recognised by the states and there was nothing to stop people being in de facto relationships.

This push will produce lots of smoke and lots of self-righteous noise from the usual suspects but it will ultimately make not a scrap of difference.

Cheers Comrades

Well that saves on a plane ticket….

Ok my headline here may seem a bit harsh and uncaring its really sad that someone has topped themselves but to my mind this is either an act of cowardice by a man who lacked the courage to go back to his home country to make the best life he could for his wife and children. Or its a political act to try to wedge open the immigration door with his dead body. Maybe both.

 

The death is the second suicide at the centre in just over two months. (AAP)

Detainees at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney are planning a hunger strike today after the suicide of an inmate.

It is the second suicide at the centre in just over two months.

A 41-year-old Iraqi man was found unconscious and taken to hospital where he was pronounced dead early this morning.

Other detainees at Villawood say the 41 year old had been in detention for about a year and had his claim for asylum refused.

They say he had asked to be sent back to Iraq to be with his wife and family.

Because the appropriately named Ian Rintoul is not backward about using the man’s death to further his political agenda:

Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Coalition says he hopes this latest incident will lead to change.

“The fact is that there have been suicides and deaths inside detention previously and we haven’t seen a lot of change, but at some point the Government will have [to change],” he said.

“The reality is we cannot keep presiding over the dysfunctional system that is mandatory detention.”

The man was a failed claimant for asylum and the problem here is quite simply that the government is incredibly tardy about sending such people home promptly after their claims have been refused. There is no excuse at all for this and the sooner the government make it their policy that failed claimants are on a plane the same day that they have exhausted their final appeal the sooner we shall see fewer people topping themselves in our detention centres.

But don’t you just love the way Mr Rintoul is so shamelessly mixing the issues here? The objection to mandatory detention is based upon the notion that claimants should not be detained while they are being accessed, however once they have been rejected the reason for their detention changes because then they become an unlawful non-citizen awaiting removal and any objection to them being detained is entirely moot.

Cheers Comrades

End of the ‘Green Dream’ for Victoria?

Dead men (& women) walking? What a shame they won't control our State Government.

Some days the news  just takes you from chocolates to boiled lollies … or from chardonnay to flat beer as the case may be:

The ABC’s election analyst, Antony Green, says the Coalition’s decision to preference the Greens last in the Victorian election will virtually destroy the minor party’s chances of winning seats in the Lower House and seizing the balance of power.

“The Liberal decision to preference against the Greens in all electorates is an in-principle decision which will deliver Labor the four inner-city seats where they are under challenge from the Greens,” he said. “Even if the Liberals don’t campaign strongly there will be little flow of preferences to the Greens and certainly not enough to defeat Labor in those inner-city seats.”

Gee, and we really needed the likes of multi-millionaire barrister Brian Walters and his brand of honest, ethical and unhypocritical representation on climate change. Walters is running for the very most inner of the inner-city seats being the seat of Melbourne itself and was tipped to head up the Vic Greens in State Parliament. Now it looks like he will just have to be satisfied with earning millions from the brown coal industry as their legal representative. 

Or Kathleen Maltzahn who wants to close the legal sex industry and make prostitution an unsafe, on-the-street, no-age-control, no health-check free-for-all. What a great idea. (Kate is on the far left … in the above photo too. Yes thats a woman).

How unfair of the Libs to block these fine people out of government. I have to agree with the Greens leading online advocate who thinks this is unfair & undemocratic:

What I do want is an electoral system in which a party getting 16% of the vote gets about 16% of the lower house seats, not 0%. What I want is an actual representative democracy. The Greens are getting plenty of support in the electorate – the problem is a system that takes our votes and distributes them to the big parties instead.

That’s what outrages me about the outcome that the Libs’ decision makes very likely. That the Greens are left begging for a single seat where, based on recent polls, they should have at least a dozen. Once again, a significant proportion of the Victorian electorate will be completely disenfranchised.

The electoral system needs to be changed, and replaced with an actual democracy.

Thats right, lets have a senate style system of voting in the lower house too that ensures minor parties like the Greens will hold the balance of power in both houses giving them a much better opportunity to force there minority policies onto the vast majority.

This two party system is just not fair. The Greens are right. They are always right. And they know better than the rest of us.

And if you dont agree then YOU ARE WRONG.

Just ask Jeremy. Hes always right too. …and you know it!

Hair-shirts to be mandatory for all, unless you want to “broaden your mind”

Kevin Andrews has written a most accurate analysis of the Australian Greens on the ABC’s “Drum unleashed” which goes straight to their own pronouncements to find the basis for their loopy policies. He correctly points out just why they are such a bad prospect for the future of this country. If you were wondering just where all of the crazy Marxists had gone over the last few years then wonder no more because they have reinvented themselves as the Greens.

The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.

Ecological Marxism

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”. This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter:

“We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

Let me expand.

According to the Greens ideology, human dignity is neither inherent, nor absolute, but relevant. [vii] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.” [viii]

Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals: “The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms… I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or Rwandans, or even the non-human animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.” [ix]

What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals.

Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of ‘speciesism’, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent! [x]

Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate. [xi]

Kevin Andrews

 

The sadly amusing thing about the Greens and their supporters is just how hypocritical and morally inconsistent they are when it comes to living the philosophy that they espouse. While being very keen on government provided hair-shirts to be mandatory they take great delight in enjoying the very things that they insist are “bad for the planet” like being a tourist who jets about the globe:
When challenged this Greenie cited the desire to see minds broadened as his reason for racking up frequent-flyer points:

 

 

You espouse the Greens party philosophy pretty much without any reservations and a central plank of that philosophy is the commitment to the notion of man made climate change and the suggestion that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of the problem.”#

That’s not what I’ve said, but anyway.

I’ve actually repeatedly noted that I’m a supporter of the Greens for their progressive social and economic policies, and that I’m with them on a push towards more action on the possibility of climate change more because ignoring it is a risk that is simply not worth taking – we’ve only got one planet.

“So you don’t have to have argued for restricting transport options for flying yourself to be an act of hypocrisy. Especially if that flight is for a rather trivial reason.”#

I don’t consider travel “a rather trivial reason”. I consider travel a very positive thing that broadens minds and should be encouraged. Governments should be encouraging the development of technologies that make such activities less impactful on the environment, certainly, but I’d never argue that they should be abandoned or discouraged.

“a dedicated Greenie such as yourself should be striving to be morally consistent in both their lives and their advocacy.”#

Yeah, how convenient for you to argue that. Because all you have to do to be consistent with your political philosophy is be a self-righteous, self-interested, selfish, intolerant, nasty git. Which you were planning on doing anyway.

(# these quotes within the quote are from my own comment that this particular Greenie is responding too  the link  is within the “hash”)

Now I ask you dear readers have you ever seen a worse case of  Sear sheer hypocrisy than the very obvious one in evidence here? When called on his ethical inconsistency all our learned friend can say is this:

“To do otherwise when you believe in the Greens philosophy is just outright hypocrisy no matter which way you try to spin it.”

No, it isn’t.

But he is just one poor sad inconsistent Greenie and his moral inconsistency would not matter a damn if it were not the case that so many of his fellow Greens party supporters did not think in precisely the same way and demonstrate precisely the same dedication to racking up the frequent flyer points.

Some one once said that “the truth shall set you free” well I hope that the truth of the evil underpinnings to the aims of the Greens party  becomes well enough known that we are set free from their influence on our political process. So look at what Kevin Andrews  tells us about their philosophy and be worried about just who wants to hand out the hair shirts for the rest of society, but take heart that there are Green supporters out there who are utter hypocrites like our learned friend because  their example will help to shatter the veneer of moral superiority that the Greens use to try to convince the electorate that they are warm and fuzzy “eco-angels” who only care about the future of the  planet when they are actually something that is toxic to our society and to our political process .

Cheers Comrades

 

 

Planning controls would require all religious bodies to adhere to strict planning guidelines in residential areas.

As an atheist I have the good fortune not to spend any of my days supplicating myself to the deity, well maybe you could argue that there is a spiritual aspect to my Yoga classes but I reckon that it would have to be a line ball call on that because its the health of my body I do yoga for rather than for the well being of my soul. None the less there are a lot of people out there who spend a big slice of their lives participating in the rituals of their God bothering brand of choice. and for some of them they want a place for the like minded to gather and pray. Now this has largely been well received by the public and local government But there are times when the construction of a place of worship worries the people who live adjacent to the proposed building.

Planning hurdles ... Ahmad Kamaledine at the mosque site. Pic: Tomasz Machnik Source: The Sunday Telegraph

The controversial regulations have been proposed by Canterbury Council – which includes the Islamic community strongholds of Belmore, Campsie, Canterbury and Lakemba.

The move is being backed by the Labor mayor Robert Furolo, who is also the state MP for the seat of Lakemba, and residents opposed to a mosque on the site of an ex-Roselands church.

The new planning controls would require all religious bodies to adhere to strict planning guidelines in residential areas.

Planning laws in most NSW local government areas do not require religious organisations to make a new application to council if they buy a site zoned as a place of worship for use by another faith.

But Canterbury’s planning order would require a new approval for each purchase and restrict service times. Muslims pray five times a day.

Sunday Telegraph

I have never “got” the reason that various faiths demand that their adherents perform prayers or rituals but in a diverse world its live and let live in my book. However if religious observance is going to impact upon the lives of those who happen to live near the proposed church or mosque  then those residents  have a right to object to the development just as much as they have the right to object to any other development in their locality.  So I am endorsing the requirement that the construction of any new place of worship  has to go through the same sort of planning process as any other development.

Cheers Comrades

 

 

 

Who is your daddy???

A.C. Grayling, the philosopher, has written with feeling on this question this week, in an article for the Evening Standard. Noting that 4 per cent of men are, all unknowing, raising children who are not genetically theirs, according to a report in the Journal of Epidemiology and Human Health, he ponders the impact a DNA paternity test can have: ‘The result can be shattering, leading to divorce, marital violence, mental health difficulties for all parties including the children.’ Well, yes. Scientific certainty has produced clarity all right, and relieved any number of men of their moral obligations, but at God knows what cost in misery, recrimination and guilt.

Our generation sets a good deal of store by certain knowledge. And DNA tests have obvious advantages when it comes to identifying less happy elements of our heredity: congenital disease, for instance. But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.

: Melanie McDonagh |

Is it any wonder that some of us have  problems with feminism when their advocates seem so opposed to gender relationships based upon honesty and equality?

Cheers Comrades

GetUp! found out and denounced for hypocricy

Call me perverse, but rather than subscribe the right wing newsletters I subscribe to organisations like GetUp!, because I am more interested in understanding the other side than I am in having my own beliefs reinforced by reading the rhetoric of those who have similar values to my own. I have a grudging respect for the people who thought of the notion of GetUp! and the way that they manage to mobilise well meaning lefties to dig deep into their own pockets to finance their campaigns. Its a very slick organisation. they very cleverly send their subscribers like yours truly endless emails that are personally addressed and written as if they are just a one to one missive rather than a bulk mail out. They even run some campaigns that have worthy aims (like their one about mental health) On the other hand their dedication to the Warminista faith would put even “JM”*to shame for being a back slider . All in all I look forward to the GetUp! missive in my mailbox because it is often just comedy gold.

 

GetUp! getting down and dirty for the far left

ADVOCACY group GetUp! accepted a record $1.12 million donation from a big union just before the federal election while urging its members to support a ban on political donations from unions and business.

It used the donation from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to fund a TV advertisement attacking Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s ”archaic” views on women and social issues in the days before the August election.

It went to air as a GetUp! advertisement, with no reference to it largely being funded by a Labor-affiliated union.

GetUp!, which says it has more than 300,000 members, has become a campaigner on issues such as climate change and refugees. Its High Court challenge before the federal election allowed tens of thousands of extra young people to vote.

But its willingness to take such a large donation, the type of which it wants banned, has led to claims of hypocrisy.

The opposition leader in the Senate, Eric Abetz, said the donation showed GetUp! was nothing more than a Labor front.

”It’s clear there is a strong relationship between the unions and GetUp! and the Labor Party campaign,” he said.

Who would have thought that they were dancing to the tune of the union movement?

To be fair to all sides of politics we have to ensure that  no front organisations like GetUp!  are allowed to run political advertising during our election campaigns without the same level of scrutiny as all of the actual political parties do. This story certainly shows that GetUp! is a front and hypocrites to boot’ well who would have thought that????

 

Cheers Comrades

*well at least they don’t pretend a science gongs like she does

Why they say “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

The case decided in the high court yesterday may well be a pyrrhic victory for the idiots who want open borders for this country and it may well mean that Gillard will have to do a deal with the opposition to fix the mess that has been made by Brother Number One’s decision to fix something that was very far from broken, in fact the result of Labor party meddling is a perfect example of just why they say “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

The decision creates a political headache for the Gillard government, which will be beholden to the Coalition should fresh legislation be required as a result of the ruling.

The Greens have long opposed offshore processing and independent Andrew Wilkie yesterday hinted strongly he was unlikely to support moves by the government to use legislation to get around the court decision and restrict asylum-seekers’ access to courts.

“I have been an outspoken critic of offshore processing for some time. I oppose offshore processing and the excision of islands,” Mr Wilkie said.

The Coalition’s immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, refused to say if the opposition would support new legislation, describing yesterday’s decision as a “policy failure”.

“This government has been caught out changing the rules, doing it badly and now the taxpayers and the Australian people are paying the consequences of that,” Mr Morrison said.

Mr Bowen said the government was still digesting the decision, but he would recommend a course of action to cabinet in coming weeks.

“It’s important that we recognise that this is a significant judgment; it has significant ramifications,” Mr Bowen said.

With one in two asylum-seekers failing, Mr Bowen said the court’s ruling could “elongate” the refugee-determination process. “It certainly has the potential implication that people would be in detention for longer as those appeals are worked through,” he said.

[...]

Sub-dean of migration law at the Australian National University Marianne Dickie said the judgment was aimed at the system set up by the Rudd government for deciding refugee cases in 2008. “The procedures and policies they put in place left them open to this judgment,” she told The Australian. “They deliberately put a process in that was outside the law.“

However, the Howard government’s decision to excise areas of Australian territory from the Migration Act formed the basis of the Rudd government’s administrative architecture.

Ms Dickie said every failed asylum-seeker could now potentially contest their case in court. “All those cases decided in this way should be reconsidered to avoid them all going to court,” she said.

David Manne, the executive director of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre, the organisation that co-ordinated the challenge, hailed the decision as a win for his client, and for Australia.

“The government’s attempts to keep these people outside Australian law and outside the Australian courts have failed,” he told The Australian.

 

Of course the minions of the open door left would have been cheering this decision yesterday it means more fat cheques for the latte sipping lawyers who have been bemoaning the fact that they have been excluded from the game.It may not be currently fashionable for those latte-sipping lawyers to buy an Enzo these days but you can bet that there will be more than a few who will be checking out brochures for the Tesla or thinking that the extra work that this decision will bring may just pay for their brats to got the very best private schools where they can learn to be good lefties..

None the less the fundamental question remains and that is if half of the claimants are being found not to have a legitimate claim for asylum then why are they not being taken form the tribunals that find against them straight to the airport and deported at the earliest opportunity?
Labor are reaping what they have sown here and I can only hope that they see sense and enter into discussions with the opposition to “fix” this problem with changes to the legislation at the earliest opportunity. Because there is one thing that they can be sure of and that is the Australian people will not stand for the kind of open door policy that the loopy Greens dream of. and a Labor government who sit on their hands and let the Greens dictate policy on this issue will be slaughtered at any subsequent election.

Cheers Comrades

 

Revolting students

Listening to the radio this morning I could not help but notice the reports of rioting in England over the government’s decision to significantly increase the fees that students will have to pay for tertiary education courses. This raises a number of significant questions to me, not the least of which is just how many people in our society actually need a university education and just how much of that education should the government subsidise and how much of it should be reimbursed by the student themselves when they are in a well paying job after graduating.

 

Going wild: Young students trashing the entrance to Millbank Tower

Demonstrators clash with police as they clamber through a smashed window at 30 Millbank

The Deputy PM was forced to admit it was ‘an extraordinarily difficult issue’ and hinted for the first time that Tory pressure might have also played a part in the shift.

‘I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in Opposition,’ he said.

‘Because of the financial situation, because of the compromises of the coalition government we have had to put forward a different policy.’

He insisted that the Lib Dems had stuck to their ‘wider ambition’ of making sure going to university was handled in a ‘progressive’ way and did not deter poorer students.

Miss Harman was scathing about his claim that public finances were to blame, pointing out that the changes only start in 2012/13 whereas the deficit should be addressed by 2014.

‘This is about him going along with a Tory plan to shove the cost of He onto students and their families,’ she said.

‘We all know what it’s like, you’re at Freshers Week, you meet up with a dodgy bloke and do things you regret. Isn’t it true he’s been led astray by the Tories?’

Mr Clegg reminded that Labour had also attacked tuition fees but introduced them when they came to power and how the previous government had initiated the Browne Review.

‘I know she thinks she can re-position the Labour Party as the champion of students but let’s remember the Labour Party’s record,’ he said.

Miss Harman accused the coalition of hiking up fees while they are ‘pulling the plug on funding and dumping the cost on students’.

The idea that everyone should go to university is much beloved by the minions of the left but when this idea is writ large all they succeed in doing is to devalue the degrees that they create and to generate a huge industry that does nothing much for society in general.
I was very taken by this piece from Helen Dale (Scepticlawyer) when she said this:

1. There are too many universities, and too many people going to university. Many universities are very mediocre, and many of the students who attend them are very mediocre. We seem to have forgotten how to tell people ‘no, you aren’t very clever, you shouldn’t go to university. You are, however, good with your hands. You should get an apprenticeship instead.’ There is, as Stanley Fish points out, nothing wrong with a trade school. Upgrading what were essentially trade schools and turning them into universities was always going to be a bad idea, and now we can’t afford them to boot. And let’s not forget that plumbers make a very good living.

To my mind the issue, even for the poor, should not be that students will eventually have to pay for their own education but that there should be a way that talented students of limited means  can gain access to learning that they would other wise  be unable to afford.

As for those who are out there destroying other people’s property there is a very simple solution and that is to prosecute them, ensure that they feel the full weight of the law, and expel them from whatever institution they are enrolled at on the basis that they bring those institutions into disrepute.

Cheers Comrades

 

 

The Vexed question of young lesos

Lesos denied justice? Well one of them is under the age of consent.

Today I look at the disturbing social trend for young girls to become lesos while they are still at school and have sex with underage girls at the same school.

What has prompted this is the Ivanhoe Girls Grammar controversy  which is really a storm in an A cup but which all the media thinks is a real big deal and have stuck it on there front pages.

The story is about how 16 yearold student Hannah Williams is bitching over not being allowed to take her 15 yearold lesbian girlfriend Savannah Supski to the Year 11 school dinner dance. Hannah’s Dad Peter even lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission saying the school was “homophobic” and had “discriminated against his daughter because of her sexual orientation”. He did not get very far with that and has now pulled his daughter out of the expensive school and stuck her in a free government one to finish her Year 12 next year. I guess hes saving a lot of money by doing that too. 

Now I will make a brief comment about the dinner dance ban and move on to the real issue here of underage lesos: I think Hannah might have been pushing the envelope with her school by wanting to bring a Year 10 student at the same school to the Year 11 ball. But the school was dumb to say they must bring boys because what about the girls who cant get a male date because they are not attractive, what do they do? I reckon the school was right to ban Savannah from attending a function for the next year up but wrong to say girls cant bring girl dates if they cant get a bloke. They could have made a ‘no-signs-of-leso-affection’ rule if they wanted to, like ‘no kissing and no feeling each other up’. Then they could have avoided this controversy and our media would not be filled with this stupid non-story.

So onto the real issue. One of these girls is only 15 and in Victoria that is under the age of sexual consent which is 16 here in Victoria in case you were sizing up your next door neighbours daughter – dont do it if shes under 16 or you will go to jail.

Which raises (not begs) the VEXED QUESTION:

Should lesos over the legal age be allowed by law to have sex with lesos under the legal age? You know should older lesos be exempted from the law that says you cannot have sex with a minor? It seems they are.

If a 16 year old boy was humping a 15 yearold girl is that legal? I dont think so. The 15 year old is under the age of consent so it should be hands off and dick kept in pants should it not?

You are welcome to stand me corrected if so but it seems to me that lesos are getting around the law here.

This also raises the issue of how the hell do girls know at 14 or 15 or even younger that they are really lesbian? Could it be they are just following social trends of ‘gay is okay and its cool to be one’ and are getting led astray and laid by older lesos at there schools? Especially maybe at all girls schools – no other choice eh? Yous can debate that one in the comments but I think I have raised another important issue here.

Send those who fail in their claim home

 

An asylum-seeker gives the thumbs down after his group was put on a bus to be taken to the airport on Christmas Island yesterday. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Australian

There are so many boats arriving that they barely rate a mention on the news these days but the swelling numbers in immigration detention surely does. With demonstrations from a distressed public in South and Western Australia showing that the public are clearly concerned that our government has both lost the plot and lack any idea where to go on this issue. Gillard and Labor have well and truly snookered herself on this issue because no matter how many claimants are rejected as asylum seekers they still require those claimants to agree to leave after their claims are rejected. Hence we have an ever increasing number of people in indefinite detention all of whom no doubt think that if they hold out long enough will eventually be allowed to stay. Thus we have Gillard trying to offer bribes to these failed claimants so that they will agree to leave without a fuss.

The Government hopes the payment, worth up to $4000 a person, will also reduce the chance of a failed asylum seeker returning to Australia by sea if they could return to their country in a sustainable and dignified way.

Britain and other European countries offer similar assistance through the International Organisation for Migration.

It is the first time the Rudd or Gillard governments have offered to pay for failed asylum seekers to return home.

The Howard government offered a three-year “reintegration assistance” package worth $5.8 million in 2002, but Labor’s then immigration spokeswoman Julia Gillard said it was not a real solution.

While the scheme will cost $5 million, the Government believes it will save if it can persuade people to leave expensive detention centres and it is cheaper than the cost of a forced return.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Government had no clear strategy to stop arrivals and was struggling to deal with the “major gridlock” in crowded detention centres.

“This appears to me to be very much an afterthought. It does not amount to a serious returns policy or repatriation strategy,” Mr Morrison said.

Its kind of pathetic that Labor is so lacking in intestinal fortitude on this issue because it seems to me that if there should be no problem deporting failed claimants the day after their last appeal has been rejected and if their lack of consent to being removed from the country is an impediment to that actually happening then Gillard could surely get support from the opposition to change the law so that their consent to removal upon failure of their final appeal was deemed to have been implicit in their appeal.

Its all well and good to claim that we have an obligation to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of the UN convention but such claims have clear (and incredibly broad) criteria so when those criteria have not been met by claimants even the most compassionate lefties have to accept that our obligation to accept the   rejected claimants is non existent. However its clear to me that the  true agenda of the bleeding heart left is that this country should have entirely open borders but that is a recipe for social suicide.

Cheers Comrades

 

PP adds major injury to a minor insult

Today I essay and opinionate another ‘fair review & criticism’ of nearly mainstream online new media and bring you a piece of truly amazing wrongheadedness from the so-called keepers of intellectual honesty.

This post from Pure Petulance has to go down as the most petulant post of the year if not of all time.

Well maybe petulant isn’t the right word to describe the way Jeremy Sear has turned a rather innocuous comment made by a fellow Crikey author – that would otherwise have hardly made a ripple on cyberspace - into a tsunami of insult and humiliation of some young kid who works at McDonald’s in Geelong. But the words pedantic, stupid & nasty sure come to mind.

The story: Obscure Crikey author Leigh Josey writes a brief and obscure post about the closure of KFC in Geelong. He posts a cutout from the Geelong Advertiser featuring photos of some kids and the comments they have made and then makes a not-funny and not-really-hurtful (and certainly indirect) comment about one of them as follows:

And what do the people think? By people, we mean 12 year old McDonald’s employees…

 

And that’s all he said about it. But Jeremy thinks Josey has been “cruel” by wrongly estimating the kid’s age and is so worried that the kid might get depressed (or even suicide) he bursts into print to bizarrely attack one of his own writers … while being oblivious to the fact he’s doing a lot more damage to the kid himself: 

This might just be an ex-young-looking-teenager speaking, but it seems to me that Daniel Gooley, the McDonald’s employee (who is therefore at least 14), might already be struggling with issues relating to his not particularly mature physical appearance. (Also his surname.) Having a prominent thing on the internet like Crikey mocking him around the nation on the basis of something over which he has no control and over which he is possibly quite sensitive, seems to me to be unnecessarily cruel – and, given the current discussion of teen depression and suicide, it might be something that adult writers should consider when the butt of their joke is just a kid. Even if he wasn’t the intended target, and even if it was funny.

If the kid wasn’t already embarrassed by this (and I seriously doubt he would have been) he would be now after Sear’s further posting and identification of him. Worse still, the totally unnecessary references to Daniel’s appearance and surname add injury to what was hardly even an insult in the first place.

And it keeps going in the comments. While some of the commenters are clearly miffed by this bizarre post (and good on them for realising its out of line), some have taken Sear’s lead to heap more insults on not just Daniel but other kids in the photo too. Well done Jeremy.

Josey’s piece was hardly ”mocking (Daniel) around the nation” but that didn’t stop Sear from jumping in to correct him and speak up on the kid’s behalf … without being invited. Who needs that kind of advocacy or defence?

It’s just like when Jeremy goes in to bat for gays and lesbians over gay marriage without being invited - he does more harm than good.

Josh Maday’s walk home and scare mongering from the Fairfax press

I have some serious reservations about the compulsion to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle but that is by the by, This story concerns a couple pf police constables who decided  Josh Maday, who was riding with out a helmet should have to walk his bike home rather than re-offend by riding home. To make sure that he did this they made him let the air out of  his tyres. This was done to avoid them issuing the boy with a $100 fine. Frankly this seems like quite a reasonable action akin to taking a driver’s car keys if they are not entitled to drive especially as they had caught the boy only 3 km from his home.

Yet if you read the report of this story in the Brisbane Times you would think that they had locked  the boy in the same room with a paedophile. The story is reported differently in the Courier Mail where the emphasis is on public opinion supporting the actions of the police. It is the responsibility of every road user  to ensure that they obey the traffic act and it is the duty of our police officers not to ignore clear breaches like failing to wear a helmet.  There is nothing darkly magical about the place where Daniel Morecambe was last seen and it is no more  likely that another child will be abducted form the same area after all this time. Personally I think the officers did precisely the right thing when they made the boy  walk a measly 3km home which is enough for him to learn the error of his ways but not enough for it to put him in harms way (as the Brisbane Times wants to suggest) a $100 fine would have been a serious burden to his family so all in all a good piece of community policing, unless you think like a Fairfax journalist, or a Latte Sipper™…

Cheers Comrades