Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Bob Brown' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: Bob Brown

Bob Brown’s real reasons for quitting politics

This was posted as a comment  by GD But I reckon that its a light that should not be hidden under a bushel so here for your enjoyment is the translation of Bob Brown’s resignation missive  from Greenspeak to its true meaning:

Photobucket

Dear Green Fiends –
This morning I was forced to resign as Leader of the Australian Greens. I will leave the Senate in June when the Tasmanian Greens nominate a replacement Senator. This should have happened a lot sooner, like twenty years ago.

I wanted to immediately thank you for your support, enthusiasm and direct involvement in Green politics on my watch. I can never forget or adequately repay the millions of dollars I have been paid to present my destructive policies to the senate. Of course the Greens didn’t pay this, it was the poor, misguided taxpayer. I guess there are some good things about a democracy.

Our Greens Party Room now has a dearth of talent which stands out even in Canberra. There are 10 of us, but every one is true to the Greens Charter and policies, and working hard to take Australia back to the Stone Age. We are Australia’s party with blinkers.

I have been contemplating my navel, and the occasional comet, for some time. I started 10 turbulent years in the Tasmanian parliament beginning with the Franklin River blockade in 1983, and ending with the disastrous Labor-Green accord of 1989-92: witness Tasmania’s gradual decline economically as the Greens blocked the timber industry at every turn. Today the state is an economic basket-case dependent entirely on the other states for survival. Of course our ideal plan for Tasmania is to turn the whole island over to World Heritage as a national park.

Since then, there have been 12 exciting years in the Senate. We have managed to stop all dam building across the nation, thus exacerbating water shortages in times of drought and hindering water management in times of flood. Our destructive political action for the Murray-Darling Basin has forced many farmers off the land and into bankruptcy. We have solved the problems of funding a dental scheme and a disability insurance scheme: we will tax the rich more and more, even after they die. We’re pushing for the legalisation of euthanasia, as this will help a few of them die sooner.

It is now time for me to hand on leadership to the motley rabble I call my colleagues. I am, after all, 666. I want to leave the ship before it sinks, content that the Greens have managed to destroy Australia’s economy for years to come. I’m particularly proud of the carbon tax in this respect.

This morning Party Room unanimously elected Christine Milne as Leader. Christine has been my great colleague and friend for the past 25 years and she will be a frighteningly bad leader of the Australian Greens.

I am ready to enjoy the other green pursuits, such as flying around the Milky Way with my new alien friends. Yes Earthians, they did call!

The Greens are an illogical response to the post industrial age human community’s need to secure the biosphere, biodiversity, equal opportunity and long-term economic, employment and lifestyle security. Greens political philosophy will spread like a cancer, bulldozing away the rights of any individual.

The future is Red.

Bob

Jeremy Sear (again) defends Bob Brown the clown

One of Jeremy’s favourite activities on his blogs is to defend Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, of which he is a member. Jeremy even defended Brown for his outrageous comments which alleged that the Australian coal industry had contributed to the Queensland floods last year, when no scientist would draw such a causal link.

When Bob Brown delivered a weird speech at a Greens conference, which addressed the crowd as “fellow Earthians” he was rightly ridiculed. But Jeremy again leaps to his leader’s defence on his blog of intellectual dishonesty:

If Brown’s speech was really as “wacky”, “batty” and “barking mad” as Penbo and Sharwood claim, surely there’d be some other juicy quotes in it? Some more hilarious examples of this crazy person who’s gone way off the deep-end, this mad “UFO spotter” with his “thousands of words of madness”?

And yet… neither David nor Anthony could apparently find any.

The reason, of course, is that whilst Brown did pick an unfortunately odd-sounding opening phrase (“Earthians” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, which is presumably why you rarely hear it from anyone but bad science fiction writers and crystal-wearing hippies who relish sounding weird), the rest of the speech made quite reasonable points.

Jeremy makes it sound as though other than the opening “fellow Earthians” line, which he insists was just an unfortunate choice of words (even though it implied that there was life outside of planet Earth when there is no evidence of that), the rest of the speech was perfectly sensible.

But you only have to keep reading to find out that even Jeremy concedes that this is not the case:

The biggest problem with Brown’s speech is his call for the development of a “one person, one vote, one value” global democracy. And that is because such a global democracy is more than a little incompatible with a world in which authoritarian nation states like China contain such a large proportion of the world’s population. I don’t know if Bob has a particular proposal for tackling this problem (and keep in mind, in the speech he was calling for global democracy to be an aim we work towards, not something we impose in five years involving submission to overpopulated dictatorships: it’d hardly be a “democracy” if a fifth of the voters have their votes effectively controlled by their government) but it’s something worth asking him. It’s something worth having a serious discussion about.

There are a number of problems with a world government, and not just the fact that most nations are not democracies. Firstly, the majority of people on earth are poor, so this would necessarily lead to a massive redistribution of wealth from wealth-creating nations to poorer nations with no guarantee of long-term benefits for the developing world. Secondly, the vast majority of the world’s population have very low levels of education with very little understanding of global issues. Thirdly, the world’s population does not share the same values or political goals, when this would surely be required if nations were to unite under the one government.

So Brown’s idea of a global democracy is a joke, a leftist fantasy which simply does not stack up with reality. No wonder Brown was ridiculed. Jeremy should admit that Brown’s critics have a point rather than defend the indefensible.

Surely that would be more intellectually honest than serving up what is arguably pro-Greens propaganda.

The answer is not blowing in the wind (turbines)

The loopy Greens just love wind energy and in theory it sounds great if you have a good site but like so many schemes to save the planet there are always those pesky “unintended consequences) like maintenance issues and well tendency of these machines to chop up all kinds of birds both common and endangered,

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbinesof Hawaii 

Paul GIPE, a former California wind company executive, calls what happened next a ‘tax credit frenzy’.

‘The lure of quick riches resulted in shoddy products that littered California with poorly operating — sometimes non-operating — turbines.’

They were expensive and badly designed. Some were far too small to make a difference, others were just clunky machines designed by the aero industry with blades the length of a rugby pitch.

But thanks to the subsidies, it hardly mattered that some of the untested turbines were so sub-standard they barely even worked. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam. 

But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies. In 1986, the price of oil tumbled and the subsidies started to die out. Suddenly, the wind energy sums didn’t add up any more.

And just like the gold rush miners who had rushed to the same Californian passes a century earlier, the wind prospectors departed in such a hurry that they didn’t even bother to take down the turbines they had littered across the state.

With so many moving parts to worry about, maintaining turbines is expensive — too expensive when the electricity they could produce was suddenly worth so little.

‘So when something broke, you simply didn’t send a repairman because it just didn’t make financial sense,’ Hawaii wind sceptic Andrew Walden told me.

With some turbine makers going out of business, there were no spare parts either.

According to the California Energy Commission, the collapse in subsidies stalled the state’s huge wind energy industry for nearly two decades.

No one who has driven past one of America’s mega wind farms today can fail to be struck by how few have blades that are turning, even in strong winds.

The truth is that even fewer may be producing electricity than it appears. Many are switched to a mode in which the blades continue to turn just to keep oil moving around the mechanism, but no electricity is produced.

Unfortunately, the frenzy of windmill building during the wind rush didn’t just ruin the view, but also devastated the wildlife.

No one noticed until far too late that the 5,000-turbine wind farm at Altamont Pass is on a major migratory path for birds. The National Audubon Society, America’s RSPB, has called it ‘probably the worst  site ever chosen for a wind  energy project’.

It seems rather obvious to me that until they actaully design wind turbines that don’t fail in service and that don’t  shred the creatures of the air then that “dirty” coal fired power station is looking like a far more benign option for the environment than wind power… now can someone please explain that to Bob Brown and Christine Milne?

Cheers Comrades

The misplaced wedding bouquet blues, or our learned friend keeps flogging that poor dead gay marriage nag

What is it about Gay marriage that so rings the bell of our learned friend?

The nub of the issue that drives him to write post after post about it?

It can’t be anything practical because one of the few things that Brother Number One did while in office, that I fully endorse, was to remove 180 or so instances where federal law discriminates against same sex couples. Perhaps its the rather desperate prospects for the Labor  governemnt and the inability  of the Greens to force Gillard to move on the issue no matter how close such a change is to the heart of Bob Brown.

 So having worn out all of his arguments based upon any sort of logic he resorts to a sort of dark sarcasm which of course in his usual style does not quite hit its mark:

click for the source if you must

You would have thought that a Sensitive New Age Lefty would think twice about using the quite sweet story of two people in their twilight years   finding love for his own political agenda, Ah no, not our Jezza, he will grind the bones of any story if it helps further the cause of same sex marriage.
There is an irony here though insofar as our learned friend has been twice married and has not as yet produced any offspring (well some of us should be thankful for that 😉 )so were his sarcastic scenario to be real he himself would be denied the joys of state sanctioned nuptials, maybe that is why he feels such empathy for those who now can  dare to speak the name of their love?

Cheers Comrades

Bad idea to change the constitution if that change is ultimately divisive

Joy … a Wiradjuri woman, Denise Markham, is comforted by the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, and Julia Gillard after the report was handed down. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen Read more: click for a typical Fairfax opinion on this report

There is something almost Orwellian in the recommendation from the expert committee that is suggesting a change change  to “recognise” indigenous people in the constitution and to be honest it seems to me to be a great big can of worms that will divide more than it unites the people of this country.

Just look at the main proposals as described in today’s Oz:

click for source (not paywalled)

Just look at what is being proposed in section 116A and think about it for a minute that is almost a perfect example of doublethink, If you want to eliminate discrimination then you have to ensure that all Australians are treated precisely the same under the law yet this proposal would allow anyone who claims to be indigenous to enjoy privileges and “affirmative” programs   that would be denied to those who do not identify as indigenous, something that is already contentious in our society.

Then there is the matter of “recognition of languages”. long time readers of this blog may recall the debates that I have had about the teaching of and attempts to preserve the dying indigenous languages and I can’t help[ thinking that making the preservation of these fading tongues a constitutional requirement will just condemn subsequent generations of children growing up in the most remote and isolated communities in the country to a life sentence of isolation and exclusion from the mainstream society because with out total competency in English as the primary focus of schooling what chance do those children have of making a future in this country?

  Frankly I tend to agree with Warren Mundine that the committee has exceeded its remit here and that this whole thing will be an absolute disaster if the Greens were to have their dream fulfilled. My view is that we are all Australians and that despite the history of this nation we have to have a constitution that treats all present  Australians equally and anything that entrenches “affirmative action” into the constitution is bound to do more harm that good.

Finally I just can’t be sanguine about the idea of any change to the constitution  generating lots of work for the minions of the legal profession in the shape of high court challenges. There are enough legal cases brought by indigenous activists as it is without giving them the means to pursue even more expensive court action that does nothing for the country overall except blow out the budget.

Cheers Comrades

Photobucket

No Poofters…Hmm not so much today

I vividly remember laughing heartily when I first saw this skit in the early seventies, in fact calling each other Bruce, to avoid confusion, was a  running gag between my late father and I for quite a while, as Pommies living here we sort of got the parody of Australians in this sketch they were loud brash and often intolerant of difference. However over the last thirty odd years I have seen them change to be far more inclusive tolerant and welcoming of diversity. Its also clear that the attitude to homosexuals has changed a great deal over the intervening years since this sketch was made and now we live in an age when a homosexual person can be entirely open about their sexuality and that the law recognises their unions for all of the practical issues that matter. As a libertarian when it comes to the way that individuals choose to love I am more than happy to endorse the social changes that have been wrought on this issue . However I can’t help but be amused by the way that certain polies try to balance the competing imperatives of their support base, top of my jollies list is Julia and the ALP who have devised a really cute way of having the cake and eating it as well:

It seem to me that this is a grand way to please nobody and yet appease all, the grand gesture is there but it is also sure to fail a conscience vote in the house if the opposition refuses to allow a conscience vote on any bill to change the definition of marriage.

Up here in Queensland we have just had the parliament pass a law recognising civil unions for same sex partnerships and to be frank this is something that I endorse:

I have always favoured a separate legal recognition of enduring homosexual partnerships and the civil unions legislation here in Queensland seems to me to be a very reasonable reform. It is however not something that the opposition feels that it can’t just endorse for rather obvious political reasons. Some of its supporters clearly object to any changes to the law that gives any marriage like recognition to the partnerships of those who bat for the other team. Clearly one of the reasons that this law has materialised now is to attempt to wedge the LNP and alienate some of its more religiously  conservative  supporters. To counter this possibility Campbell Newman is trying a rather amusing tack :

The Bligh Government will race to make same-sex civil unions available within the next few months, amid a Liberal National Party threat to tear up the law if no one had registered their relationship by the time of a change of government.

During an interview with brisbanetimes.com.au on Friday, LNP leader Campbell Newman vowed to repeal the recently passed civil unions law if the LNP won the election and no ceremonies had occurred by that time.

But Mr Newman said the abolition of civil unions after couples had already entered into such arrangements would be “unacceptable and intolerable” and signalled an LNP government would not pursue repeal in that case.

Its all a wonderful juggling act on both sides of politics and an a fine entertainment for those of us who enjoy the soap opera that plays out on our daily news. I for one will continue to watch this issue with wry amusement as the politicians and lesser lights of the political classes, like our learned friend, or the religious turn themselves inside out denounce those who oppose their position on Gay marriage. Its an amusement that will just keep on giving .
Cheers Comrade Bruces

Photobucket

Schadenfreude trifecta

Its a good time to be on the conservative side of politics, especially when those on the left are doing such a good job of entraining us as they flail about like a fish out of water, desperate for some oxygen and sadly doomed by their circumstances. So without further ado I offer a trifecta of reasons to be cheerful on this fine November morning.

Polling still looks bad for Labor in Julia’s home state, in fact despite the Slipper thing there is no new dawn for the red team, its all doom and gloom even it seats previously considered safe.

Click for source (pay-walled citation)

Not to be out done the Greens are having their own problems and somewhat bitter machinations over the future direction of their party:

Click for source (pay-walled citation)

All of which just makes my day more lovely!
The final leg of this trifecta is the rather sad piece in the Age this morning form my “favourite” senior writer Jo Chandler who seems really desperate to play the Hanrahan, “we are all rooned” card on the Climate Change issue in the face of the bound to fail talk-fest in Durban.

click for source

Perhaps she should consider this piece*which suggests that the assumptions about climate sensitivity to increases of Co2 are not as high as her favourite panic merchants have been claiming:

Of course in her usual sycophantic style if someone has a suitable qualification  in “climate science” and is consistent with the doom and gloom liturgy  then Chandler accepts uncritically almost anything that they say. I can’t wait to see how Jo Chandler grinds her teeth to bloody stumps when the Durban summit falls in a heap as it inevitably must.

So that concludes my Schadenfreude trifecta and hopefully that will give Sandpit readers some thing to mull over while I an swinging the angle grinder today because my aim is to get the mods to the Corolla diff done (well at least tacked together) so that I can slip it under the back of the car in preparation for the arrival of an engine donor car  in a few days.

Cheers Comrades

*Hat tip to regular reader Lin for this link

The Greenies and their schemies

I am a big fan of efficiency in engineering, and in the way that our energy utilities work as well which is one reason that I abhor the whole concept of a Carbon Tax. The notion that it is a good idea to make a proven energy technology artificially more expensive, so that an unreliable and unproven technology can be artificially more competitive/attractive to consumers just strikes me as being economic madness and nothing more than making the ground fertile for the spivs and shysters who are utterly gleeful at the prospects of the green religion and the schemes to “save the planet”. But what do you expect when the Profits of the Green religion are using the selling of papal indulgences as their business model?   Anthony Watts points out the essentially evil sort of scheme that now exists in his home state of California (cited just recently  as a Green beacon by “JM”) . Just look at the way that this particular scheme is designed to gouge money from both the Tax payers and the electricity consumers:

Photobucket

I’m no accountant but the whole scheme would create serious lustful trouser staining for some members of that profession. Talk about evil scams by the uber-rich to sting the common people this one is just so evil that it beggars belief, and worse still its being done in the name of saving the planet.

Click for source

What worries me is that under the Gillard “clean energy future” we have the perfect ground for similar scams to be perpetrated upon the Australian public do I hear anyone saying “it can’t happen here?” well I will utter just one name and if you think about you will agree that we should be afraid, very afraid… Christine Milne … This Zealot is going to be in control of the 10 billion dollar “Green energy fund” and there are none so susceptible to the spivs and schemers than an ideologically driven zealot with their hands upon taxpayer’s money…
Its a worry Comrades, a big worry

Christine Milne; away with the fairies

%d bloggers like this: