This is Elizabeth's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Elizabeth's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Elizabeth
Recent Activity
Summed up nicely, Pip. The article I mention below is more than worth a read. Still gives little clue about what can be done about the mess, though. My feelings on Peter Reith are neutral. I guess he did help Howard get essential waterfront reforms under way - with little help from his colleagues. Does his record as a minister fit him as president of the Libs? I just don't know. But I do know the last thing they need is a ruckus at the top.
OK, I gave up trying to post the link.Seems the little man in the box didn't like my reading or typing skills. There is an article in The Weekend Australian of 18-19th June, 2011 by Greg Sheridan which should be compulsory reading for anyone with concerns about Gillard et al. Greg posits a theory which could very well be true. "Labor's Euro vision provides the smoke and mirrors for a carbon tax." Page 12 and 13 of Focus.
Tragic fot eh child - not the spanking, the court and paternal grandmother's interference. Probably a hell of a lot going on between the mother and paternal grandmother which the court should have kept out of.
Polls, Tee. Polls. If polls can extrapolate, then so can I.
Pia, really you are a pain in the butt. It seems to be a tactic of yours to accuse the writer of a comment of personal attack. Is this because you know you are on the losing end of the argument? Do you think you can win by pulling some sort of rank, that we are impressed by this? Or by Pince charles, for that matter? We know Gillard will impose this tax on Australia and Australians, but because she does in no way means the left has won the arguement. It will just mean they are dishonest and dictatorial.
"All things should be questioned and up for debate. Because people dont agree with your views is a bad reason to brand them as lacking logic, or pragmatism." Pia, a few thousand Australians protested the carbon tax in Canberra recently only to be labelled in very unpleasant ways - even by the PM in question time - because they didn't agree with the government on the issue. Were they respected for their different viewpoint and their right to hold that viewpoint? Clearly not! Pot and kettle syndrome again, I think. Still, I do respect your right to see things your way, even if I think that way is a bit myopic. Now how about recognising this is not a leftist site and accepting that, if you comment here, you must expect to read things you disgree with. You are free to comment like anyone but in a little less superior manner and with less of a patronising tone would be nice.
Great post. "It falls to those on the Right to pose the key question: ‘What will this achieve?’ and to probe for specifics: Will a tax slow the rate of increase in the world’s temperature? Will it lead to fewer environmental disasters? By how much will it increase the cost of living for Australian families? Will it reduce the competitiveness of Australian exporters? How many net jobs will be lost? Do we have an alternative base load energy supply available?" By seeking answers to these vitally important questions the right - which acts responsbly in this imbroglio - is vilified. Due to its incompetence and arrogance, I don't think there will be answers to the above questions because that task seems to be quite beyond the government's abilities. If the government and its supporters - media and otherwise, were afraid to let there be open debate on the science of AGW, then they clearly had much to fear. Sadly, so do the people of Australia in the coming two years.
Brilliant comment. Couldn't agree more.
Toggle Commented Jun 17, 2011 on Passing the Green Can Around at Menzies House
Hello again Pia, Yes, wrong, wrong, wrong for your perspective which is obviously that of Gaunaut and the Productivity Commission(who sort of give the lie to Gaunaut.) I however, prefer the perspective of my scientist nephew (an oceanographer) who does a modicum of work related travel. His word is that on the streets of the various countries he finds himself in from time-to-time, anything and everything is on the lips of ordinary citizens - except global warming and carbon tax. I guess you might frown on talk-back radio and so-called shock jocks, but callers on this same subject - global warming adn carbon tax - can be very enlightening. Those who also travel for work purposes pretty well agree with my nephew. Always prefer the perspective on non-vested interest, and, as we all mostly know, it is the non-vested interest which carries sway every few years. Doubt it will be much different come perspective giving time again.
Oops, sorry Linda. Hit the wrong reply button.
You just don't get it do you, Tee? The government (in the minds of most people in the street, and this matters) this is exactly what the government is. You just do not get the fact that people are tired of being lectured, hectored, talked down to by government and its supporters, and I think that includes you.
Thanks for the response typecast. I think I said the illustrations you offered in your earlier piece were illustrations of man wreaking havock on nature - not besting it. In this context the word besting is generally understood to mean, controlling and that is the sense in which I used the word besting. Now everything I have read or heard about CO2 suggests that this is a very wicked chemical which man has to control if we are not to be fried. The conclusion is that man is to better nature, not best it and if bettering takes the same sort of path that wreaking havovk has done, then I feel for poor old nature. Another problem is that, with regard to science and CO2, nothing is settled and how a tax is to fix it has not yet been explained. Of course it could always be wasted on useless green schemes like insulating houses - and burning them down, by generous donation ($30 million) to a wealthy car company; by green loans, by bird eradicating wind turbines and such like exhilerating schemes. If you said the carbon tax was so labor could waste more money you would be speaking truth. You last para omits one teensy problem - the greens are anti dam and almost certainly, anti hydroelectric and the greens will be controlling the country after July 1st, that is, if they don't already. Besides, we didn't need a price on carbon - supposing earlier politicians were batty enough to think up such a scenario, to build the hydro electric scheme in the Snowy Mountains. I am well aware of CFCs being claimed as the patch for the hole in the ozone layer. I seem to recollect reading somewhere recently that the danger of the hole in the ozone layer may have been overplayed and that there is another one opening up somewhere else, which of course, casts some doubt on just what caused the first hole anyway. But then, with three strikes against me and as an ordinary Mary in the street (where, incidentally, too many for your comfort think like me) how could I possibly be right about anything?
Toggle Commented Jun 15, 2011 on The Impact of The Bolt Report at Menzies House
Sam, This is the usual intelligent comment by Pia "get over it, you LOST". If she bothered to read Senator Abetz' very good speech, most of it obviously bounced of her none to receptive mind. Power is the name of the game for Pia. Doesn't matter in the least how that power was gained (through a lie, initially) and what is done with it. It just needs to be. Anyone with a modicum of sense and concern for their own welfare as well as that of all Australians and Australia generally, should acknowledge that what the Senator says in conclusion - fasten your seatbelts, we are in for some political turbulence- is an informed forecast of what is to come after July 1st. But not Pia, of course. That is beyond her massive intelligence.
"Any government that could think it could institute a tax and not make sure voters etc were not compromised in income or jobs would not be in office for long." Exactly right, and this mob won’t be for long as the polls very convincingly suggest, as do the three online betting agencies. You won’t admit or won’t see that this government is not competent. It lurches from one disaster to another without letup and the public suffers a crisis of confidence and trust in them as a result. And yes, they are committing political suicide - day after day. I like to think they are committing suicide by a thousand self-inflicted cuts, which is what their lack of policy credibility and competence is as is the PM's screeching and bullying as opposed to reasoned debate. As for John Howard, he argued in public for a GST. He took the public slings and arrows aimed by the public and a scare mongering labor opposition. He WON. The GST was a service-based tax. It may have added to the cost of a house - more openly and more honestly - or the electricity bill and such like. But it did not add to the cost of the necessities of life - food for example - because inefficient and high sales taxes (around 27% on some things at the time) on food and other goods were abolished. And no, the sky did not fall in after the introduction of the GST because other taxes were abolished and there was a point and purpose to it. There is absolutely no point and no purpose to the carbon tax other than to shoot our economy down and make us all poorer as the climate will go on changing just as it always has done. Man has never bested nature and never will. Re 115 - these are changes wreaked on nature by man - not changes for the better, which is the supposed point of the whole AGW rubbish. Do you actually think, given the disasters man has caused and continues to cause as with deforestation that the supposed eradication of CO2 will be any different? And given the deafening silence on acidification of the oceans and the hole in the ozone layer, one has to suppose that nature dealt with these issues - if indeed they were issues of much consequence - itself, otherwise the MSM would have blared man's triumph from the rooftops endlessly and never more so than now with the AGW nonsense. One way in which man has moderated nature - harnessed might be a better word - is the use of water, where it is sufficient, for hydroelectric purposes. This is something there should be more of given it is clean and green, but of course, greenies object to wee fishies being supposedly hurt, even though many are eventually caught for tucker. Nonsense the lot of it.
Toggle Commented Jun 15, 2011 on The Impact of The Bolt Report at Menzies House
A couple of things Chris: I could return the compliment and ask you how you swallow the drivel you do? I would ask you why you chose to ignore my comment that the history of man has been that of trying to best nature and that he has not succeeded in this project so far. Nor will a carbon tax make an iota of difference. As for AGW (offensive spin title, this is), there are more and more scientists now taking their courage in hand and speaking out against the drivel you ordain. The same thing applies with economists (the dreary science of guestimates) who say the impact will be massive. I lived through your mate Keating (whos wit I rather enjoyed at times) recession we had to have. I saw the ramifications of it then and I see the signs again today. Mark my words, you will be proven wrong. Another point, we can go on forever dredging up this report by that economists or scientist or vice versa. It proves nothing except that people will believe what they think is most likely to happen and right now the most likely scenario is what you call scare mongering.
Toggle Commented Jun 15, 2011 on The Impact of The Bolt Report at Menzies House
What a true representative of the left you are -minus dignity, thinking the worst of a person and wanting to inflict humiliation on them. Think you’re clever, do you? Well, this is no more than one would expect from the low class leftie who comments on this site. Decency, compassion, commonsense, consideration for people's jobs and ability to feed and house their families – this thinking is outside your scope, that is pretty clear from your comment. No let's hurt people with a carbon tax. Let's force them out of their homes and jobs. Been done before by Labor governments, God willing the tyrant in Canberra will not get away with it again. And you would do this happily in spite of the fact that anyone of sense knows that climate is always changing, that the history of man is about trying to best nature. Well, man has never succeeded in this project and a carbon tax is not going to change this one iota. Bolt speaks commonsense - something increasing numbers of people are interested in hearing and this is what you are so scared of. Bolt does not talk up a useless carbon tax or dictatorship, about the only thing you little lefties understand. You know little of decency, freedom of choice or any other democratic value so you don’t like him or his views. Fortunately you are in the minority in this regard. As for those above suggesting they would rather drink strychnine than watch Bolt – what a stupid comment. But I have to say polls suggest increasing numbers with a modicum of commonsense in Australia - whatever their political viewpoint - would gladly supervise the process. Lefties on this thread are morally bereft, disgustingly stupid and deserve done to them what they suggest should be done to those who do not think as they do. Mercifully, there are more of us - as polls increasingly show - than benighted left fools. As for woofering; you proclaim yourself a heartless bully of the lowest common denominator with such a suggestion. I would think that, rather than a bex and a good lie down, you should go and join your brethren who obviously loiter in gutters.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2011 on The Impact of The Bolt Report at Menzies House
I agree with you Andy, you are a darn good bloke and, I must say, a darn good assistant editor. BUT, how could you write such rubbish? particularly as you have an applied degree in geoology which means you know nothing about science and should know better than to write such codswallop. Besides, the great sages or which there are quire a few say: Sage 1. It's the great moral something or other of our times. Sage 2. After deploying a knife in the wee small hours - screams NO IT"S NOT - then, sorry yes, I agree. Sage 3. If we do not have a carbon tax we are all going to fry in our beds and it matters not the least that SEQ had the coldest day since 1916 yesterday, or that I am an economist. I know of what I speak. Sage 4 & 5 & 6 (just how many green people are there loitering in Canberra) say, you all know we are quite mad, so your had better listen up. If you don't, you know we will inflict the worst possible scenario we can dream up on you. Then you'll be sorry because you know the PM will have to implement it. Sage (sorry, lost count) New England screams I agree, I agree, I agree because I am feted by the PM and don't care a jot that my electorate is not pleased with me. As for Jokeshot - the least said the better. Now considereing the wisdom of these collected sages, how could you write such tripe?
Coming from a farming community, our family like everyone, followed Indigo Jones, Lennox Walker and of course, as I should have said above, Hayden Walker, our current long range weather guru of the line. In the face of everything chucked about the place climate change wise, Hayden still reckons sun activity is the culprit and AGW is hooey. Reckon he's right.
Is there any point in commenting on the ongoing incompetence and stupidity of this government? Nothing changes - nothing will change except that voters become more and more despairing. I would say yet again, bring on an election, except given Gillard and the governmen's lust for power, never forgetting the independents and greens, it is just a waste of time and a reinforcing of despair. If Australia is not already stuffed, it will be after July when Brown and Milne get hold of the Senate. Among the many reasons for despair, is the dishonesty this government sponsors - directly or indirectly, which calls into question any figures put forward on any subject - particularly as the treasury and reserve bank have been politicised. Talking of dishonesty - heard last night - this report is in one of the Nation's newspapers today - of the death threats sent to AGW scientists, one was 5 years ago and the other 12 months ago, not as would have been expected from the hysterical reports, very recently. Never can I recall a government which has created so much havock is such a short time. Not even Whitlam engendered the fear, despair and loathing this government does.
Who would have guessed the sun might have something to do with warming the earth? A concept too difficult for AGW scientists and politicians to get their heads around - and no money to be made from something so uncontroversial as the sun. Look to a sensible long range weather forecaster to find the truth. Lennox Walker knew it all the time.
Hear, hear. I've been known to attack the TV when she appears.
Listen up, pk: we have heard Gillard, Gaunaut and countless other irresponsible (if as you say, science can never be settled) luminaries say the science is settled. By implication, you say they are lying. Given that millions must know this then, it is not surprising the polls show the greater number of Australians think they are being lied to in order to boost the governments coffers and empty voters pockets. If by "you” in your second paragraph, you mean me as opposed to the abstract you, you are way of the mark. I believe in giving the climate the benefit of the doubt and to this end have taken sensible steps to do what my family and I can to help the environment. Here I speak of replanting trees that idiots break off and pull up after the council or volunteers (like us, who have planted hundreds) have planted them. I speak of cleaning creeks and coastal areas of litter and rubbish which people feel it responsible to throw about. Actions like the above taken by people dedicated to a clean environment are practical and responsible, not pie in the sky dreaming. R &D funding to develop other forms of technology, which may in time add to energy generation by other means, is plain commonsense. . This cannot be done in a rush, but as with any R & D, only over time. I most definitely do not support bird eradicating, rare earth component using - the processing of which kills people and leaves appalling environmental damage - wind turbines. For greenies to claim this is good green technology is the height of hypocrisy. I know we have come a long way with pollution reducing measures legislated in earlier times and I know the lies of the "say no to carbon" advertisement. That is not promoting science. That is promoting a desperate political campaign to lighten our pockets for no good reason. I would suggest before you start moralising about things of which you can know little - like other people's attitudes and actions you give pause to consider what you say as you come across as a total fool. Because I do not – or have very serious doubts about the danger of carbon to climate, does not mean I do not believe in climate change. To even suggest such a thing is sheer stupidity. Climate change is constant – eternal, if you like. By the way pk, no "shrieking extremist" has ever, nor ever will, influence my thinking. I search out facts and seek to understand them to the best of my ability – from a range of perspectives, use my senses and intelligence and climate knowledge learned over a lot of living to make as informed a decision about the issue as it is capable for any person to do. Perhaps in this regard, Plato’s cave parable is very relevant. As for "this tired climate change argument" it is the greenies, certain scientists the government and its supporters who are pushing the tired old argument. The sensible in this nation are just refuting a very dishonest argument.
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that in the last few years gestures to, and talk about moral compasses have become more important than well considered, sensible policy. Can we please get back to the business of sensible government?
Charles, I tend to agree with what you say, but perhaps it was Malcolm himself who drove the wedge between himself and the Liberal Party. I have been around long enough to remember the shenanigans which led up to The Dismissal and Malcolm's ascension to power. I also remember the furstration of watching his do nothing government in action, and his tears on the night he lost the election through pretty much his own fault. Poor "ol Malcolm just couldn't get over the idea everybody did not think he was born to rule and that it was not actually his ordained right . But I agree, he should just shut up now, get on with his life and stop sniping at the Coalition.
Tee, I seem to remember a government minister talking about the two speed economy the other day.Some economists have referred to the economy as three speed. This to most sensible people would suggest there are problems in the economy and the idea that we are going "full steam ahead" could be a bit of a myth. I'm not an economist and more knowledgeable commenters on MH could give a full explanation. I'm just a mug punter who knows things are not going swimmingly - having lived through it before and seen the opening signs of trouble - I recognise what I see now. Still, I suppose if we all stick our heads in the sand and think superior thoughts all our government created problems will just melt like raindrops in the sun. Cheers.