“Mandating Markets for Wind Power– a Stealth Tax on Electricity Consumers.”

Cartoon By Ramirez.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

First, some news from Viv.

Our topic today is “Renewable Energy”, which is mainly about political Whims and unreliable Winds. At last the tide seems to be turning. Businesses and consumers are coming to realize that the whole Emissions Industry is designed to deliver money and power to the government. There is nothing in it for taxpayers, consumers or the climate. Even some in the media are becoming skeptics.

For a year now, almost no media was interested in our story. But recently we have had TV, radio and newspaper reporters seeking comment from the Carbon Sense Coalition, and often the interviewers were friendly or at least open-minded.

A few other developments.

1. John Coleman, the weatherman who started "The Weather Channel," has become one of the most prolific opponents to the theory of man-made global warming. Here he reports how the whole thing started.

2. Here is a petition you should sign. Go to: 
Dr Dennis Jensen MP will be presenting the petition to the House of Representatives. 



3. And Australia has its Climate Skeptics Party. 



4. Professor Ian Plimer has a new book: “Heaven and Earth”


5. Another Australian, David Archibald has released a very informative book on the solar links to world climate changes: “Solar Cycle 24”. 


6. Last but not least, The Lavoisier Society has released “Thank God for Carbon”, the latest booklet by Ray Evans.


This is a critical year in the battle for Carbon Sense. All over the world the Warmists are becoming desperate as skepticism grows and voters are diverted to real problems like jobs and financial security. 

Any help you can give us in this battle of our times is appreciated.

Viv Forbes

“Mandating Markets for Wind Power

– a Stealth Tax on Electricity Consumers.”

A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition. (Link to this release:)

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the Federal and some state governments of imposing Stealth Taxes on electricity consumers by forcing power retailers to buy expensive power from inefficient and costly renewable energy sources.

The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr. Viv Forbes, said that there were no climate benefits whatsoever in forcing consumers to buy an increasing proportion of their electricity from expensive and unreliable suppliers like wind farms.

“This whole pork barrel exercise must be designed to buy green votes because it will have negligible effect on carbon dioxide emissions, and no one could measure or feel any effect on world temperature.

“The policy is obviously an insincere fraud. If politicians were sincere in their belief that there is a critical need to cut CO2 emissions, they would be investigating what France has done to generate 75% of their power from low cost reliable nuclear power, or what Norway has done to get 97% of their power from reliable low cost hydropower. Unlike wind power, these options can generate electricity cheaply with zero CO2 emissions and without needing wasteful backup from carbon emitting coal or gas plants.

“But we hear of no proposals to build a nuclear power station in the Latrobe or the Hunter valley or new hydro schemes in the Snowy, Tasmania or North Queensland.

“Obviously there are no green votes in these efficient zero-emission power options so we see politicians wasting a never-ending stream of funds from taxpayers and consumers on expensive unreliable playthings like wind farms and home-hobby solar panels.

“Are these people for real? Australia currently gets about 94% of its electric power from carbon fuels, mainly black and brown coal. Billions of dollars in community savings are tied up in these stations and their associated transmission lines, coalmines and engineering skills.

“The ALP thinks we can cut carbon emissions by 20% and at the same time cater for a growing population, all within the next 12 years. Not to be outdone, the liberals seem to be advocating tougher targets, and Al Gore and his local green disciples think we can do without coal power altogether.

“When they start fiddling with a basic industry like power generation, misleading people on the cost, capacity and reliability of wind and solar power, and threatening the sudden closure of old but reliable coal fired stations, they will suddenly find they cannot get the blackout genie back in the bottle.

“Wind farms have proved useless in providing sufficient reliable power in critical times. During the recent long frigid spell in UK, their wind turbines were becalmed like flotilla of sailing clippers on a glassy ocean – they produced 0.4% (yes, less than one percent) of total UK power requirements – reliable old coal stations were cranked up, and heat and light for shivering Britons came from: coal (50%), gas (31%) and nuclear 16%.

“Again during the heat waves in South Australia and Victoria, the contribution from wind generators was small and generally in periods of low demand. Things were even worse in West Texas, where a sudden drop in the winds on the Texas Plains caused such instability in the power grid that the whole grid was shut down.

“Denmark is finding its wind turbines a liability – they cannot use the unreliable power and have to sell it at a loss into the European power grid.

“The A$88 million half year loss reported yesterday by BB Wind Power in Australia is a sign of the future for all shareholders who subscribe funds to these financial black holes. When subsidies and mandated market shares are removed, as they will be, wind power will be revealed as a sub-prime investment. Investors will find they were relying on whims not wind.

(The Chairman of BBW admitted that BBW relies on political supports for future profits when he said: “The Australian government's renewable energy targets and encouragement of renewable energy investment in the US would drive the company's profits in the short-term”. AAP 24/2/09)

“Already wind towers are being scrapped in Europe but still Australia is forcing consumers and taxpayers to subsidize these expensive playthings.

“The Carbon Sense Coalition has made a submission to one of the many enquiries running in Canberra Wonderland. This submission opposes any extensions of the renewable energy target schemes and recommends that current schemes be scrapped before they do irreparable harm.

The full submission can be viewed here.

Take a look, be afraid and buy a diesel generator.

Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition

info@carbon-sense.com    www.carbon-sense.com. 

Viv Forbes is a geologist and mineral economist who has experience in the coal, energy and investment industries. The Carbon Sense Coalition opposes the dangerous infatuation of politicians with wind power schemes that have not proven useful, efficient or reliable anywhere in the world. Wind power will provide massive work for GE and the Danes, who manufacture wind turbines, and for gas producers who will supply the gas to back up these whirling monstrosities, but no net benefits for shareholders, consumers or taxpayers. And there are no climate or health benefits.

Byrd accuses Obama of power grab.

One of the people I would have never seen myself supporting any statement from is Senator Robert Byrd a Democrat from West Virginia. Byrd has been in the past a leader in the KKK, then was elected to Congress and later to the Senate as a Dixiecrat. While I understand that his views have changed somewhat since the time he personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours, in an attempt by the Democrats to block it in the Senate, there is nothing I can find to like about him.

There is a need to give credit where credit is due however and he seems to deserve some on this occasion. According to Politico he has written to Obama criticizing the appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.” 



While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate. …. 


“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.” ……

While Byrd may had support from his colleagues in his clashes with Bush, it is doubtful whether he will find much on this occasion, but good luck to him.

Bligh; profligate spending on Ugly Memorial.

The "Tree of Knowledge" in Barcaldine, a 200 year old ghost gum before vandals poisoned it.

An article in today’s “Courier Mail” gives the lie to the claims of the Premier Anna Bligh, to be the best person to ‘lead us out of the economic crisis’ to whatever she has in mind.

On the day Premier Anna Bligh bungled the costing of her first major campaign announcement, The Courier-Mail can reveal the Government lost almost $12 million trying to propagate the rare wollemi pine. 



The much-vaunted scheme, which the Government had predicted would reap sales of up to $21 million annually, was quietly wound up last year after poor sales forced the cancellation of the world exclusive contract nine years early.

Meanwhile, controversy builds in Barcaldine, in central Queensland, over the size and shape of the state-backed memorial to the Tree of Knowledge.

Locals have nicknamed the $8 million, 18m structure "Barky's box" and "the gallows" as they grapple with the size and meaning of the monument.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, quite a few country towns have a “Tree of Knowledge,” which is a shady tree in a convenient spot where the older guys gather and share recollections, hence the name. The one in Barcaldine is special though, as in the 1890s striking shearers gathered under it for a meeting, which is considered to be the first step in the formation of the Labor Party. Vandals poisoned the tree in 2006 and it was unable to be saved.

The main St. of the town giving an idea of the character of the place.

Quite reasonably, it was decided to do something to memorialise the tree. Of course in a place like Barcaldine, which like most outback towns has its own special character, it would be reasonable to expect that a memorial would be tasteful and in character with the town. 

A new tree; perhaps one of the cuttings propagated from the original with some sort of symbolic column or such like, with a plaque commemorating the tree and its history might be appropriate? Possibility the original could have been left in place with the dead limbs removed for safety, as a focal point until the new tree could take over?

Unfortunately this is where the government got involved with the following result. The structure is a towering cube in which 4000 suspended timbers of various lengths form the canopy of the Tree of Knowledge, the trunk and limbs of which have been preserved in Brisbane.

The "Tree of Knowledge" memorial. (Photo Courtesy, "The Courier Mail.)

Apart from the preserved remains of the tree being inside, along with the 4,000 suspended bits of wood, it is difficult to imagine what such a structure has to do with trees.

Perhaps it signifies the socialist aspect of the Labor Party, or maybe their love of central planning.

Interview; Frances Rice, Chair,NBRA.

The latest NBRA (National Black Republican Association) newsletter highlights an interview with Francis Rice its Chairman. In the last election I came to have a great admiration for both Francis and the organization as a whole. Here she explains why she is a Republican, her background, why most black Americans are Democrats and the reasons why they are misguided in this.



There are two following clips: -

Part 2, on Martin Luther King being a republican, and why. And; Part 3 on Obama and the origins of that “Magic Negro matter,” the Democrat “Uncle Tom” message on black conservatives, and the culture of victimhood.

Europoly Hissyfit; Walkout on Vaclav Klaus.

Voiced belief in listening to opinions you disagree with.

It was remarked on in a recent interview with Vaclav Klaus that he sounded more like Americas Founding Fathers than any of the current crop of US politicians. I tend to agree, and I do not find it all that surprising. The Founding Fathers spent the first part of their lives under an oppressive colonial regime, much the same as Klaus, and came to love the values of liberty through understanding the lack of it. There is however something special about those who, on achieving political power use it in the cause of liberty, and not to enhance that power.

From The Telegraph, we have an article by Daniel Hannan, a writer and journalist, who has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He has written eight books on European policy, speaks French and Spanish and is author of "The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain."

Vaclav Klaus was addressing the chamber as President of the Czech Republic, the state that currently holds the EU presidency. His speech was moderate, thoughtful and restrained - in places, almost to the point of being platitudinous. Governments worked better when there was an opposition, he said. We should all listen to dissenting points of view, he said. He had grown up in a system where there was no opposition, he said, and he didn't want the EU to go down that road.

The response of MEPs? To hoot their derision and flounce out. By a delicious coincidence, the walk-out happened just as Klaus was making his point about listening to opinions you disagreed with. It may have been an accident of timing: the vinegary Thatcherite had, moments earlier, been arguing that democracy was not necessarily enhanced by giving more powers to the European Parliament. …..

This is the gist of the talk that upset the EuroPols: -

Queensland heads to the Polls.

Cartoon from Kudelka Cartoons.

At last the states worst kept secret has finally been revealed with the announcement today that an election is to be held on March 21. It was widely predicted that the Premier, Anna Bligh would call an election on the 28th out of desperation when the state budget flew into disarray with the news that we face a $1.5 billion deficit. The Mar 21st date indicates panic although she is using the old excuse that an election is necessary to quell all that speculation out there.

The reason for the speculation for a later date was that the government was to pass legislation next week for a “Charter of Budget Honesty,” a play on words which would ensure that election promises would be examined by Treasury officials rather than a private firm independent from government. This would mean that opposition promises would be examined and assessed by public servants, who are of course government employees. Nobody believed she would be desperate enough to rush in and call an election without having the advantage of the use of treasury as a propaganda machine.

While claiming that in order to handle the economic crisis she needs a mandate for another three years the reality is that she has another six months to run of her current term, which would give Queenslanders the opportunity to make a sound assessment of her capabilities. The news that for the first time the states credit rating has dropped from AAA to AA, has given her a realisation that the very last thing her government wants, is for the public to have a chance to make such an assessment.

The mail-out of the federal governments stimulus checks during the election campaign is probably another reason to rush in.

Bligh is running a government of fiscal incompetents, who while urging the opposition not to make any promises of big spending during the election in these troubled times, have announced the intention of borrowing ten billion for infrastructure spending. At a time when the public at large is trying desperately to reign in personal costs in order to pull through, the government has the crazed belief it can spend its way out of debt.

Lessons for the US, from Germany and Japan.

Ron Kitching referred to United State’s SBS News commentators Shields and Brooks being in a quandary as to the trillion dollar “stimulation” package, including:

Shields: Americans rebuilt devastated Germany after WW2. Americans rebuilt devastated Japan after WW2. We can surely rebuild America.

Ron points out:

Shields is quite wrong on both of those points. It was the wise economic decisions of Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard that rebuilt West Germany. He eschewed money printing, reduced taxation and the recovery was so dramatic, that unemployment went from 50% to zero in 10 years.

And five million new workers had to be imported from Greece, Turkey, Italy Spain and France.

In Japan’s case, it was Japan’s Minister of Trade and Industry, Tanzan Ishibashi who dictated Japan’s economic policies. He abolished the tax on the interest of savings. He cut tax on dividends from 11% to 7% and cut personal rates by 10%. Corporate tax rates were dropped from 42% to 40%.

Curiously tax revenues rose by 15% and voluntary savings rose by an astonishing 31.5%.

Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea also copied West Germany’s recipes and made astonishing gains in ten years.

It seems that some of the GOP are starting to realize that where the party has failed miserably in the eyes of many of its supporters over the years, is economics and are moving to resist the irresponsible spending in ‘Porkulus’. The Governors referred to below seem to be making an effort.

Several days ago Eric Dondero posted on the possibility that some Republican Governors would reject stimulus money, because of the risk that the areas that the money is slated to go into could entail a risk of establishing programs that would stretch state budgets thinner after federal money stops coming.

A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package – despite provisions inserted by Congressional Democrats into the law that could pit these chief executives against their legislatures.

In Idaho, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said he wasn't interested in stimulus money that would expand programs and boost the state's costs in future years when the federal dollars disappear — a worry also cited by Jindal and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sanford recently told Newsmax that the stimulus “has a lot of deficiencies. I think it’s going to make the problem bigger and longer.

The three libertarian Republicans, Mark Sanford, Sarah Palin, & Butch Otter, are joined by three other Republicans, conservatives Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, and Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Jindal even went so far as to suggest that his State may not want, nor need the $4 billion slated for Louisiana in the Obama plan.

Hot Air now reports that Bobby Jindal is the first off the starting blocks: -

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states…

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

He will accept cash for transportation infrastructure and a modest increase in unemployment benefits but drew the line at unemployment insurance lest it mean a $12 million tax hike for Louisiana businesses three years from now.

Journal Register bankrupt; Funny about that.

There has been speculation for some time as to the health or otherwise of a number of US newspapers, with a wide belief that bankruptcies were imminent. This one appears to be one of the smaller 2nd or 3rd tier companies, however there is also reason to believe some of the larger ones such as NYT are in deep trouble. There have been calls on some occasions for bailouts of these companies especially in Connecticut, on the grounds that they are “necessary for the community and will be a great loss if they fold.

The community it seems has made a different assessment of their worth with the result that circulations are falling and naturally advertising revenue is following. The really disturbing possibility with newspaper bailouts is the potential for partisan reporting on any legislator who opposes them.

From Breitbart.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The Journal Register Co. filed Saturday for bankruptcy protection from its creditors and said slumping advertising revenue and circulation are to blame.

In the Chapter 11 filing in US Bankruptcy court in Manhattan, Journal Register proposed a restructuring plan in which it would cancel its stock and become a closely held company controlled by its lenders.

The Yardley, Pa.-based newspaper publisher reported $596 million in assets as of Nov. 30 and $692 million in debt, including unpaid interest. Revenue has fallen more than 20 percent since 2006, the company said in the court filing.

There is a tendency among commentators to blame the current economic problems for this situation, along with the growing influence of the Internet. I have to note though that in many of these reports, including this one that there is reference to the last couple of years, note: - Revenue has fallen more than 20 percent since 2006.

There is another probable cause in my opinion, and that is that they have lost touch with the public at large, and have in the last election cycle seriously pissed off a fairly large proportion of their readers. The Journal Register like many others leans heavily liberal, (This is disputed by Steve Collins below). While in the past media have often favored one or another party, in the last election there was blatancy about it.

Few people are so biased as to be angered at reporting of things that may harm their parties chances, we all make mistakes, our candidates are the same, and when these are reported most of us are intellectually honest enough to accept that, “That was a stuff up.” Problems arise though when there is a constant bombardment of negatives toward one side while nothing but positive news is reported on the other. If media constantly beat one side of the spectrum around the heads, those people stop buying those papers.

In times past, it has been possible to get away with this as there has been no real way for contrary information to get out, at least for those who don’t go to the rallies and meetings. If there was extreme negativity on the part of the media, then many would simply think that their team really stank, but those other fellows look pretty good anyway. This is no longer the case.

The Internet with its influential sites with their interlocking circles of influence ensures that a high proportion of the public is aware of what is going on. The media has overplayed its hand, and in the words of one person made famous in the campaign, “Your chickens are coming home to roost.”

An early election anyone?

The “Australian,” makes the rather odd claim that an early election in Queensland, which is almost certain after the Bligh Government revealed yesterday the state budget had plunged $1.6billion into deficit, will test voter confidence in Labor's ability to govern during the economic crisis.

The collapse of fortunes forced ratings agency Standard & Poor's to lower the state's long-cherished AAA credit rating for the first time to AA.

The lower credit rating will put further pressure on the state's finances by increasing the cost of borrowings to fund a growing budget deficit and heavy capital works program.

Once Australia's boom state, riding a wave of property and mining investment, Queensland has an economy grinding to a halt. Treasury officials issued a dire warning yesterday for the next financial year, when they fear the budget deficit will double to $3.2billion.

The latest forecasts, which take into account the Rudd Government's $42 billion stimulus package and recent interest rate cuts, predict a further 60,000 people will be laid off in 2009-10, when economic growth will slump to 1per cent, putting Queensland on the brink of a recession.

This is not a test in the confidence we have in the Bligh government; that is the last thing Anna wants. With the state economy rapidly taking on the smell of rotting fish, Bligh is getting in early to try to get re-elected before the electorate gets the opportunity to really find out where Labors fiscal policies lead.

The state Treasurer Andrew Fraser who said he could not rule out having to increase taxes or cut services, said the Government remained committed to its borrow-for-building campaign, even though it would cost more to deliver, and was going into deficit to sustain economic growth as much as possible

It is generally considered that March 28 is the likely date as the Rudd Government's latest cash payments, from its ‘son of porkulous’ stimulus package will start being distributed next month and the Bligh Government is likely to take advantage of the money for nothing pork barreling which is expected to generate some goodwill.

During the last ten years of economic boom times Labor has carried on with its big spending ways, generally pissing the proceeds up against the wall with cost blowouts on everything, failure to put anything aside for harsher economic times, and blocking projects for the sole purpose of securing Green preferences.

The electorate notes spending on capital projects, which can be seen and thus cast government in a good light, but there is no way of seeing that which has been blocked as it does not exist – there is nothing to be seen. Bligh has been especially irresponsible in this regard, costing the state countless jobs and revenue.

Queensland still persists in the stupidity of banning uranium production, incredibly dumb at this time as at the moment the world is crying out for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Last August Anna canned the McFarlane Oil shale project at Proserpine, to ensure that the marginal seat of Whitsunday will be kept in Labor hands at the expense of the Australian taxpayer.

The immediate result was the loss of the jobs of 500 people engaged on the project. It also wiped out $300 million already invested in the project. The project was worth $15 Billion, with the potential for $400 million annually in royalties alone and would have created 3,000 direct jobs as permanent as jobs can be.

It would have produced 30 million barrels per year of low sulphur diesel and aviation gas and could have lowered Australia’s fuel import deficit to the tune of $10 billion per year.

It has to be incredible hypocrisy for a state government, which has blocked thousands of jobs worth of development projects, to then go to Canberra with its hand out for massive funding for infrastructure projects to create jobs that it prevented us from having in the first place not to mention the economic cost both to the state and the nation as a whole caused by these idiotic feel good at the time decisions.

Gillibrand, and those guns.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to assess the real beliefs of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on the issue of guns. Coming from a conservative leaning House seat in upstate NY she has been a supporter of 2nd amendment rights to the point of apparently becoming the centrefold girl for the NRA, getting their top rating. She recently announced that she’ kept two rifles under the bed’ to defend her family. That seems to be a reasonable precaution, I mean, could anyone except criminals disagree with that? …. Oh yeah, the Democrats, her party, that’s who.

Democrats tend to believe that the method of dealing with people who break into your house with the intention of killing you is to call the police. You then hope they respond in time for their hostage negotiators to deal with the situation, or if not, that they treat your corpse with respect and try to find your murderers. You just can’t have the public taking matters into their own hands. It’s just not on.

After copping flack from party members on the issue, she seems to be adopting more positions than Bill Clinton in a room full of interns.

First she claimed, "If I want to protect my family, if I want to have a weapon in the home, that should be my right.” One of her aides pointed out that rifles were not required to be registered in NY state.

After this things seem to go really haywire, along with her credibility. During a meeting last week at the school of a teen killed by a stray bullet, she vowed to write legislation cracking down on 'illegal' gun traffickers. I am sure there are already plenty of laws to deal with this issue, why the hell does she want more of them? It’s just a silly knee jerk reaction. She said she rejects gun bans or limits on legal firearm owners.

She then claimed she no longer slept with them under her bed and has just moved them. She said she and her husband hidden the weapons in a different location in their home. OK that’s fair enough.

Then those guns she was about to defend her family with suddenly became locked and inaccessible to children, and apparently always were. "No responsible gun owner would keep their gun where they're accessible to children. No responsible gun owner would keep the gun loaded in the presence of children," she now says. This is of course logical and I have no qualms about it.

However then the claim is made that the rifles, which until now were for the defense of the family and needed to be readily available, were kept, unloaded, in a locked case under the bed, with the ammunition in an entirely different location. Lets just hope that NY home invaders are decrepit and slow enough for her to get it all together.

The trouble with this is that now it becomes really bizarre with the claim that the senator does not know how to operate either weapon. Kirsten, its about time to learn if there is to be any point in keeping them. Frankly she seems to have moved herself from being a gung-ho NRA backed gun moll, to a rather silly woman who appears to be the Democrat version of, “Rebel without a clue.”

Pro-Free Enterprise Psychology.

The Doctor.

One of my regular reads is Dr Sanity. The doctor who lists her occupation as an M.D. (Psychiatry/Aerospace medicine) has very pro-liberty views, and is very strongly opposed to the antics of the socialist left. What follows is an interesting argument (one of the best I have seen in a long time) for capitalism. This is quoted in her most recent post, but was originally from another post, “KARL MET SIGMUND AND THE REST IS POSTMODERN HISTORY.”

Capitalism allows the basic nature of man to creatively express itself by mastering the physical world. The instinctual energy Freud spoke of is directed away from the destructive pursuit of power over other people and sublimated toward acts of creation, which further both the individual's life and all of civilization.

The Marxist intellectuals' big mistake was in not recognizing the difference between repression and suppression. And in not understanding the way psychological defense mechanisms work (particularly the healthy or 'mature' defense mechanisms such as sublimation, anticipation, humor, altruism and supression) .

They correctly noticed that the instinctual energy of the proletariat was being harnessed both for the individual's good as well as the society under capitalism; and yet were unable to appreciate the fact that unless you accept the reality of human nature and give it the freedom to transform all its most negative aspects into something positive for the individual and the culture/society (which is what the mature defenses do so creatively), then you end up crushing all human initiative, creativity, and productivity.

Societies can either encourage the development of these healthy, mature psychological defenses with which to cope with reality; or they can encourage the development and expression of the worse aspects of human nature--i.e., those which result in violence, racism, criminality and all the other pathologies. Either way, social, political and economic systems can only encourage certain human traits that result in civilized behavior; or, they can encourage those that are barbaric and antisocial. Human nature is the same, though, no matter what type of society or political system it finds itself in.

Simply put, totalitarian systems--whether from the left or the right (and that includes Marxism in any of its incarnations, whether religious or secular)-- actively promote the most negative, primitive, and immature aspects of human nature. In fact, they give a societal/institutional blessing to such behavior; and thrive on the resulting projection, paranoia, distortion, and denial of reality.

John Coleman: The Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

HT: The Republitarian.

There is another great article from John Coleman, who is a vocal critic of anthropogenic Global warming who in 2007 described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." I previously reported on Coleman and a group of scientists attempting to sue Al Gore. In this one he goes into the history of the GW cult right back to its beginnings shortly after WW2.

The following are some extracts from the article.

Roger Revelle served with the Navy in World War II. Afterwards he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding is where Revelle's mind was most of the time. …….

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations—a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). …..

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. …. The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book “Earth in the Balance,” published in 1992.

So there it is. Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business. ………

After retirement Revelle began to rethink his position:

In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. ….

Did Roger Revelle attend the summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "Apparently.” People who were there have told me about that afternoon, but I have not located a transcript or a recording. People continue to share their memories with me on an informal basis. More evidence may be forthcoming.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s mea culpa as the actions of a senile old man. The next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate. From 1992 until today, he and most of his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when asked about us skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

I is interesting to note that Revelle was prepared to look back on what was essentially his lifes work, see where it was leading and warn against it. This to me does not seem to be the action of a "senile old man," rather that of a man of principle. If he were rambling and obviously not with it, I feel that the people the author spoke to on the subject would have mentioned it, or at least some.

The full article is at KUSI News.

Spousal Murder and Honour Killing.

Photo; Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, who was beheaded by her estranged husband.

A horrofic murder occurred yesterday in Buffalo, with the victim beheaded by her estranged husband.

Detectives have charged Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder after his wife was found beheaded Thursday at the offices of the cable channel, Bridges TV, in the Village of Orchard Park.

The victim was identified as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. ……

It was Aasiya Hassan who encouraged her businessman husband to launch the cable channel, she said. “She was such a lovely person.”

Muzzammil Hassan launched the channel in 2004 in hopes of dispelling stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists, and balancing widespread images of Muslim extremism with moderate viewpoints.

Aasiya Hassan had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home in Orchard Park, police said.

“There had been problems before — there had been prior incidents of physical abuse,” said Corey Hogan, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.

Hogan said discussions were being held about continuing arrangements for the couple’s two children, ages 4 and 6, and two older children, ages 17 and 18, from Muzzammil Hassan’s previous marriage. …

At this point the term ‘honor killing’ has not been mentioned, so it could be a case of spousal murder, something that is far too common in society. Given though the method of killing – beheading, it seems to lean heavily towards having Islamic cultural aspects about it, which leads me to believe that it was an ‘honor killing,’ a serious misnomer as there is no honor in killing.

Western culture has little to be sanctimonious about in regard to violence against women, especially in family situations, as it seems to occur with horrific regularity. I believe there is a cultural aspect to this, in that while we like to consider that we have risen above our origins as a patriarchal society, the primitive ingrained instincts remain. Of course another aspect to it is that in arguments things sometimes get out of hand and men are generally physically stronger and more volatile. It is however inexcusable.

Christianity itself has struggled and in the main failed to rise above downright misogyny, with the issue of elevation of women to equal status varying in most denominations from problematic, to schismatic.

I posted recently on the disgusting attack on Louisa Rodas who was shot in the face by her estranged brother in law while caring for her sister, Denise, (his ex-wife) who has terminal ovarian cancer. In this case there was a long history of domestic violence, including an attack on Denise a few months earlier with a hammer to her head in order to steal her painkillers. The penalty for this, three months, is a clear indication that the law does not take these matters seriously.

Islamic culture however has a substantial history of killing women who are considered to have transgressed by their families as a matter of “family honor.” There is some argument as to whether the Koran actually endorses this position, but it seems to happen often enough for it to be considered to be part of the faith. There are some practices that have made their way into Islamic society, through being part of regional traditions such as clitorectomies, which I understand are not part of Islam, and not all of Islam does this. Honor killing seems to be pretty broad based though.

Photo; Amina, and Sarah Yaser Said who were murdered by their father.

One case I reported some time ago was that of teenage sisters Amina Yaser Said and Sarah Yaser Said who were murdered by their father who fought with them in the past for being too Westernized in their outlook. When he discovered they had boyfriends, he shot them and left them to die in the back of his taxicab. He has not been caught and it is widely believed he has escaped the country.

Another particularly nasty case was that of Aqsa Parvez, 16, who was strangled by her father in an honor murder in the Toronto-area. She refused to wear the Islamic hijab, and wanted to live the normal lifestyle of a Canadian teenage girl, but ran into conflict with her strict, religious father. One friend and schoolmate said the Canadian teenager was afraid of her father and often came to school wearing bruises, the result of his violence.

Her death appears to have been the result of a family decision, and there is some evidence that her older sister used to spy on her at school for the family. It appears that she was lured to her death by a brother whom she trusted. He picked her up at a bus stop, saying he would bring her home to get a change of clothes, where she was then killed, for living like a Canadian. There are Muslims who have the courage to face this problem: -

Tarek Fatah, founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress, calls Parvez’s murder a blight on Islam.” In my mind, this was an honor killing,” said Fatah, adding it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

And as if he was talking directly to the Toronto Star, the Muslim community leader also said there needs to be an honest debate about this murder and that “the media should not just talk to the ones wearing head scarves but the ones who do not want to.”

With or without the hijab on, Aqsa Parvez would only have nodded her agreement with that.

Iranian Women 'infected' with western ideas, demand rights.

Cartoon; Islamic vision of Adam and Eve.

I have always maintained that the biggest threat the free world had to offer to the authoritarian one was ideas. One of the hallmarks of tyranny over the years has been the need for vast propaganda efforts to convince their own people that the West was degenerate, greedy, etc with downtrodden masses yearning for the joys of liberation. Such regimes always understood that they had to keep their people from ever gaining a concept of real liberty.

The main threat to free societies is that most politicians have delusions of relevance and believe that government has a bigger role to play in the day to day lives of the citizenry, than administering those few matters that the people allow them.

It now appears that Iranian women are getting over exposed to the degenerate rights of their counterparts over in the land of the great Satan and are getting stroppy at their lack of any form of equality.

Women’s rights advocates say Iranian women are displaying a growing determination to achieve equal status in this conservative Muslim theocracy, where male supremacy is still enscribed in the legal code. One in five marriages now end in divorce, according to government data, a fourfold increase in the past 15 years.

And it is not just women from the wealthy, Westernized elites. The family court building in Vanak Square here is filled with women, like Ms. Qassemi, who are not privileged. Women from lower classes and even the religious are among those marching up and down the stairs to fight for divorces and custody of their children.

Increasing educational levels and the information revolution have contributed to creating a generation of women determined to gain more control over their lives, rights advocates say.

Confronted with new cultural and legal restrictions after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, some young women turned to higher education as a way to get away from home, postpone marriage and earn social respect, advocates say. Religious women, who had refused to sit in classes with men, returned to universities after they were resegregated.

Today, more than 60 percent of university students are women, compared with just over 30 percent in 1982, even though classes are no longer segregated. ….

Iranian women are showing growing determination to achieve equal status in this conservative Muslim country.

PLF defending property rights.

This is a video produced by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is essentially a fund raising effort in order to continue their work. I have posted it in order to raise the issue of property rights, and to publicize their efforts. For those who feel they are worth supporting, visit their website here.

Charlie Johnson is a cranberry farmer in Massachussetts. The Feds fined him for not asking permission to put more of his land into cranberry growing. This is after all, his own land. Pacific Legal Foundation who specialise in property rights cases and have a great winning record, is defending him pro bono.

According to the video the case is based on the desire of a government agency to extend its powers into areas they were never intended to be in.

Victorian fires, Jihad, and the Yanks are coming.

A couple of years ago Australian firefighters were sent over to the US to help deal with raging forest fires. They have also assisted the Kiwis on occasions, and I note that those efforts are being reciprocated. Firemen from all over the country are heading to Victoria, where many interstate crews are already there. From the “Oregon News”: -

In 2000, as Oregon trained Oregon National Guard troops to fight a rash of wildfires, fire officials in the Northwest sent for 20 fire crew bosses from Australia to bolster the thin ranks of professional crew bosses. In 2002, about 50 firefighters from Australia and New Zealand joined Northwest crews fighting the Biscuit fire in southern Oregon.

During Australia's 2003 fire season, 36 firefighters from five U.S. agencies and one infrared-equipped aircraft were sent to Victoria to fight fires. Average deployment is about 30 days.

"Australia has greatly helped the U.S. a number of times over the past decade when we had needs for particular firefighting skills, and if we can reciprocate, we will be glad to do so," Frederick said.

New Zealand is sending 100 firefighters and Singapore has offered a fleet of Super Puma helicopters. Other countries to offer practical help include Turkey, Thailand, France and Indonesia, which has offered assistance with disaster victim identification.

Thanks to all of you.

Meanwhile there is a disturbing report in the “Age,” indicating that some Islamist groups have urged the lighting of forest fires in a number of countries including here. While it is known that a number of the fires were deliberate acts of arson, it must be stressed that there is no evidence that this is the case in this instance. We have plenty of our own home grown loonies.

AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".

The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.

The posting - which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months - says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time". ……

The greenie moonbats are now deservedly copping flack over their responsibility for the laws, which prevent landholders from taking reasonable precautions to prevent fires. Clearing of underbrush, which carries the fires and aids the ignition by embers of fires hundreds of meters from the fire front is a good protective measure. Some states ban fuel reduction burning all together.

The left claim that this practice destroys forests, but the facts are that regular cyclic burning of a controlled nature in the cooler months, does not kill the forest. Over the years I have worked in some of the no burn areas, and the sheer volume of dry material on the ground is frightening. One of the serious problems which arose this time were the high winds blowing embers far ahead of the fires, igniting material on the ground and throwing up more embers.

This is the reason why so many survivors are reporting that they thought they were safe, then suddenly the fire was on them.

It is ironic that one story to emerge is that the home of one couple who were fined $100,00 for clearing undergrowth near their home last year without a Council permit was the ONLY home to survive in their village.

"Carbon Cemeteries are a Dead Loss for Everyone."

by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused coal companies, power companies and governments of gross negligence for wasting resources from shareholders, electricity consumers and taxpayers on quixotic dreams to capture and bury carbon dioxide from power stations.

The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, said that there were five main objections to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

Firstly, there are no possible climate benefits because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not control climate and the tiny effect of man’s emissions is wholly beneficial. There has been no open scientific enquiry into the justification for demonising carbon dioxide, and a large and growing scientific opposition to the whole global warming hysteria.


Secondly, there is no public health justification for CCS because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colourless, non-toxic gas and in fact a valuable plant food. A warm climate with abundant carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be beneficial for all life.


Thirdly, CCS can never be “economic” because there are huge costs and zero benefits.


Fourthly, CCS will divert a vast amount of community savings into stupid investments
which will be abandoned in a more enlightened future time.


And finally, neither taxpayers nor shareholders have seen a full cost benefit analysis of the CCS proposals by independent experts. They have no idea of the guaranteed huge cost and the illusory benefits.

“Every day we hear people sounding off about “dirty coal”. Coal is a natural substance and every element in coal reflects the composition of living plants and plays a part in sustaining healthy life. Coal is as natural as the forests from which it came, with the same fuel components as natural gas, more natural than distilled ethanol, and as clean the healthiest soil in a good garden. Like any substance you can name, coal can be dangerous if misused – people in a sealed room can suffocate from the open fire burning wood, or from their own breathing, but sensible people make sure a window is open to allow their combustion products to diffuse into the vast atmosphere.

The same problem arises if there are too many open fires in cities, where poor combustion and lack of modern pollution scrubbers produces a toxic concentration of soot, ash and polluting gases (as in Asia now). Poor combustion with insufficient oxygen can also produce the poisonous gas carbon monoxide, but nowhere is carbon dioxide a problem in the open atmosphere.

“Clean electricity from modern coal-fired power stations is what has cleaned up the smogs of London and Pittsburgh, and can do the same for the Asian smog.

“Once diffused into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide (and all other products from burning coal) become plant food and mineral nutrients for the whole plant kingdom. Plants extract carbon dioxide from the air, consume the carbon and return the oxygen to the atmosphere. It is the key link in the cycle of life.

“The earth is already burying valuable carbon resources in vast deposits of limestone, dolomite, and magnesite  in oceans and lakes and in organic matter being buried at sea by flooding rivers.

“Despite all the hysteria by Al Gore and others, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are lower now than at many times in earth’s history. So low in fact that if we were successful in capturing and burying all of man’s emissions of carbon dioxide, many people may starve as plant growth would be so reduced that food production would not support today’s population. Burning fossil fuels has had the serendipitous effect of aiding the world production of food and supporting our large populations.

“We hear proponents bleating wistfully about the possibilities of proving that CCS is “economic”. It can NEVER be economic, because there are no benefits – nothing to offset the huge capital costs, nothing to repay the large increase in power generating costs. It can only ever be a mammoth waste of energy, resources and money.

“Building large high pressure pipelines that end up in carbon cemeteries can only be made to look economic by heavy taxes on emissions of harmless carbon dioxide. But even with this artificial subsidy, so-called clean coal plants are being abandoned because of the escalating costs.

“The engineering obstacles to carbon capture and storage guarantee that the capital and operating costs will be very large.

“For every tonne of coal burnt, and after all the polluting gases and soot are removed, over 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide remains. This huge quantity of hot gas has to be captured, cooled, separated from the other “greenhouse gas” (water vapour), compressed and pumped in huge high-pressure pipelines to some distant spot where deep wells have been drilled to allow this valuable gas to be pumped underground, where it is hoped it will stay.

If CCS is installed, electricity costs must rise dramatically. Even the research, planning and design costs will be huge, decades before any CCS plant will operate. Queensland alone has already committed over one billion dollars to this foolish dream.

(In a few favourable locations this gas could be used to drive more oil or gas out of depleted oil fields and this proven technique is already being used where it makes economic sense – it should not be force fed by carbon taxes.)

“All of this separation, compressing and pumping requires . . . more energy from more coal burning. So we burn more coal, each tonne of which produces over three tonnes of CO2, in order to reduce emissions of CO2?? Who is fooling whom? The main game is to reduce consumption of our valuable fossil fuels, so why would anyone support this wanton destruction of resources, energy and capital? And why stop at power stations? There are also hundreds of cement plants, natural gas projects, steel works, coke plants and smelters of all kinds that release carbon dioxide. Are they all destined to be strangled by CCS?

“Even if some naive countries, corporations or governments do spend community savings on these white elephants, they will soon be abandoned. They will be as useful to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs, and future generations will marvel at the abandoned compressors, the derelict pump stations and the pipelines going nowhere.

“Green extremists know that CCS is a fantasy but see it as a great weapon to cripple coal and make their fairyland windmills and solar panels look sensible.

“Their green plans aim to put anyone who relies on coal deep into the red.”

To read more on the stupidities of “Burn and Bury” see here.


info@carbon-sense.com   http://www.carbon-sense.com/

Viv Forbes is a geologist and mineral economist who has experience in the coal, energy and investment industries. However he opposes the dangerous infatuation of big coal companies and big government with Carbon Capture and Storage. It will provide massive work for scientists, economists, regulators and construction companies, but no benefits whatsoever for shareholders, consumers or taxpayers. And there are no climate or health benefits.

Victorian Bushfires.

Photo; From ABC News.

Some of my overseas readers have contacted me out of concern over reports of the (mainly) Victorian bushfires. I am nowhere near them, but as can be understood, we are all affected by the terrible loss of life and sheer destruction that has occurred. There are also fires in New South Wales.

Heat waves and bush fires are part of our landscape, in some areas exacerbated in recent times by the greenies refusal to allow fuel reduction burns. This is a procedure whereby large areas are burned on a regular basis by firebombing in winter. The procedure is to set a large number of fires in an area so that the fires do not get a chance to get big and really hot before they run into another one, thus not killing the forests.

We live a very dry continent and most of our trees are fire tolerant, but raging fires of this sort will kill them. Many of our species need fires for seeds to germinate.

Fires are often caused by lightning, we have a lot of dry 'heat storms' where there is a lot of electrical activity but no rain. Some are caused by carelessness with cigarettes and fires left smoldering, as well as burning rubbish by people with no idea of what they are doing, rating high on the list.

On this occasion though, arsonists seem to be the cause of most of them and there is now a strong call to have them charged with murder or manslaughter. Victoria though has pretty stiff penalties for this offence, up to 25 years for fires causing loss of life. This afternoon the death toll was 126 dead, now only hours later it is at 156, but that will rise when more burnt out buildings are cool enough to investigate.

Over 5,000 volunteer firemen from the rural fire service are out there and are being supplemented from interstate at the moment. These people deserve our highest praise and support. Government gives them some support and training, but most of the effort is community based.

The people of Victoria, and the families of the victims have our sympathy and support.

You can’t fool all that many of the people all the time.

Down south as is normal at this time of the year there is a heat wave going on, with temperatures in the low to mid 40s. Recently in southern New South Wales (22 Nov the end of spring) it was snowing, weather is something that changes, sometimes dramatically so. During the 80s I worked inland from Karatha in NW Western Australia where for seven weeks leading up to Christmas the temperature was 52 in the shade (120F). Nobody thought that it was unusual.

This time however, the heat wave according to one of the news reports is the result of, you guessed it, (I hate you bastards who get ahead of the dialogue) none other than the dreaded global warming. Apparently heat waves down in that neck of the woods normally last only a day or so, according to this report. There was no explanation as to why the term ‘heat wave’ was used to describe them in the past, instead of “a hot day,” but hell, you can’t have everything explained slowly and in simple terms.

It’s funny though, to think back to when I was a kid and pretty solid heat waves were the norm for the south. For my northern hemisphere readers, down here the south equates to your north. We southern hemisphereites tend to be unapologicly different.

The ABC has an online poll at the moment on the matter, asking the question, “Is Global Warming to blame for the current heatwave in Australia?” The options on this occasion include, “Global Warming is a myth.” Seriously, PM Kevvie is really going to have to sort those right wing fascists at the bloody ABC out, I mean giving the plebs the opportunity to make trouble; (ignorant bastards,) is beyond the pail.

The result is that 91.1% voted for the troublemaker question. “Global Warming is a myth,” but worse than that, the no’s were ahead of the yeses at last count, 4.7% to 4.2%.

Kevvy is going to need a shitload of re-education camps if this country is ever going to be properly micro-managed to the point that he has a population created in his own image.

Pommies Need Food Police.

Cartoon by Ramirez.

H/T Liberator Online and Steve McIntosh

You have to wonder whatever happened to what was once known as the “British bulldog spirit.” Where are the intrepid people who in past ages were capable of damn near anything, who went out into the world, colonized countries, tamed hostile environments, brought modern civilization to millions, stood alone in the face of overwhelming odds on countless occasions, and created an empire on which, “The sun never set?”

They now need to be told how to feed themselves, by the state, and be supervised while they are at it. I now get the impression that a trip from their mothers basements down to the shops is about as far as they will ever dare to venture into the world. As per Liberator Online: -

The headline in Britain's Daily Mail newspaper sums it up:

"Food police come knocking on your kitchen door... to tell you what to do with your leftovers."

Yes, it may sound like a Monty Python skit -- written by George Orwell. But alas, it is all-too-true.

In a new program that is the very personification of the phrase "nanny-state," government agents will be visiting British citizens around lunch or dinner time, and bugging them about what and how they should be eating.

These "food police" -- or, as the government absurdly calls them, "food champions" -- will quiz and lecture citizens on correct food storage, proper meal portions, healthy eating, avoiding wasting food, proper use of the freezer, reading expiration dates, using leftovers, and so forth. They will offer green lifestyle tips, like how to compost those rotting refrigerator science experiments.

"By hitting people at home, rather than in supermarkets, we can get inside their lives," beamed an unnamed Department of Health source.

"It's only by knocking on doors you can find out what they are having for their tea and offer some healthy suggestions."

The pilot program will take place in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Officials have been hired to visit 24,500 homes, and if it is "successful," it will be expanded to include perhaps all of England.

Not all British citizens are gung-ho about the plan, needless to say. TaxPayers' Alliance campaign director Mark Wallace said: "This is a prime example of excessive Government nannying, and a waste of public money and resources. ... If the Government has money sloshing around, it should give it back to the taxpayer, not spend it on schemes like this."

Government officials point out that citizens will be under no obligation to speak to the food police, if they don't wish to.

At least, not yet. 

Its no wonder someone came up with this: -

The need to be seen to do something.

H/T Thoughts on Freedom.

Mark Latham is one of the most extraordinary and most controversial figures to walk the political stage here. He was a star of the Labor Party, a Liverpool councillor at twenty-six, Mayor at thirty, federal MP at thirty-three and opposition leader at forty-three. Prior to this he was a political advisor.

Latham was a divisive figure in many ways often due to his intemperance in language and on occasions his behaviour. After losing to John Howard he resigned from parliament after copping a fair amount of criticism, both for the tactics used during the election in which Labor started with a handy lead then lost, and for being out of communication afterwards. It appears that in the lead up to the election and afterwards he was suffering from pancreatitis.

His publishing of diaries covering ten years in politics including his opinions of many of the players some of them his colleagues, caused him to become estranged from the party. Now after some years away from the rough and tumble he seems to hold different views, as evidenced in his op-ed in the Australian Financial Review, which is a great insight into the folly of interventionism: -

One of the most absorbing set-piece sporting events is the penalty shoot-out in soccer. Studies have shown that the player taking the penalty is most likely to kick the ball straight ahead, towards the middle of the posts. Yet the goalkeeper, who is supposed to stop the ball, usually dives to the left or right, thereby conceding a goal.

So why this act of folly? Why doesn't the goalkeeper stand his ground and block the ball as it is kicked towards him in the centre of the posts?

The most likely reason is crowd expectations. If the goalkeeper simply stands still and the ball is kicked away from him into the net, he will look foolish. For the sake of his reputation, it is better to do something, to dive to one side, even if this is the most likely way of conceding a goal.

Politics is much the same. Under the weight of public expectations and the demands of the 24-hour media cycle, politicians cannot afford to stand still. They must do things, or more precisely, they must be seen to be doing things. This explains the silliness of the nanny state, as governments devise new and superficial ways of trying to control social behaviour.

Every time an issue pops up in the media - fat people, skinny models, souped-up teenagers or unconventional artworks - governments feel obliged to respond with new laws and advertising campaigns. Ultimately, however, these gimmicks are futile. Human nature is not easily moulded by dusty piles of public ordinances.

The real action is elsewhere. In the globalised economy, outcomes are determined by the power of financial markets and international corporations. Educational outcomes tend to be a function of the family circumstances of students. So, too, health and wellbeing are determined by lifestyle decisions and personal responsibility. The role of the state is essentially residual: providing support for people who drop out of the education and economic systems and funding health care for the aged and chronically ill.

Everything else is simply for show: the evolution of public office into just another form of entertainment, filling large slabs of air-time on commercial TV and radio. This blanket coverage of politics has been in inverse proportion to the effectiveness of its policies. In earlier times, the British scholar and Labour MP David Marquand described it as the "feverish inconsequence of parliamentary life".

The goalkeeping metaphor is a perfect fit for our Prime Minister. Some Australian men like to watch the footy or play with the kids in their recreation time. If he could arrange it, Kevin Rudd would spend every waking moment in crisis meetings. This is his idea of a blissful life, even if he has to generate the crises himself. …..

In response to the global financial meltdown, his government has shown its true economic colours. It has been diving from side to side with interventionist policies: introducing bank guarantees, Howard-style financial hand-outs and yet another tranche of car industry welfare. In each case, it was motivated more by the "seen-syndrome", the appearance of doing something, than the quality of its policy measures.

There was no run on any part of the Australian financial sector until the government announced its deposit guarantee and decided to exclude mortgage trusts and investment funds. In fact, the banks were flush with new deposits seeking a safe haven from the stockmarket downturn. As ever, government intervention created more problems than it solved. …..

Has this guy been reading Hayek?

Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), Calls for tax cuts.

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) is the only political party in Australia with a clear cut aim to reduce the size, scope, and cost of government in this country down to a level where it is no longer a costly imposition on the people which interferes in most aspects of our daily lives. Traditional political thought here is based on the belief that nothing is kosher unless it has the blessing of some form of government. The LDP on the other hand wants the government to get out of the way, take its hand out of our pockets and let us get on with advancing the nation.

The following is the latest press release from the party in which they call for bigger tax cuts, and in particular for the abolition of payroll tax.

If anyone were to suggest that in a situation where high unemployment was a serious risk, a tax on business for employing people was the way to go, they would be dismissed as cranks. Unfortunately every state government does just that: -

Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Press Release

$466,000 per job Mr Rudd?

The government’s $42 billion “stimulus” package will cost Australians $466,667 per job created, assuming it even reaches its target of 90,000.

Every Australian will be stimulating the economy to the tune of $2,000. More accurately, taxpayers will be paying around $5,000 each of their own money.

Future generations will also be left with responsibility for paying for the budget deficit, reducing the ability of governments to reduce taxes and fund the things it ought to be doing.

“A recession is unavoidable,” the Treasurer of the Liberal Democratic Party Mr David Leyonhjelm said.

“What the government should be doing is laying the foundation for recovery, so that Australia comes out of the recession with an economy ready to benefit. When times are tough in the business world we have to downsize, become leaner and more efficient. The LDP believes the government should get smaller, leaner and more efficient, not larger, rewarding inefficiency and planting the seeds for future economic problems.”

“The Rudd government is showing its true colors with this package. It really believes politicians and public servants know how to manage the economy better than millions of individuals and businesses spending their own money.”

The LDP calls for much more significant tax cuts than the $2.7 billion in the stimulus, including abolition of payroll tax by State governments (an obvious drag on job creation).

“If the government is serious about stimulating employment it should also be reducing or eliminating company taxes, at least until the recession is over, and doing nothing to increase the cost of employment with changes to industrial relations laws.”

“The government does not create jobs; it costs jobs. Every dollar it takes in taxes, every regulation that increases the cost of business, has the effect of reducing employment. The correct response to the recession is to get out of the way, not hand out taxpayers money in a frenzy of frantic activity,” Mr Leyonhjelm concluded.

Suggested read.

The Liberal Democratic Party is anti-left, anti-right, pro-liberty

I was wrong: Turnbull got it, second grab.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw.

In the last post I was scathing about Malcolm Turnbull when the SMH indicated that he would not oppose the latest stimulus package, saying, “He couldn’t find his arse with three grabs.”

After sending mixed signals yesterday Malcolm Turnbull is taking the unprecedented step for his opposition of opposing the Rudd government on the $42 billion stimulus package. Turnbull has tended to wilt in the face of the government in the past rather than face up to them or even push for alternatives. It has been so bad recently that Senator Barnaby Joyce was criticized for voting against a piece of legislation the Liberals had decided to support, on the basis that they would be criticized for it.

Kevin Rudd is the master of populism and therefore presents a difficult target, especially for an opposition that has lost its way and has few genuine beliefs in anything in the way of principles, other than getting elected back into office. On their past record they appear to have lost all touch with the principle of smaller less interventionist fiscally responsible government. The Howard government took the country on an unprecedented spending spree, which Rudd appears to be hoping to surpass in his first term.

On this issue it is particularly difficult for the Liberals as Rudd is promising the majority of families a ‘gift’ of $950 with the admonition to go forth and splurge. When he was asked how he would fund it, he said: "We'll have to borrow it. That's the bottom line." He is not telling the recipients the fact that they are going to have to pay it back, with interest. If the Liberals are able to block this they will suffer some initial electoral damage, but when the package is logically analyzed it would be irresponsible to pass it.

Turnbull was however disappointing on the 7:30 report, especially in his inability to address the claim that most of the deficit was the result of a fall in government revenue. In society if our earnings drop we have the sense to cut back and reduce our expenditure. Turnbull failed completely to address the issue that when people are carrying a responsible act of financial common sense, the government should tighten its belt and reduce its cost to those people.

I guess Keynesianism does that to you.

Meanwhile, the government is ramping up the rhetoric, which is the only way to go when their best idea is a knee-jerk reaction to a panic attack. Rudd is referring to traitors, treason, treachery, and is declaring a national emergency. Anna Bligh is wanting to put the economy on a “war footing,” especially if it means a big slice of the funding. These idiots are getting just too extreme.

The stupidity of the stimulus is made evident by the auto bailout. With the prospect of harder economic times, the people are reassessing their priorities and have among other things, put off buying that new car, causing hardship for the auto industry. The government has responded by borrowing money in their names and giving it to those companies. The net effect is that we end up paying the same amount or more out but we don’t get the car. Cool Kevvy.