Planet Janet Albrechtsen orbited into view again yesterday with a thundering denunciation of the “useful idiots” who had facilitated the soap opera of Julian Assange, whom she described as a narcissistic little boy always craving the centre of attention — his supporters crowding to him only because he was resolutely anti-American. Indeed, indeed.

Planet got a few of her facts tangled in the diatribe — forgetting, for example, that WikiLeaks was responsible for widely circulating the East Anglia “climate-gate” emails, so it is hardly a creature of the Left, and she urges Assange to go to Sweden and face s-x-crime charges (he hasn’t been charged). But no matter.

Who are these fellow-travelling poltroons, who have given Assange the oxygen of publicity? Step forward Nick Cater, Rebecca Weisser and Chris Mitchell, the editors of The Australian who on December 8, 2010 gave the above-the-fold op-ed space to … Julian Assange for a piece entitled “Don’t Shoot the Messenger”. Why? Because it was the height of the cable-gate release, The Oz was desperate to get its hands on some of the cables, as WikiLeaks released them day-by-day.

Assange took the op-ed spot gratefully … and then denied them the cables, which he’d already given to Philip Dorling, publishing through Fairfax. Useful idiots indeed, there’s a lot of ‘em about. 

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/06/28/albrechtsen-confuses-her-idiots/

-----------------------------

Far from me from calling her an idiot but... as she says:

 

Look at how Sampson cleverly uses a literal truth to convey a substantive untruth. The literal truth that “we care” about the environment is used like a bait. If you accept that bait, then maybe you will swallow the rest of what he says, hook, line and sinker. It is true that people care about the environment. The substantive untruth is that Australia should be out in front, leading the world on climate change with ambitious targets to reduce emissions.

Sampson’s substantive untruth is clear enough. Just ask a coalminer in the NSW Hunter Valley who may lose his job to a scheme that will make no difference to global warming whether he thinks Australia should lead the way on climate change.

view more of her views: here

So she does the same thing she accuses people of doing...

Thus I guess that she's right since she has the conservative ritewingnut mantra on her side:

 

WHAT ARE THE TENETS OF BEING A LIBERAL?

1. Opposition to Labor. Labor is bad. 
Labor is in bed with the unions and unions are bad. They demand better working conditions for all workers, including the illegal ones we, Liberal bosses, use on the sly... The socialist union mugs! As if we were made of honey! As if money grew on the work of workers, which it does but that beside the point. If there were no bosses with whips and sticks, workers would slack off... Workers would be poorer with nothing to do if we did not use them as slaves. Better conditions? Want a yacht in the Caribbeans as well? You're lucky to get food on the table. And when you get the sack, you don't deserve the dole... Money for nothing? you've got to be kidding!

2. Charity before social justice. 
Giving is good as long as it's tax deductible. Tax is not tax deductible... Charitable enterprises are good. They range from churches to medical supplies. All are designed to give that warm feeling of helping someone in need, as long as it's tax deductible and measured as not to impinge on the pocket money, stitched aside for those holidays in the Caribbeans. But charity should not help people help themselves too much, otherwise charity would tragically become obsolete... Mind you there is an endless supply of charitable causes to choose from.

3. Lower taxes, voluntary contribution or no tax if possible. 
Not giving (much) tax is good. Sharing equitably is bad. Taxes tend to slug the rich. Liberals are on the rich side of the fence, in general and get slugged... Hum... Tax deductions are good as they bring us rich people down to the same tax bracket level as the poor mugs who work their arse off. Anyway, tax should be replaced by charity — a measured discreet voluntary donation to Liberal mates, such as developers, entrepreneurs, those good people with the know how to build concrete roads and tall buildings with views, pushing the poor people — who are in the way of inevitable progress — out.

5. Freedom. 
Freedom to be ensnared by religious beliefs as long as these are Christian beliefs. Other beliefs might be tolerated but as long as they understand who's boss. Faith in the Christian god is good and gives the freedom to sin and be contrite, without the civil court bit —especially for priests. Freedom is highly valued and should be imposed on anyone who does not have the same rigourous ideal of freedom, unless they are powerful and have oil. These are our despotic Muslim friends. Saddam on the other hand was weak (that's why we lied he was strong, but we knew he was weak — otherwise we wouldn't have attacked him if he was strong) and had oil. A weak and poor country without freedom nor oil under a tyrant is basically uninteresting unless it can provide real estate for a military base... Thus the tyrant is pragmatically our friend because we need him to keep the restless natives from which we're acquiring the real estate, quiet or dead — which ever comes first. They would have died from malaria or from an unspeakable disease anyway. Some of us don't like bits of genitalia being cut of in the name of religious practice — not in this country anyway. Our friend the despots can do what they like though — including torture or kill the opposition — as long as we have the military base. We don't practice torture — unless we have to.
In this framework free enterprise is on a pedestal. Free enterprise means that one can sell snake oil as long as one can find customers for snake oil. Stealing is not recommended in the open especially since the Switzerland haven has become regulatory cumbersome. Competition is good as long as competitors can be shot down in a "friendly" way. Workers of course should not enjoy freedom otherwise they slack off. The Mafia is terrible especially when it competes on our exclusive turfs... Free market is good as long as customers pay for it...

6. War on everything that is not "liberal". 
Biffo is good. War is brilliant. Peace tends to limit the scope of selling snake oil and other goods. War is excellent as it tends to demand replacement goods by the sheer nature of explosion and demolition of supplies. On another front, the liberal arts ended with Picasso, thank goodness. Art has nothing to do with philosophy. Art is the way to buy and sell exclusive masterpieces to other rich people who want what you have, for twice as much as you paid for, usually in the millions but they don't really care since they have twice as many millions. 

7. Money before equity. 
Greed is good. If the stock market and the money market are roaring along it's the Liberals' doing. If the stock market and the money market take the plunge it's Labor's fault. And this can be seen clearly by the way Labor handled the economy during the last financial crisis. Giving money to the people rather than to the banks stank of socialism! Let the market decide that the poor shall stay poor, unemployed and debt ridden, while the government coffers should be filling up with money gouged from the sweat and tears of the rest of the still-at-work flogged workers. Banks are good and should they become insolvent because of Liberal bosses bonuses, they should be propped up by government before the people (who should never be propped up). Any Labor projects that is 99 per cent successful shall be declared a failure. Any Liberal project that is 70 per cent a failure shall be deemed a success. 

8. Exploitation of resources. Plundering is good. 
The earth belongs to the humans "race" (meaning the white fellows). Contrary to scientific beliefs, humans are not a species but we are the children of god (angels without wings) — a god who in his great wisdom gave the express order to breed and plunder as fast as possible the given goodies: the trees, the dirt, the minerals of the known universe — but especially, from this flat earth. Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the communists to take over the world and stop us exploiting the cheap fuels... 99 per cent of the scientists are wrong. Our two shock jocks such as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are totally right on this subject. God did not write anything about global warming in the bible, thus it does not exist.

9. Regal born to rule privilege. 
Royalty is good. Although there are some traitors in the Liberal ranks who believe a republic could be better than a Queen in another country ruling over us, they still believe that the Liberals should be in charge of the loot due to breeding privileges. Most Liberals are royalists though. Support for the Anglican Queen or the future King (a bit too greenie for comfort though) is the optimum of undivided loyalty. We love the crumbs, such as lordships and honour badges to be collected on the way to brown-nosing privileges for having given charitably to our mates the developers. Gold, god and the Queen give the Liberals the exclusive right to rule this country. 

10. Never EVER compromise on anything, especially an ETS, or admit being wrong... Being wrong with elegant hypocrisy is an excellent way to be right. The freedom to be wrong is to be cherished, but the Liberals are always right, even if we're wrong. Labor is always wrong.

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/10145

 

 

 

Janet Albrechtsen is a right-wing rage machine. She slams the ABC as a "Soviet-style workers' collective" and attacks asylum seekers who complain about their "positively five-star" detention centre accommodation. When a mental health lobby group asked her to stop using the term schizophrenic as an insult, she fired off a column accusing them of being "word-morons".

Albrechtsen polarises her colleagues and receives mountains of hate mail (readers have called her everything from a "stupid bitch" to a "Nazi propagandist"). Left-wing politicians froth at the mouth when you mention her name. Former Labor leader Mark Latham described her as a "filthy hypocrite" and a "skanky ho who would die in a ditch to defend the Liberal Party". Greens leader Bob Brown told Fairfax's Jane Cadzow in 2005 that "nastiness is the hallmark of her writing".

But the opinionista seems genuinely bemused when The Power Index asks her why she gets up so many people's noses.

"Maybe it's the tone of my writing," she suggests. "Some people say I write like a man – whatever that means."

read more: http://www.thepowerindex.com.au/megaphones/janet-albrechtsen

 

No Janet, the tone of your writing is not manly, it's just that what you say is plain old fashioned ballsy bullshit ... Nine times out of ten you make things up and you wonder why you're hated so much... Actually, you don't wonder,  you know and you don't care: you're paid to be hated, so it's water on a duck's back. Your name is on the top list of people with an opinion... So there!

We're still ignored, here... So you're top duck... But we really know how to cook ducks... Degreased first and slowly bake thereafter in a global warming oven...

 

 

Selective moral outrage of the media
WE don't pay for Alan Jones; we do pay for the ABC.
----------------------------
Of course this comment above coming from Janet Albrechtsen, a former board member of the ABC, is a low blow... 
Thus comes her analysis:
ALAN Jones did the wrong thing. No question. No qualifications. Even those who admire the 2GB broadcaster can admit that his comments about Julia Gillard's father at a private dinner held by Sydney University Young Liberals late last month were awful. So awful they don't bear repeating. They were personal. They were nasty. The comments diminished our national conversation.

The next instalment for this article for the Murdoch press is by pay-wall... Thank goodness... I am spared the infamy and the agony... Am I going to pay to read more shit from Janet?... Gotta be kidding... But there is a catch... the first paragraph from Janet seems actually well measured and thoughtful... Holy mackerels! ...
But do I smell a rat?... a big dead smelly rat? Am I a sucker being baited?... While the canning of Jones is done spectacularly, I have the underlying impression it's done with an olive branch ("even those who admire"... "private function"...)... See Jones is a friend of Albrechtsen... They bat for the same team, furiously, against the scientific concept of global warming...

"Selective moral outrage of the media"? Yes, I can see that's a canning with an olive branch...

 

So what do we make out of the next line: "We don't pay for Alan Jones, we pay for the ABC?"... This line does not appear on top of the article but on the front page of the blog, as a teaser... More like a slap in the face than a teaser... Coming from a person who prides herself to be a lawyer, this is crap.

 

I could leave it to your own mind to ferment like vinegar but that would be unfair without knowing where this comment comes from... Janet was once a director of the ABC board and directors do get PAID for the service... That's okay, no beef here...

 

Directors' Benefits
Directors are entitled to remuneration, expenses and insurance cover as set by the Remuneration Tribunal. They should ensure that all other material benefits received from the ABC by them, or their relatives or associates are disclosed to the Board. All contracts between Directors and the organisation should also be disclosed.
Thus Janet was getting paid to be a director of the ABC board... The directors are entitled to do what they see fit with the moneys, including throwing it into a charitable sand pit, but they get paid...

AND let's not be stupidly childish about it:  WE PAY for Alan Jones, whether we like or not...

Every time we buy something that is advertised on his show (or even advertised somewhere else for that matter) a small portion of our outlay goes towards PAYING Alan Jones... It may not be much, but daily as we buy stuff, say a fridge magnet from Harvey Norman or acquire a new Merc, it's far more than our eight or ten cent a day we pay for the ABC... Advertising products can cost up to half of the product itself... I am not going to go into the minutiae of the structure of the pricing of goods, including retail sales — though possibly I might make an exception later on, in another comment, about the carbon tax... YES, we pay for Alan Jones, even if we don't listen to him...

 

Meanwhile: 

 

Meanwhile I would like to know if the guests on Q & A, ABC TV are paid for their appearance (I know they get some accommodation and a small fee), though it does not really matter in the long run. What matters is that these guests are there not so much to contribute knowledge to the pool — but to bring controversy to the emotional fumes of the format... Janet has been a quietly fuming panellist on Q & A, quite a few too many times for my liking... 
So let's see the list of guests for next Monday:

 

 

Panellists
Monday, 8 October
Kate Ellis - Minister for Employment Participation
Christopher Pyne - Shadow Education Minister
Lindsay Tanner - Former Finance Minister
Nilaja Sun - American actor and playwright
Piers Akerman - Political commentator
-----------------------------

Let me start here by saying Christopher Pyne (an annoying devious little conservative) appears on Q & A every second day like a bad smell in a methane factory that adds mercaptan for us to detect the explosive gas... Pyne is an apologist for Alan Jones and a defender of the indefensible Tony Abbott... More could be said here apart from letting you know Pyne whines like a pain in the proverbial paradigm... My personal opinion.

Piers Akerman is also an apologist for Alan Jones... and a supporter of Tony Abbott... nuf said...

Lindsay Tanner is a grumpy wimp who puffs and huffs about knowing stuff — which he does and often does not — but he has an old unsettled grudge against Julia Gillard. His main gripe is the Labor party is like a chook without a head nor purpose... While in fact, the head is there pucking away at the grains and making sure that eggs are laid... Policies, whether we like them or not, are falling (carefully) in the egg basket. 

Kate Ellis works for Julia Gillard and she would say she is good to work for... "In Government Kate has worked to provide a genuine voice for young people and is passionate about the power of sport to strengthen communities, tackle the obesity epidemic and define Australia’s national identity. In her spare time she loves to cook, play netball and ‘attempt to keep her garden alive".

Nilaja Sun is an actress who "despite a lack of experience, worked with kids in the toughest schools of New York and realised how badly they needed her help..."

Good one. I feel better with her and Kate on the panel...
I suppose the discussion subjects are not going to revolve around gardening... and the biffo will be revolting around the usual crap from Pyne who tends to hoard the microphone and rudely interrupt guests who disagree with his narrow-cast prejudices...
But, by and large with the temperature in good old Sydney edging towards 33 degrees today, we're in for a summer scorcher. El Nino is coming back... I might have to recalculate the value for this year's average record temperature... From my previous guess of 0.3 to a 0.6 degree Celsius increase (average global warming increase is usually no more than 0.05)... I will leave this to the statisticians...

Meanwhile, Albrechtsen will strut out more porkies against the reality of global warming... Pity. If she'd changed her mind, she could become a force for the good side rather than being an ill passing wind.

 

Gus Leonisky

The Tories' response to Jones's slur on the Prime Minister's father was instructive. Yes, it was wrong, cruel and offensive, they agreed. Certainly good ol' Alan had gone a bit far this time. But would Tony Abbott think of boycotting his program? No, he enjoys talking to the audience. Will Jones be invited to address future Liberal gatherings? Why, of course.

Predictably, The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen tried to pin the furore on his media rivals, the ABC etc. ''The hysterical outrage aimed at Jones was, at least in part, fuelled by his effectiveness as a political commentator,'' she bleated.

Poppycock. As the Twittersphere showed, the outrage was genuine and widespread because his libel of the late John Gillard finally exposed the mountebank that dwells inside the tailored suits with those snazzy pink matching ties and hankies. Jones has poisoned the wells of our national debate for too long. From his dishonesty in the cash-for-comment scandal to his idiotic pronouncements on climate change, he has been an incubus on the body public, enriching himself all the while as he postures as the champion of Struggle Street. The advertisers who support him share the odium.

In his faux apology last Sunday, Jones contrived to compare himself with the Anzacs who stormed ashore at Gallipoli in 1915. He has no shame. Enough said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/prissy-shrieks-of-fear-and-loathing-20121005-274a2.html#ixzz28So8zwdN

The reason why we are seeing such a strong out-pouring of criticism against Jones (and while it is far from the lynch mob he sought to turn on me that day, it is what you might call a gleeful stacks-on) is because people love to see a bully taken down.

Jones uses his power to push his views, rally votes for his favoured politicians, and do an enormous amount of charity work. He also uses it to vociferously and mercilessly bully his opponents with violent language and ad hominem attacks.

Now we see a truly populist social media campaign challenge his power and call him out on his bitter hatred of women. It is manifesting real results, however short lived they may be. And Jones is - to use a vulgar phrase - absolutely losing his s***.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/the-startling-hypocrisy-of-alan-jones-20121008-278a9.html

-------------------

As mentioned on this site somewhere I forgot the position thereof (I write so much nasty crap here about Pyne — as anyone with intelligence should) Pyne has been doing his usual Monday night dog spew on Q & A - ABC TV...

 

That is to say defending the indefensible by blasting the Labor people making mileage out of Jones' unfortunate unrepeatable crap... Well-well, as if Pyne and his friends in the Liberal (CONservative) party would not make lengthy mileage out of someone who would give them a freebie?...

 

Pyne is the consumate hypocrite with a voice that is akin to the screech of chalk on blackboard — and he goes on and on and on and on and on... No Einstein here, just screech, and no-one can shut him up, not even himself, even when he has nothing to say he has not spewed already, which is 99 per cent of the time...

 

He is so enanoured with the sound of his own pitch and convinced about the hot stench of his turdy ideas that he talks and talks, repeating garbage with such confidence that he ends up mixing his Joneses — to which the Q & A host Tony Jones has to remind him that the topic is ALAN Jones not TONY... to which Pyne rehash from the start the same crap again to recap with more vigour with an adjustment of which Jones focus...

 

Ah the misery... And may I apologise to all the chalk and blackboards of the world for comparing their inert existence to the annoying vibrations of a prancing Pyne... Does he carry on talking garbage when he sleeps?

 

Just like Howard, Abbott has the numbers that really count

IT'S Monday, at about noon in a book store in Sydney's eastern suburbs. A 40-something woman places on the counter her credit card and a copy of the latest Quarterly Essay entitled Political Animal, The Making of Tony Abbott by David Marr...

The rest is beyond a pay-wall... but you don't have to be a genius to guess the rest...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/just-like-howard-abbott-has-the-numbers-that-really-count/story-e6frg7bo-1226472118146

------------------------

Sure, I can't disagree with Janet... Abbott has the votes (as of the last poll) to win the premiership... or the whatever he prance like a manic troll about... despite being the least favoured... But one cannot deny that Abbott does not know anything about numbers, about electricity bills and nothing about reality...

If that's what voters want to buy? Sure... I can't do much about it... Snake oil has been sold since day one, in heaven...

Tempting people with shit, telling them it's roses, is nothing new on this planet of the apes... and Howard was an experienced monkey at this caper...

May Tony's trousers fall off... Tony is an iddiott...

 

See toon and story at top...

 

 

THE Stalinist nature of the campaign against Alan Jones shows how weak Australia is at defending free speech.

The latest hit on the maverick broadcaster is a ruling by the Australian Communications and Media Authority that he must undergo “factual accuracy” training, and his radio station, 2GB, must institute procedures which impinge on its editorial independence.

Jones’ offence was to make an arithmetic error on three occasions in 2010 and 2011 about the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is produced by humans.

He said it was 0.001 per cent when the correct figure is 3 per cent. It was a stupid mistake, as he freely admits. He was castigated by Media Watch, corrected the error on air, and has provided the correct figure often since.

He made a mistake. His point remained valid, that carbon dioxide from natural sources makes up the vast majority and no carbon tax will curb it.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph

/comments/real_mistake_is_singling_out_jones_for_punishment/

--------------------------------

 

Miranda!!!?

Free speech? Defense of saying crap with the loudest voice... Sure... But that should not stop us from pointing out that what you are saying is crap.

 What you have just laid out is an opinion that does not hold water and YOU should go back to journo school with Jones... In fact Jones has corrected nothing — or not much... He still misunderstand (as you do) what global warming is about...

Jones did not make a "mistake"... His point is not valid. Since day one, he has been blabbing on about a subject in which he chose to pick the wrong figures... Where did he get the wrong figures? One is at a loss to find out, because he was very specific about his numbers. Jo Nova?... Ian Plimer?... Lord Monckton?... In broadcasting, one should make sure that whatever you spruik is at least as close to the reality as possible... And I admit on some occasion, Jones will investigate (or his team will investigate) with a certain degree of precision... 

On many subjects, Jones is wide off the mark DELIBERATELY.

Jones wants to mislead people, like you want to, because he has an agenda... Your agenda is to discredit the "global warming" theory. And you end up believing that global warming is crap because it's much easier than study 20,000 pages of Lagrangian equations with far more complex parameters than a pen and paper on which you can write crap as many times as you like. And like Jones you use all the emotional tricks in the books... The human subject of this line of comments is Janet Albrechtsen who, like you, push some weird and erroneous concepts when it comes to science... Why? Why?... Is your brief: "debunk the "climate change conspiracy", thus you believe there is a conspiracy?...

 

Let's say here that some of the conspirators, which I left out of previous articles on conspirators against the global warming theory, are people who call their little enterprise "The Lavoisier Group"... It's a trick. It's a con to associate themselves and their little unscientific values with one of the first analysts of the atmosphere... But we have moved on since Lavoisier... Our observations of this little planet and the solar system and the galaxy have increased many fold since Lavoisier's test tubes... 

We presently have an array of complex satellites, and precise instrumentation that can tell where your car is within ten metres — and that's only because the greater accuracy of this instrumentation is limited by design. The more accurate pinpointing accuracy is reserved for military purposes... And trust me they can read your number plates.... They can measure the rise of sea levels.

Sure you could argue that even with all this precise fantastic technology, we got it "wrong" when spying over Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.... Well this is where things are a bit twisted. For example the satellite data from Iraq showed not a single weapon of mass destruction. Not one... But this did not stop Powell to go to the United Nations with pictures of what he alleged were WMDs... The French and the Germans knew these pictures were true (they had the same from their own network of spy satellites) but the analysis was bogus — because they knew exactly what was there in the said location... And it was not factories of weapons of mass destruction... They knew the trucks were weather balloon launches...

In relation to global warming, the raw data is available and the theory of warming sticks to the raw data... It is not made to fit by hooks and crooks, like the Iraq bogus interpretations... It fits observation of other times such as in the study of the Vostok ice core samples and other samples... Experiments confirm with high degree of precision the values of warming and cooling in all the gases in the atmosphere. We know all this — including that CO2 and methane are warming gases. We know the various wobbles of the planet and the small vagaries of its orbit... 

We know that the NATURAL carbon cycle has oscillated between 180 and 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last million years or so. We know that we (humans) add 3 to 4 ppm of CO2 per annum in the atmosphere after discounting what has been absorbed by NATURAL processes. We ADD this EXTRA CO2 by burning fossil fuel and this has been going on since the "industrial revolution"... Presently, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is close to 400 ppm from a measured 175-200 ppm in the late 1890s. 

We know that the variation of temperature between 180 ppm and 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the order of 10 degree Celsius. The only thing that is amazing is that global temperature has not gone through the roof... yet...

There are mitigating factors, including the giant reserves of ice at the poles... Reserves of "cold" that observations tell us univocally are melting at an increasingly alarming rate... Other mitigating factors as mentioned on this site also induce an "elastic" lag time between cause and effect...

I talk to scientists in the "industry" of data collection... and believe me they are shitting in their pants... Unlike those scientists who have been jailed for failing to predict an "earthquake" (no-one can predict earthquakes, even if there are tremors — there are hundred of tremors daily globally under 3 in the Richter scale) these scientists can MEASURE that the earth's surface is warming up but they cannot predict with precision when the shit is going to hit the fan, though some indicators point at "soon"... 

Reducing (eliminating would be preferable) our "EXTRA" carbon footprint is essential in slowing the process. That some countries like the US are ignorant about global warming is not a point of reference for the rest of the world...

In some way we are all culprits in contributing to global warming... But even Australia's economy relies on fossil fuels and selling fossil fuels... The carbon tax has reduced our carbon footprint measurably. 

Come on, Miranda, get that thinking cap on you head and even if global warming is not mentioned in the bible, it's a better cert than Adam and Eve... A worrying cert nonetheless.

 

 

The perils of the Prime Minister's feminist fantasies
BY: JANET ALBRECHTSEN

IN an interview with women's magazine Marie Claire on sale today, Julia Gillard says her dream job outside politics is global philanthropist. Like so much of what the Prime Minister says, it sounds damn good but what it really means is far from clear.

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality segues into a deeper problem facing modern politics. Sounding good is too often used as a cheap and easy substitute for the harder yards of doing good.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-perils-of-the-prime-ministers-feminist-fantasies/story-e6frg7bo-1226511758423

----------------------------------

All this crap coming from Janet's poisoned nasty pen is not surprising... What is amazing is that she actually talks about Tony Detritus Abbott without realising it...

See:

"Sounding good is too often used as a cheap and easy substitute for the harder yards of doing good."

That's the definition of what Tony's crappy demagogy sounds like... He says what ill-educated narrow-minded people want to hear... especially without knowing what he talks about... 

At least Julia Gillard does not have a stupid faith to enforce her personal idea of goodness and she can smell a misogynist Tony ten mile away... Her actions come more often from the heart and her brain, even if one disagree with what she does... In the case of Tony Abbott, he learnt his behaviour at St John's College where most things come from arseholes behaving like arseholes... Nuf said.

 

Climate Change: Lessons From Ronald Reagan By CASS R. SUNSTEIN

THE re-election of President Obama, preceded by the extraordinary damage done by Hurricane Sandy, raises a critical question: In the coming years, might it be possible for the United States to take significant steps to reduce the risks associated with climate change?

A crucial decision during Ronald Reagan’s second term suggests that the answer may well be yes. The Reagan administration was generally skeptical about costly environmental rules, but with respect to protection of the ozone layer, Reagan was an environmentalist hero. Under his leadership, the United States became the prime mover behind the Montreal Protocol, which required the phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals.

There is a real irony here. Republicans and conservatives had ridiculed scientists who expressed concern about the destruction of the ozone layer. How did Ronald Reagan, of all people, come to favor aggressive regulatory steps and lead the world toward a strong and historic international agreement?

A large part of the answer lies in a tool disliked by many progressives but embraced by Reagan (and Mr. Obama): cost-benefit analysis. Reagan’s economists found that the costs of phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals were a lot lower than the costs of not doing so — largely measured in terms of avoiding cancers that would otherwise occur. Presented with that analysis, Reagan decided that the issue was pretty clear.

Much the same can be said about climate change. Recent reports suggest that the economic cost of Hurricane Sandy could reach $50 billion and that in the current quarter, the hurricane could remove as much as half a percentage point from the nation’s economic growth. The cost of that single hurricane may well be more than five times greater than that of a usual full year’s worth of the most expensive regulations, which ordinarily cost well under $10 billion annually. True, scientists cannot attribute any particular hurricane to greenhouse gas emissions, but climate change is increasing the risk of costly harm from hurricanes and other natural disasters. Economists of diverse viewpoints concur that if the international community entered into a sensible agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the economic benefits would greatly outweigh the costs.        

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/opinion/sunday/climate-change-lessons-from-ronald-reagan.html?hp&pagewanted=print

 

One of the major problem here is that our present civilisation is 99.9 per cent "EXTRA" carbon based — in our usage of fossil fuels. Thus we urgently need to find some alternative to our energy, manufacturing and tooling supplies. The problem raised with the ozone depletion were not negligeable, but nothing in comparison to the scale of dealing with global warming. 

 

We should send nanny packing as Danes have done

BY:JANET ALBRECHTSEN
From:The Australian December 19, 2012 12:00AM 50 comments

DANES love food. Good food. Unashamedly, delectably, rich, fatty food. Next week, on Christmas Eve, Danes - including my own relatives in Copenhagen - will gather around a table piled high with this kind of food. And this year they will celebrate with even more cheer than usual. Just in time for Christmas, the Danish government recently did something unusual. It said it would axe the country's fat tax.

This tiny slice of news from a tiny slice of a country is about a very big idea. It's about the need to check our tendency to introduce a law, a regulation, a rule to solve every apparent problem and to remove every conceivable risk. Concerned with obesity, the Danes reached for a tax to alter people's eating habits. Only problem is that the fat tax introduced its own set of new problems.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/we-should-send-nanny-packing-as-danes-have-done/story-e6frg7bo-1226539984710

-----------------------------------------------

 

Okay, okay... Good to know that Janet comes from the land of the "terrible" food, if my single experience counts... Stale bread and old dripping was not my concept of gourmet fare... And no I was not in prison, but in a restaurant... I am sure the Danes cook better than that.

In regard to taxes, one must consider, if my memory is correct, that Denmark was the first country in the world to introduce a GST under instruction from the world bank (which later pushed the concept to other countries to do the same — including Australia)... The Danish GST started at around 12 per cent?  (I forgot...)  Soon after, a few decimal points crept in the easy tax and soon it was 22 per cent. Now the GST in Denmark is 25 per cent on everything... Boom... A new tax is like installing a new tap for running water in Danishland...

On top of this, the income tax rate is oppressive... Adding a tax on fat food, sure can be a bit over the top and may have unrelated problems... but talking of the "Nanny State", the Danes are on top of the ladder... And they have their own royalty, unlike Australia where royalty is second hand...

Trying to compare Australia and Denmark is like comparing apples and oranges... Both are fruit, can make juice , etc but that's it... Mind you Denmark is a socialist country compared to the US or Australia for example...

And, dear Janet, the Danes ar working hard at cutting down their carbon emissions... Global warming, you know...

----------------------------------

from Wiikipedia

 

Denmark has a broad-reaching welfare system, which ensures that all Danes receive tax-funded health care and unemployment insurance. Denmark ranked the first in the European pensions barometer survey for the past two years, 2007 Europm the age of 65 receive 120% of their pre-retirement income in pension and miscellaneous subsidies.

According to newly revised statistics, Denmark had the world's highest tax level in 2005 and 2006, at 50.7% and 49.1% respectively and also held this position 1970-74 and 1993-95. These figures do not include income from ownership.

 

Denmark has considerable sources of oil and natural gas in the North Sea and ranks as number 32 in the world among net exporters of crude oil.[48] Additionally, Denmark is a long time leader in wind energy, and as of May 2011 Denmark derives 3.1% of its gross domestic product from renewable (clean) energy technology and energy efficiency, or around €6.5 billion ($9.4 billion).[49] It has integrated fluctuating and unpredictable energy sources such as wind power into the grid. Denmark now aims to focus on intelligent battery systems (V2G) and plug-in vehicles in the transport sector.

 

A value added tax of 25% is levied on the sale of most goods and services ( including groceries). The income tax in Denmark ranges from 42.9% to 63% ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark

See toon and story at top...

 

 

 

 

Less bogan a wise strategy
JULIA Gillard could learn a lot from a Danish drama about a female leader.

More Borgen, less bogan a wise strategy
BY: JANET ALBRECHTSEN
From: The Australian March 13, 2013

"I WOULD rather be a garbage collector than be in politics. It's a more honest way of dealing in dirt."

That line could have been one of the clever quotations that appear on the screen at the start of each episode of Borgen, a brilliant Danish political drama. Some episodes open with a few sharp words from Machiavelli's The Prince. Other times it's a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/more-borgen-less-bogan-a-wise-strategy/story-e6frg7bo-1226595919627

---------------------------

That's why Janet is Janet...  

Janet is one of the garbage writers for News Limited... A full-blown bogan with fake high-class manners and  high education that had not a single influence on lifting her understanding of real things of value —except sewer garbage which she knows everything about...

By the way, has anyone seen a brilliant Danish political drama?... Not me, yet... But then my European origin tells me that Janet lives in a kiddie sand pit the size of sand flats that lurks around Denmark... her Prince Hamlet still contemplating about committing suicide while looking at a skull of himself...

 

See toon and story at top... 

 

 

The Abbott government has appointed conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen and former deputy Liberal Party leader Neil Brown to the panel overseeing appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.

The four-person nomination panel, which is appointed by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, presents a shortlist of recommendations to the government when vacant ABC and SBS board positions arise.

Dr Albrechtsen and Mr Brown will serve alongside businessman David Gonski and former diplomat Ric Smith, whose terms expire next year.

Labor introduced a merit-based appointment process in 2011, which was aimed at depoliticising the ABC and SBS boards.

Advertisement

SBS has two vacant board positions - including the position of chairman - and the ABC has one vacant position.

Dr Albrechtsen, a columnist for The Australian and former lawyer, has previously derided the ABC as a "Soviet-style workers collective".

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/janet-albrechtsen-appointed-to-abc-and-sbs-board-appointments-panel-20140702-3b8rs.html#ixzz36IwwMOoX

See article at top...

 

 

Janet's effort yesterday was to chastise ICAC for taking a "top" prosecutor to task... Janet even suggested that ICAC be investigated... 

Well, without saying too much, Janet's views will end up with egg on her face — I mean a full dozen egg omelette.  ICAC has far more integrity than Janet could ever find in an anti-global warming manual...

Let it be said that this "top prosecutor subject" should be better left alone by journalists with opinionated opinions — let ICAC peel the layers of what it knows... and see.

I suppose Janet does not like ICAC for having exposed some of her mates, possibly part of the 10 Liberal (CONservative) politicians (or more — including some heavies in the party) having rorted the election funding but fudging provenance of cash... Don't worry, ICAC has also exposed that rorter Obeid and his acolytes... 

But Janet, I thought you had more sense than attacking ICAC without knowing what ICAC knows...

Stupid rant that is quite funny for being far off the mark...

 

 

The warming of the oceans due to climate change is now unstoppable after record temperatures last year, bringing additional sea-level rise, and raising the risks of severe storms, US government climate scientists said on Thursday.

The annual State of the Climate in 2014 report, based on research from 413 scientists from 58 countries, found record warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans, especially in the North Pacific, in line with earlier findings of 2014 as the hottest year on record.

Global sea-level also reached a record high, with the expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over the past two decades, the report said.

Scientists said the consequences of those warmer ocean temperatures would be felt for centuries to come – even if there were immediate efforts to cut the carbon emissions fuelling changes in the oceans.

“I think of it more like a fly wheel or a freight train. It takes a big push to get it going but it is moving now and will continue to move long after we continue to pushing it,” Greg Johnson, an oceanographer at Noaa’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, told a conference call with reporters.

“Even if we were to freeze greenhouse gases at current levels, the sea would actually continue to warm for centuries and millennia, and as they continue to warm and expand the sea levels will continue to rise,” Johnson said.

On the west coast of the US, freakishly warm temperatures in the Pacific – 4 or 5F above normal – were already producing warmer winters, as well as worsening drought conditions by melting the snowpack, he said.

 

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/16/warming-of-oceans-due-to-climate-change-is-unstoppable-say-us-scientists

 

This IMPORTANT news of course is something that many of my Liberal (CONservative) mates won't read... They don't believe it. They'd rather believe there is a family of leprechaun living in the flower-bed at the end of the garden or that the Queen has a divine right to rule. 

 

See toon and article at top...

 

 

Cynicism may well be the only rational response to reports that News Corporation is about to launch a “campaign” urging the world’s leading economies to embrace a target of net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

 

For decades, and particularly in Australia, the Murdoch organisation has been at the forefront of the opposition to action on climate change. To be sure, over the years outright scepticism about the science has changed to vague suggestions that those urging action are “alarmists”.

But the Murdoch press is one of the reasons that the climate issue has been so unmanageable for successive prime ministers.

The nature of the News Corporation “campaign” is not clear. The report in The Age suggested that dissenting voices among the notorious Murdoch mascots – such as Andrew Bolt – will be subject to limits “but not a muzzle”.

 

Meanwhile, speaking before the Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity on Monday, the boss of Sky News, Paul Whittaker, said it was not so much a campaign as “an exploration of a very complex issue”.

Sky News’ contribution would be a documentary, to be screened to coincide with the Glasgow climate change summit, focusing on “where we are in terms of current technology … I accept climate change is happening. The question is what is the solution and what is the cost.”

That reads as though from the same song-book as Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s recent response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Morrison said: “Technology changes everything! That is the game changer … that is why our approach is technology and not taxes to solving this problem.”

The shift to advocacy of net zero by 2050 comes after it has become clear that much more is needed, and much sooner, to avoid catastrophic consequences. Net zero by 2050 is now the minimalist, conservative position.

Nevertheless, this is a shift, and it says something about the nature and limitations of the power of the Murdoch organisation.

The campaign seems to be an explicit acknowledgement of something that on other occasions has been denied – that the organisation moves as one, in response to a single editorial “line” – though Whittaker suggested it was coming from the editors, not from the Murdochs.

 

But what many miss is that the nature of the organisation’s power has shifted over the last few decades. Many politicians have yet to catch up to this change.

In 2015, political scientist Rod Tiffen published a study of state and federal election results in which the Murdoch press had campaigned hard for one side. He concluded that “Rupert Murdoch’s capacity to influence the outcome declines with each passing election.”

 

This was partly the story of declining media influence more broadly, but also because News Corporation had a particularly ageing, conservative readership. Said Tiffen: “Among regular Murdoch readers, there may not be many more Labor voters left to convert.”

 

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/national/news-corp-s-shift-on-emissions-reveals-limitations-of-power-20210906-p58p4r.html

 

bigboss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read from top.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...