To the Federal Leader of the Opposition

A letter I just sent via links available here: http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/ and http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/ContactMalcolm/tabid/87/Default.aspx and http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/contact.asp and http://www.nationalswa.com/contact.aspx and http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/memfeedback.asp?id=SJ4 (The Hon Wilson Tuckey MP's website) and no doubt more to follow. The version I sent to Dr Jensen was prefixed with:

"Dear Dr Jensen. Sorry to read what has just happened to you re: pre-selection, particularly considering your views regarding AGW Alarmism. I do hope you continue with the good fight in that regard, either with the Liberal Party or as an Independent. I submitted the following note to the Liberal Party webpage and Malcolm Turnbull's webpage this morning because I am very much concerned by the direction that the Coalition seems to be going in relation to the typical AGW alarmist position and the Rudd & Wong "ETS". Also, because of Mr Turnbull's stance and recent decisions I find that I can no longer speak of the Liberal Party in good terms while he remains its leader and in support of any kind of ETS. Letter is as follows, and thank you for your time:"

To the Federal Leader of the Opposition. In every election over the last 27 years I have voted for either the Liberal party or the Coalition, either directly or via preferences but mostly the former. I will be unable to continue this trend in the next election should the Liberal party continue in anyway to support the alarmist nonsense and fraud that is "man made climate change", CO2 being "a pollution", and any kind of "Emissions Trading Scheme" related to CO2. Instead, I will be supporting candidates who demonstrate climate change realism, which at the moment seems to only be the Family First party. Yes, the climate is changing, it has always changed, and it continues to change, and atmospheric CO2 levels always lag behind global temperature changes and not lead them ... and regardless of mankind's pitiful contributions to the same. Besides, when it comes to atmospheric CO2 levels, the planet is virtually starving for the stuff anyway, and would benefit by actually being doubled or more. Make no mistake. If the blogs and forums are anything to go by, there are a lot of longstanding typical coalition supporters out there who will be casting their votes elsewhere unless the Liberal party soon chooses to admit to the folly of AGW ("manmade global warming) and associated fraud of an ETS, and instead adopt a unified Climate Change Realist position that is contrary to the kind of disaster the ALP (let alone The Greens) are trying to inflict upon Australia. Also, don't under estimate the power of "the internut" in terms of reaching people and shaping public opinion. At the moment, it would appear that KRudd and Co are continuing to use it far more effectively that the Coalition. Personally, I think you will find that if you decisively establish policy that not only opposes the ALP's "ETS" but also rigourously demands answers to the kinds of questions Senator Fielding recently asked on the topic, and made it all very public, then the Australian Public would overwhealmingly support your party. The average voting age Ozzie can sniff out BS from 50 paces and most of us probably know by now that there is something distinctly fishy about the whole AGW Alarmist thing and that to implement an ETS would be to put the country and economy through a hiding for nothing, so with that in mind it would be quite foolish to do a "me too" to what Rudd and Wong want to inflict upon us. As a blogger and prolific forum participant I will be continuing to warn against AGW Alarmism and an ETS, and similarly will be denouncing any and all political parties who support those scams. In fact, this very letter is also about to be posted to my own blog and a highly google referenced forum, and I will also be supplying it by way of comment to the PM's new blog on the topic of climate change. I firmly believe that how your party chooses to approach the (Natural) Climate Change topic will directly affect your chances at the next election. To merely support or echo the ALP postion will render you irrelevant, but should you choose to take a stand against the Alarmist hysteria and nonsense, you could not only be returned to Government but also save Australia from ruin. Thank you for your time. regarDS (name included)

Indulging my carbon offset nipples !

"Today I ...", in the "offline world", got to share a social occasion at "Little Creatures" in Freo with somebody who (if I understood the job title correctly) earns their bread and butter by not only supporting and promoting the Grand Lie of AGW/MMCC (Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man Made Climate Change), but also via the Great Fraud/Scam of our era, "Carbon Trading".

We had only known each other for prolly less than 5 minutes when The Discussion got underway, and all because LSCP ("LifeStyle Choices Partner" for those who have come in late) asked him what he did for a living and he foolishly answered "Carbon Management".

Can you image my glee and the tingle induced to my erogenous zones upon hearing such a thing ?

At one stage we had to turn things back down to about 11 (refer to The Amp on "This is Spinal Tap" ) coz he didn't like me talking about public funded professional scare-mongerers Karoly and Flim-Flannery in disparaging terms.

By the time I got to drop the name "Andrew Bolt" at our drinking table (the great names of James Delingpole and the award winning science blog "wattsupwiththat.com" already having been mentioned), my warmista drinking companion was calling me "satan" and I was calling him "gullible". :-) 

LSCP's take on the evening is that this poor fellow just simply could not believe that I was serious in my rejection of the mythical "consensus" he Truly Believed in, along with the utterly failed hypothesis of global climate change being caused by levels of atmospheric CO2, let alone mankind's pitiful contributions to the near to starvation (for flora) levels of atmospheric CO2.

To be fair and on the flip side, I just simply could not believe he was serious when he suggested that the quality of life I was enjoying thanks to relatively cheap energy generated by plant-food creating coal, could not possible be making me happy and that I would actually prefer to live without all those wonderful things cheap energy brings me.

My LSCP's view was that he thought I musta been just taking the p!ss, even though I said I had been part of a grass-roots letter writing movement that produced over 400,000 items of corro to pollies about the nation and that in turn helped see Malcolm Turncoat ousted as Liberal Party leader which in turn saw KRudd, Killard (so renamed because of her "roll out the red carpet to queue jumping economic opportunists" border control policies that has seen who knows how many wannabe illegal immigrants drown at sea), Turncoat, and Penny Wrong's ETS/CPRS stopped in its tracks.

Anyhoo, twas all fun (well, from my POV), nobody lost an eye, and I just had to LOL at his end of the evening compliment to me of "they say satan always takes an appealing guise".

I told him to put "derspatz" into google or "Hitler" + "AGW" into youtube. ;)

Actually, it has been a while, so here again is my take on Hitler's reaction to Briffa's Yamal tree ring data and all it implied.

I'll only include the youtube link because for some strange reason embedding mucks up the captions.

See: http://www.youtube.com/embed/cTGLpqFGyYM

... and for good measure, here is a favorite youtube of mine from the "JollyGreenWatchman":  http://www.youtube.com/embed/-esLrrqGKkE (linked coz of caption issues when embedding)

Anyhoo, cheers, ummm, "Gullible" (name changed to protect the identity of a modern day peddler of what is akin to the useless Roman Catholic "Indulgences" ala "permissions to sin" system of old :-)), it was all fun, and I'm sure that lump of cow you ate for dinner was raised a vegetarian.  :-) :-) :-)

Oh, and on the subject of carbon trading, here is an idea that might even tempt this little so called "satan":

OTOH, going to bed for money is called prostitution isn't it ?

Oh, and here is yet another youtube I found interesting. All about the Bias of the BBC (much like Oz's "ABC") and "The Guardian" (much like Oz's "The Age"), particularly in relation to the Big Lie of our era, "Man Made Climate Change".

Enjoy. :-)

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO63oWe6XXo

My parting comment today is something I informed a iPad carrying drone for Bono's "One" activist/fake charity group at a 360 degrees concert late last year.

"Left wing politics is the problem, not the solution"

Something which painfully apparent here in Oz at the moment.

regarDS

A minor win in the war on stupidity and fraud that is AGW Alarmism and ETS.

On the 13th of August, 2009, a minor skirmish in the war on gross stupidity and outright fraud was won when the PRO-Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist Government had its CO2 indulgence scheme ala "CPRS" voted down.

Featured below is a speech from one of the voices of reason who voted against the Government's ruinous plans for Australia. Please note that all paragraph breaks and bold (etc) emphasis, have been added by yours truly. The speech in its original form was not provided with paragraph breaks so I've had to guess where they may have been.

To see it in its original format, visit: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

Tuesday, 11 August 2009
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
Tuesday, 11
August 2009 THE SENATE 1
CHAMBER SPEECH
Date Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Source Senate
Page 70 Proof Yes
Questioner Responder
Speaker
Minchin, Sen Nick Question No.

Senator MINCHIN (South Australia) (7.32 pm)—

The government this week are asking the Senate to support passage of a package of no less than 11 separate bills, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills, to give effect to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, as they call it.

This scheme represents one of the most dramatic and far-reaching interventions into the Australian economy ever proposed by an Australian government. Its passage and entry into force would have enormous impacts on the Australian economy and the economic circumstances of millions of Australians.

The government knows there is no Senate majority for this legislation, yet it is determined on what is nothing more than a cynical political exercise. This legislation should be withdrawn for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it proposes a scheme which will not commence operation for another two years. There is absolutely no justification for the government’s insistence that the parliament deal with it now.
Secondly, the government is seeking to legislate an emissions trading scheme for Australia well in advance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen in December, which will determine the extent to which, if any, the world is prepared to act in concert on CO2 emissions. It is utter folly for Australia to legislate a scheme prior to the Copenhagen conference.

And, thirdly, the United States, currently the biggest emitter, is currently considering the issue of an ETS. It is, in our view, cynically irresponsible to propose that the Australian parliament lock in an Australian ETS prior to the US —as I said, the biggest emitter of CO2—before it determines whether or not it will commit to an ETS and, if so, the nature and design of such a scheme. For these reasons, the opposition condemns the government for its naked political opportunism in forcing the parliament to consider its so-called CPRS at this time.

Not only is the timing of this legislative initiative to be condemned, so too should the very name given to this package of legislation be condemned by this parliament. It is regrettably typical of this spindriven government to use such a grotesquely Orwellian approach to the description of this legislation.

For no more than base political purposes, the government has called its emissions trading scheme a ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’. This is of course the perpetuation of a cruel hoax on the Australian people, childishly simplistic and misleading. The scheme proposed does not deal with carbon. It purports to deal with something quite separate—carbon dioxide emissions—and the scheme does not deal with pollution.

Whatever the climatic role of human induced emissions of CO2, CO2 is not by any stretch of the imagination a pollutant. CO2 is, as we know, a clear, odourless, colourless gas vital to life on earth. Indeed, CO2 is essential to a healthy environment.

One of the most cynical and deceptive manoeuvres of the climate change fanatics is to seek to convince people that CO2 emissions are pollution, to demonise CO2 per se. Anyone with any understanding of science knows this to be a complete falsehood. Indeed the Rudd government knows it too. Its own environment department’s website has a link to the official Australian National Pollutant Inventory, which lists 93 pollutants. Surprise, surprise, carbon dioxide is not listed among them. Mind you, after this speech, I bet some poor public servant will be bullied into adding CO2 to the list. So even the government’s own official list of pollutants, all 93 of them, does not include carbon dioxide.

It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.

I want to commend Senator Fielding for his questioning of the government over the causes of global warming. The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century.

No-one, of course, disputes the reality of climate change. Of course the climate is constantly changing —it always has; it always will—but the main drivers of the small degree of warming that occurred in the 20th-century and the extent to which we should be concerned about it are hotly disputed in scientific circles.

One of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, Professor Richard Lindzen of the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently observed:

"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing."

That is Professor Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s most eminent atmospheric scientists, who I suspect knows a little bit more about this subject than Senator Penny Wong. On Tuesday, June 23, writing in the Australian, Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at Flinders University, in Adelaide, reinforced this:

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

I fear that many supporters of this view have become carried away by the euphoria of mass or dominant group psyche. Scientists are no more immune from being swayed by the pressure of collective enthusiasm than any other member of the human race.
To acknowledge the reality of continuing scientific debate is not to say that Australia should not act in concert with other nations to give the planet the benefit of the doubt and to seek a global agreement to contain CO2 emissions. To the extent that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may be a cause of the limited global warming that has occurred, and to the extent that that warming is considered to be damaging, internationally coordinated measures to contain emissions at the least possible cost may be warranted.

Indeed, as someone trained in economics, I proclaim the virtue of an approach based on ensuring the most cost-efficient use of finite resources. The world has not measured up to that standard in relation to its use of energy. But, given the continuing scientific debate, it is especially important that a country like Australia only take steps in relation to CO2 emissions that are in concert with the rest of the world and clearly involve the least cost and most economically efficient means of CO2 containment.

The government’s CPRS clearly fails that test. The case against this scheme was convincingly made by my colleague the member for Goldstein, Mr Robb, in his speech on this bill in the House of Representatives. I also commend the work of my coalition colleagues on the Economics Legislation Committee in their reports on these bills and of Senator Xenophon on his minority report, which is a well-argued condemnation of this CPRS. I should also make mention of the critical analysis of this CPRS undertaken by the Select Committee on Climate Policy, chaired by my colleage Senator Colbeck, which exposed the CPRS’s many, many flaws.

Not enough is made of the reality of Australia’s circumstances in the consideration of measures to contain anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible.

The manic determination of the government to impose this scheme on Australia also ignores the reality of the Australian economy. Australia’s economy and our higher standard of living have been built upon our access to relatively cheap and abundant supplies of energy generated by coal-fired power stations. This is regrettably not well understood in this parliament let alone in the wider community.

It was my privilege to serve as Minister for Industry, Science and Resources for three years in the Howard government, an experience which reinforced this fundamental reality about Australia: all the great manufacturing and value-added industries of Australia, which this Labor government professes a commitment to, have been built on and are sustained by access to cheap, reliable energy derived from coal. That is why an ETS, essentially an energy tax, is such a threat to this country.

As Terry McCrann so accurately said in the Australian of 20-21 June: ... an ETS threatens to kill the Australian economy. It is a direct attack on our core comparative advantage: bluntly, the production of CO2. Power generated from cheap and abundant coal is a, perhaps the, core building block of both our standard of living and our entire economy.

That is a reality which this government wilfully ignores. What we see here is a Labor government sacrificing workers in energy-intensive industries on the altar of green votes. The cruel joke is that all those thousands of jobs to be destroyed by Labor’s CPRS will be in vain, because this scheme will make absolutely no difference to the global climate.

Most Australians clearly do not understand what an emissions trading scheme is, how it would work and what its consequences would be. That is perfectly understandable. I suspect most of the Labor caucus has no idea, either. Essentially it will be a very substantial tax on energy, and that is why Labor’s flawed CPRS is such a threat to our economy, dependent as it is on relatively cheap supplies of energy. Hence the utter folly of Australia designing and implementing this scheme ahead of the rest of the world.

Labor’s CPRS is a serious threat to many regional economies and the jobs they support, and I commend Senator Fiona Nash for her eloquent espousal of their cause. In my own state of South Australia it is estimated that it will cost 2,000 jobs by 2020 in the minerals industry alone. As a senator for South Australia, I do not see how I can possibly vote for this legislation, nor do I see how any government senators representing South Australia can vote for it.

While the financial capitals of Melbourne and Sydney may relish the creation of a new financial instrument to be traded by 20- something bankers, the people of a state like mine will pay the price in a higher cost of living, in industries and jobs destroyed and in a reduction in competitiveness — all for zero environmental gain.

It is also reprehensible that Labor would seek to legislate this serious attack on the Australian economy at a time when, as Mr Rudd constantly reminds us, we face a very serious set of economic circumstances. Mr Rudd loves to remind us of the seriousness of the so-called GFC and its threat to Australia. Indeed, it is his justification for the most massive explosion in government spending, government deficits and government debt seen since the 1930s. Yet, while talking endlessly about our serious economic situation, he seeks to fit Australia up with a set of concrete boots called his CPRS.

As Geoff Carmody, one of Australia’s most eminent economists, wrote in the Financial Review on 23 June this year: The CPRS is ‘the GST from hell’, delivering negative protection. Why should any country unilaterally tax its exports and effectively subsidise its imports, for no global emissions reduction?

At a time when policy should be wholly directed at maximising the efficiency, productivity and international competitiveness of the Australian economy, Mr Rudd seeks to impose a unilateral massive new tax on Australian industry and consumers which will damage our economy and do nothing to combat global warming.

The government’s pursuit of this legislation at this time is nothing more than an act of vanity on the part of Mr Kevin Rudd. This most vain of prime ministers wants to strut the stage at Copenhagen in December with a legislated ETS in his back pocket. He and his government propose to sacrifice Australia’s national interest on the altar of his vain desire for international acclaim from the vast UN bureaucracy being built around climate change policy.
The Australian parliament should not even be considering legislation for an ETS until we know the outcome of the UN’s Copenhagen conference and the US Senate’s consideration of the Waxman - Markey bill. The Australian people agree with this view. An Australian Newspoll conducted on the weekend of 24 to 26 July showed that 53 per cent of Australians wanted their government to either delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until after the Copenhagen conference or not introduce an emissions trading scheme at all.

On that basis, and for the reasons I have outlined to the Senate tonight, I urge the Senate to reject this package of bills.

Hear, hear.

regarDS

Get Up Stand Up, GetUp! for your Lefts ...

Just when I thought I could put the circle-jerking Fanatical Religious Zealots over at Whirlpool's "ILCF" (ISP Level Content Filtering) forum thread in a blog thread all but itself (see the "derblatz" link) and leave it out of this one, they go and bring a whole new level of scary and disturbed comedy to the stage ... stuff so internutty that I can deem it worthy of a rant in here.

Hang on to your noses coz this is gonna get a little more offensive than usual. :)

As you may have realised, I've found the "waa, waa, waa"ing going on among the aforementioned quite fascinating. I mean, who couldn't help but be amused by a whole bunch of folk going "Teh Governet is out to enslave the nation and take away free speech, it is Hitler and Stalin and Mao all over again" (always funny to hear Gen-XYZers say that !) when at best the unlikely reality is that all of a sudden they may have to start paying instead of saying "Thank you for the music, the songs I'm stealing" or the movies they are "pirating", as well as face the prospect of having to get through a few more layers of conscience in order to click one handed through the kind of online material that their Grandmas, Mothers, Wives, Girlfriends, Sisters and Daughters would probably most wish did not even exist in the first place, let alone that their grandkids, dads, husbands, boyfriends and brothers were encouraging its continued development and proliferation along with all the heartache, degradation, disrespect and even slavery it brings !

Ok, I exaggerated. I realise the Gen-XYZers aren't necessarily big on "thank you"s ...

Anyway, these forever plugged in lifeless worshippers of "The Internut" who deem it to be the sacred cow of our age as well as unimaginatively consider it "the last bastion of free speech" want the likes of you and I to think that they have our best interests at heart by trying to PREVENT suitable and justifiable national rating and control of internut/online content as it is done in The Real World where all the Real Living is done.

Yeah right ... get your sticky hands off it - we all know who you really are thinking of; you're not fooling anyone other than yourselves if you really believe that.

So what are these fanatical virtual anarchists up to now ? Well it seems that there is no loathsome low to go to when it comes to the situation of maintaining the link between The Addict and The Supply/Poison. They've now reached the stage where they are haplessly handing over cash to an Oz organization that is so Radically-Extreme-Yet-Carefully-Camouflaged-Left that they make the Evil Lefty Greens look like die Hitler-Jugend !

But Of Course I am referring to "GetUp!". If you've not heard of them before, the "GetUp!" stands for "Greenie Environmentalist Terrorists Undermining Peace!" though they would never tell you it stands for that ... but Der Apfel fällt nicht weit vom Baum, ja?

This gaily painted sinister lobbying group casts the combined shadow of every Lefty political party you could imagine, including those yet to be spawned from whatever Bog of Eternal Stench it is that continually manages to foist such wrongness upon common humanity.

Think of every issue and controversy that divides Oz and you will find the GetUp! crowd busy lobbying in favour of those on the WRONG side of the division and working towards making things even WORSE for Oz than it already is.

This unsavoury mob not only worked hard spending conned, uh, donated coin to put Kevin747 into Government at the last Federal Election, but also had the favour gratefully returned by being allocated no less than an alleged ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN SEATS in KRudds own little circle-jerk involving the ridiculous and highly unrepresentative "Summit of 1000 Best And Brightest Brains".

HA and BAH !

With so much "Left" on the collection of 1000 chattering useless clueless noses in the publicly funded trough, nongs, it is no wonder our nation is rapidly being reduced to going around in circles ... having one leg shorter than the other tends to do that, but I digress.

So what are the ingredients of this cake half baked ?

On one hand we have a bunch of internut worshipping freeloaders worried about having to pay for supply and Do The Right Thing for a change, and on the other we have a shady organization with the typical Loony Lefty Left agendas always pragmatically happy to relieve the naive of their coin and raise their lobbying profile at the same time by associating themselves with popular faddish causes likely to get media attention.

Real "Cake and Eat it too" stuff ... and history tells us what usually happens to THOSE types.

Oh, I should mention that because they are a political lobbying group, thankfully the coin fleeced from the seduced desperate special interest groups that sustain and sponsor their true evil causes, is not tax deductible - so it isn't ALL bad.

So what is going to be the likely outcome of all this ILCF hoohaa ?

What is going to be the likely result of the GetUp! marriage to the ugly useless bride once the dowry runs out ? A dowry that could be much better spent in so many other ways and places ?

(ah, but this ain't about charity or taking care of the needy - this is about maintaining a mainline connection to The Drug !)

Oh, who cares ... fools and their money are always soon parted and there are a million and one more interesting things to be involved in out there.

Some even via the Internut here and there ...

Anyway, to paraphrase one Captain Oates, a truly noble and brave soul (as opposed to moi), "I am just going offline and may be some time".

All this online madness is prompting me for some overdue DownTime along with a Reality Check, so I'm out to explore life offline for a while.

Oh yeah, just in case I don't pop back in here before next year, deem a Merry Bah Humbug and Happy Saturnalia to you too. :)

Keep it Real and if not, don't be too internutty ...

regarDS

Woe minority me ... (grin)

Well folks, it looks like I'm going to be the member of a minority for the next three years.

Who wants to be the first to persecute me ?

Before I ramble on, I must say "Well done Mr Howard" and "Congratulations Prime Minister Rudd."

I got more or less what I expected with this Federal Election result as this following message posted elsewhere earlier in the week shows. I also got at least one unexpected bonus.

StartOfQuote (SOQ)
"You voted for all sorts of right wing parties and religious nut jobs; Why did you leave One Nation out?"

Because I didn't vote for extreme right wing parties and religious nut jobs. I voted for what I believe is best for Oz citizens as based upon historical knowledge of "what works" and nearly always so.

"One nation" isn't (best for Oz citizens). Which is why they are down so far on my list, along with the "Socialists" and the "Citizen Electoral Council" (the Larouche mob who hijacked the "Global Warming Hoax" thing on TV the other month) and But Of Course, the "Climate Change Coalition".

"One other question, how on Earth do you honestly think that voting in such a way would lead to "an Oz Government that isn't too much one way or another." ?"

Because despite the majority views of 64% of Oz citizens who claim to be "Christian", coupled with a few more % points of folk of other monotheistic religions, I believe that tall-poppy syndrome among other things is going to see a swing against the Coalition.

A swing that might even be enough to see a change of Government.

In view of that likely swing, I have given my vote to ensure that the pendulum doesn't swing too far the wrong way.

Thus, I'll be happy with either a tiny win for the Coalition or a tiny loss (but preferably a win) but I certainly don't want the Coalition to win by a landslide ... or any other party.

I'm hoping for a balanced and Centrist kind of Government, and all extremists and extremist parties given the public snubbing they deserve.
EOQ

As per a "politics test" result that you can take here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test I am revealed to be near enough to "Centrist".

Which is in fact the result this election has just delivered. A somewhat Centrist Labor government which hasn't won by all that much, leaving things around about to the centre.

The unexpected bonus for me is the fact that the Oz Demoncrats are all but exinct as a party and soon to be no more. Hallelujah.

Now if only the same can be managed for the Evil Extreme Greens then my dreams will have come true. Maybe next election (when the Coalition will probably be returned by the many Oz citizens who will be impatient to correct the mistake they made today), huh ?

Lots of Postal and Early Votes still to be counted so it will be a little while before the dust settles and we get to see what sort of Senate we have now. I expect certain Independents will have a degree of control despite the unfortunate presence of the Evil Extreme Greens.

It appears that Prime Minister Rudd's new cabinet will be up against a hostile Senate until at least the middle of 2008 anyway. I wonder if by then the long knives will have come out to depose Too-Right'n'Nice-To-Be-Labor Prime Minister Rudd for the likes of "That Gillard Woman" or worse.

It was both fascinating and scary to see all the fists being thrust into the air when Prime Minister Rudd made a comment in his acceptance speech about Trade Unions. Yup, I can see the unions soon living up to the "We're coming back" promise, with the more lazy and thuggish of them (both officials and members) soon spoiling things for everyone in Oz, and spoiling Oz in terms of its place in the World Market.

Aside from that, it is like a weight lifted from my shoulders as I realise that I am on a holiday from any kind of blame as to what happens to our country over the next three years.

So THIS is what it is like to be part of a minority !

Wow, I'm surprised more folk don't make such a choice (re: joining a minority). Oh the freedom to be able to merely shrug and say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them" and "You've made your bed, now lay in it" and "Since you weren't prepared to listen, perhaps you will learn by your mistake instead and seek to correct it at first opportunity and never repeat it again." and other such smug and sanctimonious and annoying statements. (grin)

Ah, I think I'm going to enjoy this little break.

I wonder how many days it will be before the first "I told you so" will be warranted, and months before the first corruption type scandal will be making headlines ?

regarDS

"Baby Boomers", Natural Climate Change and the Extreme Greens

"... is this why the baby boomers appear to worship greed and don't seem to give a frig about climate change? It's all your problem kids, we won't be around for it."

My response to such a question is:

No, it is more a case of a majority of "baby boomers" having a better upbringing and education and being able to see straight through much of the propaganda regarding the fear campaign in relation to what in fact is natural climate change.

It also follows that the majority of "baby boomers" have also been better equipped to realise that lefty minority groups are prepared to lie about the natural and mostly beneficial process of climate change in insidious attempts to swing undeserved power their way so they can stamp their control and extremist policies upon the rest of the world.

Just like they are always trying to do.

The Greens are the worst kind of political extremists because essentially they lack any tried and true foundation to their morality and thus their policies. They are their own slaves to the subjective morality they choose to live by and unfortunately also fanatically fundamentalist enough to deem such a bankrupt approach to morals and ethics as something EVERYONE should be living by and so campaign and policy build accordingly.

Thus, the likes of The Greens prove themselves to not only be the enemies of humankind but also poisoners of innocence, and thus arguably the very soul of humanity.

regarDS

Values Checklist published in "The Weekend Australian"

The following chart was published in "The Weekend Australian" for the weekend of the 17th and 18th of November, the week before the Oz Federal Election.

http://derspatz.googlepages.com/07valus1.pdf

And here is a follow up document that expands on each of the questions/views and why each party was marked as it was.

http://derspatz.googlepages.com/07valus2.pdf

What is glaringly clear from the chart published in "The Weekend Australian" and well supported by the followup document, is just how bad and hostile the likes of "The Australian Demoncrats" and "The Greens" are in relation to not only the standard family unit, decency/standard morality, and both the general and spiritual welfare of the majority of Australians, but also how bad and hostile they are towards what are probably the majority views of the entire planet on such things.

Did I say "bad" ? By bad I mean "evil". :-)

It would appear the the Demoncrats and Greens want to have public funded IVF for singles and homosexuals whilst allowing them to change their minds and abort the children at will (again on public coin), give non-elected laywers and judges authority over laws put together by Governments elected by the people for the people in order to lock in "rights" re: IVF, etc, make it harder for families to send their children to schools that teach values which are at odds with their plainly luciferic left wing ideaologies and make it harder for schools they disagree with to discriminate against teaching job applicants who are clearly unsuitable on moral and spiritual grounds, make it easier for one and all to be exposed and inundated with pornography and to continue with a herion addiction (no need for injecting rooms if naltrexone was administered to all addicts anyway), and to "top it off" (and since they are all about killing off the yet to be born who don't actually want to be painfully killed), legalise the "voluntary" killing off of our aged and sick, etc, oh, and get lots of babies gestating so they can be aborted and used for research and cellular spare parts.

The policies, goals and aims of the Oz Demoncrats and The Greens parties are plainly evil, evil, evil, for they stand directly opposed to virtually everything held as typically holy to "The People of the Book" (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as well as many other religions.

Thus, the Oz Demoncrats and Greens show who they really are working for and whose kingdom they are about trying to establish, and it is quite plain that it isn't a civilisation that wil be known for such things as righteousness, love, charity and the traditional family unit with traditional family values that all through history have proven time and time again to be a major key to the success and prosperity of a people and culture.

No, what the Oz Demoncrats and Greens are about is speeding our nation even faster into ruin and degradation and creating a people to whom the only thing is sacred is their right to do anything they please whenever they please to whomever they please ... particularly when it comes to the unborn or old and infirm.

And the sad thing is that Labor isn't all that different to the Oz Demons n Greens when it comes to the aforementioned concerns.

Please keep that in mind when you go to vote on the 24th of November.

regarDS