Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Steve Fielding doesn't believe in man made climate change

Steve Fielding is exactly the sort of fellow who drives the left mad.

A strong believer in god, Fielding
does not believe in man made global warming which at first blush seems contradictary, as they are both religious positions but makes sense if you compare it to his believing in Christianity but not Islam.
Family First senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on climate change - the world is not warming now, and humans aren't changing the climate.

The government and the country's top scientists have tried to convince Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial vote in the upper house, that global warming is real.

But he's released a document setting out his position.

"Global temperature isn't rising," it says.

On emissions trading, Senator Fielding said he wouldn't risk job losses on "unconvincing green science".

The document says it is a "fact" that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

Senator Fielding later sought to clarify his position, saying he believed in global warming, but he did not think the world was warming now and did not think humans were causing global warming.

"Over the last 15 years, global temperatures haven't been going up and, therefore, there hasn't been in the last 15 years a period of global warming," Senator Fielding told AAP.

"I think that global warming is real, and climate change is real, but on average global temperatures have stayed steady while carbon emissions have increased over the last 15 years.

"Man-made carbon emissions don't appear to be causing it."

Because of the numbers in the upper house, Senator Fielding's verdict means the government will have to rely on the opposition to get its emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation passed.
I was with Steve Fielding a couple of months ago and politely asked him to defeat the emissions trading scheme, which would allow Australia to avoid having its economy ruined for no good reason.

He responded that he didn't think he had the power.

Perhaps he sought advice from a higher power and has been rewarded?

Whatever the case may be if the emissions trading scheme is nobbled then Australia will have dodged a bullet.

(Nothing Follows)

Monday, 22 June 2009

Sarkozy is right to abhor the burqa

Good on Sarkozy for having the balls to say what too many of today's multi-culti cowards will not.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says the Muslim burqa is a sign of subservience for women that undermines their dignity.
For clarity. This is a burqa:

And for the nitwits who think a hijab and a burqa are basically the same thing here's the difference:

Mr Sarkozy made the comments during a historic address in a special sitting of both houses of the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles.

For more than a century, French presidents have been banned from speaking directly to Senators and MPs.

The argument has always been that parliament should preserve its independence from the president but Mr Sarkozy changed the rules.

That was controversial enough, but perhaps not as controversial as what he used the address for: stating that the burqa was an affront to women.

"The burqa is not a sign of religion. It is a sign of enslavement. It is a sign of subservience," he said.
Exactly correct. There are few greater symbols of oppression than the burqa. It's up there with the swastika, the hammer and sickle and the KKK insignia.
The French leader spoke in favour of a recent call by 65 French MPs to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full body religious garment in France.

"I want to say officially, it will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," he said.

"We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind netting; cut off from any social life, deprived of any identity.

"This is not the idea the French republic has of a woman's dignity."

Some parliamentarians boycotted Mr Sarkozy's historic speech, dismissing the President's address as nothing more than a public relations stunt.

But Mr Sarkozy struck a chord among the French population, who voted overwhelmingly in favour of his centre right UMP party in the recent European elections.

The head of European research at the Global Policy Institute at the London Metropolitan University, Jacques Reland, is a keen observer of French politics.

"I think a lot of people in France feel really ill at ease with the burqa," he said.
I went to the local shopping mall on the weekend and there was a woman dressed in a burqa. It is a confronting sight. How it can be defended as a personal choice when it's clearly not is yet another sign of the cognitive dissonance of the left.
"I am pretty sure that a lot of French people are saying yes, [what Mr Sarkozy said] is the way it should be."

Sarah Joseph is the editor of Britain's only Muslim lifestyle magazine, emel.

She says many Muslim women use the burqa as an expression of their faith and are not forced to wear it by anyone else.

"I mean, I colour my hair. I don't wear [some forms of Islamic dress] myself but I will defend someone's right to do so or not to do so," she said.

"If you deny a woman's right to choose, that is denying them dignity and denying them their freedom, and it won't create a society of more integrated French citizens, it will create a division in France which will be very unfortunate and deny women their right to participate fully in French society."
Cognitive dissonance on full display in all its glory...
Mr Sarkozy says he is just defending a secular state.

France is home to an estimated five million Muslims. In 2004, the country passed a law forbidding any conspicuous religious symbols from state schools, including veils, which were also banned in government offices.
Charles Johnson at LGF used a very appropriate quote from Christopher Hitchens the other day, "The secular state is the guarantee of religious pluralism. This apparent paradox, again, is the simplest and most elegant of political truths."

The burqa is a symbol of a backward, unenlightened society.

If we in the modern world accept such a symbol of oppression then do we advance our society, do nothing to our society or diminish or society and values?

Paradoxically, those on the left think that accepting the burqa is an example of our advancement.

Clear thinking people have a different view.

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday, 21 June 2009

Of course they should be sacked

Do civil libertarians do anything other than undermine standards and decency?
Civil libertarians have criticised a proposal to sack police officers if they are convicted of drink-driving.

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson is expected to release a new policy this week following a number of drink-driving offences by off-duty police.

Eight officers have been caught driving over the limit this year.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman said dismissing police convicted of drink-driving was harsh and amounted to "double punishment".

"Drink-driving disqualification periods generally are onerous and in some cases have a harsh flow-on effect on employment and family financial stability if a person as a result of losing a licence can't work," he said.

"This is as true for police as it is for the general community."

Mr O'Gorman said police convicted of drink-driving already faced being taken off the road and given desk jobs, often resulting in less pay.

Officers could also miss out on promotion, he said.
So, officers who are convicted of drink driving could earn less pay and miss out on promotion?

How sad for them.

What about if they use racist language and are convicted?

Or shoplift a Snickers Bar?

Police officers who drink drive have no place in the police force, as they obviously have disdain for the law.

They should be sacked let alone lose pay and promotion.

(Nothing Follows)

Friday, 19 June 2009

Barbara "dumb as a box of hammers" Boxer vs Dr Evil

Compare Barbara Boxer's ridiculous request to a General, for fricksake, with Austin Powers' Dr Evil to the United Nations (at the 0:43 mark of 2nd clip):

(Nothing Follows)

Thursday, 18 June 2009

Tax the rich

Here's a great video from the Cato Institute giving just 5 reasons why taxing the rich is a crap idea.

The video uses an argument I've employed against my left wing, economically illiterate (I know, I know, it's tautologous) mates. They want to use taxation to reduce a person's consumption of alcohol or cigarettes but then aren't able to make the connection that taxing productivity will have exactly the same effect - there's less of it.

The economy destroying emissions trading scheme currently being debated in Australia works on the same principle. Use the tax system (or a credit system, which is the same thing) to reduce output of CO2.

More tax. Less whatever.

Tax productivity. Less productivity.

It's not too hard to understand, surely?

(Nothing Follows)

Monday, 8 June 2009

Some quick questions

Having a look at events in the US over the last week or so I have some questions.

Why did President Obama give his speech to the 'Muslim world' in Egypt rather than in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation? Or India with the second largest Muslim population?

Why is it racist for the right to attack Sonia Sotomayor but not when the left attacks Alberto Gonzalez?

Why is it OK for the US government to steal General Motors from its shareholders?

The government claims that it is going to turn GM into an efficient, profitable organisation.

Why should anyone believe that when Amtrak and the US Postal Service are such inefficient, low quality, massively expensive organisations?

If the government does manage to turn GM into an efficient, profitable organisation then will it turn its attention to Amtrak and US Postal, as well?

Does anyone understand that socialised health care means East German Trabants for everyone and not Mercedes?

This is the fallacy of 'quality' health care. The reason that high quality health care exists is because there are people who are able to pay for it. Rich people. Over time, those health technologies become more efficient and cheaper to bring to market meaning that a larger cross-section of the population has access to it. A one size fits all health system creates the situation where not only do new, life saving health technologies do not come to market as quickly as they should, if ever, but also that care is rationed by faceless government bureaucrats to those that will achieve the best outcome. If you're an older person then you'll be given less priority than younger people, as it is in the UK and Canada.

The US is stuffed for a generation thanks to the intervention of government into markets. President Obama's trillion dollar deficits will only make things worse.

Economic recovery comes about through capital growth.

None of the policies implemented in the US or the UK or Australia will result in one dollar of capital growth.

Why would anyone expect the economy to recover any time soon?

(Nothing Follows)

Sunday, 7 June 2009

Sunday night rock 'n' roll covers

I'll tell you someone who was a terrific performer who is generally overlooked when considering the great guitar men - Rory Gallagher. How he didn't make Rolling Stone magazine's top 100 guitarists of all time beats me.
Rory Gallagher (pronounced "Ro-ree Gall-a-her") (born Liam Rory Gallagher, 2 March, 1948– died 14 June, 1995) was an Irish blues/rock guitarist. Born in Ballyshannon, County Donegal, Ireland, he grew up in Cork City in the south of the country. He is best known for his solo albums, and for his tenure in the band Taste during the late 1960s. A multi-instrumentalist who gained a reputation as a gifted and charismatic live performer, Rory Gallagher's albums have sold in excess of 30 million copies worldwide.
Bullfrog Blues is a 'traditional' blues rock tune for which Gallagher is recognised as having the best version. The following are audio only. I picked them because they are the best versions I could find.

Rory Gallagher - Terrific live version

Canned Heat - Monterey '67

(Nothing Follows)

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Immigrants attacking Indian and Chinese students proves Australia is racist

The Indian community in Australia staged a quite large and noisy protest to highlight the fact that many of them, and particularly students, are being targeted in deliberate racist attacks.

Our Prime Minister has been forced to intervene in a diplomatic spat with India over the attacks.

Over the last week I have been watching the media reporting to see whether they're reporting on who the perpetrators of the attacks are.

Not one report has provided the information that is most salient to the crimes - that they're being mostly carried out by immigrants to Australia, mainly from Africa.

So what do we have now?

The nitwit leftists who jump on any opportunity to kick Australia and accuse it of being a nation of racists are howling from the rooftops.

In the People's Republic of Victoria, Rob Hulls
has introduced new hate crimes legislation:
HATE crime could soon be an offence in Victoria as the State Government moves to crack down on violent attacks against Indian students, homosexuals and other targeted groups.

Under a plan being pushed by Attorney-General Rob Hulls, judges would have to take into account "hatred for or a prejudice against a particular group of people" as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders.

Tougher sentences would apply to crimes deemed to be based on victims' race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
Of course, the only problem with such legislation is that the government will never have the courage to charge anyone other than white, male Australians.

The Chinese never miss the chance to put the boot in and take advantage of a situation:
THE future of the $15.5 billion overseas student industry is under threat after the Chinese Government went public with concerns about violence against its students in Australia.

Battling to contain the damage arising from attacks on Indian students, university vice-chancellors fear Australia's third-largest export industry may face sanctions from the Chinese and Indian governments.

Chinese embassy counsellor Liu Jin yesterday said his Government was intervening to ensure the safety of Chinese nationals.

"There are over 130,000 Chinese students in Australia," he said. "They have, on the whole, had a good study and living environment in Australia, but attacks on Chinese students also occurred in recent years.

"The Chinese embassy and consulates in Australia attach high importance to the safety of Chinese students … It is hoped that the Australian Government will provide better protection to international students from China and other countries and ensure their legitimate rights in Australia."
At least we have a Prime Minister who can tell the Chinese to pull in their heads in their own language. Not that he has the balls for that.

Not letting an opportunity to get her noggin into the media again, Australian minor Bollywood starlet, Tania Zaetta, has 'begged' Bollywood to stop a boycott against Australia.

Aussie Bollywood star Tanya Zaetta
has pleaded with the Indian film industry not to boycott Australia over the spate of attacks on Indian students in Melbourne.
The actress, who appeared in the Melbourne-produced Bollywood movie Salaam Namaste, said she was "horrified" to hear of the race violence but added that any boycott would do more harm than good.

“I understand completely Indians being upset over the recent racial attacks, I’m appalled by them myself," Zaetta told ninemsn.

"It makes me ashamed to be Australian when you hear about attacks on people of other cultures.

"But I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. Bollywood boycotting Australia will only drive the two countries further apart."
Zaetta is 'ashamed to be Australian' due to attacks that are mostly carried out by a country whose intake of immigrants exceeds any other in the world on a per capita basis.

Why can't the truth be told?

Australia is among the least racist nations on earth. Not that you'd know that from reading the media.

(Nothing Follows)

Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Top Gear Muslims

During last night's Australian version of Top Gear during Warren Brown's interview with swimmer Liesel Jones I took the following photos:

Is it just me or is the presence of a couple of obviously Muslim kids in the background (one is just in shot in the 3rd photo) look staged?

(Nothing Follows)

Monday, 1 June 2009

Defence Skippy

I was out at the Department of Defence's Campbell Park offices the other day.
Campbell Park, together with Russell Offices, is the headquarters of the Australian Defence Force. It is located in Canberra, the national capital of Australia, in the suburb of Campbell, Australian Capital Territory.

The building looks eastward across the Majura Valley and Canberra International Airport and backs onto Mount Ainslie. The offices have seven floors of varying width, staggered back on tall concrete pillars to match and blend with the profile of the hill to the west. Four numbered sections, numbered from the south, bend slightly eastward at each 'node' where lifts take people between floors. Nodes B, C, D, and E also have spiral staircases. Access is by main security entrances at B and D Nodes, between CP1&2 and CP3&4 respectively. Underground document storage and work space is below part of the building.
Apparently, it's the longest building in the southern hemisphere.

Anyhoo, there happened to be a few kangaroo kicking about and so I took a few photos to prove to our overseas friends that these things really do bounce down the streets of our cities.

By the way, they are definitely not friendly and should not be approached if you happen to come across one. They'll do you some serious damage if you stir one up.

(Nothing Follows)