dutchroll

You can say whatever you want. It's just that "free speech" doesn't grant you immunity from criticism for saying it. This is what ticks me off about certain political columnists. They crap on about people having a right to say whatever they like, then they spend an entire column blasting anyone who dares to criticise what they said. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. To them, apparently free speech is a one-way street.

Well, it depends how you phrase it. I have heard: "Those aborigines in the remote areas have a serious problem with grog and consequent violence which needs to be addressed". I have also heard: "F----ing useless coons. What good are they? Just get p-ssed all the time cos they have nothing better to do. We should round up the lot of them!" Both are talking about the same issue, but in one of these statements the person is just stating the blunt truth and I have no problem at all with it. In the other statement the person is being an ar$ehole. Regrettably I find increasing numbers of people who are actually unable to distinguish between these two methods of communication.

In my region (which covers quite a large area and has a population of somewhere around the 330,000 mark), people living their lives on welfare are endemic. They are exclusively white, home grown aussies. Usually they would rather go surfing than go to work. Except on weekends, when they go into Sydney on the train and steal cars to get back home late at night. They spend 90% their welfare at the pub, which is great if you own a pub or nightclub but not so great if you own any other business. I spoke to a business owner here a few weeks ago who has won a large contract and needs to seriously ramp up production in his workshops (he builds portable accomodation). He reckons if he interviews 100 people here for jobs, he'll get about 4 who vaguely look like they actually want it and get offered one, of which 2 will show up on the start date, and the other 2 will last less than a few months until they can't be bothered anymore. He is moving his factory elsewhere. Similar story with the guy who does our farm fencing. He just can't get anyone who wants to work. He has new guys "starting" all the time who just don't show up so he turns up to the job himself, and gets his girlfriend to drive the bobcat.

......the reason we are a nanny state is because there are so many stupid people, and those stupid people invariably cost the community (me, you, everyone else) a lot of money to fix up the crap they cause. When we can cull the stupid people, we will cease being a nanny state.

.....it was published in some of the most widely read newspapers in the country: News Ltd papers. I didn't say highest quality papers, just the most read. By pensioners particularly. Short of taking out prime-time TV ads I don't know what else they should do. But if they were to spend $100k of my taxes on TV ads when it was already in a number of newspapers I think I'd probably find that objectionable. We've had letters from the ATO and they've always been polite. Not that there are many polite ways to say "you owe us money", but they were as polite as I would expect. I've had far worse from other organisations including a number of "FIRST AND FINAL REMINDER" letters (yes in CAPS and underlined) arriving 2 days after the due date threatening interest charges, debt collection, etc etc just because the original invoice got buried in the mound of paperwork on my desk. I think to say the ATO "demands money with menaces" is a bit over the top. They are, after all, a tax collection agency. It is their job to ask you to pay up when they think you owe it to them, as much as I hate that. "Cold calling" is when you are called "out of the blue", or unsolicited without any previous contact. The ATO do not do this.

Well that's fair enough. The elderly can be particularly vulnerable to these things. There has been a bit of publicity about this scam but it's entirely possible that many haven't gotten wind of it. I know there are ongoing police investigations in several states because demanding money by impersonating the ATO is considered pretty serious fraud (and the scammers have been very successful in several cases). The ATO did actually distance themselves from it here and explained that "cold calling" is not what they do, but you could argue they need to re-publicise it. ATO warns of aggressive tax scam

You could probably make this argument with many different organisations, regarding the fear of being pursued for money. It is a bit paranoid and naive of them. Government organisations - in fact just about any organisation at all - who think you owe them money always send correspondence through the mail first, usually numerous times. Arrest warrants are granted by a Court, normally for failing to attend to answer charges you've already been notified of. There are so many red flags that they were being scammed I'm a bit surprised they got so worked up about it.......unless of course they have actually been doing some dodgy tax stuff!

Yeah it's on the historical record that Kerr did not consult with the Queen at all, and according to the Constitution, he didn't have to. The Queen has kept her opinion on those events very private but it is widely believed by Palace insiders that she felt it could've been handled much better!

That interest Marty will reduce every time you draw it down, which could be every week. Just as you can be surprised how much compounding interest can build up a lump sum, you'll be equally surprised what it does when everything operates in reverse! Throw in a bad decision by your fund manager 3 months before you retire and it's easy to be up sh*t creek without a paddle when you're planning on self funding your retirement (seen it happen). So it's just not so simple to say 20 years before the event "well you'll have one and a half million so you'll be rolling in it!" Yes people retiring on super may end up with much more than the average wage and certainly more than a pension. But they also carry a lot of financial risk. Way more than an employee and way more than a pensioner. That's why I think pollies should be very careful before they stick their hands into it. Well that depends on a lot of things, doesn't it?

Yeah marriage breakup is one thing (there are more) which can and often does massively impact the super equation. Now you can make the argument "well you should've stayed with your first one" but it isn't always that simple. I've seen guys who do only have themselves to blame but I've also seen guys who have been knowingly and ruthlessly shafted and who will now work until they physically are booted out of the workforce from necessity, not desire, and who won't have much spare income afterwards by anyone's definition of "adequate"! But the pollies don't think of these or any other factors (eg super fund management, property volatility, interest rates, etc etc) when they attack super. They grab it when it goes in and they grab it when it comes out without so much as a whimsical care in the world about the retiree's circumstances now or in the future.

That's the bit which I believe is fundamentally wrong. A lot of people don't realise how quickly super accounts can be drawn down when retirement or forced retirement hits even if the super balance appears very healthy at the time. So as it dwindles and the wonders of modern technology and drugs keep you kicking along seemingly forever, people can get into real strife towards the end of their lives and the whole idea of keeping them off the pension falls apart, then we're back where we started. Extra investment into super should be encouraged, not discouraged. Ok, maybe if your super account is $5 million it's probably over the top but as a high income earner I don't know anyone who has super approaching even 1/4 of that. As for people who blow the lot on a luxury home when they retire, well that's just dumb. Therefore I don't have a problem with counting certain assets in pension means-testing if it's within reason. However it should be balanced against the cost of housing and living where you are. Living anywhere in Sydney for example, the median house price is $700k and it's a bit ridiculous to tell someone they have to sell up and move to Gagebrook in Hobart if they own a $700k property (which would be stratospherically luxurious by Gagebrook standards - they may as well be a multibillionaire) but don't have any super income. Sheesh, move to Gagebrook and get a cheaper house. Why not just send them straight to prison?

I think both parties need to learn that you attack super at your own peril. Super is retirement savings for when people stop working, and whether you have a small super account or a big super account, most people find it equally objectionable to pay substantial tax on it (and they're talking about slugging large super accounts at the top rate). It's particularly annoying when your qualifications apply to a very specialised profession where you'll be compulsorily retired at 63 or thereabouts, yet you may well live until you're 90 these days. If they're serious about not wanting you to be on the pension while simultaneously not qualifying for any pensioner rates or discounts on anything at all, then they need to have a long hard think about restraining themselves from slugging even large super accounts. Not only that, but as soon as they start slugging large super accounts at high rates, I think it's a better than even bet that the threshold for taxing it will creep downwards as successive Governments scramble for revenue. People need to be careful what they wish for....... I pay a lot of income tax and that's fair enough, though I wish they'd spend my contribution more wisely. I don't whinge about it - we all have to contribute if we want roads, medicare etc and high income earners should contribute more than low ones. But I do object in principle to heavy taxes on super, especially when they're expecting you to draw it down (as opposed to living mostly on the interest) over the rest of your lifespan after retirement.

What the heck is "organic" granite? "Organic" is a word which generally irritates me. It has been hijacked so badly that it really is almost meaningless these days. Also in many cases it is used to suggest the product is much better somehow than a "non-organic" variety when in fact they're identical in every way. On the quarrying side, I can sort of understand if a company starts a quarry just over someone's back fence why they might be upset, but quarries in principle are just a necessity. There's not really any way around that! Likewise, radioactive substances are an absolute necessity so some type of nuclear industry is essential. However again I could understand people being a bit anti if they were to have a plutonium waste dump planned just down the street. The world is littered with examples of appalling carelessness when it comes to disposing of nuclear industry byproducts, mining byproducts, etc etc.

Spooks, you started it all off by saying this: And then you stated this: Do you see any conflict in what you've stated here? You're calling it an "agenda". It's not an agenda. It's just a scientific fact mate. You are the one using the language suggesting that it's a) an agenda (implying some sort of malfeasance by the way you use that word) b) the ones who "push it" are extremists. c) anyone "pushing it" (whatever that actually means) is also an anti-nuclear extremist by default. Then you quote references on eco-terrorism! I'm just quoting back what you said and now you get all upset about it. By the way, it's no more a matter of "belief" than a "belief" that the earth revolves around the sun. It's an empirically observed fact.

And another great excerpt from Luntz's memo: "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," I know you want more of him, so here he is admitting that he started a wave of scepticism which today is not justified. But he's totally unapologetic. Back then, he had a job to do for the conservative US political movement with its deep connections to energy companies. He did it, and he did it well. People are still repeating it today! The guy, and the politicians he advised in the day, are absolute master manipulators. They did an excellent job, although it's slowly becoming more obvious that they were totally wrong (as he essentially concedes here) and the scientists were right all along. It doesn't matter though - some people have picked up his flag and continue to run with it.

I'd suggest you'd find those particular groups are a very small minority, and I'd suggest you'd find 99.9% of people who are concerned about the environment are appalled by their tactics. The way you phrase it makes it sound like it is the norm for an environmentally (or climate change) concerned or aware person to be an eco-terrorist, rather than the exception. It is clearly not the norm. This is a bit like saying "whether or not cancer is happening, I don't know and don't really care, there's little I can do about it". You may not personally have observed or noticed it, but others who have expertise and spend their lives studying the subject have. And you probably should care, because even though it may not be affecting you or anyone you personally know right at the moment (it usually takes many years to materialise and by then the damage is done), it may well do, and the consequences will likely be unpleasant if it does. There are even things you can do about it. There are steps you can take to sensibly reduce your risk, without going totally overboard. "Renamed climate change now". This is a myth, at least as far as the scientific or environmental community goes. Back in 1956 the US Office of Naval Research sponsored a paper by Gilbert Plass titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". There are other examples too. The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used synonymously by scientists for over half a century. The only time the terms have ever been politically manipulated was by US Republican political advisor Frank Luntz in 2003. He decided that "Climate Change" sounded less alarming to the public than "Global Warming", which sounded too frightening (although to scientists it makes very little difference) and so started much behind the scenes work to get "global warming" out of the vocabulary. Luntz's memo detailing how conservatives should manipulate voters' thoughts on the environment was leaked years ago. You can look it up on the web. It makes for fascinating reading. But never mind reading about it. Why don't you watch Luntz himself being interviewed about it here?

I think we have different definitions of "extremist". If you went around detonating car bombs outside nuclear power stations or setting fire to their front offices, or assaulting nuclear workers, that would be extremist. Perhaps chaining yourself to a gate would, at a push, fall into the category too (though I'd define that as "pointless" and "a bit emo" rather than "extremist").

Who exactly are the "extremists pushing the global warming agenda"? I'm always intrigued by the language used to describe those who agree with the overwhelming bulk of credible scientific evidence and qualified scientific opinion that industrial-age CO2 emissions are resulting in planetary greenhouse warming.

Yes, like many others, I saw Turnbull as a moderate compared to TA's more hardcore conservative stance, so I held high hopes for him (I don't really care much whether moderate lefties or moderate righties are in power - just as long as they don't swing wildly to their respective "far side"). Regrettably I agree that he's done little. I do think he has been held captive by some factions in the LNP but I've run out of excuses for his ineffectiveness now.

You have to be careful to distinguish between politicians who want to do "nothing for a while", and who want to do nothing "ever". For example, when they say "it's a load of crap, I don't believe it" such as Abbott did, you can confidently say they fall into the latter category. What sh*ts me is when people pretend they are advocating "caution" and "avoiding hasty decisions", yet clearly have no intention at all of advocating any action whatsoever. In other words they are lying about their motives.

It really doesn't matter much as long as it's not their ex. Then it gets awkward......

I have to admit that despite being an unbeliever and inevitably damned to suffer a tortuous afterlife in a place I don't even believe exists, I do occasionally silently pray to the almighty in some social situations. "Oh please Lord........how much longer am I going to have to listen to this idiot?"

I think that's being overly paranoid. Every country in the world has problems to various extents (Australia has fewer than many) and it has been that way since time began. The nature of human behaviour ensures it stays that way because as a species we are completely incapable of consistently behaving nicely and considerately to each other. Food for thought: if the PM who "took control of this country by stealth" wins the election, then he becomes "elected" by default. Surely there can't be any further grounds for complaint about his existence in the job (aside from the fact that you simply might not like him), unless you want to scrap elections? The same thing happened with Gillard. Yes, she wrestled the job "by stealth", to put it one way. Although neither party happened to gain an absolute majority in the subsequent election, she managed to negotiate better with those who held the balance of power and therefore was able to form a Government. I still don't believe the reaction of some people over it. I mean, they completely lost their marbles. I'm surprised we didn't Opposition supporters going around randomly setting fire to cars and throwing bricks through shop windows, such was the level of fury they vented. Both major parties had to try to negotiate support from 3rd parties to form a Government (this happens elsewhere around the world occasionally too, where coalition Governments rise from the ashes of elections). She did, the other guy didn't. It's that simple. At some point we have to sort of get over it, get on with life, and if it really bothers us, look forward to the next election and opportunity to "make things right" (in our own personal political opinions!).

I have to agree that Bernard Gaynor is a very troubled individual and I'd look highly critically at any political party he purported to represent. It is little wonder at all that he was booted out of the Army. When you join the military you sign up to do the military's work as directed by the Government of the day, not your interpretation of "God's work", which he seemed to be more interested in.

"Trickle-down economics" was a wonderful theory in principle, but the fundamental realities of human greed have ensured that it almost never happens the way it's theoretically supposed to. We do have a highly regulated work environment Bruce, that's true. However a lot of that is our own stupid fault. For example, having a wife who is a specialist doctor has opened my eyes to the abuses inherent in the WorkCover system, and we all end up paying for that. It's a bizarre but completely well documented and proven fact that many WorkCover patients do not get better until their claim is paid, irrespective of their injury. What should their claim payment have to do with the healing or rehabilitation of the human body? Absolutely nothing, according to all our current medical knowledge. But it does! This issue is the same across all generations of employees too, and you can't point your finger towards any one group of people or a particular demographic. The result is that the workplace gets the living bejeezus regulated out of it to try to avoid this (one of many) hefty cost.