You are more than welcome to respond to anything you hear on the show by sending an email to echoes@samuelgordonstewart.com. Emails may be read and responded to on a future episode.
The script of the episode follows (it’s long, so it’s not going on the front page of the blog…none of the scripts will).
Samuel
Welcome to Editorial Echoes for October 30, 2007, I’m Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
This is the return of Editorial Echoes, a podcast containing my editorials on the issues of the day. Unlike last time, this won’t be a daily podcast, but it will be very regular. You can also respond to anything you hear on the show by sending an email to echoes@samuelgordonstewart.com, I may then read and reply to your email on a future show.
Today, simply because I have a lot of things on my mind, the show will cover many topics, but most days it will only be one or two topics.
To start off with, Peter Garrett, the mildly annoying ex-rock star who, for one reason or another, seems to be quite hamstrung in the Labor party. Sometimes I feel sorry for Peter, he has so much potential and has been a strong advocate for the environment, but seems to be almost silenced as a shadow minister in the Labor party.
Then, there are other times, like yesterday when he stood next to Kevin Rudd and made an announcement about funding to help farmers stop polluting the Great Barrier Reef. Peter made the rather odd statement that this would help with the reef’s recovery from, quote, “Climate change events”. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the shadow environment spokesman here, but I thought he had told us on many occasions that climate change would cause the temperature to rise, and the Great Barrier Reef, amongst other things, would be irreperably damaged…and what exactly is a climate change event? Has Mr. Garrett forgotten his own teachings and started believing in the great climate change monster that comes out once per week and shoots a bit of the reef? If so, wouldn’t it be better to spend money on catching the monster rather than unshooting the reef? In the short term at least…
And as for Labor’s peculiar (but somewhat welcome in my view) backflip on international emission agreements…poor old Peter, he should have joined the Greens, at least he would know where he stands with the Greens.
Moving on, and the Bali Nine have attempted and failed to challenge the constitutional ability of Indonesia to use the death penalty on drug smugglers. Technically speaking, the Bali Nine were correct, the constitution of Indonesia seems to only allow for the death penalty to be used on violent offenders.
The Bali Nine, however, were prevented from challenging the constitution on the grounds that they are not citizens of Indonesia. This, whilst a technicality, is brilliant. The Indonesian constitution needs to be ammended quickly to avoid a similar situations occurring with Indonesians, but for the moment, the Indonesian justice system has delivered a fantastic result.
It is my strong view that a justice system should make it appear that justice is being done, and have a think about this:
The Bali Nine were caught smuggling drugs, illegal drugs, potentially deadly illegal drugs, drugs which, if they didn’t kill people, had the power to easily ruin lives. Now, whilst the users of these drugs need to take some responsibility for themselves, it is important to note that these life recking drugs would not be available without the drug smugglers. Drug smugglers are evil low-life scum, they contribute heavily to the misery and suffering of hundreds and thousands of people, and I fully support Indonesia’s policy of giving them the death sentence.
Moving on to another case of “justice should appear to be done”, Craig William Wheatley was sentenced today for the death of an 83 year old war veteran. Mr. Wheatley has been convicted of pushing Robert Narramore in to the path of an oncoming car after having a drunken argument with another person. He was sentenced to a minimum jail term of two years, backdated to when he was taken in to custody. This means Mr. Wheatley could be out in September next year.
The maximum term is three years and nine months, which, if enforced, would see Wheatley released in June 2010.
Mr. Wheatley may not have intended to cause physical harm to Mr. Narramore…but the fact of the matter is he pushed an elderly man in to the path of oncoming traffic, despite the elderly man not having any part of the argument he was having. Forget the fact that Wheatley was drunk for a minute, that shouldn’t have any bearing on it, Wheatley’s actions killed Narramore, and two years is a ridiculous sentence for that.
June 2010 sounds like a good time for a release under a minimum sentence to me, but then again, I can’t see any reason for a difference between minimum and maximum terms on a manslaughter sentence. There was no malice involved, so there is no rehabilitation required. There should be a single sentence, and after reading the details of this case, I think the maximum sentence imposed should be THE sentence.
As an aside, in any case where rehabilitation of the offender is required, there should be a minimum sentence, with an indefinite maximum sentence so that the offender stays in for the minimum term regardless of anything else, and is then released once they have been rehabilitated…repeat offenders could then be given another sentence of the same type, and if that doesn’t help, then there is no room for them here, and the death sentence would be appropriate.
Another alcohol related subject. Sydney is looking at implementing plastic cups to deal with the growing number of “glassings” in pubs caused by incredibly intoxicated people. (And to think that a couple years ago I had never even heard of “glassing”). Admittedly plastic can do much less damage than glass, but it shouldn’t be underestimated…plastic packaging on an electric toothbrush nearly took my finger off last week, and really this measure, whilst helpful, is treating the method rather than the cause. A ban on alcohol would certainly solve the problem of intoxicated people causing trouble, but prohibition has never been palatable, so instead, I think we need a blood alcohol limit for the general population. We already have one for people in control of motor vehicles, so I can’t see any problem with having one for the general population, or at least the general population in public venues.
I don’t know what we would set the limit at…that’s not my area of expertise, that would really be up to a combination of medical and behavioural experts and law enforcement agencies. Enforcement shouldn’t be too hard, either require pubs to employ at least one person who is trained and authorised to run breath tests and kick people out, or get them a taxi home if they exceed the limit, or get the existing age enforcement people to do it. Preferably a combination of both.
People who reach the limit could then be sent home, or if they don’t co-operate, ferried to the nearest police station to sober out. It wouldn’t completely solve the problem of public violence, but it is a well known fact that drunk people contribute excessively to the problem, and placing a reasonable limit on alcohol that balances people’s right to drink responsibly, and everyone’s right to public safety, would go a very very long way toward solving the problem.
And just briefly as this episode has gone on for long enough already, the political activist group GetUp.org.au have launched an advertising campaign on television and radio urging people to vote for anyone other than the coalition in the senate, so as to remove the majority the coalition have there. GetUp claim that this is undemocratic and unfair. I’ll have more to say about this tomorrow, but for now I have this little thought for GetUp.
In order for the coalition to get a majority in the senate, the majority of voters have to vote for the coalition. So, if the majority of people vote for a particular party then, democratically, that party receive a majority. The senate in its current form may be one-sided, but as that’s the side the majority of people voted for, it is hardly undemocratic or unfair.
This has been Editorial Echoes for October 30, 2007, if you have any thoughts or comments about any of this, email them to echoes@samuelgordonstewart.com
And don’t forget the weekly poll on my blog, this week’s question is “If Australia must sign a climate change agreement, would you prefer Kyoto or a new agreement?”
To register your vote, simply visit samuelgordonstewart.com and enter your vote on the right hand side of the page. The votes will be presented at the end of the week.
I would prefer to see no agreement signed, but that’s not an option in this poll, so if we have to sign an agreement, I think Kyoto is an inefficient and outmoded agreement, and we need a new agreement that actually has a chance of being signed by every polluting country.
Stored for archival purposes
Independent candidate for Fraser, Samuel Gordon-Stewart, says the approval of the Gunns’ Pulp Mill in Tasmania is proof the federal Liberal and Labor parties do not believe humans are responsible for climate change.
“Many environment groups have stated that the Gunns’ Pulp Mill will increase the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by an inordinate amount. New South Wales Greens senator Kerry Nettle stated on radio last night that the increase would be a whopping two per cent.” Mr. Gordon-Stewart said.
“The fact that both the federal Labor and federal Liberal parties have welcomed a pulp mill that will increase greenhouse emissions by this much is proof that they don’t believe humans are responsible for climate change.”
“This is a view I fully endorse, and I strongly encourage the federal Labor and federal Liberal parties to admit to it.”
“I also welcome the pulp mill. The federal chief scientist has set down some very sensible rules for the operation of the pulp mill, and I believe the mill is a good thing for Tasmania, and the nation as a whole.”
Some of you may remember James Scolland, a person who sent in a Letter To The Editor in June with a bunch of peculiar reasons why I shouldn’t have a website, or be allowed to have one.
Nearly three months later, James has sent in another email. I’m not going to publish it because it is just another pile of puerile nonsense (and not as amusing as the first one), however James did ask one sensible question. He read my post earlier today where I said that John Howard is currently my preferred prime minister, and he has asked me why this is the case.
There are a number of reasons why John Howard is my preferred prime minister, so I will just list some of the main ones.
WorkChoices is one of the reasons. I am quite happy with the AWA that I am on, and I like the idea of being able to directly negotiate things with my employer. The flexibility in my workplace seems to be quite beneficial to both me and my employer.
Despite Kevin Rudd’s assurances that he would not be controlled by the unions, I believe that he would be, especially considering the way the unions seem so happy to promote the Labor party.
I also have an issue with the way some unions promote themselves. During the recent Canberra timber mill fiasco, the federal government offered to help an ailing company and the state Labor governments got in the way…and yet the unions were more than happy to stand outside the mill with anti-federal government signs and propoganda, an act of indecency in my mind as it was the federal government that were helping them.
Also today I saw a plumber wearing a bumper sticker on his shirt. This sticker said “Plumbers Union: Our #### doesn’t stink” (I’ll let you work out the rhyme). This, to me at least, is a rather offensive way to advertise yourself, and I would find it difficult to support a party which is backed by that kind of ideology.
Another reason is climate change. I agree with the Labor party, the Greens and the others on that side of the fence…the Howard government is not serious about addressing climate change, despite their claims. This is a good thing as far as I’m concerned. It would be very difficult for me to willingly vote for a party which would be happy to ruin the economy and many other things under the guise of preventing something that I don’t believe we control or are changing. The fact that I think Peter Garrett is a fool has something to do with my opinion as well.
Another reason is the way Kevin Rudd’s media appearances come across as scripted. Obviously he doesn’t script his answers to interview questions, but he comes across as if he is providing a scripted answer…almost as if it doesn’t matter what the question is, his answer is golden in his mind and will suit you because he wants it to.
And I can hardly leave the local Labor government off my list. Their general incompetence and peculiar need for pointless statues does leave a bad taste in my mouth, and (whether fair or not) has a negative impact on their federal branch’s reputation.
That being said, Labor do have quite a few things going for them, and they appear to be very passionate and committed, whilst to the same extent there are a number of things I don’t like about the coalition, however for me, the coalition is a better choice at this point in time. This could change, and it has done a handful of times this year.
Hopefully this answers James’ question, and gives you all a slightly better understanding of my point of view.
To answer Brandy's question, no, human enduced global warming is not fair dinkum. The whole notion of humans being the primary reason for global warming is ludicrous…and as for the nut case who rang up earlier to suggest that we shouldn't have any night time football matches because it's warming the planet, how about we send him off to another planet, then this planet will be a lot cooler because he won't be spurting crazy hot air!
I don't know if you saw ABC Television News last night or not, but I saw one of their updates and was, unfortunately, not surprised by one of the stories.
The press release doesn't mention how much warmer it was, just that various places didn't have their usual cold temperatures, and a few were actually cooler than usual.
ABC News took a different angle…according to them the temperature was two degrees warmer than usual, and the cause? Climate change of course! Never mind that a two degree increase in temperatures as a result of climate change in the space of a few months would not only be unprecedented, but completely contradict the entire "carbon levels equal temperature" nonsense.
I'm just waiting for the end of winter when we all get told that it was a bit colder than usual, and it's all due to climate change. They will probably tell us some nonsense about how all that ice that melted because of global warming during summer and autumn made the water and therefore the entire southern hemisphere a bit colder during winter.
By the way, when you get a chance have a listen to the 3am news from 2UE…that silly story about some nutter from CommSec saying we should sell Australia Post to prevent climate change, then another person saying that the government needs to spell out their policy on selling Australia Post before the next election. Oddly enough, Senator Helen Coonan did that yesterday.
And today, apparently, is World Environment Day, which inevitably means yet another excuse for a bunch of nutty press releases from people who claim the Black Mountain will soon be under water (yes, somebody did suggest that to me the other day…I think they were joking, but knowing the way these things spread it will probably be the headline some time in the next year).
You know that I like you so please don't take this the wrong way, but the idea you came up with a few minutes ago of having Tim Flannery in the studio taking calls about climate change under the guise of a reasoned and balanced debate is the stupidest thing I've heard all week, and I've some some remarkably dumb things this week.
You yourself said only a few minutes before that, Tim Flannery represents one side of the debate. I'm certainly not saying don't bring him in, but if you are going to have him taking calls, you also need somebody from the other side of the argument to do the same thing, preferably at the same time…you have other segments like that on a weekly basis and they work very well.
Unless you’ve been avoiding the media in the last week, you would probably be aware that in July, ABC Television will screen an excellent documentary from British film maker Martin Durkin called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which quite brilliantly proves, with the aide of many prominent scientists, including some from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions, but rather by variations in solar activity. In fact, the history of global warming and cooling drives the changes in carbon levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
It also shows that, far from being an apocalyptic disaster, we have been through many much warmer and much colder periods, and somehow all the polar bears and humans managed to survive.
Unfortunately the version which will be screened on ABC Television in July will be a shortened version of the 75 minute documentary screened by Britain’s Channel 4 in March, and unfortunately I really can’t see how they will achieve that without leaving out important parts of the documentary. They will still prove everything, but leaving bits out may leave a few holes in the story, which would be most unfortunate as this documentary is very comprehensive, even going so far as to explain where Al Gore’s peculiar “documentary” “An Inconvenient Truth” went wrong by skipping important facts and figures.
Thankfully, the full version of The Great Global Warming Swindle is doing the rounds on Google Video and bittorrent, and a DVD with the full documentary and even more information will be on sale soon.
For your information, here is the full version as provided on Google Video. It is quite long for a web video at 75 minutes, but it is well worth the investment in time, and I would urge you to watch it when you have some spare time.
It’s about time that there was a documentary showing the logical side of the global warming debate, and it has arrived.
I would like to thank 2CC’s Mike Jeffreys for bringing this fantastic documentary to my attention, it’s good to have something like this to confirm my long held belief that global warming being caused by human activity is a complete and utter nonsense.
Well I agree 99% with Prof. Lance Endersby's views on global warming, the only thing I disagree with is that I think we have had some, small impact, whereas he seems to think we've had none.
But on the whole, I agree with him about the current warming being a natural phenomena and part of a lengthy global and solar cycle, and carbon dioxide being an essential part of the eco-system.
I do know of one way that we can prevent future warming though…and that's to get rid of the sun. Probably not a very productive move though.
I'll send you an email with my Footy Tips a bit later on.
I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, the notion that humans are the primary reason for global warming seems nuts to me. I don’t deny that humans may have had some impact on it, but it is my view that global warming is part of a larger warming and cooling cycle of the planet, one that has been going on for a lot longer than we have been recording weather phenomena.
Now it seems the sun may be responsible for global warming, as Mars is apparently experiencing a similar warming to Earth. It seems logical that the one object which prevents this planet from freezing would be responsible for it getting hotter and colder…there has to be a reason for the ice age, and one can only assume that the earth is warmer now than it was during that ice age, so it seems reasonable that it would continue to do so, and then eventually move back towards an ice age.
Perhaps it is time that we, as a race (or indeed a species), stop pretending that we are almighty and powerful and can cause things which have been happening for thousands, if not millions, of years. We may have some influence, but the majority of the issue is surely out of our control.
On Saturday morning I must have been sleeping lightly because I had the radio on in the background, and it had an effect on my dreams. Apparently on the 2CC gardening show there was a debate about global warming.
My dream took place at a seminar with two scientists, they had a grand plan to rid the world of global warming…their solution was to build all future buildings out of celery, the only problem was that they couldn’t decide which type of celery to use, and had quite a rowdy argument about it (even if the only argument they were able to come up with was “you can’t do that”).
Whilst I doubt that there is any merit in their plan, the dream did prompt me to find out whether or not there are different types of celery, and apparently there are.
I told John Kerr about this dream on Sunday morning and he seemed amused. He still thinks that I have very peculiar dreams.