24 March 2009

STEPHEN CONROY, Minister of Communications, misuses power to spy on Australians who criticise his policy

Stephen Conroy proves that the critics of his policy were right.
Rudd Labor Government mis-uses its power to scrutinise citizens on the Web

The Australian Commonweath Government is apparently trawling the web looking for sites that are critical of the Australian Labour Party's broadband policy and ISP based internet filtering interventions.

If this is so, Stephen Conroy is a dangerous and stupid man who should not be trusted with power. In his capacity as the Federal Minister for Communications he is authorising taxpayer dollars to be spent to check on Australian citizens who express criticisms of his Government's policies on the Internet and broadband infrastructure. By doing this Senator Conroy conclusively demonstrates his unfitness for office. Australia is still, just, a liberal democracy not a totalitarian dictatorship of the governing party. As a minister of the crown spending the taxpayers' compulsorily appropriated wealth he is behaving unethically and illegally to exercise his power and spend government money for party political purposes. Does Senator Conroy not get this?

Has he not read the Gulag Archipelago? Does he not know what peril lurks in exercising a Stalinist desire to use the instrument of government power to control and spy on citizens ? Is he trying to emulate the Ayatollahs in Iran?

Do Minister Conroy and his henchmen think such comparisons far fetched?

"Come on", I can hear him saying, "this is just little old me, Stevie Conroy, a harmless lisping Aussie bloke who represents the workers and who's just doing his job ".

That's a quasi Nuremberg defence Steve: "...just following orders".

So Stephen, please tell us, what justifies you using your power as a Minister of the Crown in the Rudd Labor Government to seek out and identify those in the Web who are critical of your policies? Do you keep a record of them? To what uses will you put this information? Who oversees your use of this power and the uses to which you put it? Will you punish these critics of your policy by either withholding the government's largess and licencing power or actively target these critics with taxation and propaganda (Update: Just like you disgracefully did unprovoked and sub judice to iiNet on Wednesday?)

Think about it Stephen. The very thing that civil libertarians feared about your intrusive use of Internet filtering to protect children: that it could be and would be extended to other improper intrusions into the privacy and freedom of citizens of Australia, has already come to pass.

You have said of them often that "of course the Internet filtering power would not be misused to intrude on citizens other than for the protection of children and security". Well you were wrong Stephen. You misled us. You have already mis-used that power.

You have demonstrated how easily that power can be corrupted. In the very process of arguing for implementation of an apparently limited intervention into freedom of speech and privacy of Australian Citizens to protect children from porn, you have let it morph into an egregious misuse for partisan political purposes. And you haven't even had the insight or wit to recognise your folly. Shit Stephen. You're a member of parliament. A Minister of the Crown. What could you been thinking when you allowed this self contradiction to occur in the midst of the policy process?

Can't you see it Minister Conroy? You have made a liar of yourself . By the very act of having your department's officers read this site, simply because I dislike all government intrusion into my affairs, but especially the unwarranted intrusions self righteous leftists in the ALP, and that I am prepared to say it, you visit here to check that I am not subversive.

Well Minister, I am subversive. I am subversive of your misuse of power for this purpose.

Stephen Conroy, you are a Stalinist. The Commonwealth of Australia's Department of Communications under Minister Conroy's direction has misused its power and unjustly, improperly and unnecessarily pried into my criticisms of his incompetent administration of the broadband roll out and Internet filtering.

All power to those who seek to further undermine your Stalinist intrusions. If I could I would publish your list of banned websites here to demonstrate how technologically inept your policy is and how free speech will not be silenced by bullies and ideologues like you and your Department officials.

Stephen Conroy, you are a technological cretin. Stephen Conroy, your censorship of the Internet unjustifiably erodes citizens freedoms and their internationally sanctioned human rights. Stephen Conroy your Internet filtering policy will not be effective in achieving its stated aims. The risks to our freedom inherent in your clumsy intervention into the Net can not be justified when that intervention does not provide our children with the illusory protective shield you claim for it.

Stephen Conroy you should resign as Minister of Communications for your manifest failure to understand the nature of the powers you exercise. You have grossly misused your power. An honourable person would resign rather than persist in this flagrant exploitation of governmental power to silence or intimidate critics. Or do you like your Dear Leader, share your political principles with socialists Robert Mugabe, Nicholas Ceaucesu and Chairman Mao?

20 March 2009

FAQs on GHG emissions and lentils

What our current crop of neo-socialist Dear Leaders really need right now is a good ol' Inter-planetary Poison Pollution Preliminary Prevention Plan ("IPPPPP")

As I understand it from dimly remembered high school chemistry classes (which I hated but did dutifully persist with), carbon dioxide is a colourless odourless life cycle gas that is essential for photosynthesis and plant growth. I'm told biology classes (which irresponsibly I did mostly skip) taught us that CO2 is emitted in the respiration process by mammals and reptiles. That is, we humans emit carbon dioxide each time we breath out (Who'da thunk it?). And these social democratic geniuses currently running what was formerly known as the free world, now want to tax this life cycle gas as a pollutant.

Frequently Avoided Questions (FAQs) on CO2 and IPPPPPs

Why do our dear Leaders want to tax CO2?
Mostly 'cos it seems to be getting hotter and experts think the world's climate is changing.

Doesn't climate always change?
Yes, but the experts think this change might be caused by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, unlike other climate changes, so we might be able to stop or slow the change if we stop or slow our global emissions of CO2 .

Is there a co-relation between carbon dioxide and changing climate?
Sort of. The world did emit a a rising level of carbon dioxide between 1975 and 1998 (23 years) and the world also got hotter during that period (though this is difficult to mearsure globally). So, in case this possible co-relation during that 23 year period means that increased carbon dioxide production and increased global temperatures are also causally related (ie. one causes the other, not the casual sort of relationship that is othewise being described here), we all had better reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Just in case. This is the "precautionary principle" at work. The "precautionary principle" is of course a 'Good Thing'.

Why is the precautionary principle a 'Good Thing'?
Because, as it name implies, it's inherently cautious and therefore not reckless or foolhardy, like doing nothing would be.

On the subject of co-relations, have you heard about the problems encountered recently with some financial modelling that adopted a Gaussian Copula statistical correlation formula to price securitised mortgage debts?
No, heard nothing about that. What's it got to do with the imminent climate catastrophe that the UN says humanity faces anyway? Stop changing the subject.

And global temperatures between 1999 and 2009, I don't recall that these years were too bad, global-temperature-increase-wise. Were they?
Well, global temperatures haven't actually gone up in the last 10 years.
That's only because of a natural phenomena called La Nina, which is an inter-relationship between ocean water temperature cycles and raincloud patterns. OK. Next question.

Has the world been emitting increasing amounts of CO2 between 1999 and 2009?
Haven't you been listening to James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Penny Wong, Ross Garnaut and the Nobel Peace Prize laureats: Albert Gore Junior of Tennessee and the IPCC?
Of course we have been increasing our emissions of CO2. In record amounts! It still just keeps getting worse every year. A new coal fired power station is being commissioned every week. And still reckless ignorant genocidal Western Governments persist in dragging their feet, rather then get with the CO2 reduction programme.

What about global temperatures prior to 1975?
Well, yes in the 28 years between 1946 and 1974, the post-war economic boom, global temperatures did steadily drop even though carbon dioxide emissions were increasing, but that's because the temperature effects of the increased emissions of carbon dioxide during that time were masked by the dimming effects of particulates in the atmosphere produced by polluting factories. This was called "global dimming".

What happened to global dimming?
It stopped you dim wit. The world solved that pollution problem in 1975 with regulations and prosecutions and education and an all new non-littering civic pride. So the effects of increased carbon dioxide could then begin to be seen as the global temperatures resumed their inexorable rise...

What about prior to 1945?
Well global temperatures have been going up and down over geological time frames for ever, so let's not keep going there because there are some confusing things, like the medieval warm period , that are too difficult to explain here (you see it was only in the Northern Hemisphere). There is also that very eloquent graph that Albert Gore Junior of Tennessee, USA showed to us all in his popular and convenient movie, which demonstrated incontrovertibly that carbon dioxide build up follows build ups in temperature, not the other way round. ( I know. I know. It's confusing for me too.)

Will not higher temperatures mean that cold places will become warmer and more arable land will be released for human use, and create better conditions for plant growth?
Yes, but the ocean levels will also rise from ice melts which will inundate the lowlands and there will be more fierce hurricanes and cyclones and pestilence and raging infernos will be inflicted upon the earth as the inexorable rise in carbon dioxide consumes the planet. Even a United Nations agency has said all this. So we must listen.

Haven't bad weather events happened since at least biblical times?
Yeah, but not as badly as we can conceive from our computer models of the future climate of the earth. And these are United Nations computer models too, you know, with blue helmets.

Can humans adapt over time to living in on a hotter planet like we have in the past, if we can't stop the current rising global temperature?
Yes, but because we don't actually know how fast the change will happen, and what all the consequences of it will be, it is possible that any adaptions that occur will be very expensive, life threatening and chaotic.

So what can we do to stop all this horrible catastrophic future climate modelling?
That's easy. All we need to do is for all of us to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide.

Will reducing our CO2 emissions stop the impending climate catastrophe?
Not necessarily. See even if the whole world reduces its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 (you know by converting to nuclear energy and killing all carbon dioxide emitting creatures), we will already have passed the tipping point of runaway climate catastrophe from the past build up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere anyway. And the only ones we will have to blame for this catastrophe are ourselves. For not having done more now, today, to stop carbon dioxide emissions, that are irreparably harming the Earth. So just stop emitting CO2 OK

Excuse me. Could that have been the lentils from lunch?
For shame! Don't you know methane is a greenhouse gas too. Think of the planet. Just don't eat lentils anymore OK.

So we should all stop emitting carbon dioxide (and methane) so the computer models don't get a chance to be proven right ?
Yeah, that's right. The computers our United Nations experts use have shown the experts that unless we humans stop emitting carbon dioxide then only computers will be able to inhabit the earth in future. So the experts have told all the governments of all the nations of the Earth that we humans should all stop emitting carbon dioxide.

The UN's computer models are clear:

Humans must either stop emitting CO2 now, or in future they will no longer be able to breath.

I finally get it.
Arthur C. Clarke got it right in "2001 -A Space Odyssey".
HAL is watching us.

Spooky eh?

18 March 2009

Obama Onanism

Fiscal stimulus: relief, but no lasting satisfaction.
Its almost organic. No wonder greenies love it so.

But to what should we apply this alluring and organically onomatopoeic label: "Obama Onanism"?

Obama himself and his imitators*, with their simply massive self congratulatory stimuli ? or
The Obamanics, who continuously spill their seed into such an empty vessel?

What is it about modern democracies that allows all these ethically challenged moral high ground clambering Dear Leaders: Barack, Brownie* and Kevin* ; to get away with inflicting these massive expiatations of debt funded spending on their electorates, without regard to the long term consequences. Why aren't they called for being the wankers that they are by the fourth estate ?

Why are journalists in the mainstream media not holding these social democratic governments to account for this spectacular irresponsibility? (Ed: It could be because they don't want to. They enabled these populists institutionally in their publications in the first place and then voted for them personally. It would be to admit they were both wrong and unprofessional to now be seen to challenge the newly imposed political orthodoxy they themselves help create).

Veronique de Rugy in Reasononline adds an interesting perspective in her recent article "Stimulating Ourselves to Death". She indicates:

"Take the New Deal. According to the economists Christina Romer—chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers—and David Romer, New Deal spending did not pull the economy out of recession. In a 1992 Journal of Economic History paper, the Romers examined the role that aggregate demand stimulus played in ending the Great Depression. They concluded: “A simple calculation indicates that nearly all of the observed recovery of the U.S. economy prior to 1942 was due to monetary expansion. Huge gold inflows in the mid- and late-1930s swelled the U.S. money stock and appear to have stimulated the economy by lowering real interest rates and encouraging investment spending and purchases of durable goods.”

In other words Obama's own economic advisers actually already know about the illusory benefits of fiscal stimulus. How then can they, with this certain knowledge, then indulge the USA in this onanistic orgy of government debt of such a staggeringly large magnitude that I have lost the ability to meaningfully comprehend the numbers anymore (how many noughts are there in a trillion again?).

So this huge descent into debt by western nations, not only looks spectacularly reckless. It is.

And the reason they seem to do this is so that they are seen to be doing something. Anything. It doesn't matter if it is poor policy provided it is electorally plausible. It's a weak version of their much favoured "precautionary principle". They do it "just in case" it will make a difference. It simply wouldn't do for a control freak to be seen to let the business cycle take its inevitable course to recovery. If you tamper with the natural business cycle process you inevitably muddy the causal connections and you cannot be held accountable because you can attribute the inevitable (if delayed) recovery to your interventions even though they did the most to prevent it occurring.

Remember these are the same folk who are even now simultaneously plotting potentially still greater impediments to whatever wealth generation might take place in future to pay off their spectacularly destructive and unnecessary debt. They have in place meticulously crafted vast legislative programmes to impose an even more recklessly improbable version of the "precautionary principle" on their nations: carbon taxes and carbon trading schemes.

I was going to launch into an anti AGW rant at this point, but you are saved. I am now going to do that in the next post. Since these economic illiterates currently running the free world seem not only to think expanding the government payroll is a valid form of economic stimulus, they also seem to have completely bought the ridiculous notion that creating vast regulatory make-work schemes for compliance officers and government officials to measure and tax industries' CO2 emissions, will create wealth, sustainable employment and bring us out of recession.

The lunatics truly are running the asylum. And at nearly the worst time imaginable.