of teaching history, religion, hot sauce and hamster wheels...
The Institute of Public Affairs, which is closely linked to the Liberal party, has voiced its opposition to the entire concept of a national curriculum, saying the process was vulnerable to politicisation.
“Even if the Coalition makes changes those changes are going to be inevitably reversed by the next Labor government,” the institute’s executive director, John Roskam, told Guardian Australia.
Roskam said the institute’s submission to the review would argue the curriculum took a relativist approach to history without acknowledging “that one approach, one system of government is better than another”.
He said modern history looked at Kevin Rudd’s national apology to Indigenous Australians “without recognising reasons why John Howard may not have apologised”.
Gus: If one explores the Judeo-Christian heritage of Australia, one needs to be careful at not glorifying it by attributing too much of the "progress" made here, to it. One would have to also mention the influence of the Druids, the Freemason and the free thinkers, as well as ordinary folks who, though going to church for show and to the pub for a drink, were the non-religious "builders" rather than the religious constipated lawyers in this country.
"The Druids?" I hear you say... I have already tackled this subject on this site... Quite a surprising number of folks in some Australian country areas were following Druid rituals rather than the Christian dogma... Why? I don't really know but one can imagine that the Druids were more in tune with nature and the cycle of seasons than the followers of the cross.
Here one must also mention the strong rivalry between the Tykes and the Wasps (the Catholics and the Anglicans) — a rivalry that at most time was ugly and bitter. The tykes were always thought to be "inferior" to the wasps — as such most of the nation "leaders" were Anglicans, while the workers were deemed drunks and Catholics... This is where the old boys club and school ties came in. Relatively, the Catholics "old boys" went into the public service while the Anglican became their masters through politics. The Catholic workers stayed in the mud till the Labor party came along... Ahahaha...
As well, within churches of different persuasion there were divisions, divisions still going on today ... Anglican synods do not agree with each other and the High Anglican society might find revolting that some "lower" dioceses appoint female bishops, for example... All of these moires influenced political greasy spruikers, not so much because they "believe" one way or the other but they have had to massage their message as to garner the most votes in a complex set of hypocritical religious values. In the Catholic ranks we had Archbishop Mannix and the Santamaria narrow-minded views that are still permeating politics today through Abbottville. Santamaria divided the Labor Party with a strong religious bigotry and a weird anti-capitalism stance, while Abbott has reconstituted a concoction of Santamarianism with a love of deregulated capitalism. Go figure. The usual way to achieve this feat is to tell "credible" porkies with a sense of duty. It's all political hogwash of course but it works wonder for all the hypocritical souls that we are.
From the time the Poms sent their wretched people who stole a loaf of bread because they were hungry, to the Irish "Catholic" revolutionaries — all overcrowding the prison-hulk (prison-ships) in Britain — the picture of the Judeo-Christian development in this country is not too pretty. Even with the rising of the recent sing-happy Pentecostal churches that are overtaking the old traditional indoctrination, one cannot wipe out the old sins committed in the name of religious fervour.
The strychnine laced flour given to the aboriginal people as well as the systematic destruction of their culture. We can make all the excuses in the world about it, especially that "we did not know at the time and that our forefathers were simpletons" but the land was stolen from under their feet with a Terra Nulius edict that allowed many sins of lynch mobs to be whitewashed. For example, I have seen the historical documentation recorded by a priest of one incident amongst many when a few Aboriginal hunters killed some sheep that were encroaching on their shrunken "territory"... The whole tribe, including women and children, was thus punished by being buried on a beach at low tide, with only their heads to poke out left to drown as the tide came in... Whether or not the folks of this northern New South Wales town were Christians, the Judaeo-Christian justice system did not punish those responsible for this atrocity.
Thus there were some apologies made belatedly — including Keating's famous Redfern speech — to show that we care... We still don't care much or not enough as to truly see where we've really been wrong. We carry on with similar stunts in regard to "boat people"... By stunts I mean excuses and bad will. We invent excuses to justify being ruthless bastards while we have a bleeding heart on our sleeve. The churches are too quiet. No peep. They have their own sex problem to deal with at the moment at a royal commission.
Both side of politics have cultivated the fields of excuses because we are told this is what WE want and our political masters oblige. Of course this is a lot of crap, WE believe not much more than what we are told. And who tells us what WE should think or believe? in general it's a pissy mediocre mass media presently led by a certain Mr Murdoch whose father Keith, I guess, would be horrified by his son's manipulations of news and phone taps. But let's not bring dads into this equation — a certain Mr Alan Jones did this with Julia Gillard and got hit on his fingers for six... No, the present "propagation of news" has been designed with modern refinements to cajole our prejudices and our vicarious idiotic pleasures via opinionated articles... This the power of the spruikers and of the pseudo-writers of "news"...
Freedom in general, as well as writing shit, is full of prejudicial connotations should we invoke freedom as the leading light of our ruthlessness and of our murders, while we restrict others' right to freedom. We invent rules and borders.
In regard to apologies, one should think about creating an App-ology that automatically apologises to all those we crap into the back yard thereof. The most biased "journalists" (spruikers — journalists are not supposed to be partisan) thus skilfully press our prejudicial buttons with erroneous information under the freedom of saying whatever pleases them since they "believe" so to be right — or drag us along with suggestion of doubt.
One can believe any shit of course, but knowledge is a not a belief. Knowledge requires study of information that has no seasoning of fairy dust on it. Science is the closest to this ideal, while religions are full of fairy dust and hypocritical positions in which excuses are reinforced by "mysteries" of faith...
On the apology front, there is a weird battle going on between Chris Kenny and the ABC... One of the ABC's best show, The Hamster Wheel — from which the picture at top has been stolen — is controversial of course and had a quick illustrated comedic sketch about the said Chris f&^%$ing a dog... Of course Mr Kenny takes offence that this was not true and it was attacking his good values or such. Chris Kenny is a "journalist" (spruiker) for the Murdoch press. He has been a fairly loud voice "denouncing" the "lefty" ABC, the left in general and the global warming alarmists. He used to be employed by some of the right wing nuts as a writer of stuff.
So, as far as I was concerned, when I viewed the skit, I did not see Chris Kenny as a dog-f$%#@er... I saw a parody of someone with strong opinions trying to do the ABC over — which he is constantly doing with articles that have little basis and plenty of argumented bile. According to him, the ABC should not be allowed to show any person with leftist opinion without bashing them on the head and the ABC should only be promoting the glory of the right, of which Chris Kenny is a strong advocate.
Quote: On Monday, 11 April 2011 Chris Kenny appeared on the ABC Television show Q&A alongside politicians and community figures. In 2012 he argued that the Q&A show was biased, left wing, and should be cancelled. He has also called for large parts of the ABC to be shut down whilst at the same time defending Rupert Murdoch's News Corp as an unbiased media organisation. [Wikipedia]
Ahahahahahah.... Of all the faults of Q&A, it's that it tends to lean somewhat right-wing really in the choice of some of its forceful guests. It is a blancmange of undeveloped childish opinions where emotions rule rather than facts... Since the right wing-nuts rarely base their opinions on facts and considering that TV is a medium of emotional exploitation, anyone with scientific facts will be rolled over hot coals for bringing proper facts into this volatile discussion medium.
On the global warming front Kenny has no shame in telling lies or falsehoods. HIS VIEWS (which he might believe in — the sad soul) ARE OPINIONS without any recourse to any scientific evidence but he can write any crappy dribble with skill and get away with it... Hence the skit which to say the least was in bad taste but not worth the hype about it — except for Kenny who felt hurt to be portrayed such...
I must say here LOUD AND CLEAR that Chris Kenny's views are more offensive to me than any bad comedic skit. His views are dangerous, especially his erroneous views on global warming... They are dangerous and people will die should we not tackle global warming. But according to the master of right-wing spin, global warming is going to be beneficial to the world economies.
I suppose that having to make windmills and solar panels would make the wheels of business turn faster, but no... It appears that Chris Kenny hates all the alternative energy sources apart from the nuke option. As an aside here, let's be clear again and again: NO nuclear energy supply in the entire world has been able to survive without governmental subsidies. And if push comes to shove, Kenny is in favour of Tony's Direct Action...
Of course the Direct Action is a crock. Otherwise Tony would not be supporting the timber industry with proposed deregulation of world heritage forested areas and at the same time claim that we have to plant more trees... This is an hypocrisy that can be excused with catholic gymnastics while keeping a straight face at a poker game.
So, when Chris Kenny tells you that Global Warming has been happening forever, this is a blatant LIE. A GIANT Lie that he should not get away with. It's a gone-to-the-dogs simplification of processes. To be fair, I have tried to understand why he did claim such crap. It does not take long to see that Kenny mixes the theory of the greenhouse gases and that of global warming. Though the two are related, they are NOT THE SAME THING. This could show that Kenny's understanding of science is nil or zero but he writes about it in detail as if he knew what he is talking about. BOLLOCKS. It's crap. He should be debunked.
Yes, the greenhouse phenomenon has been going on for about 4.5 billion years... But during this length of time, the greenhouse phenomenon has had many upheavals and incarnations. The gaseous mix has changed over the aeons in various ways and has influenced the "greenhouse" effect which protects the earth from being a thread-bare planet. Not only the atmospheric gaseous mix is crucial to maintain a certain equilibrium of comfort for life to survive, the oceans which constitute more than 70 per cent of the surface of the planet also have a strong role to play. With known variations, the present gaseous mix has been "stable" for at least the last million years. Yes, science has ways to discover these things, such as the extinction of the Dinosaurs...
Global warming is a recent observation of change in the atmospheric conditions of the greenhouse effect and of the warming of the oceans. The scientific data shows that — instead of cooling towards a (far) next Ice Age, as the scientific predictions till the 1940s assured the scientific community (the mere mortals had no idea what was going on) — there has been some undue warming of the surface of the earth. I will not develop yet again all the scientific data and arguments to explain what is happening but in short, the result of serious work of data analysis and experimentation show that global warming is happening (fast) and is anthropogenic.
Sure there are some idiotic claims made by some mischievous bods in the "green movement". The "hoax" that the Statue of Liberty and the Opera House will be under water is a good one... But is it a "hoax"?...
This is the next 2000 years question (the event is earmarked for the year 4000!) ... Is it a "hoax" when some dudes in fancy religious hats claim we should live our life according to old dusty books that tell of Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago?... That in my book is a "long-lasting hoax", if you want to know one...
Last night on Media Watch (10/03/14) Paul Barry decried that making such biblical-sized flood predictions was ludicrous and I agree. But the scientific record, is there to tell us what is happening and a rise of sea level of 75 metres is not out of the question by then (4000). It happened before some 120 million years ago.
Chris Kenny tells us that before 1850 we did not have real-time temperature measurements and accuracy. This is crap... Most of the clocks and other instruments used by scientists before then were more accurate than a Cartier gold watch. Scientists, even if they did not know squat yet, were anal about measurements... They invented new methods to do this. Our alcohol thermometers were invented (from 1654) way before the industrial revolution and already had more than a tenth of a degree (not centigrade or Celsius then) accuracy. Breguet clocks measure time with amazing accuracy for nearly 200 years still. And there are other methods to measure past temperatures with a great degree of accuracy: tree rings, ice core and other isotopic variations of woopwoopium. You know what I mean.
So Chris Kenny sells his wares starting from false premises. He spruiks from a rotten soap box... That is the privilege of those who have employment to spruik falsehood in a supportive cabal of other spruikers of falsehoods. And there is little we can do, except push the envelope in a skit with a dog?... I would not do that. But Chris Kenny does not hesitate to muck up your mind with his falsehoods. And this is why I was surprise to see ALL THE MEMBERS OF the panel on Q&A (ABC TV) agreeing with our Primal Minister that :
TONY ABBOTT: Well, the point I make is that, government money should be spent sensibly. And defending the indefensible is not a very good way to spend government money and, next time the ABC comes to the government looking for more money, this is the kind of thing that we would want to ask them questions about.
— 2GB, Sydney Live, 6th March, 2014”
Always to do with cash and hip-pocket as far as our Tony is concerned... Nothing else.
Sure, the comedic skit was in bad taste but this was the point. For a fair thinker like me, Chris Kenny always leave a dangerous worse taste around with his rotten articles. And by discussing the case so overtly and showing such a strong unanimous opinion, the panel of Q&A has strongly PREJUDICED the case which, contrary to the mediocre mass media response, did not vindicate Chris Kenny but allow the case to move on to a court with four jurists and a judge. No judgement has been made.
It is my view that the ABC has no choice but to fight it and — the case having been so prejudiced — it should be dismissed.. . I am no lawyer and I could be wrong here. But as far as Kenny's opinionated crap on global warming, it's crap... I believe Kenny should be a bigger man than sue the ABC.
As a disguised Fletch says in one of his movies: "It takes a big man to admit being wrong... but I am a small man..."
A Fletch philosophy expert on lazy journalism
Chris Kenny: Global warming has been happening forever - and it might help world economies
The zealots seem determined to turn it into a black-and-white issue - the believers versus the deniers.
Dare to question their prevailing climate alarmism, or their carbon price prescription, and you are denounced as a denier.
This is plain silly.
Even if you have the most pessimistic view of global warming trends, it is possible to make a rational argument that a carbon price is a waste of money.
And you could be deeply sceptical about warming but make a plausible case for a carbon price as insurance - giving the planet the benefit of the doubt.
There are enough questions, options, facts and uncertainties in this debate to render all the finger-pointing and divisiveness ridiculous.
Let's go through the important questions step by step.
First, we have to decide whether or not the planet is warming.
This is often expressed as the inane question: "Do you believe in climate change?".
In matters of science and policy belief is irrelevant - it is all about facts.
Still, there is only one possible answer to the thrust of this query. Of course, the climate is changing. It always is.
And there is an indisputable body of evidence to demonstrate global warming over the past century or more.
As the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says: "Each of the last three decades has been successfully warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850."
Yet this is still a complex area for debate.
Before about 1850 we didn't have accurate real-time temperature measurements - and our accuracy, methods and geographic spread of measurements have increased extensively since.
Also, during the great post-war era of industrialisation we recorded cooler temperatures before a distinct warming began from the 1980s.
This is dismissed as attributable to natural variability.
And, of course, the warming has plateaued or, at the very least, slowed considerably over the past 15 years, just when experts were predicting it would continue to increase.
The UK Met Office's world-renowned Hadley Centre has revised downwards its predictions which, if correct, would result in global average temperatures fail to top the 1998 reading even 20 years later.
To be clear, the current decade would still be warm and, by the Hadley Centre's reasoning, warming would still be occurring.
The IPCC describes this as the "reduction in surface-warming trend" and attributes it to "internal variability" and "possible redistribution of heat within the ocean".
Still, let's settle on the fact that the climate is changing and globally, the trend is for warming.
The next consideration is whether this is a bad thing or a good thing.
In Australia, naturally enough, we see things from our own perspective as a hot, dry continent where increased heat and drought would undoubtedly create problems.
But in the northern hemisphere, where most of the world's population lives, warmer temperatures make life easier for people - reducing heating costs and health risks, and even opening up more opportunities for agriculture.
A UK university study has found that across the past century the impact of climate change has been a net positive: equal to an extra 1.4 per cent of global economic output.
The study predicts, on current trends, the pros will continue to outweigh the cons until about 2080.
People such as Matt Ridley, in The Spectator, have argued that we are harming our economies now to prevent changes that are beneficial.
It is all a matter of degrees, really (pardon the pun).
If we were conceited enough to think we could set a thermostat for the globe, would we set it at current temperatures where they were a century ago or slightly warmer than now?
Still, let's agree, that if warming continued unabated, it would eventually create more problems than benefits.
Next we need to conclude what is causing global warming. The IPCC is almost certain that more than half is caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the IPCC says.
This raises the point that even in the fanciful event that we shut down all of our industries and ceased all our emissions, anything up to half of current global warming would continue because of natural factors.
Which brings us to the next vital determination: Can we do anything about it?
The IPCC says "most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped."
There are valid arguments to say we should focus less on controlling Earth's thermostat and concentrate on adapting to a warmer planet.
We could build more irrigation infrastructure in drought-prone areas or sea walls around low-lying cities.
Having had all these discussions, if we decided that we must cut carbon emissions, we then need to decide how to do it.
We could tax carbon emissions, which would make coal-fired electricity more expensive.
We could spend money mitigating carbon emissions - direct action.
Or we could invest in nuclear energy and replace all coal, gas and oil generation with the zero emissions silver bullet of nuclear.
All this puts into perspective the petty argument in Australia about how we achieve the bipartisan target of a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Does it really matter which method one nation uses to shift from 1.4 per cent of global emissions to 1.33 per cent?
It is time we all cooled down.
*Chris Kenny is associate editor of The Australian and hosts Viewpoint on SkyNews tonight at 7.30pm.
quoting Victoria Rollison:
Dear Chris Kenny,
I am writing to let you know that you and I can never be friends. This statement is not to imply that you have ever shown any desire to be my friend. You don’t know me. But I know you. And I can tell you, that we will never be friends.
I was unsure whether to write this letter, as I know you get enjoyment out of opportunities to call people names. The last thing I want to do was give you enjoyment. What made up my mind, and motivated me to finally get this letter written, is the knowledge that one day, in the next 25 to 100 years, future generations of Australians will read this letter when they Google such keywords as ‘who was responsible for inaction on climate change?’, and ‘how were our forefathers talked into believing morons in the media rather than climate scientists?’ and ‘why is it too hot to go outside for 6 months of the year?’ That’s the beauty of the Internet. Your stupidity, your arrogance and your selfishness will never be erased.
I wanted to let you know that your contribution to the events surrounding the failure of humanity to adequately protect future generations against the catastrophic effects of climate change has not gone unnoticed. I know you haven’t worked on your own, but you have done your best, and for that reason, you should be acknowledged.
I do concede that you have not been the worst offender. Your involvement has, characteristically, been haphazard and rather lazy. But it’s the cynical way in which you refer to the science of climate change, and to the good people in our society who work very hard to convince a much too easily deceived population that the science is as settled as the science of gravity, which leads me to choose you as this letter’s recipient. If you don’t understand, which I suggest is a result of your inadequate intelligence, I will try to explain just how dangerous and stupid a person you are.
You, on your own, would not cause me to make the effort to write this letter. But you, unfortunately, are not alone. You are one man that represents idiocy and recklessness the world over. And, in a statement that I am ashamed to say will probably undeservingly make you feel good about yourself, you do influence others. I don’t agree with most of your opinions, but you actually can be quite fair and reasonable on most topics. This just makes your attitude towards climate change even more dangerous. Through your Tweeting and your TV appearances and your work with News Ltd, you give other people who set out to find some reason for inaction, an excuse for such inaction. They justify their own stupidity by agreeing with yours. This is a disgrace. The fact that you are not ashamed is also a disgrace.
It is common at your workplace, The Australian, for journalists and commentators to misrepresent the facts about climate change. Coincidentally, you and your colleagues share the same views as your boss, Rupert Murdoch, and the political parties that you and your boss campaign in support of; for instance, the Republican Party in the US and the Liberal National Coalition in Australia. The thing is, when journalists such as Graham Lloyd misrepresent the science of climate change, they are sometimes forced to write corrections. But, you can’t be faulted on facts because you don’t use any.