Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

 Howard and his minions have been stoic and people of "steel" on their assertions that there is not such thing as Climate Change.

 It should not be a surprise to us that they were either lying then or they must be now, when Howard wants it to be the main issue at APEC his "failed election gimmick".  

 And the new euphemism, "aspirational", will be the method to make "nothing" suddenly seem of great significance.

 Howard wanted this hugely expensive "exercise in stupidity", to try to obtain some credibility for the election while at the same time, fawning over the world's biggest Terrorist. Fair dinkum.

 It was supposed to be a coincidence that the policies Bush praised Howard for were, in fact, the President's own policies.  Right down to the unmentioned "working poor".

So, let's get real about Howard's orders for "Aspirational" Nuclear Australia. http://www.SEA-US.org.com.au

Australian Uranium: Unearthing Disaster

In the five decades since the creation of the nuclear industry, vast sums of money have been spent to convince the public that nuclear technology is both necessary and desirable. The industry still lacks credibility in a number of key areas :

• Nuclear Energy is not clean - All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to reprocessing, contribute to the creation of long-lived radioactive wastes.
• Nuclear energy is not cheap - In many places renewable energy sources are as cheap or significantly cheaper than nuclear energy. When the electricity utilities were privatised in the United Kingdom the market refused to purchase or support nuclear utilities.
• Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming - Extensive studies have shown that each dollar invested in end-use energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon that a dollar invested in nuclear power.
• Nuclear power is not safe - Nuclear reactors routinely release radiation into the surrounding environment. Incidents, accidents, releases and leaks plague the industry in every country where it operates.
• Uranium mining is not safe - According to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, uranium mining has been responsible for the largest collective exposure of workers to radiation. One estimate puts the number of workers who have died of lung cancer and silicosis due to mining and milling alone at 20,000. It is widely agreed that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
• The threat posed by nuclear weapons is not over - More than 40,000 nuclear warheads still exist. Nuclear proliferation continues and there is a growing global trade in nuclear smuggling.
• The problems of nuclear waste have not been solved - Despite industry assurances, nuclear waste remains a very real and very potent danger. They need to be isolated from people and the wider environment for up to tens or even hundred of thousands of years.

 Well might Bush say "Bury not my nuclear waste in my yard - but in yours"!

NE OUBLIE.

Sigmar Gabriel says shutting down old reactors now would pay a safety dividend.

Mr Gabriel is a Social Democrat committed to the policy the party drafted in their previous Coalition with the Greens, switching off nuclear power by around 2020.

As the Howard government is about to consider nuclear reactors. Germany is considering closing down its nuclear reactors. I have always thought Howard was about 40 years behind the times. 

We do not want nuclear power stations full stop.  So Howard cancelled the referenda yesterday while in the NT checking out where the uranium deposits are.

Richard: Charming..Wouldn't it be nice, Mary, to get our hands on some of those internal Liberal opinion polls? 

These opportunities are too important to be lost to Australia because of a dishonest Labor fear campaign about nuclear power.

I do not believe you have anything to fear Fiona.

I am almost certain Australia will have nuclear energy within fifteen years irrespective of who wins the coming election. Mr Rudd has made a visit to the US to assure investors that it will be business as usual. Nothing in his policies differs very much from the present government. I have little doubt his first act in office will again be the re-assrance of global investors. Nuclear energy is a very important factor in the continual growth of Australia. I think he will use the UN report on nuclear energy to change any "silly election type promises".

Both of the Australian major parties would be aware (if not secretly) that this step is the only logical one. That should mean progression of Legislation without complications. The continual investment in the Australian mining, and energy sectors would not be going ahead without "certain assurances", and that you can be "assured" of.

Probably the most frustrating thing, after the "New Order's" dishonesty and their "mushroom" treatment of the Australian public, is the unsubstantiated and usually unfounded accusations they make about everyone other than themselves.

What I mean is - so far all of their dirt mongering and hasty unsubstantiated lies, have failed to impress even the most gullible of our people, as I believe the polls indicate.

Nevertheless, without any proof, they snatch Howardistics from the "air" and, the more radical and unbelievable they are, they receive macro coverage in the media.

I remember distinctly during my time as an elected (unpaid) Union "thug" for 22 years, that whenever the media asked us about the many peaceful outcomes of our discussions with the Corporations - they would not print it.

One such person informed me that "good news does not sell newspapers".

So, what could we expect - how could we get our message across in the face of the media Corporations having all the attention of the public?

Even though the Howard "New Order" has warned that they will increase the already stringent censorship laws, the media still believes that they are above repression.  Fair dinkum.

With all the current debates on a multitude of subjects, some too radical to even deserve a thought, we should "never ever" believe people who have gained their power from blatant lies.

Perhaps there is some truth in "they all lie" but, as Alison Broinowski said in A Fascist Australia, "Fascists lie in their teeth."

Any known liar should not expect to receive even one vote from a democratic Australian.

I believe that the Howard "New Order" has even more fascist intentions for Australia so I hope the swinging voters will vote for the Australian Labor party or the Australian Greens or the Australian Democrats but "never ever" the non-Australian Liberals or the Nationalists.

The only thing that Howard cannot dictate (I hope) is the final votes in the election (although the last two have shaken that belief).

Surely the Liberal/Nationalist coalition deserves the most damning electoral defeat in Australia's history.

Let's all hope that happens.

NE OUBLIE.

Pausing over Craig Rowley, I am reminded of how significant a (Chernobyl) difference between "core" and "non core" could be as to the subject of this thread.

Some time ago the Liberals latched on to the description of Kevin Rudd as "prissy".

While I consider that title more likely to raise the faces of Kevin Andrews and Alexander Downer, I believe that we have yet another in the "New Order" ranks – prissy Chrissy Pyne. Struth, he is an arrogant twit!

I quote sections of his interview by Leigh Sales on Lateline, Friday 24 August 2007:

LEIGH SALES: What's aspirational nationalism? What's the definition of aspirational nationalism?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It means that the state, that the old shibboleths of hanging on to the states and everything they did can be broken down because of change, because of nationalism becoming what it is today. There is a good reason for the Commonwealth to take a role.

LEIGH SALES: That doesn't seem very clear, with all respect.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I think it's very clear.[Leigh's off the Christmas list] I'll tell you why it's clear. People understand in South Australia, Victoria, NSW and Queensland and the ACT the Government's $10 billion water plan for the Murray-Darling Basin is an example of aspirational nationalism where it was out of date for that system to be broken up into five jurisdictions when it could have been handled by one system.

That's aspirational nationalism supported by the public. Put aside issues to do with state boundaries and old-fashioned ways of doing things and thing about what's good for the country in terms of an environmental and economic issue which is what the Murray-Darling Basin is.

LEIGH SALES: Do you think the term aspirational nationalism is going to catch on with voters? Do you think people will sit around weekend barbecues talking about aspirational nationalism?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I don't think the Prime Minister and I care less if people are sitting around the barbecue talking about a phrase, 'aspirational nationalism'. [He deserves a slap over the wrist with a handful of fairy floss]

LEIGH SALES: You set it up as a piece of your policy.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The purpose of the speech wasn't to have people talk about a new phrase. It is that the Coalition understands people are less concerned about the old ways of doing things and state boundaries and more concerned about outcomes and service delivery and things like the Murray-Darling Basin.

[And then a sudden change of subject]

Labor is yet to explain why Commonwealth public servants are going to be better at running 750 public hospitals than the state-based public servants who are closer, at the state levels, to the hospitals and the people running them. End of quote.

So, having made the statement, Pyne's leader doesn't want the wording scrutinised. Why?

Could it be because the reasonable interpretation is fascism, but with the prefix “aspirational” i.e. "wanted"?

So Howard wants us to accept a "wanted fascism" for the next election?

But as Pyne implied, let's not talk about it now that it has been said. A mandate no less?

Firstly an expert's description of Fascism in the Alison Broinowski's A Fascist Australia:

Article 1: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing andin public displays.

Let's all note that the Howard "New Order" ministers, one by one, are increasing their background of one flag to three, and the flag is appearing in their lapels as does the US Republican Party.

Make no mistake: Howard dearly wants a fascist totalitarian regime for himself before he leaves to live in America.

A fascist Australia would eliminate States and become one State, very open to easily fitting into the US as the 51st.

The rule of law does not apply to Howard now. Try to imagine what he would do should he be re-elected!

Caveat Emptor.

Even before today's debate began at the Queensland Conservatorium, former Midnight Oil singer Mr Garrett was clearly a favourite with the university crowd.

Mr Turnbull won the coin toss and started the debate.

He was heckled throughout his speech, especially when he touched on the issue of deforestation.

The reception was much warmer for a relaxed looking Mr Garrett, whose speech was also regularly interrupted by loud applause and cheering, especially when he reaffirmed Labor's anti-nuclear stance.

"We don't agree that a nuclear Australia is the right answer to climate change," he said.

During the follow-on question time, it was Mr Turnbull who once again sparked audience anger and was accused of not answering the questions posed to him.

Mr Turnbull is finding it will take more than dollars to get him elected. When it comes down to the debate, he has no answers.

The Howard Liberal/Nationalist government is continuing its favourite dodge of accusing their opposition, whoever that may be, of doing what they are doing themselves.  Fair dinkum.

They have accused the Australian Labor Party of hypocrisy in that they will sell uranium to countries signed up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not to India - who isn't.

They also accuse them of hypocrisy in agreeing to sell uranium to nations who have established Nuclear Reactors, but oppose Nuclear Reactors in Australia.

The hasty accusation is of course, ridiculous.

If wealthy nations have installed Nuclear Reactors, hopefully with the agreement of their people, and they want our uranium, and they have signed up to the NPT - what's the problem for Howard's Corporations?  More sales, more profits - so what is going on in their little minds?

Why are they making an issue of Nuclear Reactors so close to an election when they know that it is unpopular?

Simple - they believe that they will win the election and will claim a mandate because they WERE elected AFTER mentioning it!

I would like to remind Howard of the reason his idol R.G. Menzies earned the title of "Pig Iron Bob".

In 1938, our wharf labourers were working on a ship when they learned that they were loading pig-iron for the Japanese who were committing world condemned atrocities in their invasion of China.

The wharfies rrefused to assist the mass murderers

Pig-Iron Bob: "The Christmas Ham: for workers at Port Kembla the Christmas of 1938 is a bleak time. Thanks to watersiders' refusal to load a cargo of pig-iron for Japan, steelworks have been closed and unemployment looms. As Attorney-General, Menzies has to handle the dispute for the Commonwealth Government, which contests the right of a union to make national foreign policy. As the issues become muddied, Menzies wins the well-known soubriquet of 'Pig-Iron Bob'." A W Martin, Robert Menzies A Life Vol 1 1894-1943, 1993 p 253.

Menzies had theTransport Worker's Act amended to require the wharfies to be licensed and that meant they had to obey whatever orders they were given to keep their licenses. 

Ring a bell about legislation today?

Nevertheless, Menzies was haunted by the title of "Pig-iron Bob" until he died.

But, he did NOT use the Pig-iron to make weapons - but he still sold it!

There is no truth - just the Howard scams.

We have one John Howard referendum to serve as our guide here: the November 1999 one on the republic issue.

The voters could have ranked a number of propositions in preferential order, such as: (a) I don't want a republic (b) I want a republic with a head of state elected by a 2/3 majority of both houses of parliament (c) I want a republic with a head of state elected directly by the people (d) I want a republic with a head of state appointed by the Prime Minister.

If (a) had won an absolute majority, the republic would not have got up. If not, the preferences would have sorted the issue out. But instead we had the following:

1. Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999-11-21
·  to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
2. Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999
·  to alter the Constitution to insert a preamble (AEC 1999,3).

(More here)

With that in mind, get set for something like the following in a nuclear power referendum: (a) I want a nuclear power station in my MP's electorate (b) I want a nuclear power station in some other MP's electorate (c) I wouldn't mind having a nuclear power station next door, as long as it was painted white (d) I wouldn't mind having a nuclear power station next door, as long as it was painted a colour other than white (e) all of the above.

It is purely narcissistic arrogance that makes Howard expect that even the "New Order" voters would now believe anything he has to say; say he'll do or promise to do.

Each and every one of his robots has, for almost 12 years, blindly followed him without any genuine consideration of the people they are supposed to represent. This has caused the public to reason that they are equally as guilty as Howard for the crimes against Australia and humanity.

There are significant numbers of Australian voters who have been Pinocchio'd into so much debt, with the added burden of employment insecurity and falling incomes, that listing them is just a waste of their time.

The lesson to remember, when entering the election booth, should be that a vote for the Howard Liberal/Nationalist government is not a vote for a government of Australians, for Australians and by Australians.

The Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrat Party and the Australian Greens are concerned with the Australian people's future.

Howard has even corrupted some independents like Meg Lees and tried to do it to decent people like Tony Windsor. In Eden-Monaro, they even had a Liberal stand as a so-called independent at the last election, so that he could pass his preferences to the Liberal Gary Nairn. Legal but sneaky.

Let's have a reality check:

• The Howard Liberal/Nationalist Party is an extension of the Bush regime in the U.S.
• Howard's promises are "never ever" delivered as they are made. In fact, most are "tinkers" and not only have strings attached but have a hidden motive as well.
• The centralist, nationalist attitudes espoused by Howard are merely euphemisms for fascism.
• All dictatorships, fascist or communist, are centralist, autocratic regimes.
• Howard's take-overs are politically motivated and appear to be populist. But take a breath and look for the hidden agenda.
• In essence, whatever these people say, you cannot trust them.

So let's have a look at Howard’s speech in this thread.

If Australia is serious about addressing climate change it must consider adding nuclear power to its energy mix, as many other countries are already doing.

He knows we are serious or he wouldn't even bother to mention it - remember, he was outed by his mates registering Nuclear Energy Australia? We do not vote in "other countries" and their business is their business.

Nuclear power is the only reliable source of low emission baseload power now available.

If it is going to take 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, depending on which "New Order" liar who is talking, how is it NOW available? We would have much safer and Australian climate friendly alternative methods to defeat climate change - which he doesn't believe in.

There are no plans to develop nuclear power stations in Australia. The Government will not build nuclear power stations and does not expect to see proposals for private nuclear power stations for 10 to 15 years.

Lies, damn lies and Howardistics. They defy scrutiny.

Power stations would only be constructed if they were commercially viable and satisfied strict environmental, non-proliferation, health and safety requirements.

Which his history suggests will not be honoured.

My Government has decided there will be binding local plebiscites conducted in communities where power stations are proposed to be built. This would follow extensive community consultation.

First you have to accept his assertion that it will be in 10 to 15 years and, God willing, he will not have "my government". He only realised the con of plebiscites when taking over the authority of the Queensland Labor government. He has "never ever" believed in the public having their say by plebiscite, especially of matters of some importance, like the illegal invasion of another country.

Labor's reckless fear campaign against nuclear power is short-sighted, irresponsible and puts Australia's capability to deal with climate change at risk.

What a sensational statement from a sceptic!

Many countries are investing in nuclear power, with 90 new power stations under construction or consideration. Nuclear energy already represents 16% of the world's electricity generation and contributes to the global abatement of more than two billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

Many countries have better productivity, economies, unionism, bill of rights, freedom of expression and democratic governments.

The Government's priority is to tackle climate change without damaging Australian jobs and living standards. Nuclear power could make a significant contribution to this challenge.

Too late for the fall in incomes and job security.

These opportunities are too important to be lost to Australia because of a dishonest Labor fear campaign about nuclear power.

To encapsulate - never ever trust the Howard government.

NE OUBLIE.

Just a perspective point or two:

1. Which local community when asked to vote in a binding plebiscite on hosting a nuclear reactor will vote "yes"? NIMBY rules, every time, especially on something big and scary like this.
2. Fact is that the way the national power grid is structured the most economically logical place to site a nuclear plant is next to an existing fossil fuel or hydro plant, which must then soon be decommissioned to achieve the desired greenhouse benefits. Why? Because the national power grid is carefully scaled and optimised to accept the large current input that power stations generate precisely where it does now. The grid's like a big tree, you can't blasts masses of power into the twigs at the extremities and hope it flows through to the rest of the tree, it would blow up. This is one of the reasons wind power tends to be uneconomic, the areas with all the wind are usually out at the extremities of the grid so $bzillions need to be spent to upgrade the local and upstream bits of the grid to accept input from wind farms as they are implemented.
3. A nuclear power plant will employ more or less the same number of people as a fossil fuelled plant, and as one replaces the other net local employment effect will be at best temporary and also limited.

So, the upshot of all this is that it's likely only really the electorates that currently host power stations that would ever be polled, and they'd very likely vote "no". Howard must know this; it all sounds like some strange stunt to me.

Yes, certainly marvellous all this uranium industry stuff. We, or rather certain arms of the Bloody Great Huge Transnational Corporation( subject to takeover from a Private Equity consortium located in the Caymans with PO boxes in Shanghai, St Petersburg, Riyadh, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Wall St and Miami ), get to flog the stuff overtly or covertly to every unstable nutter dictatorship in the Middle East. Note branch meeting of subsidiary about to take place in chuffed little Sydney ... whoa!

Ready for "recyclement" in half a dozen years’ time in the form of dirty bombs let off by wingnut groups protected by intelligence organs from aforementioned, if not the odd stray ICBM when the cranks achieve their most inner heartfelt desires and go to war with each and every other.

The other furphy is "community consultation”. “Community consultation" is a subspecies of "public inquiries", as both never occur without developer-driven government engineering the end-result prior to the farce being enacted.

The Tassie Gunns Dioxin pulp-mill is the paradigm. First try to flog it by conventional brainwashing means. If the punters wake up too quick; If there is any danger of something obnoxious and toxic NOT being foisted on a disempowered and despised locale, then change the rules by act of parliament and ride roughshod over the ungrateful bastards, anyway.

BTW, what IS this nonsense Costello is up to with new dissent-silencing legislation – forget exact details.

... to continue to hold power after the next election.

So John Howard now says:

"My Government has decided there will be binding local plebiscites conducted in communities where power stations are proposed to be built. This would follow extensive community consultation."

And at a glance, and unfortunately that's what at this stage still too many people are likely to give it, that'll look good. 

But consider what Howard does not present to the people yet, what at this stage is left unsaid?

As has been his form over 11 years, what John Howard does not say is anything on the details.

We can take from what he has said that the 'promised' (core or non-core?) plebiscites will only be conducted so that only the limited local community where the nuclear facilities are proposed to be sited can take part. But what of the boundaries that will be set?

Radioactive leaks out of malfunctioning reactors don't abide by municipal jurisdictions, so how would it be fair to say that on one street residents can have a say and down the road their neighbours cannot?

Trucks carrying enriched uranium fuel or radioactive waste drive beyond the local road network, through suburbs and regional centres and towns, past homes and schools and so on, so how will reasonable lines be drawn around a 'local community'?

What I see is a 'divide and conquer' plan in the making.

We can also assume his policy that "commercial decision-making" will determine the sites remains unchanged and that means the plebiscites will be announced to our local community only after those doing the "commercial decision-making" have set their sights on the site within our neighbourhood. 

That means the commercial interests involved can anticipate any "extensive community consultation" well in advance of any much smaller, much less organised community group or other concerned individuals prepared to champion a 'No' vote. 

And, just how extensive is the "extensive community consultation" really going to be? 

Who gets to determine whether the process will be so short and sharp that communities can't keep pace with project proponents that are already 'out of the blocks' or long and drawn out so that 'resistance' in a community can be out-gunned and worn down?

 Subtitle: no, not the navy-recruit type

-=*=-

1. Howard has offered the QLD local council-backers a possibly poisoned chalice; to vote y/n for amalgamation or the status quo.

2. Vaile flags vote on possible nuclear sites
Posted August 23, 2007 01:00:00

 and Costello backs community vote on nuclear reactors
Posted August 23, 2007 10:00:00

3. Even TV shows are in on the act; see big-brother-ejac... err, ejected.

Since I started drafting this, its becoming 'a movement:'

4. NT wants vote on proposed nuclear dump
Posted August 23, 2007 16:04:00

Then wha'd'ya know - our very own PM as 'flip-flopper:'

5. PM backs local votes on reactor sites
5:53pm PRIME Minister John Howard has moved to counter a Labor scare campaign on nuclear plants and a split in the coalition by supporting plebiscites about proposed reactor sites.

-=*=-

(This could be Howards *BIG* mistake: letting the democracy genie out'a the bottle. Haw!)

-=*=-

Could we be on the threshold of a new - and better - chapter in our poor, crippled democracy?

-=*=-

Q: Why didn't we get a vote back then, on the Iraq war illegal invasion (now turned brutal occupation) - both equally murdering, and based on eventual oil-theft... we could still have a vote anytime, it's never too late to stop this awful, senseless (unless you're an oil-major) slaughter?

Let's face it, some sort'a clean-up is sorely needed.