I've said before that Peter Garrett is an embarrassment as a minister in my opinion and that he is simply a sycophantic yes man following party line without a clue about anything environmental in real terms, and I stand by that.
The burning of fossil fuels has to be the biggest downside of mans foray into the modern society that it is today as far as impact on this planet we live on, the continued reliance on a depleting finite resource that is damaging in its removal and then doubly damaging it its processing and eventual use is the greatest success and greatest failure at the same time.
All that being said we can make the choice to do something about it on a daily basis, reducing the amount of fuel we use, using consumables with less packaging and limiting the amount of travel we do, all things that a government suggests to the people in the community to lessen the impact of climate change.
So you have to ask yourself why would the minister for the environment be spending $226,010 on travel, burning vast quantities of aviation fuel, going around the world, when a Skype hook up could achieve the same result?
Simple, Garrett is enjoying one of the perks of being a minister, free world tours at the taxpayers expense, holidays around the world for free.
The Government will claim that he went to some conference or did some government business while he was there of course and he will most likely trot out the old line that it is expected that we attend these things, which is BS.
Garrett is a fraud, spouting lines from old songs about how the people should do without, make sacrifices to help reduce carbon emissions and at the same time he's burning so much carbon on world trips that we're effectively going backwards and not achieving any reduction at all.
Garrett should rethink his globetrotting ways, he should practice as he preaches, he should be an example for reduction of carbon emissions, he should be a shining light to the rest of the community about how we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and do business world wide without wasting both money and resources.
If Garrett can't do this he should resign, and let someone who can be real, effective and set an example as a warrior for climate change.
In my opinion Garrett is a Fraud for the environment.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Division 3 decided, . . .wait for the ricochet, . .
After what seems like months since the cowardly departure from a tough fight with sitting Labor man John Mickel in the seat of Logan to the relative sure thing of a safe seat in Beaudesert by the former Division 3 representative, it would seem that we now have the other candidate who came second (by a handful of votes)in the two horse race for division 3 almost 14 months ago, as the victor of this by-election.
The very experienced former deputy and acting Mayor will be back to add to his previous 12 years in the chamber.
This actually raises some questions about what is going to happen to the political balance in council, and to the ladder climbing of the new kids who seem to spend their days plotting ways to tip other councillors out of their chairs including the deputy mayor, or should i say especially the deputy mayor who seems to be the main target most of the time even though all attempts so far have ended in complete and utter embarrassing failure.
The fact that the newly elected Division 3 representative has great experience as a deputy mayor may be the catalyst for another coup attempt from the power hungry "kiddie councillors" who may attempt to offer their allegiances in exchange for support to topple the current deputy mayor.
I doubt that the division 3 representative will be willing to play that game with the likes of those would be razor gang members of council in a bloody minded and politically driven coup that would serve no real purpose except to further destabilise council as a whole.
personally I think the new division 3 councillor will get a chair anyway, quite possible the chair for community services.
The very experienced former deputy and acting Mayor will be back to add to his previous 12 years in the chamber.
This actually raises some questions about what is going to happen to the political balance in council, and to the ladder climbing of the new kids who seem to spend their days plotting ways to tip other councillors out of their chairs including the deputy mayor, or should i say especially the deputy mayor who seems to be the main target most of the time even though all attempts so far have ended in complete and utter embarrassing failure.
The fact that the newly elected Division 3 representative has great experience as a deputy mayor may be the catalyst for another coup attempt from the power hungry "kiddie councillors" who may attempt to offer their allegiances in exchange for support to topple the current deputy mayor.
I doubt that the division 3 representative will be willing to play that game with the likes of those would be razor gang members of council in a bloody minded and politically driven coup that would serve no real purpose except to further destabilise council as a whole.
personally I think the new division 3 councillor will get a chair anyway, quite possible the chair for community services.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Shock Treatment, . . . .is it just brutality?
Since the Police Union have had their way and officers have been issued with what is effectively a cattle prod in a pistol, the Taser; Police haven't had so much exposure in the media for overzealous use of force since the Joh bejelke Peterson days in Queensland where police were reduced to almost a political goon squad.
The initial cry for the taser from the police union was as a safety precaution for the general public; the claim was that the taser would replace lethal force, the gun, for the majority of cases where police were confronted by an agitated and armed offender (alleged) who was resisting arrest and making threats to the public or police.
So far the Taser has been used on children and adults who appear to have done little more than question the validity of police instructions or not obeyed police instructions in a fast enough time frame.
This isn't a police bashing post by any means, however, it seems to me that if you give someone the power to, and the use, of a tool then they will find a reason to use it.
That being said, my concern is that the police have no way of ascertaining the health conditions of a person they are shocking with 50,000 volts or whether this kind of voltage could have serious consequences of a negative nature to the person they are shocking which could result in death even though both the government and the police claim there are no adverse health issues with the taser.
Recently reported in the media is the story of how police officers got involved in an incident which was occurring at a hotel across the road from a police station which resulted in about half a dozen police officers scuffeling with 3 members of a family with one officer targeting the older man who appeared in video footage to be pushing officers away from his younger relatives and who during the scuffle with this particular officer returned punches after several times evading the grasp of that officer who eventually tasered the older man and then grabbed him in a headlock. One of the younger relatives retaliated by running at the officer and (allegedly) head butting him which resulted in severe damage to the officer who was knocked out instantly and hit his head very hard on the ground when he went down.
The men were arrested by police later and charged but let off by a judge who saw the video evidence and called the police to task for excessive force, and released the charged men, to the ire of police.
The older man suffered a heart attack only minutes after the tasering by that officer, and most probably as a result of it, a point which police say has no basis despite overwhelming contradictory evidence from the USA where cases of heart attacks and other problems after Taser shocks are well documented.
The police want to continue to have appeals and have the men charged with something, since the officer has serious problems from his injuries, and it seems to me that it's about revenge rather than right and wrong.
The incident was a common one where a rowdy group were blueing after a skinfull at the pub, the question is this, if the taser is a replacement for lethal force as they say, then why was it used in this situation? was that officer in fear for his or a member of the public's life? or, . . was he frustrated at his inability to apprehend an old man who was trying to break up the fighting?
In the case at the gold coast the officer tasered a 15 year old girl who was being held by two security guards; was that officer in fear of his or a member of the public's life? I don't think so. He used the taser like a fist to punish the girl out of anger and rage, he issued summary justice. . . .no judge , no jury, just a cop and his taser and that girl will obey or by heaven she will pay.
So in reality do our police need to be using a replacement for lethal force as they have in these cases, look up you tube and see how they use them in the USA and you will see that if a person doesn't respond fast enough, obey quick enough or even treat the cop with enough respect they can be tasered, just normal people who have come to the attention of police and feel the wrath of those officers.
I think the officer who uses a tares should be forced to submit a public report as to why they felt that they were in fear for their life or fear for a member of the public's life and if they cannot substantiate a real and present danger, they should be stood down.
Well you can tell me that you think police don't get enough support from the general public, and that as a rule we are losing respect for them, and even that they are a necessary evil, but I guess we need the force, even though we probably fear them more than any criminal, or bikie gang, strange isn't it.
.
The initial cry for the taser from the police union was as a safety precaution for the general public; the claim was that the taser would replace lethal force, the gun, for the majority of cases where police were confronted by an agitated and armed offender (alleged) who was resisting arrest and making threats to the public or police.
So far the Taser has been used on children and adults who appear to have done little more than question the validity of police instructions or not obeyed police instructions in a fast enough time frame.
This isn't a police bashing post by any means, however, it seems to me that if you give someone the power to, and the use, of a tool then they will find a reason to use it.
That being said, my concern is that the police have no way of ascertaining the health conditions of a person they are shocking with 50,000 volts or whether this kind of voltage could have serious consequences of a negative nature to the person they are shocking which could result in death even though both the government and the police claim there are no adverse health issues with the taser.
Recently reported in the media is the story of how police officers got involved in an incident which was occurring at a hotel across the road from a police station which resulted in about half a dozen police officers scuffeling with 3 members of a family with one officer targeting the older man who appeared in video footage to be pushing officers away from his younger relatives and who during the scuffle with this particular officer returned punches after several times evading the grasp of that officer who eventually tasered the older man and then grabbed him in a headlock. One of the younger relatives retaliated by running at the officer and (allegedly) head butting him which resulted in severe damage to the officer who was knocked out instantly and hit his head very hard on the ground when he went down.
The men were arrested by police later and charged but let off by a judge who saw the video evidence and called the police to task for excessive force, and released the charged men, to the ire of police.
The older man suffered a heart attack only minutes after the tasering by that officer, and most probably as a result of it, a point which police say has no basis despite overwhelming contradictory evidence from the USA where cases of heart attacks and other problems after Taser shocks are well documented.
The police want to continue to have appeals and have the men charged with something, since the officer has serious problems from his injuries, and it seems to me that it's about revenge rather than right and wrong.
The incident was a common one where a rowdy group were blueing after a skinfull at the pub, the question is this, if the taser is a replacement for lethal force as they say, then why was it used in this situation? was that officer in fear for his or a member of the public's life? or, . . was he frustrated at his inability to apprehend an old man who was trying to break up the fighting?
In the case at the gold coast the officer tasered a 15 year old girl who was being held by two security guards; was that officer in fear of his or a member of the public's life? I don't think so. He used the taser like a fist to punish the girl out of anger and rage, he issued summary justice. . . .no judge , no jury, just a cop and his taser and that girl will obey or by heaven she will pay.
So in reality do our police need to be using a replacement for lethal force as they have in these cases, look up you tube and see how they use them in the USA and you will see that if a person doesn't respond fast enough, obey quick enough or even treat the cop with enough respect they can be tasered, just normal people who have come to the attention of police and feel the wrath of those officers.
I think the officer who uses a tares should be forced to submit a public report as to why they felt that they were in fear for their life or fear for a member of the public's life and if they cannot substantiate a real and present danger, they should be stood down.
Well you can tell me that you think police don't get enough support from the general public, and that as a rule we are losing respect for them, and even that they are a necessary evil, but I guess we need the force, even though we probably fear them more than any criminal, or bikie gang, strange isn't it.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)