AUSTRALIA’S richest woman, Gina Rinehart, has slammed Julia Gillard’s carbon tax.

As much as Big Tobacco’s multimillion dollar campaign against plain packaging convinces me that plain packaging will reduce smoking levels in Australia (if there’s no threat, why fight it?). Gina Rinehart’s protests against the carbon tax and the Resources Rent Tax (the infamous mining tax) convince me that they too will probably achieve their desired goal. Mind you, I don’t necessarily believe that their desired goal is to reduce pollution. Ultimately their aim (in my not so humble opinion) is to make certain industries SLIGHTLY less profitable and as a side effect they should theoretically reduce pollution.

According to Gina, “”For the cost of building this trial mine alone, I could have bought myself a beautiful new private jet,”

“But … who would be paying the wages of these contractors if I had spent that on a luxurious private jet and two pilots instead?

One point before I get into the meat of the argument… thanks Gina Rinehart for reminding all of us who CAN’T afford a private jet exactly how rich you are. How wonderful it must be to have the problem of deciding between a new luxurious private jet and a trial mine.

On to the main part of my argument…. Gina, I’m sure that the ONLY reason that you’ve decided to open that trial mine that you refer to so fondly, is to altruistically support the Australian community and provide jobs. It would have nothing to do with the amount of potential profit from your mine, I’m sure. It’s gratifying to know that you have all of our best interests at heart and I hope these evil taxes won’t affect your bottom line too much. With only $10.3 Billion in total estimated wealth( ), it must be hard for you.

As a rough estimate, you have approximately $490 for every Australian citizen. I consider myself reasonably well off and you could pay me to work for you at my current salary for just over 2 days with that $490. Alternatively, if you paid me and only me my current salary and somehow earned no more money in the meantime you could keep me employed for a staggering 171,000 years.

Yet you’re complaining about what these taxes are going to cost you. Somehow, I lack sympathy.




Greenpeace destroys a CSIRO GMO research crop

Congratulations Greenpeace, you’ve just made me lose further respect for your activities.

By invading and destroying a test crop of GMO wheat, a test crop that was being used to determine whether or not a particular strain of GMO wheat was safe for human consumption, they have proven their fanaticism, irrationality and lack of desire to scientifically test their own theories on GMOs.

According to one of the Greentard activists who was involved in the raid (Heather McCabe: “I’m sick of being treated like a dumb mum who doesn’t understand the science. As far as I’m concerned, my family’s health is just too important. GM wheat is not safe, and if the government can’t protect the safety of my family, then I will.”

Right, so it’s your job Heather to determine what is appropriate scientific method with regards to testing when you quite obviously already hold an (untested) opinion. In this one statement, you have demonstrated that you ARE the ‘dumb mum’. Let’s examine this statement for a second. “My family’s health is just too important. GM wheat is not safe…” OK Heather, you do realise that you’ve just invaded and destroyed an experiment that was designed to determine the safety of this GM wheat? You’ve drawn your own conclusions without evidence and decided to destroy anything that may disagree with you. Sounds like religious fanaticism to me… in fact, the Greentard statement even uses the phrase: “The CSIRO is either naïve or complicit in the corporate takeover of our daily bread.”

Our “daily bread”, hey? I thought that Greenpeace was supposed to be a rational look at our planet, a rational attempt to minimise the damage and allow us to co-exist peacefully and rationally with our environment. Using phrases like ‘our daily bread’ indicates a slightly more… spiritual bent. So Greenpiss, are you rational or religious? Am I supposed to believe that you are trying to achieve the best for us all based on the facts, or are you a faith based organisation?

Sort it out and stop lying to your members, I for one am sick of being told that I don’t believe in ‘green’ principles if I don’t support the Green Party and/or Greenpeace. You are dangerous, you are fanatics, you won’t listen to reason. The only reason I can see to attack a test that may disprove your beliefs is because you consider it heresy. How about next time you let them finish the study and if you don’t agree, attack the science and not the test itself. If you don’t agree with the methods, set up your own scientific and RATIONAL test. As of right now, you have fallen into the realm of book-burning. Conservation should be based on science, not on the ‘inviolable sanctity’ of nature. That sounds dangerously close to ridiculous Gaia worship.

I’m sick of it…

Congratulations blogosphere, you’ve finally made me angry enough to post something in a blog. The lowest form of journalism has invaded my life, I’ve written (poorly) for newspapers and now I’m descending into the condescending world of the self-righteous blog.

We have a number of emotive issues dancing round in the Australian political sphere at the moment. Ju-Liar Gillard is introducing a carbon tax (and apparently being able to coin a headline friendly nickname for a political opponent is more important than actually addressing their policies) , Greenpeace objects to GM modified wheat that contains the Rage virus, whipper-snippers are anti-GMO but pro-MMGW… especially the petrol powered ones.

I’ll be upfront and honest about my political affiliation, I believe that the only ‘honest’ party out there at this time is the Australian Sex Party. They believe in sex and sexual/personal freedom, they are the porn party (according to various foaming at the mouth Green supporters who are personal friends of mine but apparently don’t like porn, or women who say/feel that they’re empowered by porn). I never said that they were deep, I merely try to assert that they don’t interfere with economic and social areas that they don’t find important and probably aren’t qualified to handle. Essentially, the ASPs policies aren’t perfect or comprehensive but I personally prefer a lack of policy to a misguided and media friendly policy. In politics it is often a choice of the least worst option, rather than the best.

All of these issues and more will be addressed by my next few blogs.