Sgt Hulka Uncut

uncensored opinion and technical information on stuff

Archive for category Politics

An honest discussion on tax

Apr 19

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Economics, International, Politics | Comments off

Tax, as it is said, is the price we pay for civilisation. So as we begin the shouting, gnashing of teeth and get deluged with millions of dollars in advertising over whether a carbon tax here in Australia is going to destroy our economy or not, it would be nice to have an honest conversation for a change. I found a little bit of that honesty when I was reading Paul Krugman again the other day, between the lines of the point he was trying to make.

The graph in the Professor’s post shows overall government revenues as a percent of GDP for a number of countries, as below:
Screen shot 2011-04-19 at 3.21.49 PM
The key point that he was trying to make is what a low-tax country the USA is, in comparison to all the current demonising of all government and taxes that the right is trying to do there again. But the point it made to me is not the red bar for the USA, but the one below it. See, the truth is that Australia, even with our single-payer health system, uniform funding for schools out of general revenue (not property tax), and generally more social welfare than in the USA, actually do it all for less money than the USA on a normalised basis. Now how does that work?

Well, I haven’t finished my research yet, but I have a big feeling that the first big difference has to be that we don’t lie to ourselves as much. See, Americans have a great constitution, and a bill of rights, and pretty universal voting rights. But they got all those things long ago and haven’t really used them much since, that I think they have become complacent and still believe they have a functioning democracy. The truth is, the political system and public discourse through media in the US are so dominated by moneyed interests, that they virtually never have an honest conversation about serious issues like the role of government and what it costs (tax). Ever since I remember first having a political discussion in relation to the presidential primary between Bush I and Reagan, I have heard continually in virtually every discussion about the issue the fake truism that the US is taxed too highly. The discussion is pretty much always handled very simplistically and centres around rates. And it is easy to swing opinion to the side of the fake truism with the majority of people who draw a paycheck from an employer. They understand it: take your gross salary, multiply it by the rate and thats the tax the government gets from you. But what they don’t work through is the way most companies, and wealthy people do their tax with deductions, special tax subsidies, losses that can be carried forward and the different treatment of earned and unearned income. When you factor those things in that make up a huge portion of the US tax code, the result are absurdities such as those below as compiled by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT):
bernie-sanders-corporate-tax-4001
See, only suckers really pay the full 30% rate for corporations. The same is true for individuals paying tax, which is why the US can end up collecting so little revenue as a portion of GDP.

So, when I hear yesterday here in Australia that the government is now at 31% support, and that 60% of people now oppose a carbon tax, I wonder if we in Australia are also now buying into the sort of lies that have worked their “magic” in the USA. The truth is, we are also a very low tax country. The truth is that the carbon tax is going to have very little impact on the economy in Australia, and will also be made more fair to lower income households through the compensation already announced. We will even then still be able to afford to fund good things, and provide some relief to companies that are energy intensive and exposed to international trade.

And even though I generally support unions, if the unions here in Australia require that not one job be lost in order to address climate change, then its time for them to get honest with themselves as well. The truth is jobs digging up and burning the magic dirt have to go, and it won’t be a bad thing unless your only goal is to maintain the status quo.

At some point everyone needs to ask themselves, “What is my civilisation worth?”.

Tester and Baucus

Apr 7

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Good Ideas, Other Topics, Politics | Comments off

I got a letter from a US Senator and started a conversation with his staff today. Not my Senator of course, as that would technically speaking be the either of the two Senators mentioned in the title. But he is a solid guy with good principles he believes in, so always respond to him. My guys never seem to change their behaviour or address my specific concerns as a result my correspondence with them, so I will let loose on them here. Anyway, the Senator’s staff (because, you know, you are never really talking to a Senator unless you can touch them) wanted to know my thoughts on how do we bring down the deficit, based on his suggestions:

• End the exclusive tax breaks available only to millionaires and billionaires.
• End the subsidies for the highly-profitable oil and gas industries.
• Bring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a responsible end.
• Get our economy back on track – by investing in education and clean energy technology, boosting manufacturing, and keeping families in their homes by fixing the broken housing market.

I responded to him in the positive, as his suggestions are all positive. A refreshing change. And I provided some positive suggestions of my own.

On taxes and corporate subsidies, let’s get back to capitalism and free-market taxation systems. A good business does not need the government to make it, or keep it healthy. So shame on you Exxon, GE, Bank of America, etc., etc., etc. for paying no tax. Businesses are inherently good things, a collection of people (primarily) and other resources for a common good well beyond themselves that make an economic system function. So where those entities are participating in the economic system providing stuff and requiring labour, fantastic. In fact, as entities, they should pay a lower tax rate than a human being. But not no tax at all. So the USA needs to have a serious discussion at some point about addressing ALL tax loopholes that are used by major corporations of ALL types to minimise their tax in a way that smells suspiciously like avoidance.

Then my main point was about the defence budget. The USA will never seriously deal with the national debt if it maintains a military budget that is larger than all other militaries combined. Even at half of the current spend it would still leave a US military that would still be larger than all non-NATO countries. Why the paranoia in the USA about security? Most the yanks I know are the most secure and free people I know on the earth today. Does the USA honestly need to maintain a military that can take on NATO after defeating its real enemies?

Honestly, you can live your principles and keep yourself a lot safer a lot cheaper than maintaining a huge military, and the associated industrial complex to support and feed off of it.

Now you are never going to get a reduction of half, so why not go for something reasonable, like 40%. I expect that a serious discussion/fight over the subject could result in something like a reduction of 25% in the short term, with a ramp down to whatever is reasonable in the future (what, 50% at all times not going to make you feel good enough to sleep at night?). That is still a win as there will be a cut of $225 billion (all military, but not including the black ops budget). How about that for a debt and corresponding interest payment reduction? See, that’s what Americans mean when they tell you they want the government to treat its budget like a family budget. Reduce debt and interest when you can responsibly. But, perhaps it wouldn’t be responsible in the short term to use all that savings to pay off debt today. Perhaps there are some things the USA should move to spend money on in the Senator’s last point that may need to take priority over debt reduction. That $225 billion is supporting a lot of jobs, and the USA will need to shift, retrain and retire a lot of people. Or leave them to their own devices as you tell them the war factories are closing, but that is also a topic for later discussion.

When seriously discussing other cuts, focus the rest of your priorities on the elimination of fraud, waste, redundancy and inefficiency, but realise the diminishing returns of finding these opportunities. Start from the basis that people are generally honest, and companies are by definition amoral.

And for fuck sake don’t go into those serious discussions and offer everything your adversaries want in negotiation straight away, ala the President. Honestly, I don’t know what he is thinking sometimes, and I don’t believe when he has used this tactic previously that it fits into any long term strategy he has to lose tactically but win strategically. If it did, we would be talking about the simple details of a single payer health care system instead of also talking about eliminating Medicare and Medicaid in the USA. You have to go into these fights strongly defending a position based on your principles and fight it out hard. I am much more interested in times such as these to support those that fight the good fight to the end, even if they lose.

Aren’t you?

The funny thing is, it really will be a buck-o-five

Apr 5

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Economics, Politics | Comments off

OK, its time for a bit more math, but basically the amount required is pretty much going to be about $1.05. Here’s the facts for you to work with.

The Australian Department of the Treasury has announced that before assistance costs that will trickle down through all the sectors of the economy will cost the average household in Australia (worst case) $860 a year, assuming carbon costs $30/ton in tax.

Using my previous estimates of total emissions upon which the tax is payable results in a massive $10 billion of revenue for the government, and more than cover a compensation program to reduce the $860 a year to pretty much any amount you want, as well as fund appropriate research and investment into long term renewables.

But to be honest, it doesn’t have to be a program that big. Let’s say, for instance, that we set the price not at my previous lowball $15/ton, but rather split the difference between that amount and this whopping big program, and go with a price of $23/ton. This price is relatively familiar to those that have been trading in international carbon markets for the last few years, so it seems like a good balance.

OK, so we raise $7.67 billion in carbon tax at $23/ton, and fund all the good programs I identified previously with about 2/3rds of the money ($5.26 billion) and return the rest ($2.41 billion) to the 8.75 million households in Australia on monthly basis resulting in a net cost to them of $383.25 a year, or $1.05 a day.

And if you won’t kick in $1.05, who will?

I mean, if you have seen the movie reference here, and know the social commentary in it, you will see what a accurately portrayed view of our pathetic existence it is, rather than a near perfect parody using puppets. I believe we will really prove this point, and have a ready made theme song to go with it (on a slightly different theme), and still we won’t be able to get the common user to kick in a buck-o-five to solve a problem when it is almost too late. Frankly, we deserve zombies.

However, on an up note, finally, I am glad to see dolt* get the treatment he deserves on the ABC from Jonathan Holmes, and I am glad I am not the only one that thinks dolt’s bullying should be stood up to. His strawman argument of the cost to Australia versus the actual reduction in temperature that will be seen immediately is as offensive as his views on aboriginals that is currently on trial in Victoria.

* – see, he is already diminishing in importance and doesn’t even rate capitalisation. He’s just another anonymous dolt.

Most days . . .

Mar 18

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Other Topics, Politics | Comments off

. . . its Dilbert that gets it right for me. But today the non-sequitur is spot on.
Screen shot 2011-03-18 at 8.12.50 AM

A bit of balance, please

Mar 11

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Good Ideas, Politics, Science | Comments off

A simple search this morning using the words “carbon tax Australia” leads to pretty much all negative positions on this tax. Virtually nothing on the other side (but thank you Wikipedia).

But the real problem is not the tax, or the ETS, or even the alternative direct action approach, but that once again the deniers* have been allowed to sneak back in and present their flawed case along with those who disagree on the proposed way forward on a solution. If you go to the no carbon tax websites that headline a simple search, you will be linked through to the bunko artists, who appear to be a large and reasonable group. But they are not. The reality is that the vast majority of the people who believe in the scientific method, who work in the area of climate science, ocean science, thermodynamics or other related scientific and engineering fields, where the scientific method and the evidence that supports it, believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it will not be positive for humans or the earth. Furthermore, the scientific organisations that they make up, and the peak organisations that represent those organisations, publish peer reviewed findings and recommendations through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

This is the report that you would have heard all the hyped up controversy about a while back, and that a couple figures and a couple paragraphs in a two 800-page reports were incorrect in. Pity they weren’t perfect, but they state the heavily considered opinion of the 99.99%.

Unfortunately, what you get as “balance” in the news coverage remains what I identified above. Bunko artists given 50% of the time to make their case.

Ross Garnaut today said that he believes that public education is the most important thing that has to happen, and that “If there was a deal to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million – required to limit warming to 2 degrees – Australia’s ”fair share” would be a reduction target of 25 per cent.”

So, while we should be discussing the merits of whether the renewable energy targets should be eliminated (no) and whether Australian companies should be able to buy cheaper international permits to meet their obligations (yes), we are still talking about the science as if there is a real debate. Other than this article by Ross in the SMH, and his appearance on ABC2 today, the coverage of the major papers and news has been balanced at least equally to the climate change deniers, and several of the major Newscorp and Fairfax columnists (Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Paul Sheehan and Andrew Bolt) are all active climate change deniers.

Those supported by the scientific method are left to the occasional story by Ross Garnaut or Tim Flannery. Hardly balance where it matters, in swaying public opinion.

Charismatic, reasonable appearing liars get away with it all the time. I lived through Ronald Reagan’s presidency. We all lived through W. The basis of their ideologies have been found to be either wilful misrepresentations, or grossly incorrect. Wealth doesn’t trickle down from the rich, they concentrate it, and war is a lie. But one is viewed as a hero still, and the other isn’t in jail when by all rights he should be. The charismatic people who are playing this lie out again are the same folks who have a vested interest in delay, and who own the media to a large extent.

It is not a fair fight, and as I have said before, the correct argument is falling on deaf ears in a public that has been conditioned by the media that is supporting the lie to have tuned out already. Climate change is so last year’s story. Facts are boring, details are too taxing on the attention span, and the truth requires all of us to modify our behaviour a bit. So fuck that, right?

But in the interest of supporting Ross Garnaut’s call for more education, I will keep on providing my view on the topic. I’d feel guilty otherwise.

* – Unfortunately, when 99.99% of all peer reviewed scientists do not agree with you, you can no longer be called a sceptic, but rather something closer to a person with a mental disease.

How do you reach those who are wilfully ignorant

Mar 8

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Economics, Politics | Comments off

So, it’s been about a week and the Coalition scare mongering campaign over the carbon tax introduction has apparently started to do its expected damage, with the announcement of the Newspoll today that show Labor as being less popular than leaving your kids alone with a Catholic priest at 30% primary support. Nothing much else has happened federally in the last week, so the drop must be mostly due to people who were polled believing the Coalition’s spin, or they believe that if ignored long enough, the climate change issue will go away. In either case, the only way you could believe either of these alternatives to the carbon tax is to be wilfully ignorant.

If you believe that the issue of climate change is going to just go away, then I hope you don’t have any kids. Not because you shouldn’t be allowed to breed, but because I am a nice guy and don’t wish to see the results of your ignorance to be manifested on anyone’s kids.

The other option also requires wilful ignorance, because the detail has been out there for quite a while. You can have a look a the Coalitions direct action policy and my analysis of it from more than a year ago (!), and it clearly shows more than $700 million in spending per year.

This week, Tony Abbott has been out demonising the carbon tax proposal as something that will kill the economy (a lie that I will deal with separately), and putting forward the contention that the direct action policy is (1) better; (2) that no one’s costs will rise; and (3) that it can be implemented with no additional taxes. It’s the life is all ice cream and no pain approach to climate change.

This is where wilful ignorance comes in, because you don’t need to be Paul Krugman to recognise that if a government is going to spend more than $700 million a year in picking winners in the emissions reduction area through paying for the abatement out of the federal budget, and they aren’y going to raise taxes to fund that spending, then clearly budget cuts in other areas are going to have to pay for them. The cuts are likely to come in areas that the Coalition does not approve of, so expect to see funding for things like public schools, public transport, public health care and pretty much anything with a public in it to get a cut in the next Coalition-prepared budget. And if you rely on any of those public things that get cut, your costs to replace them will go up.

Its a pity that honesty doesn’t poll well, because a carbon tax is simple, direct and honest (even if I let people lie and call it a tax). Once again, here is how it works:

• Government makes anyone who is a major emitter of CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) gases pay for each ton of those emissions annually;
• They eat those costs, or pass them on to the buyers of their goods or services (probably the latter);
• The government uses some of the money raised to support long term shifts to alternative energy sources through research, low interest loans and other incentive programs; and
• The government returns any left over money to the taxpayers to offset their rise in cost (if any).

You may not like it, but a carbon tax is at least honest and will do what it says it will.

If I had any control over the situation, I would also apply the tax to all significant imports to the country that have high CO2-e intensity to address issues of major industries here that face significantly rising costs that large polluters elsewhere do not have to pay. That way, I can use local law to also influence behaviours of foreigners who want to sell their stuff in my market. Now that’s what I call effective tax policy.

Facts about the carbon tax

Mar 1

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Climate Change, Economics, Good Ideas, Politics | 1 Comment

Right, so I have heard a lot of the political hubbub following the announcement, and I have heard the opposition’s position on it, and I have even done some informal polling of my own to canvas views, so I had better make a comment on the carbon tax. It’s my preferred option, if you have been checking in regularly, and if it goes through, also possibly the first time I have ever predicted the future where it wasn’t something bad.

The Coalition’s position, put forward formally by Malcolm Turnbull (who has just got to be loving life having to carry this bag of shit), is that their proposed direct action proposal will be better, but that he personally favours the ETS. So, basically, they got nothing. And all they want to do is scream about the election lie of not having a carbon tax prior to the last election. A furphy.

Here’s the facts. Three blockages by the Coalition with the assistance of the Greens in the last parliament meant that labour wasn’t going to get its ETS up without a pound of flesh to the Greens, and that cost is a fixed price sooner, hence the carbon tax. Julia Gillard made the promise of no carbon tax prior to the last election, based on a Labor government ruling in its own right, not as a minority government. So, while we all like to call all politicians liars, the truth is that promise was null and void when she didn’t win the election outright.

So take that as a lesson Coalition (including you Malcolm): If you go too far to the right (climate change denial) and block something by any means (roll your leader and renege on a deal), then you sometimes end up getting something you like even less when your previous conspirator joins your enemy.

My position on a carbon tax has been stated before. To summarise, its far less elegant a solution that an ETS, but also more transparent and less easy to corrupt. The Coalition’s only substantive complaint so far has been that the proposed carbon tax is low on detail, so here are some more boring facts about the carbon tax, functionally.

It will have a short-term fixed price to allow the parties who believe in climate change [Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MCCC)] to defer a final decision on a 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target for three to five years, in which time they hope to have another international agreement on targets to replace Kyoto, which expires in 2012.

The price will remain fixed for three-to-five years until, and unless, a review recommends moving to an ETS. Once the shift to an ETS occurs, the market will set the price of a ton of CO2. At that time, Australia’s emissions will be capped and controlled by Australia according to the international agreement, through the use of emissions trading in Australia (which will undoubtedly look a lot like the CPRS) or other model like that passed in California late last year, since we failed to get ours up first here in Australia. Barring the achievement of an international agreement, Australia will most likely try to pursue a regional agreement, linked to others already being formed, or start our own closer to home.

Under a carbon tax, business would have some certainty but no comfort. They will not know a limit on how much they can emit, but they will know the exact cost of their emissions for the next 3-5 years.

More importantly, the fixed price carbon tax will give certainty to energy consumers and renewable energy investors, about the exact cost of carbon pollution. Electricity providers, fuel providers and anyone else included in the program will undoubtedly pass on their costs to users, so we can actually see if our electricity bill is going to go up $300 a year.

Then, based on what industries actually do with the cost applied to them, we can then start arguing over what government can do with the actual of tax it will have raised each year, that should amount to about $5 billion, assuming a price of $15/ton CO2e and including the emissions from energy, industrial processes and waste, but excluding land clearing and agriculture (for now).

Depending on what the company (or people) are willing to do to change their emissions profile, we can discuss how are we going to assist losers (coal industry) in moving to the clean energy economy, while avoiding getting the government involved in picking winners and losers and letting market forces set the price over time.

Would I be interested in using some of the tax raised to provide low interest loans to those in the coal industry convert over to gas? Probably. Would I be interested in doing the same for companies that want to invest capital in large scale renewables? Possibly. What about supporting Bluescope Steel in making green steel here, or also applying a carbon tax to competing imports? I’d consider it. But would I be interested in direct funding of projects to capture CO2 from burning coal and see if we can sequester it in the ground or other Rube Goldberg device? No fucking way. But hey, even if there aren’t that many great ideas to assist in the shift to a greener economy, we could just return the tax to the 9 million households in Australia to the tune of $555 per household per year to help them afford the higher costs that will be passed on to them. Households that use more energy (or are wasteful) might not get their costs all covered, but those that are more efficient could be net winners after the tax. The bottom line, let’s not be too scared by the economic horror stories that will be peddled out by the same people who don’t believe climate change is happening.

You can also start to look at the upside. The Climate Institute report released this week also shows that, “Australia has largely untapped energy resources in geothermal, large scale solar, bio-energy, hydro, wind and natural gas.” Work in these areas will create these new employment opportunities out to 2030:

NSW: Close to 7,000 new power sector jobs
Queensland: Close to 6,300 new power sector jobs
Victoria: Over 6,800 new power sector jobs
South Australia: Close to 2,700 new power sector jobs
Western Australia: Over 3,500 new power sector jobs

Now, lets see how that compares to my previous analysis of jobs that would be lost working in the coal industry if we got off burning the magic dirt. Well, not too bad, actually, considering my prediction was based on a 97.5% reduction in coal burning, whereas the Climate Institute only predicted a clean energy usage target of 43%. Anyway, they predicted a growth of 26,100 jobs nationally (many in regional areas) which isn’t that far off half of my prediction (23,500) of the jobs lost by eliminating all burning of coal for electricity.

So, net jobs is about a wash, and the jobs gained are jobs just as good as those they replace, not low paid crappy service work. And as I have said before, don’t try to scare me with job losses. We have just gone through the second worst recession in history with massive job losses, and the world did not collapse. If dirty jobs need to be lost, they should be, even if they aren’t immediately replaced.

Update on yesterday

Feb 1

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Good Ideas, International, Politics | Comments off

Lets just add to the list above both Syria [21.7, mil. republic (french/islamic law), Jun 00] and Jordan [24.3, const. monarchy (french/islamic law), Feb 99]. Reports are circulating that home grown advocates in both of these locations are attempting to organise uprisings. In reality both of these places have had much older governments (’70 in the case of Syria and ‘53 in jordan). I am not sure if I lived in either of these places I would try it on were I a democracy advocate just yet. Syria is a very scary place, and the Jordanian king seems pretty popular. In fact all the monarchies in the gulf are likely to see much change as this wave of popular democracy crests and falls back, unless a couple more on my list roll their governments. Barring that, the monarchies in general have done a pretty good job of spreading around wealth and opportunity in their countries to keep the population less engaged in talk of regime change. I mean, I would be quite shocked if Sultan Al Qaboos went down in Oman.

So shock me world. Knock my socks off. Roll, say, 3 or more countries leadership over in places like Egypt, Yemen and Egypt or Israel. And then really surprise me by seeing the USA support democratic change, for a change, 22 years after the cold war ended, instead of playing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. But why Israel in the list above? Its not an islamic, and its already a democracy.

Well, when Egypt falls, Israel will lose the only direct contact through Mubarak to the peace deal that Egypt took a chance on. It cost Sadat his life, but I am not sure how much the rest of the Egyptian population is committed to the deal. Israel will have a short window for greater peace once they need to establish ties with a new government in Egypt, and I am not sure the current one can do it. It might be time for the government to fall in Israel as well, so that a new one with a clear mandate for peace negotiations is in charge. If they settle well quickly with Egypt, they then have a chance to do something more urgent with the Palestinians. Provided, of course, that the USA applies further pressure in support of democratic movements once again.

But that would be dreaming, wouldn’t it?

Tie together the following . . .

Jan 31

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Economics, Evil Motherfuckers, International, Politics | Comments off

Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, the GFC, old regimes and a high youth population.

Screen shot 2011-01-31 at 11.31.44 AM

The first four are easy by geography. I have added Australia to the table for comparison. All the middle eastern countries are also all religious societies where the rule of law is also religious. What is likely less well known, or I haven’t heard much about recently, is how much stress the GFC has put on these governments, but I suspect it is significant. No merchant can see all their customers go broke and not feel some repercussion. All have incredibly “old” governments of between 21 and 31 years of age. And because religion so influences the daily lives of people in these countries with the traditional roles reinforced, all the countries have a high birth rate and low median age. All of the kids in these countries have never known any other government.

And you know how it is with kids, they rebel. They also have access to the internet, and see what is happening on the streets in Iran last year, and Tunisia this year, and they use it to organise on the street near their home. And old, corrupt regimes try to repress them. Hopefully, the government in Egypt won’t go too far, as Iran did, and use violence and fear to try to scare the republicans back into their box. But frankly, what else does the Eqyptian government know? It has been using fear of violence (or actual violence) to keep its people down for a long time. Hosni Mubarak isn’t necessarily an evil man, but he has been at a minimum cooperating with evil. How else do you explain the Muslim Brotherhood’s showing in the last election, where popular leaders were not even returned to parliament in their home electorates? And Egypt is also well known to have participated with elements of the US government in rendition and torture.

I suggest that perhaps the economic stress that has been felt by all in the world of buyers and sellers of things in the last couple years has been the straw that broke the back of the fear of acting out recently in the middle east. If the government that the young see as oppressing their freedoms socially and politically can no longer protect them from economic pain, then they begin to feel as if they have little to lose and will hit the streets without much additional provocation.

But the basic problem is the failure by the leaders of all these states to embrace the meaning of the word “republic” in the second half of all these theocratic republics. Trying to hand over power to your son in a republic doesn’t really do it. Neither does stealing from the national wealth and enriching yourself and your cronies. Torture and capricious punishment of the population is right out. Basically, you have to be willing to listen to dissent in the media and even on the streets without becoming a tyrant if you want to survive in a republic. If you want to do more than survive, you have to let go of fear and let the others participate in the republic, even when their ideas are shit. The bottom line is: If you aren’t ready to turn the government over to the other pack of idiots on occasion, without worrying about whether you will ever get it back again, then you aren’t really a democracy, or a republic for that matter.

Not Dead Yet

Apr 7

Posted by Sgt Hulka in Bad Ideas, Climate Change, Politics | Comments off

Well, I noticed yesterday how easy it is to miss a month of writing anything for the blog. Yeah, not one rant for a full month. Sure, I did get a bit busy with work and that is one good way to shut me up, but in reality there really wasn’t anything to have a rant about that I had not either covered already, or was significant enough to talk about. Sure, a few minor things have occurred, and yesterday I found out about a couple things which are significant, but probably not in a good way.

The first is that the full report of the review of the scientists of the University of East Anglia is out. And surprise surprise, it shows exactly what I stated in my article on the subject in the week after the issue came to light. But you have to look pretty hard to find the story, and you almost certainly didn’t hear about the death of that conspiracy theory on your evening news.

The second item came last night when I found out that Malcolm Turnbull has decided to quit politics and won’t stand for re-election at the next election. So, climate change is sliding into obscurity and becoming a non-issue in the public forum. Those who stand for science and reason lose support, and lies once exposed go unnoticed, as is true in so much of politics these days.

But I don’t intend to go quiet, and will still write on matters of fact with respect to the issue, although my writing will become more sporadic on the subject of climate change, as apparently it isn’t happening. I will just bide my time and try to come up with better zombie plans and stock up on things to sell people that forgot to develop a good zombie plan so that I can personally do better as things turn to shit. Because apparently, that is what it is all about, right?