PIc: ABC … The moment Sue Hickey sided with Labor and the Greens to be elected Speaker … Charles Wooley HERE
Tasmania’s parliamentary speaker has given a scathing critique of the three Tasmanian Liberal senators who she said were party to the “vicious, vindictive and vengeful” events that culminated in the ousting of Malcolm Turnbull, reserving special barbs for her long-time sparring partner Senator Eric Abetz.
Sue Hickey, the former lord mayor of Hobart who stood as a Liberal and won at the March 3 state election, said her federal colleagues had engaged in “sabotage”.
Ms Hickey, who outraged her party colleagues when she blindsided Liberal veteran Rene Hidding to snatch the role of Speaker of the Parliament , unleashed after Tasmanian Liberal senators Eric Abetz and Jonathan Duniam commented that the installation of Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg would bring “unity and stability”.
She included Tasmanian federal Liberal Senator David Bushby in her spray, for his role in what she described as the “appalling” events of the week, which resulted in the abandoning of question time due to Liberal chaos.
Sue Hickey has described herself as a “classic, small-L liberal”.
“As such, I found the events of the last few days to be vicious, vindictive and vengeful,” she said on Saturday.
“It’s more appalling that three of our own senators were involved in this sabotage,” she said.
“I have never really been a great supporter of Eric Abetz and I think this time he’s outdone himself.
“He needs to remember that he represents the whole of the Tasmanian demographic, not just the hard right … ”
…
Senator Abetz has been contacted for comment.
• Read the advice of the Solicitor-General on Peter Dutton’s eligibility …
Solicitor-General-Advice-24-8-18.pdf
• Jenny Weber, Bob Brown Foundation: Minister for Environment a powerless nonentity
Rob Halton
September 9, 2018 at 2:18 am
There is no doubt that Sue Hickey would outrank Rebecca White in the Tasmanian Parliament.
In fact Hickey, with her no nonsense approach and open mind, would outflank the useless lot within her own party as she is quite capable of placing the people first with no ifs or buts!
The only reason I vote Liberal is for Hickey who has no fear, nor does she take treats from Abetz and the far right control within the Hodgman government and the broader Liberal party machine, which is of course on the nose over the gunning down of PM MT.
I am not against Morrison and Frydenberg as they need to repair the damage. My greatest worry is the Shorten is not up to leading the country. Shorten was elected by the Labor party machine. Albanese, the public’s favourite, stands in the background.
Of course we have Pauline Hanson in outback Qld running at around 15%, and who could blame them?
A lot, in fact everything, rests on Morrison as PM. I support his measures to stabilise government. If he fails it will be the minor parties, especially in country Qld. Imagine Bob Katter, who I have bumped into at Mission Beach and Ingham on a couple of occasions. I shake my head at this man and drive on, but he has a large following in the separate nation of Nth Qld.
Rob Halton
September 5, 2018 at 10:41 am
Worst case scenario for Will Hodgman as Premier if things get worse as the State Liberals governance continues less effectively with Opposition leader Rebecca White now leading as preferred Premier!
In my opinion White may be appealing on the surface, Hodgman has been leader is far from outstanding, Abetz needs to get his nose out of affairs altogether as I am sick and tired of his propaganda as if he was running a regime and I think he does just that!
The women’s issues that are emerging throughout the nations Parliaments needs serious consideration as there is no doubt that Scott Morrison will have to promote Julie Bishop especially among the au pair scandal that is rocking the Federal Liberals over Peter Dutton who wont be let off lightly as the “cat of the bag”.
Morrison cannot continue to support Dutton as a Minister, otherwise his reputation dives for as still to be proven PM replacement for MT!
The Tasmanian economy is running well but our State Parliament needs to get up to speed as it still appears as an old boys club of a past era when the Hydro and forestry ran the State!
In my opinion our only savior within the State ranks is Sue Hickey who will need to outwardly speak her mind to us the public and I am sure well before the next State election there will be a clash within the Liberals and drastic action will be needed.
There is not one other suitable candidate in the liberals that I can see taking over from Hodgman an internal coup will develop and Hickey who is already a powerful political broker who does her best for the benefit of the people and not the out dated Abetzian party machine, Hickey should openly state she is ready for the Premiers job.
There exists no sliding scale in the State Liberals, niggling issues such as pokies in pubs and clubs have to be resolved at least to some extent.
And some far better facilitation for the inadequate mental health system need serious thought, a seperate reasonably safe public facility apart from crowding in the RHH needs to brought to a head as the drug problem continues with the prison system does not rate as a fair and reasonable option for those affected without a criminal record.
Hodgman needs to know that he cannot slide his way through the next five years, either retire from politics or expect a return as Premier.
William Boeder
September 3, 2018 at 2:29 pm
#87 … Peter, your incisive comment above carries its message of deep concern, along with its dangers of the perpetuating Liberal party false message and their ongoing attempts to disadvantage we, the people.
All the while we the people are facing the increasing Liberal party campaign for the suppression of the free speech liberty to which we are entitled that allows the people to express the common view held by Australia’s people.
One will find the relevant passage of this fact written in bold black print amongst the other decrees that are also stated in bold black and are also in pursuit of the Democratic rule of government which is exemplified and held to be sacrosanct in the Australian Commonwealth Constitution.
Peter Bright
September 3, 2018 at 12:46 pm
The Glib Chameleon increasingly recognised as Morrison the Assassin is a most sinister character who, in my view, is a deceit-ridden, traitorous liar who is wholly untrustworthy.
His smirking showman’s public pledge of loyalty to Malcolm Turnbull was worse than despicable, as he and his evil backers had been plotting against him all along.
Malcolm was foolish to trust the Liberals with anything.
Urban Wronski, whose weekly commentary is always worth reading on Tasmanian Times, expresses his own incisive views here:
https://urbanwronski.com/2018/09/03/skip-the-flag-pin-morrison-we-already-know-which-side-your-on/
The sooner Australians recognise the ugly truth that the Liberals and their backers are out for themselves, and not the nation’s people they so ruthlessly abuse and betray for their own gain, the sooner we’ll act to eliminate such hypocrisy from politics altogether, and that will be a Very Good Thing.
William Boeder
September 2, 2018 at 4:49 pm
84# Robin, I find myself agreeing with all you say in your #84. I add the continuum with exception to House Speaker Sue Hickey.
Australia’s Liberal party. Know them by their deeds …
Without the infighting within their cult-like political party, the ever ongoing huge financial scandals engaged in, the constant cover-ups over their treatment hurled upon our Asylum Seekers, the castration of Australia’s Regulatory Authorities of ASIC & APRA, the friendship shared between former alleged lying CBA CEO Ian Narev and the like-minded Finance minister Mathias Corman, then their busy pursuit of shutting down the independent social media entities and National news sources to halt the dissent against these Liberal party cultists, one would not know that the Liberal party existed.
Well, that is if their covert methods of eliciting corporate donated funds were not so frequently mentioned, nor their liaisons with the World’s most war-mongering nation of America being feted as Australia’s major acclaimed and most domineering ally, there would be the scantiest of knowledge that a Liberal cultist party had ever originated in Australia.
… Know Them by Their Deeds.
Rob Halton
September 2, 2018 at 3:50 am
I am going back to my #31 and avoiding all of the godly stuff about devils, popes and civil wars well mentioned in the recent revisions of the Chronicles by Russell and others who find themselves using their time displaying a bit of an extra touch to religion and its worthless and associated nonsense.
What does concern me and more to the point is the recent knothole that Michael Ferguson and Will Hodgman have got themselves into re their knowledge relating to the sacking of Cricket Australia’s media relations officer Angela Williamson now as a wrongful dismissal case against Cricket Australia.
Williamsons lawyers have submitted documents with the Federal Court of Australia, documents claim that Hodgman was lying when he denied raising concerns about Ms Williamsons social media criticism of abortion issues facing women in Tasmania from what I understand that she has experienced first hand.
Tasmanian independent MP for Denison Andrew Wilkie has called on Premier Hodgman and Health Minister Michael Ferguson to stand aside until the case has been investigated.
On ABC news a few night ago Sue Hickey was asked about this matter and her brief comment was ” the matter should have been handed better”.
Well there you go she was in my opinion, honest with her knowledge of the matter which is consistent with Hickey who does not beat around the bush and is rightly so a defender of women in roles of government and government supported enterprises.
At the recent State election I was critised for using poster material at my residence for supporting Ms Hickey standing for Denison but so far her role as a Speaker with a flair of speaking her own mind both as when she was in Council as Mayor of Hobart, I have to give her a resounding applause for the way she shines above many of her collegues particularly those in her own party.
Her open mindness, her criticism of the way the Liberal Party shafted PM Malcolm Turnbull on the media highlighted her concerns for the way the Liberal Party operates within itself!
I can assure the readers the Liberal Party both State and Federally will eventually be grateful for Ms Hickey’s contribution and there is no doubt there will be more, as women in government are either hounded or pushed aside as it is becoming clearer now that the Turnbull is over ever it be so abruptly.
Hodgman if he survives this term and his henchman Abetz might be grateful that Hickey is there to speak her mind openly and with honesty to try and save the Liberals from themselves.
William Boeder
August 30, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Regarding my comment at #81 … there are exceptions to that proportion of legal representatives that practice their profession with the integrity that is demanded by the principles of their professional charter.
I must make clear that there are exceptions to the broad-based nature of my claims.
William Boeder
August 30, 2018 at 6:10 pm
#75 … Thank you, Kathy Lennox. The link provided with your comment gives a great example of how legal practitioners are a threat to the institution of law itself as well as all they come into contact with.
The insights of the late Evan Winton testify to the broadscale deceptive practices of this wrongly classified profession.
Then that this profession, (hereafter referred to as an occupation) it is disturbing to read of the facts that underlay their industry (the principles of the law in Australia) actually deny that this choice of occupation is of any endearing benefit to the society of mankind.
Another highly contentious issue is that legal practitioners are entrusted with what could only be, the shamefully concocted reservations available to this same occupation as “legal privilege.”
This ‘legal privilege’ is often a get-out for keeping the truth from interfering in the commission of their occupation.
The greater the sum of money that has been discovered illegally or criminally gained, generally testifies that a legal practitioner is deeply involved in the carriage of that unlawful activity.
So now we get down to the crux of what lawyering is all about, the occupation as a lawyer is a sufficient entry-level qualifier for lawyers entering into politics.
As we the people have since fully realised that politics is an occupational field that thrives on lies deceptions and grossly misleading statements and announcements, now add to this fact that politicians are the least likely persons to end up in jail for uttering false, fraudulent or forged representations in a publication.
The crime of uttering, eg issuing electioneering pamphlets that claim some rather flamboyantly presented and promised, if elected, new policies claimed to be introduced when the very concept of that or those policies is already estimated by the voting people to be little more than a crock of doo-doo.
Were one to listen to the new intended policies that spill from the mouths of practising legal practitioners, eg Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Dutton, Scott Morrison and even the most threatening of this species, Eric Abetz, all gain their daily bread from engaging in the crime of uttering.
So what prospect is there that these above-mentioned occupational uttering persons, in their spending a long extended period of time behind bars eating watery oatmeal for their breakfast each day?
I leave the answers for the reader to determine.
Mark Temby
August 30, 2018 at 4:18 pm
#79 … Prior to Paul there was the horned god Dionysus. He was temptation personified! Aristotle wrote of religion as a force in controlling the people back around 380 BC.
Christianity (the Romans) never invented new stuff when there was plenty of old stuff to pinch and apply.
John
August 29, 2018 at 10:21 pm
William De Boeder asks .. “So why have you posted your comment, John?”
For the same reason that you did.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 29, 2018 at 9:12 pm
So, in my view, God is also the product of biological evolution but it is only a spiritual concept that the brain invented during its own evolution at a time in the evolutionary history when there was sufficient neural hardware to question who and what caused the mysterious physical phenomena. I list lightning strikes (and the associated sound and fire) to be some of the first mysterious physical phenomena that may have initiated the early human brain to think about the existence of what we “now call God.”
max
August 29, 2018 at 8:42 pm
# 72 … God has only ever spoken to his “flockâ€through the mouths of “his†priests. Ponder on this .. why hasn’t your god smitten a few of these child molesting mongrel priests and ministers? We are told that he created mankind. When has man ever been kind? If he can do the creating thing, why not the fixing? That’s right .. we are supposed to suffer in this life, and take the diseases. As the creator he must have made them as well. Cancer ? Well, there is another beauty.
But there is an out for the churches, .. blame it all on Satan and Adam an Eve.
It’s all about the tithe, money in the plate, tax free income from anything. As they say, follow the money, support your church, forgive their sins as they will forgive yours. Just give them a bit more money and the door to heaven will open.
Kathyy Lennox
August 29, 2018 at 8:33 pm
#50 … Ah, dear William .. the mechanics are not that difficult to understand!
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-parliament-of-australian-lawyers,5652
A few years ago a comment from Sue Hickey that there were too many lawyers in State Parliament earned her a “grabbed elbow ” by Ms Elise Archer, a lawyer.
max
August 29, 2018 at 7:34 pm
# 72, Peter … “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.â€
That observation was probably said thousands of years ago as a challenge to the priest who was ripping him off.
Another thought to ponder on. Maybe our solar system and the universe is another atom, only bigger, and God is not even aware that we are even here. Perhaps we are like fleas on the back of an elephant.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 29, 2018 at 7:05 pm
In my view, there is God .. but I don’t see it the same way as there being the almighty creator/designer of the universe and the biological life.
Who (or what) created what we “now [b]call[/b] God.”
My brief view: God isn’t a physical being or thing but a spiritual concept that was invented by (early humans) hundreds of thousands years ago when the brain (particularly the prefrontal cortex) evolved to the stage where the brain was able to plan well ahead (so that it didn’t constantly have to devote all its waking hours searching for food or a mate or avoiding predators) and started focussing on the world beyond its immediate environment and survival needs. The brain finally had enough neural hardware to start questioning how things worked and why the loved ones died. They wondered where their loved ones went after they died. They couldn’t make sense of what they felt and saw. They couldn’t understand many physical phenomena (such as the bolt of the lightning or the roaring sound that accompanied it or the fire that was started by it, etc). The brain had no choice but to believe in the existence of some unknown supreme being who was responsible for these mysterious events.
Peter Bright
August 29, 2018 at 6:51 pm
Psalm 14:1 King James Version (KJV)
[i][b]The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.[/i][/b]
That observation was probably said thousands of years ago.
True then? True before then? True after then?
Thankyou all for proving it’s true now.
Doug Nichols
August 29, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Re #65 and #69 … Peter, in the 1950s it would have been reasonable to dispute the then rather new theory that the Earth’s continents drift about the globe very slowly. However, a few scientists did the hard work and turned up enough evidence to put the theory on a solid footing.
These days the movement of continents can be measured. Australia is heading north at about 6cm per year. My house is almost 2 metres closer to the equator than it was when I bought it!
So continental drift has become mainstream knowledge. Nobody doubts it any more. There are no “fixed-continentists”.
Darwin’s theory of biological evolution was proposed 100 years earlier, and over the years a huge amount of evidence has piled up in its favour .. and not a single scrap against it. It has well and truly become mainstream knowledge.
And yet there are still people who deny it. Why?
————————–
[i]Doug, you invented the term “fixed-continentists” and promptly complained that it had been edited to two known words. As you can see above, your original term has been restored.
Many contributors to TT’s Comments section are deficient in written English expression, and correcting their work is tedious and time consuming. Many posters are lazy and don’t check their work before pressing the Submit tab, neither do they learn from their mistakes. Occasionally sentences, and even paragraphs, are incomprehensible. This can leave Moderators with the decision … dump or salvage. Out of respect for readers’ offerings, we prefer to salvage.
When you invent a word, or a term, it would help if you append a little note saying so.
— Moderator[/i]
Peter Bright
August 29, 2018 at 2:13 pm
At #66, Russell asks three questions:
Re #58 … Peter, who (or what) created “godâ€?
Re #59 … Speculation and fantasies are all you have in religion.
Re #65 … Where’s your evidence? Not one shred have you provided. Why?
1. I don’t know.
2. I have no interest in religion.
3. Russell, if you were not so embittered you could open the eyes of your mind and see the evidence of Creation all about you.
Doug Nichols
August 29, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Re #59 and your need to find a primal cause. As I have said twice already, this is part of the discussion in Krauss’s book. There doesn’t need to be a primal cause. Things can happen without any cause. Fundamental particles (of all kinds) pop into (and out of) existence all the time. Out of nothing. No cause required. It’s happening now.
If that makes no sense to you, join the club. It’s called Quantum Mechanics. The world at the level of subatomic particles does not behave in a way that “makes sense” to our way of thinking. The world is not compelled to make sense to us. If you take issue with any of this, don’t come back to me on it. I’m not a physicist or a scientist. I am merely someone who takes an interest and reads about these things a lot. You should try it – if you are genuinely curious, that is.
#58 … “Who created natural forces”. At last, an excellent question! Nobody knows. Is there some sense in which gravity has to be precisely the strength it seems to be, or is it something that is an arbitrary and ‘accidental’ property of our universe? Are there other universes (or other regions of our universe) where the strengths of the various forces are different?
The forces of nature are in many ways finely tuned to permit the formation of stars, and therefore elements heavier than hydrogen and therefore chemistry and planets and living things. Also, finely tuned to ensure that stars can remain stable for many billions of years, which is necessary for living things to evolve. It starts to look a little suspicious, as though it has been set up this way!
On the other hand, maybe there are lots of universes each with slightly different values for the natural forces .. or even different forces altogether. We should then not be surprised to find ourselves living in a universe that is “just right”.
A browse in a decent bookshop will probably find you one or two books that go into this. You’d have to be open to clever ideas overturning your preferred story though. Like Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) clever idea in the mid 19th century, for example. Their insights completely overturned the idea that living things need to be created. Going by your #65, you have 160 years of catching up to do! Where have you been all this time? You should make a serious attempt to get your head around the concept of evolution by natural selection. You might enjoy it. It is a wonderful, satisfying, complete and proven explanation for the complexities of living things. It is why Darwin is famous and will be remembered forever, while believers in creation are (these days) mostly laughed at.
William Boeder
August 29, 2018 at 1:47 pm
#61 … Peter Lozo, you have by your statement in #61 established the bias of a person with a closed mind. Furthermore, that were it not for persons that are thinkers this Tasmanian Times would not have been created.
I had offered an even more fertile field for your expertise than the SNF case and you reply I am not really interested. So much for all your academic studies, so often this relies on unproven circumstance or guessed at scenarios. A realistic opinion of my own consideration is that rote learners are simply robotic long-minded functional speak persons.
Without thinking persons, very few new discoveries are capable of being formulated.
Academic persons are often little more than rote learnt spielers of already known fact, however, the thinking scientists have developed most of the scientific theories, as opposed to rote learning scientists who can only babble what they have read or have been classroom taught.
Now as for the creation of all matter relating to the cosmos and the relativity of life itself, see the latest projected beginning of life explained in the below Youtube science discovery presentations, featuring the opinions of the most distinguished of today’s eminent scientists.
How or why we exist? Scientific theory.
The matter of antimatter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMMgsjnI1is
A second Youtube link. How or why exist? This is a different Scientific theory. The origin of life. based on a separate theory. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyhZcEY5PCQ
One of the most fundamental forces existent in the evolution of our Planet was gravity, combining both the pull and the force of gravitational forces. Magnetics are also theorised as the most powerful and most essential elements to the creation of all. Then that gravitational forces are claimed as the most vital of forces, eg; a force formed via the spinning of particles and larger matter and antimatter.
Again my observation that each theory is just that, another studied theory. I find all of this subject matter tedious as there are so many scientific theories held to be the greatest discoveries of all time, yet in actual fact each is just an additional studied approach that then is claimed to be another vitally important scientific result when it is just another invented theory.
The search for the Higgs boson, now discovered, has yet to be given its sequence in the scheme of all things. Then there are the later theories brought forward by experiments on particle matter and antimatter. Via the Large Hadron Collider.
All of this is speculative knowledge, none of it is fact. Quantum physics is simply that, a collection of quantified physics studies, or recorded gazes into the cosmos. Then that the greater the mathematical equation the more likely that this is the real means of establishing and recording the many assessed scientific theories.
For those intrigued by the results of the Large Hadron Collider, a study of an old phantom comic is considered to be a better use of one’s time. A comic will not create such a mind-expanding plethora of a new need for further blasting and the colliding of invisible matter.
Peter Bright
August 29, 2018 at 9:44 am
Humanity is surrounded by the stark evidence of Climate Change, but some deny the obvious.
Evolutionists are surrounded by very clear evidence of Creation, but some deny the obvious, too.
Why?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 29, 2018 at 2:07 am
#59 … Can the almighty creator/designer invent a scientific or a mathematical problem that even he/she/it can’t solve?
Those who believe in the divine almighty powerful creator/designer are faced with simple conundrums that have no answer. The above question does not have an answer.
William Boeder
August 29, 2018 at 1:37 am
#52 … Doug, I am unable to disagree with you as to the amount of villainy rampant in the Liberal party both State and Federal.
Then there is the question of how non-accountable are each of the Liberal ministers when it all boils down to a failed project or other activity failures. My own answer is by their sleight of hand blame-games and to deflect the responsibility to a lower ranking person or a person elsewhere in the great unknown.
Try and get an answer from a certain Senatorial spieler in this State, should somebody ask him the question of the broad-scale failure of the MIS tree plantation scheme (scam) that he continually raved about when he became ‘Fibber’ Howard’s Special Minister of State.
Another fair question is .. just how contemptible was ‘Fibber’ Howard to be able to sit comfortably in the presence of the above referred to false-fronted spieler?
Simon Warriner
August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am
Re #59 … Clearly your search has led you up a dead end street.
I find the spiritual aspects of Yoga make more sense than the monotheists with their humanised god fetish.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 29, 2018 at 1:26 am
#56 … I am not interested in the Bryant case. I did express this to you before. I do not believe that there was a conspiracy in that case.
Ps: As for astrophysics: I have a degree in physics and was taught about astrophysics, etc. I also saw Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’ but I have never worked in the field.
De Peter Lozo
August 29, 2018 at 1:18 am
#58 … Get down to earth please.
I explained to you about the molecules but you keep changing the goal post. If we don’t know all the answers to all the questions we can ask it doesn’t call for the existence of an almighty divine creator or a designer.
I can ask you the following question: if God is so almighty and powerful, then can he, or she, or it, create something so heavy that even he, or she, or it, can’t lift it?
Peter Bright
August 29, 2018 at 12:58 am
Doug … I am looking for the primal cause.
[b]Primal[/b]
[i]most important; primary or fundamental.[/i]
synonyms: [i]basic, fundamental, essential, elemental, primary, vital, central, intrinsic, indispensable, inherent, cardinal; characteristic.[/i]
Speculation and fantasies provide no answers.
Peter Bright
August 29, 2018 at 12:49 am
Dr Lozo at #55 asks me [i]”#45 … Is an answer to that really necessary in order for you to appreciate that natural forces shape the universe rather than some creator or a designer?”[/i]
Um, yes.
Dr Lozo, who (or what) created “natural forces”?
Doug Nichols
August 29, 2018 at 12:41 am
#54, I suggested you read “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. Have you done that yet? It discusses ways in which the universe could have come into being without a cause. It turns out that it isn’t impossible.
Alternatively, the Big Bang could have been a “big crunch” at the end of an earlier universe. The cycle might even have been repeating forever.
Or we could be a simulated universe on someone’s computer in some other (possibly also simulated!) universe. This might even be your “Creator”. This type of explanation has the disadvantage that it fails to explain the origin of the creator, so it hasn’t really explained much, but it is a possibility.
We may never know the answer for sure, but then again, studying it with an open mind is only way of making any progress.
William Boeder
August 28, 2018 at 11:50 pm
Given that you, Peter Lozo, seem to even understand about the activity in the outer cosmos of how it all began, I wonder if you would be the right person to investigate into the cause and the carriage of the Port Arthur Massacre circa 1996.
This investigation would provide you with the appropriate World acclaim that is never available to a humble citizen of the street, given that you are a professional. Here is the opportunity to better reward your life’s pursuits during the course of your professional career.
It is absolutely impossible to comprehend that a person of the lifestyle, life experiences, then the low-level intellect, nor even the intent could have been possessed of such malice, yet that had become the sordid miscarriage of the Tasmanian justice system that had created the crude and cruel thrust of guilty upon the life of Martin Bryant.
I now ask you Dr Peter Lozo, do you believe this un-trialled Martin Bryant person could have masterminded all the events and the claims made against him as had been formally decided by so many readily available authorities that just happened to be on site to witness the initiation of this massacre?
I put it to you that my own investigations have pieced it all together, however, given your claim that I lack credibility amongst your many other personal criticisms directed toward myself, I must insist that my own personal investigative pursuits and consequent results along with my sources of information will not be available to you.
Please bear in mind that a copy of the official report released does not contain the truth of this greatest human massacre (of white people) in Australia’s recorded history. So I ask if you are up to it in this classic case of the ordinary practical person off the street Vs the carefully cultivated highly educated finely-honed mind of the skilled professional?
The only casualties in this contest will be the truth as we are made to believe, that reveals the depth of the integrity of Tasmania’s officials and authorities, also the finally identifiable system of justice that prevails in Tasmania.
Dr Peter Lozo
August 28, 2018 at 10:49 pm
#54 … Is an answer to that really necessary in order for you to appreciate that natural forces shape the universe rather than some creator or a designer?
The Big Bang is an explosion of something .. perhaps a super black hole. If something explodes then there must be a force acting outwardly that exceeds the inwardly acting force .. gravity. Incredibly high temperatures on the inside can overcome gravity.
Just because we don’t have an answer to all the questions we can ask doesn’t mean that there must therefore be a creator or a designer. Natural forces shape the universe.
Peter Bright
August 28, 2018 at 9:53 pm
Dr Lozo. What caused the so-called Big Bang?
Dr Peter Lozo
August 28, 2018 at 9:25 pm
In #43 Peter Bright asks:
“Who (or what) created molecules?”
Thermonuclear Fusion inside stars and supernovas! See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
Our sun is burning Hyrogen to create Helium. Then heavier atoms are formed. When a star explodes into supernova the heavy elements can (under the pull of gravity) coalesce to form planets.
In other words, gravity rules the universe and is the driving engine of creation. Chemistry and Biological evolution drives the emergence of intelligent lifeforms. But ultimately, gravity has the ultimate say. It can create a planet on which life can start and evolve into complex organisms. Gravity can also destroy life on a planet.
Where did the first Hydrogen come from? Physicists tell us that it all started with the thing called the Big Bang about 14 Billion years ago.
One needs to first know about quarks to understand how a proton and an electron were initially formed, and then how they joined into partnership to form a hydrogen atom.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/
Doug Nichols
August 28, 2018 at 9:07 pm
#50 … Simple answer William: he gets himself placed no. 1 in the Liberal Party’s column on the Senate ballot paper. That means he wins a vote from all the people who don’t want to think about their vote and simply tick the Liberal box above the line. They don’t specifically vote for him. Not many people do. We all know this.
Harder question: How does he get himself posted at the top of his column all the time? That .. I don’t know. In order to find out one would have to inveigle oneself into Liberal Party circles. I’d rather make friends with a nest of wasps!
max
August 28, 2018 at 8:28 pm
# 39 … Did god make man or did man make god? If god made man it wasn’t in god’s image as claimed. Why did he send down his only begotten son to die terribly when he could have just fixed the mistakes he made in the first place? But it is a good story that gave priests the power to prey on his flock.
William Boeder
August 28, 2018 at 6:49 pm
#49 … Hello Doug. Another great mystery of life is how an ill-willed person who creates nothing of value to the people of Tasmania, and who has left a trail of financial losses across the State of Tasmania, can retain a prominent role as a Liberal party Senator in the State of Tasmania.
As a matter of interest, I have tried to learn or understand the mechanism that permits an enormously unpopular person to continue to lord himself across this State.
Even as recently as this morning I had found it necessary to correspond through the online facility, made available by Senator Eric Abetz, to allege that he is far better known for his betrayals against the people in Tasmania than for any substance of good that he may have accidentally occasioned.
I put it to you Doug, with your capacity of sharp awareness to matters material, how does the above-referenced person maintain such a high profile as a no-goodnik in public office in the climate of today’s society that normally rejects such eccentric characters?
So given the State had rejected a Liberal party minister, Nikolic, through our electoral system, how can a Senator in the name of Abetz continue to remain in office?
http://theconversation.com/a-fox-guarding-the-henhouse-andrew-nikolic-takes-the-reins-of-parliaments-security-committee-55393
Doug Nichols
August 28, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Re #43 … I really can’t bothered arguing with a creationist, Peter. Read some up-to-date science .. anything from 1859 onwards will do.
It is your reasoning that is primitive, not mine. In particular I am surprised to see the design argument still being used as it is perfectly possible for complicated living things to have NOT been designed. The mechanism by which this happens has been understood for such a long time – and studied in such immense detail – that you really ought to have seen the error in your thinking by now. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
How life got started is still a mystery, but only because it is too hard to study back that far, not because the actual story, if we were able to uncover it, involves anything supernatural.
How all the ‘stuff’ in the universe came to be is more of a mystery, but scientists are studying it and their theories and ideas are always interesting .. unlike the entirely unsatisfactory and rather childish “god did it” argument.
Great strides in understanding have been made. All the oxygen and nitrogen and calcium and iron and copper and whatever else – all the chemical elements heavier than hydrogen in fact – form inside stars. The mechanism was figured out in the first half of the last century.
This sort of stuff is a whole lot more fascinating than any ideas about a creator doing it all – because it is real.
Wining Pom
August 27, 2018 at 10:55 pm
#41 … I’m finding it hard to understand your response.
That enclosed glass houses are hotter when it is sunny? Yes. Or not sunny.
Has the C02 level been artificially enhanced? Not unless the operator is a professional grower and wants maximum returns. It can be raised to as much as 1500 ppm.
Do you want to show off the abundant plant growth under higher levels of C02? Well, I don’t want to show it off. Most people understand photosynthesis.
Or are you demonstrating that even much higher levels of C02 have no side effects for humans? I don’t know the rate for higher levels to affect humans, but I would guess it would be much, much higher than what there is now, or expected.
That C02 is invisible and odourless? Yes. But it can be measured by scientists.
On the contrary .. the science of climate is extremely complex. Indeed. The complete understanding of all the intricacies. But a basic understanding of it is simple. A bit like explaining how a car works.
You put petrol in a car and a spark ignites it and produces energy which is transferred to the wheels to create motion. Don’t ask me how that happens, but you understand that, I would imagine.
And heat from the sun is radiated in very narrow rays which can pass through glass, or the atmosphere, very easily. Whereas heat radiated, or released from objects which have received that heat, have a much wider wave so cannot pass through the glass, or the atmosphere quite so easily. And the more CO2 or other gasses (methane is much worse that CO2) in the atmosphere, the thicker the glass.
So yes, I’m a simpleton and I understand it.
William Boeder
August 27, 2018 at 9:36 pm
So why have you posted your comment, John?
A lot of people may think your comment is nothing more than a distraction, such as guessing the weight of a rainbow .. essentially something that many do not want entering into their mind.
John
August 27, 2018 at 8:32 pm
The only people who believe or argue the existence of a creator are those who are too ignorant to admit that their argument is unimportant because the logical person does not care and does not waste time trying to argue a clueless past-time.
Keith Antonysen
August 27, 2018 at 8:25 pm
#35, Peter … Thank you for your reply.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 8:01 pm
Max #40 … I have no religion in the conventional sense (nor any faith in any of them) but I feel that the man called Jesus of Nazareth, if the account be true or substantially so, knew things. Fascinating things.
He taught, but it was hard going as his listeners were, as they are today, somewhat obtuse. It’s those “things” I’d like to learn about, but such exploration is an entirely personal path with progress slow, and dependent upon spiritual perception and understanding of which, nowadays, there’s precious little worldwide.
I have found that many so-called Christians, such as those hypocrites of the so-called political Right, are often an abomination with almost no understanding of genuine Christianity at all.
Doug #42 … I feel that your reasoning at this early point is primitive, and that your (a) and (b) are rather absurd. I don’t believe that my computer spontaneously self created from local or interstellar molecules because it had millennia to do so, and more millennia to get it right.
It was DESIGNED Doug, to do what it does, so I will ask you this: Who (or what) created molecules?
Doug Nichols
August 27, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Off-topic I know, but never mind. I’ve had enough of the Liberals for now anyway!
Re #29 … Some interesting claims there Peter, but I disagree with the lot!
Firstly:
“Anyone who thinks logically believes that, by polling all humanity, they would find nobody who would claim to have created this planet (for example) or any lifeform in it.”
In my opinion it is a fair bet that you would find quite a few people, among the many billions there are alive today, who claim to have created the planet and everything on it!
Secondly:
“…who, or what, (created the world)? We can ignore [i]what[/i] because nothing inanimate can create anything.”
(a) read “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. What exactly happened may never be known for certain, but it seems there are ways to create a universe without requiring a creator and this is being actively studied right now.
(b) it is conceivable that a simple self-replicating molecule of some sort could arise spontaneously on the early Earth (and a lot more believable than requiring the existence of a creator). There’s no rush: a billion years is a long time for some fluky chemistry to happen, and it only has to happen once. Darwinian natural selection will take it from there and produce all the amazing life forms we see today without any conscious design effort.
I disagree with the final two sentences as well, but I’ll leave it there.
davies
August 27, 2018 at 6:36 pm
I conclude from your response that you had not done any research into the claim that left wingers were brighter than right wingers, so it is probably a good idea to retract your statement.
Yes, a very simple test for simpletons … That enclosed glass houses are hotter when it is sunny? Has the C02 level been artificially enhanced? Do you want to show off the abundant plant growth under higher levels of C02? Or are you demonstrating that even much higher levels of C02 have no side effects for humans? That C02 is invisible and odourless?
On the contrary .. the science of climate is extremely complex.
Deniers? Perhaps we need a final solution to solve the issue! Are all phrases/words linked to the holocaust allowed now?
And not all climate sceptics are right wingers. If they were no other party would get a look in at elections.
max
August 27, 2018 at 6:32 pm
# 37, Peter … I am sorry I opened the can of worms called faith, but for far too long the world has been torn apart by faith.
There are twelve classical world religions and they all rely on pure faith. Can they all be wrong or right, or can it only be the one you believe in?
I personally believe that all religions started with primitive people seeking an explanation. We are living in a time when faith is being challenged by science, but the truly faithful still cling to creation over evolution.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” My question is .. who created God?
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Russell, prove there’s not.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Max at#36 asks ..
[i]”If the creator exists, what or who made the creator?”[/i]
Hmmmn. Let’s go back to the start ..
[i]Genesis 1:1[/i]
[b]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/b]
How’s that for a Beginning, Max? Will it do for now?
max
August 27, 2018 at 2:26 pm
#29 … God, or the creator, is a conundrum. If the creator exists, what or who made the creator? If you go along with the creator theory and he made every thing .. us, the moon, sun and the universe, where was the creator before every thing was made?
For simplicity the creator solves all problems and has been exploited by conmen since man first asked the question.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 2:00 pm
Keith Antonysen at #33 asks me:
[i]”Where does your argument of design fit into past extinctions, and the profusion of many and varied life forms we see today?”[/i]
I appreciate your interest Keith, as it reveals a thinking mind.
My answer is simplicity itself. I don’t know.
It’s all a grand puzzle. I’ve not been able to figure it all out, or in fact to figure out any part of it.
My main observation is it’s obvious that creation exists. It’s ubiquitous.
I realise that nothing, nothing ever, “just happens.” It’s then axiomatic that there are causes. Given the obvious, it’s likewise obvious that creation has a creator of some kind. Alas Keith, although I wish for insights, that’s as far as I can elucidate. I’m ignorant.
You mention that some of those with religious views deny Climate Change. Yes, they certainly do.
If I told you what I think of their arrant stupidity it would breach Tasmanian Times’ Code of Conduct.
There are Creationists and Evolutionists with strong feelings on both sides. Which is correct?
The explanation is simple. Both are correct, but clearly Creation must have come first. If you and I were creators Keith, we’d surely include a means whereby our various creations could adapt to circumstance and thereby evolve accordingly.
I’m awed by Nature. Man’s duty, and privilege, is to respect it, and to work in with it to limitless mutual advantage.
William Boeder
August 27, 2018 at 12:57 pm
#27 … Interesting comment, Brian P. Khan. Firstly your comment mentions a precedent event, that if it had been considered would have created another outcome altogether. This lack of intelligent discourse among them has seen the Liberal party itself as good as thrown to the dogs.
The whole of the Liberal party ideals seem to have no sound structure apart from looting the Australian taxpayers’ purse, creating special mates appointments that can be called upon to turn a blind eye to certain controversial happenings such as the flick pass of $444 million dollars over to a bunch of ne’er do wells .. energy industry and essentially a mix of Australia’s major polluters.
I wonder if this money was to force a push forward for the coal mining Ardani fix that is in itself huge threat to the marine environment of the Great Barrier Reef in itself. When one examines the composition of its big boys in the energy creating industry sitting on the board of that foundation, the mind can consider that this foundation could well play a starring role in approving the environmental credentials of the Ardani project.
So, in noting that the board of this foundation consisted of energy industry heavyweights, I don’t believe the Great Barrier Reef in itself was of interest to this body of heavy polluters at all, though they well may have held the credentials to aid the Adani Coal Project to clamber over the last lines of resistance.
This is the sort of Liberal party strategy that would be consistent in light of such a great Houdini event.
Keith Antonysen
August 27, 2018 at 12:55 pm
#29, Peter … Around 252 million years ago we had the great dying, where the vast majority of life forms were wiped out. About 90% of all known land based life forms died; acid marine waters and annoxia left only around 5% of marine creatures. There are numerous references in relation to the great dying; also 4 major extinctions have happened since then. Since those extinctions, new life forms have developed.
Currently, despite extinction of species happening, there are still innumerable life forms in existence. Where does your argument of design fit into past extinctions, and the profusion of many and varied life forms we see today?
I raise the matter on the basis of some who hold religious views do not believe that man has an impact on climate … mainly Creationists. I’m well aware you believe we should be doing something positive to thwart man created greenhouse gases.
Wining Pom
August 27, 2018 at 12:03 pm
#31 … It’s easy if you’re driving down the road and need to turn around, even in a truck, but when you’ve gone off the cliff, it’s impossible.
Rob Halton
August 27, 2018 at 2:51 am
Most definitely, Sue Hickey has made a very good point about the circumstances leading up to the removal of Malcolm Turnbull as PM giving Eric Abetz a leading role as one of the wreckers!
Although that is being very defiant as a Liberal when the rest of the State mob don’t say boo it shows strong conviction by Ms Hickey as an individualistic Liberal just as Malcolm Turnbull is, to speak out on his behalf.
I would also suggest in time there will be a showdown between Hickey and Abetz either on Q and A or at the State Parliament, it will happen!
Malcolm Turnbull was deposed because he was trying to lead the Conservatives towards the Middle Right.
If is wasn’t for Malcolm Turnbull Gay marriage would have never have been passed and the Liberals would have remained further back in the polls.
Turnbull did a good job as a PM but was not good with handling his political opponents within the party by only providing them with pastoral care for which they did not appreciate at all.
Morrison has only 9 months to turn around the fortunes for the Liberals, the Coalition in fact, I wish him all the best as Shorten himself should be a push over in any debate.
Simon Warriner
August 27, 2018 at 1:24 am
A long time ago it was put to me that “to deny the existence of a god/creator principle was to deny the fact of your own existence.”
Having pondered on the subject ever since, and having observed much in the natural world, my considered opinion is that the natural world is far more adept at getting stuff done than we give it credit for, and that all this creator stuff is a much misunderstood shorthand for a complex process of trial and error repeated on a grand scale. It does not require an all encompassing intelligence to work, or fail.
The creator stuff is mostly a game of power politics played by those who wish to profit from controlling access and should be dealt with accordingly.
Peter Bright
August 27, 2018 at 12:30 am
Doug at #28 wonders how I may be sure that everyone believes in a Creator being.
He’s right to wonder because my statement was too sweeping to include literally everyone, for example babies and small children are way too young to have begun to think about such matters.
Doug, anyone who thinks logically believes that, by polling all humanity, they would find nobody who would claim to have created this planet (for example) or any lifeform in it. Yet Earth clearly exists, and so do innumerable lifeforms, so we have a thing, and lifeforms, which certainly do exist … but which none of us designed or made.
Well Doug, [i]who, or what, did?[/i] We can ignore [i]what[/i] because nothing inanimate can create anything.
It’s axiomatic that everything has a cause behind it, even though the cause is not always visible and its nature may not be accurately perceived … for the time being.
Without an explanation to the contrary, we can accept the easy conclusion that humanity, openly or privately, acknowledges the existence of an inexplicable, living, intelligent creative force.
Doug Nichols
August 26, 2018 at 10:48 pm
#25 … I was with you with the climate change stuff (and #22’s little test) but then you added a rather odd claim: “everyone (openly or suppressed) believes in a Creator”.
Nonsense! You might. But everyone? How do you know? You haven’t asked me, for example!
Brian P. Khan
August 26, 2018 at 8:21 pm
The Governor General had a perfect excuse to send the whole parliament to a double dissolution after the antics of last week, the reason being that cabinet ministers in both house withdrew their support.
The Governor General could have used his reserve powers when he allowed Whitlam and Barnard to hold all portfolios after the 1972 election.
Turnbull could have been appointed caretaker prime minister with his two loyal cabinet ministers, now PM and treasurer.
The electorate could have passed judgement on the 43 Judases.
William Boeder
August 26, 2018 at 6:51 pm
#25, Peter … You are beginning to refer to the Liberal party, State and Federal, utilising somewhat the same form of disparaging terminology as employed by myself.
Can it be that this is borne out through the lately established in-fighting, the deceptions rife through their ranks, then to the nothingness of their legislation not being of anything of acceptable substance to the people of Australia? Or is it the sheer dishonesty rife through their ranks that has descended down through the ranks to land on Australia’s State Premiers?
Or perhaps it may be due to the Extreme right incumbents that believe they are entitled and or privileged to dismiss the concerns of the Australian people, hmm’ treat the bastards as if they were mindless sheep?
Peter, I guess any which way would be a reasonable cause for you to dismiss any further cordiality or civility to be directed toward Australia’s “boneheaded Liberal goofballs” being that they are no longer entitled nor worthy of respectful address. Even so, I am delighted with your transition to code-Boeder-expressionism.
A special mention to Chris for having expended so much time to express his deep sentiments. Oh, and another .. keep on Wining Pom.
Good to hear from you John Powell, and a sincere thank you to each of the other like-minded persons that have finally realised the nebula empty of honest factum, then to the disdain hurled down upon the Australian people, by this (should be revoked of all authority to contest in an Australian election) Liberal party herd of beguiling plotting trough-snouters.
Without the Nationals the Liberal party would devolve back to its nebulous self.
Nebula | COSMOS
astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/N/Nebula
A nebula is an interstellar cloud of gas and dust.
The d (in devolve} is a clue to its meaning. When things devolve, they deteriorate, degenerate, fall apart, go to the dogs, and generally end up worse. When a classroom gets loud and rowdy, a teacher might say the class has devolved.
There is another, less negative, the meaning of devolve. You can devolve responsibilities: for example, the U.S. government could devolve a certain responsibility to the states. The non-negative meaning of devolve is kind of like passing things on, as in a will. If I devolve something to you, you inherit it.
Peter Bright
August 26, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Mr Pom at #24 incisively asks [i]”So why is it that all the climate change deniers are right wing? What is stopping them understanding something that most school kids could?”[/i]
Nothing is actually stopping them from comprehending the obvious Mr Pom; it’s their own wilful decision to deny for purely selfish purposes. For these twits, Climate Change is An Inconvenient Truth.
Similarly, everyone (openly or suppressed) believes in a Creator, but that’s often seen as an inconvenient Truth, too.
Those bent on avoiding reality retreat into the cave called Denial, and they won’t come out lest their real motives for persisting with wrongdoing be revealed.
In the first example above, acknowledging Climate Change interferes with exploitation and money making, and in the second instance acknowledgement of a Creator raises moral issues.
Denial Cave is a very large one, and many (our current flock of boneheaded Liberal goofballs included) are in it.
Wining Pom
August 26, 2018 at 4:23 pm
#22. Yes, I am capable of researching .. and also of accepting research. I am not aware of Nazis using the low IQ argument, though. I think it would have been suicidal to go down that path.
But here’s simple test. You could take a bunch of school kids to a greenhouse and explain why it’s warmer inside than out, and use that to explain climate change. The science isn’t that difficult to understand.
So why is it that all the climate change deniers are right wing? What is stopping them understanding something that most school kids could?
Chris
August 26, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Vicious, vindictive and vengeful. I’ve Got a Little List, and none of them be missed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLV24qTnlg
1. Jonathon Duniam, ex Abetz adviser and mate to “let’s sell the ABC Hodgmanâ€, who needs advice?
2. David Bushby, he who instigates a “No NBN petition†which disappeared when he realised the 18th century was gone, and those already connected were not in favour of his proactive action and he returned to the back bench of the Senate where his role is to continuously do nothing.
3. Eric Abetz, Rupert’s Friend, IPA and the LIEBRALS main conscience on anything.
.. or any of the others in the new reformed Government ..
1. Andrew Hastie
2. Tony Pasin
3. Craig Kelly
4. Michael Sukkar
5. Kevin Andrews
6. Tony Abbott
7. Ian Goodenough
8. Nicolle Flint
9. Peter Dutton
10. Jason Wood
11. Ross Vasta
12. Luke Howarth
13. Rick Wilson
14. Ted O’Brien
15. Zed Seselja
16 Greg Hunt
17 Steven Ciobo
18 Angus Taylor
19 Alan Tudge
20. Michael Keenan
21 Andrew Wallace
22 Scott Buchholz
23 Jim Molan
24 Slade Brockman
25 Dean Smith
26 Jane Hume
27 Mitch Fifield
28. John McVeigh
29. David Fawcett
30. Amanda Stoker
31. Jonathon Duniam
32. David Bushby
33. James Paterson
34 Eric Abetz
35. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
36. James McGrath
37. Mathias Cormann
38. Michaelia Cash
39. Karen Andrews
40. Andrew Laming
41 Ben Morton
42. Sussan Ley
43. Warren Entsch (for Brendan Nelson)
davies
August 26, 2018 at 1:49 pm
Ah yes, the old left wingers are more intelligent than right wingers .. nicely reinforcing your prejudice. But if you were a more intelligent left winger then surely you were capable of a bit of research?
Measuring intellect accurately is complex. To try and simplify the process, IQ is often used, but that has several well known limitations. But even if we take these results from the studies as accurate, they show an IQ difference of only 3 to 6 points. This is a indiscernible difference.
When you look deeper, there are systemic problems, for example with the two recent studies showing left wingers (and atheists) having a higher intellect than right wingers. I presume these are the studies you are referring to as they got a lot of press when they were published.
Brooks Uni’ study used the IQ of 10 and 11 year olds, then their political leanings at age 30 to 33. But IQs are not set at age 10 or 11 and in addition, a number of the political ‘leaning’ questions were considered to be vague and open to interpretation, further skewing the results. Professor Briggs at Cornell Uni called the study “a contender for worst use of statistics in an original paper, everâ€!
The other study was done by Kanazawa. He used the US General Society Survey and a National Longitudinal Study to get his result that left wingers and atheists were smarter than right wingers and religious people. The problem is those surveys give millions of people a label of left wing or right wing .. which is not reflected in how they actually vote.
For example, many blacks in the US self-identify on these surveys as a right winger (conservative social values) but overwhelmingly vote Democrat. There is a similar issue with the approximate 15% of the population that identify as Libertarian, yet come up as Democrats on the Survey.
Anyway Kanazawa apparently is known as “the great idiot of social science†and perhaps best illustrated by his findings that low IQ of a Nation equates to poor health care. So according to him, Ethiopia has an IQ of 63 which explains their poor health care …
Eugenics and Nazis used to push the old low IQ arguments. Is this the road you want to go down?
Ted Mead
August 26, 2018 at 11:32 am
#18 and #20 …
Intelligence should not be confused with ignorance!
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
So what is the defining use of knowledge once you have acquired it?
Most humans are intelligent, and that includes many of the conservatives.
It is what one does with that knowledge that is pertinent.
To me knowledge is merely useless unless it is guided through wisdom!
Wisdom is the key factor to individual and collective survival.
And wisdom is what the developing world is losing rapidly!
Peter Bright
August 26, 2018 at 7:33 am
Wining Pom at #18 states [i]”Studies have shown that people who vote right wing are less intelligent .. and that is being shown in capitals at the moment.
“That’s not to say all who vote right are idiots, but the further right, the less intelligent.”[/i]
Thankyou, Mr Pom. Your comment is the first time I have seen my own perceptions confirmed in print.
Andrew Ricketts
August 26, 2018 at 4:44 am
Further to #13 and #17 … The Liberal party will simply have a better chance without Abetz, Abbott and Co. Let them form something with Bernardi or Hanson, etc.
I can recall watching Abetz in about 2004. He was in the foyer of the Country Club Casino in Launceston, having just arrived with Howard.
I consider I saw raving, ranting lunatic behaviour from Senator Abetz, accompanying John Howard. The spectacle is etched in my mind. It was unbefitting. I really doubt he has changed.
Wining Pom
August 26, 2018 at 3:48 am
It seems that the rabid right is proving its existence.
Studies have shown that people who vote right wing are less intelligent .. and that is being shown in capitals at the moment. That’s not to say all who vote right are idiots, but the further right, the less intelligent.
Apparently it makes them feel safer. Children with less intelligence grow up to be prejudiced. And that’s exactly who Dutton, Abetz and Abbott are aiming at. Trump, too.
William Boeder
August 26, 2018 at 12:25 am
Let there be life without the strictures of an Abetz in Tasmania.
I note that a number of Tasmania’s better-informed commenters hold to the same resolution as I do. Abetz has cost this State hundreds and millions of dollars of lost revenues by him imposing his 1830 opinions on what he had foolishly claimed were in the best interests of Tasmanians. (Remember his push for MIS plantation forest inundation, that in itself was an action against the best interests of Tasmania. He is also a Ta Ann ally which still costs this State its plenty.)
All of Australia will benefit from the demise of that religious cultist activist that prowled about in the dark of night, his plottings with the Exclusive Brethren. One can feel a sigh of relief bursting forth with the promise of an Abetz no longer in government.
TGC
August 26, 2018 at 12:13 am
#12 … “We need a more robust and accountable Parliament …” for which – every three years – at the most – we are given the opportunity.
Simon Warriner
August 25, 2018 at 11:34 pm
Re #13 … If it was not an Abetz or an Abbott it would be someone else. And if it was not the Libs it would be Labor or some other party eventually. The mistake most are making is that they watch the programs, not the programming. The creeping corruption and dysfunction is built into the party system.
Instead of fighting battles, fight the war!
We have a democracy. Let’s use it to put some democratic representation back into our system of government.
Vote Independent if you want things to change.
Steve
August 25, 2018 at 11:11 pm
#13 … Great comment, Garry. Loved it. “He is a noble Roman?” I don’t think so!
garrystannus@hotmail.com
August 25, 2018 at 8:49 pm
Couldn’t help it … but the following came to mind:
I remember when Eric Abetz first made a name for himself as a newbie in the Liberal Party, here in Tasmania. I heard him interviewed, as I drove down out of the bush, down past the new plantations in the Liffey. He was being greeted as the newbie Liberal. Now …
… he seemed to be skulking in the train of players. I hoped to myself that he would never be given a Ministry again after being … what was he … Special Minister of State … or Minister of Forests (not Minister for Forests).
I can quite confidently state that, in my opinion, anyone who is a Liberal, or who votes Liberal, is suspected of being mentally, societally or morally deficient. Worse than that, they are suspect of only being ‘in it for themselves’ or ‘for their buddies’ or for their families, or similar types. The Liberal Party of Australia – and its Tasmanian counterpart – are just absolute shockers.
If Eric Abetz wanted to do something good for Tasmania, he’d bloody well resign … right now. What a goose! John Hawkins, bless his ‘recalcitrant’ soul, has long sought to inform our community at large of Eric Abetz’s various deficiencies. While once or twice challenging John’s arguments as put, I can say that I agree with him in that we want no Cassius, no Gollum nor worserer in our political system.
The only reason (in my opinion) that a sane person could have for supporting E. Abetz’s remaining in the Parliament is to prevent someone worse from being there. Who could such a person be? Abbott?
Geez! If you had to choose between the two, you’d probably (for the sake of the nation) take a walk out in the snow and cut the sled-dogs loose.
Andrew Ricketts
August 25, 2018 at 8:32 pm
Re #10 … Self-interest, more like it.
Re #9 … This recent episode was the worst. By far.
But the others are not missing from my book at all. I am not attached to, indentured, or a member of any political party, Trevor. What about you?
I am generally appalled by such antics as occurred last week, going back over decades in fact, and consider that the Labor solution, which is an internal one, may not be sufficient at all.
Indeed I was disgusted by Kerr’s dismissal of Whitlam.
There is, I suppose, a collection of issues:
Should politicians be able to simply leave the party they were elected under and become something else? An Independent for example. Not in my book. In Tasmania we had Lambie who left PUP and now Sen. Steve Martin left the Lambie Network and joined The Nationals, a part of the Government coalition.
Should the Prime Minister be elected by the people? Why not? Currently many think that simply because the candidate appears in the media as the runner, then that is what they are doing. Sad! Reality is an interesting beast.
Should party members have the capacity to remove a PM at all? And, after a vote has been taken a few days prior, should there be the ability to have yet another go, another vote? Not in my book.
A better fail-safe perhaps, would be a vote of both houses, for example.
I am strongly interested in Shorten’s commitment to create a Federal ICAC.
We need a more robust and accountable Parliament which behaves with more probity and more honesty – in my book.
I hate the rabble that is a self-interested, ego and power driven demagoguery, Trevor.
John Powell
August 25, 2018 at 6:00 pm
And PING … Julie Bishop undermined by Mathias Corman, no doubt assisted by CoS Brad Stansfield ex with Will Hoffman and MeinHerr Erica – says it all!
The Menzies Liberal Party is #Goneski … and we are seeing it in Tasmania with #HillsongFergie #MeinHerr Gutwhine and #Iknownuttinghodgman.
New Zealand – now [i]there’s[/i] a Government and a PM.
Simon Warriner
August 25, 2018 at 3:29 pm
“He needs to remember that he represents the whole of the Tasmanian demographic, not just the hard right … “
Thank you, Sue Hickey, for explaining to the voting public why political parties are the cause of so much dysfunction in government. In that one sentence you have encapsulated the whole stinking morass. We pay for representation .. and what we get is self indulgence.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am over it.
TGC
August 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm
#6 “… in my book.”
But missing from ‘your book’ when the Rudd, Gillard, Rudd, Shorten farce was on, or the Abbott / Turnbull business.
Mark Temby
August 25, 2018 at 2:10 pm
Will Hodgman … Hello? The lights are out and nobody’s home.
Tasmanian Liberal politicians – quiet one day, gone the next.
Jack Nimble
August 25, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Re # 2 … I agree. I am not a Liberal party supporter, never have, never will.
I do have time for Sue Hickey. It’s refreshing to see her having a say regarding the despicable act of removing this country’s Prime Minister.
Sue Hickey has more courage than the rest of the pathetic mob running this state.
J.B.Nimble.
Andrew Ricketts
August 25, 2018 at 12:42 pm
Why put him at number 5? Why put Abetz on the ticket at all?
If Turnbull can be rolled, Abetz can be expelled.
Senator Abetz should resign. His behaviour is utterly disgraceful.
Ms Hickey’s candid criticism is entirely justified, in my book.
philll Parsons
August 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Where was Parry? Oh, that’s right. He was out because he was a dual citizen and so the Abetz team was reduced by one.
Colbeck did not sign. Will he be put last on the Lieberal ticket again for disloyalty to Eric, even though Colbeck topped the below the line for the Libs like Singh did for Labor?
TGC
August 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm
#1 and #2 … Well! That’s sorted!
davies
August 25, 2018 at 12:18 pm
Well, I guess Hickey is an expert on sabotage …
#1 … Seriously? If he had that sort of power why didn’t he turn up last year when the Libs still had a chance at the next election?
Turnbull did this to himself.
Pete Godfrey
August 25, 2018 at 12:06 pm
Well done Sue Hickey, for saying what needed to be said. It is time that the wreckers moved on.
The Liberal party needs to move Mr Abetz to number 5 on the ticket, and pre-select someone else in Tony Abbott’s seat.
Peter Bright
August 25, 2018 at 10:38 am
Less than two weeks after Murdoch arrived in town, Malcolm was assassinated.
Definitely not a coincidence.
[i]”So is it any surprise that Malcolm Turnbull has lost his job less than a fortnight after Murdoch arrived here? Of course it isn’t.[/i]
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/08/23/hello-rupert-bye-bye-malcolm/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sunday Best 20180826