Sarah Hyphen Hyphen

Am I the only one around who becomes uncharacteristically homicidal when I see Sarah Hyphen Hyphen on the television or in print?  Today she has penned a breathlessly appalling piece for The Age – where else?

In a typically assertive attempt to describe black as white (or should that be blue as green), she argues that the Victorian election results were actually pretty good for the Greens, notwithstanding their failure to win any lower house seats and the possibility that they may actually lose a seat in the upper house.  Gosh, I would love to see a bad result?

You have to understand it was all because those nasty Liberals decided to preference Labor before the Greens (thank God, and arguably played a big role in the Coalition’s victory) and from now on, the Greens should run with an open ticket and all will be right with the world.  Que?

Because she is now in Burma or Thailand – we really needed to know that, I just hope Australian taxpayers are not paying for this junket –  I guess my homicidal thoughts should not prove dangerous and so I enclose an exerpt of her jolly little piece from the Age.

Right now I am on an eight-hour road trip to the Thai-Burma border, which gives me time to reflect on the amazing parliamentary year that is finally drawing to a close.

It has been a big year for the Greens – our support has been on the rise, punctuated by a record performance for a third party in both Houses at the federal election in August. More importantly, on a federal level, we are starting to achieve real outcomes, both in terms of expanding the range of political debate and in working to secure improvements to legislation that affects people’s lives.

By leading the debate on reform of Australia’s outdated marriage laws, by outlining legislation to provide real protection for Australian consumers from the excesses of the banking sector, by negotiating safeguards to prevent the automatic privatisation of the national broadband network and by securing a climate change committee to drive real action on the most vital question facing Australia this century, the Greens are trying to take a long-term view on policy.

We have remained positive in this political year where the old parties have chosen to define themselves by what they are against rather than what they are for, leaving the Australian public hard-pressed to decide between the two. The Coalition has been particularly guilty in this regard, with its relentlessly negative approach.

At the weekend, the last major political set-piece of this extraordinary year has come and gone with the Victorian election. It has seen voters likely to usher in a change of government after 11 years of Labor.

In the state election it was Labor rather than the Coalition that chose an overwhelmingly negative campaign focus, and the party has paid for that approach with one of the biggest swings against a sitting Victorian government in 50 years.

There is always a need to review and reflect on campaigns once they are completed and acknowledge areas where things could be improved. Just as Labor would be no doubt re-assessing its choice to go negative, the Greens must question the decision to opt into the perennial auction over preferences by doing a deal with Labor.

The Greens are an independent political force, and we are neither a faction of nor a preference machine for Labor or any other party.The Greens should not have directed preferences to the Labor Party. We should have gone open ticket, allowing Victorian voters to make up their own minds. We should also move to make open tickets the default position for all elections, including federal polls.

Despite a decisive swing to the conservative side of politics, the Greens still managed to increase their vote in both Houses, even if it is unlikely to result in extra seats. If preferences had flowed similarly to 2006, the Greens would have won the Lower House seats of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick.

Only the foolhardy would try and predict what 2011 has in store, but if Labor and the Coalition refuse to learn the lessons of this past year, then the voting public may well continue to opt for a change from politics as usual – and that means more opportunities for the Greens.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Sarah Hyphen Hyphen

  1. boy on a bike says:

    On election night, it appeared that the Greens got a swing of 0.6%. As of now, that is down to 0.3%. The commentariate haven’t bothered to look at the updated numbers – they are still using 0.6%.

    Wonder if they will shut up if it drops any lower?

    That 0.6% number is likely to be the plastic turkey of this election.

  2. conrad says:

    I don’t really see why what she is saying is any worse than any other party.

  3. . says:

    No, she’s loopy. We have a comeptitive banking system and it did well to avoid the GFC largely. There are no excesses relative to other industries.

    The NBN should be privatised right now. Sarah darling obviously doesn’t realise it will never be completed under Quigley and Conroy.

  4. FDB says:

    Surely you can see that she’s from the Greens, Conrad.

    Ipso facto – she’s wronger about everything than anyone else.

  5. . says:

    Well FDB, I only said she was 2/5 wrong.

  6. FDB says:

    Just what is it with this site and the casual attitude to murder lately?

    No censure of CL for openly calling for Assange’s murder, and Judith here just whimsically pondering her murderous fantasies over a pretty harmless opinion piece.

    It’s pretty bloody wrong, if you ask me.

  7. Peter Patton says:

    She’s not loopy. She’s just profoundly dumb. The more I look at these people, horrifyingly, the more that Dumb-Dumber seems to be the archetypal Australian Greens supporter. How could such a preposterous airhead have won pre-selection?

  8. Adrian says:

    good grief, where’s the bucket? SHY is the single most annoying person in politics. she should be forced to sit the IQ test NSW LIbs are going to make candidates sit before pre-selection.

  9. TN says:

    “Profoundly” dumb is too strong, but her intellectual capacity is certainly far lower than her personal belief in it. In terms of economics, she is up there with David Suzuki – “life is an externality, so economists don’t consider it” – for getting the topic arse about and yet having total self-confidence in her criticisms of it. Dumb, but also dangerous.

  10. . says:

    Not me FDB. I’m pro death penalty.

  11. . says:

    “life is an externality, so economists don’t consider it”

    That’s a scary level of ignorance.

  12. FDB says:

    For people who write articles you don’t like, or people who disseminate leaked emails they’re sent Dot?

  13. dover_beach says:

    No censure of CL for openly calling for Assange’s murder

    You’re wrong there; I think Entropy remarked quickly about being uncomfortable with what CL said.

  14. C.L. says:

    Al Qaeda apologist and alleged rapist Julian Assange has admitted that his leaks will probably get people killed. He is a legitimate target if he cannot be arrested or renditioned. Just like Lord Haw Haw was a legitimate target during World War II.

  15. FDB says:

    Well yes, and so did I DB – just wondering if the site proprietors would like to demonstrate any propriety on the matter.

    Judging by Judith’s latest, I guess not!

  16. dover_beach says:

    For people who write articles you don’t like, or people who disseminate leaked emails they’re sent Dot?

    No, for people that directly or indirectly aid and abet the enemy and endanger the lives of our armed services or those assisting them. Anyway, is this best discussed in the Open thread?

  17. dover_beach says:

    Judging by Judith’s latest, I guess not!

    Oh, yes, Judith was literally asking for murder of Sarah Hyphen Hyphen.

  18. FDB says:

    “Judith was literally asking for murder of Sarah Hyphen Hyphen.”

    You’ll note I never said that, nor implied it.

    Being filled with the urge to kill over a newspaper article, and writing about that like it ain’t no thang, implies an attitude to murder which is incompatible with censuring CL’s actual incitement to murder. That was my very plain meaning.

  19. ken n says:

    Coming back to the Greens, my guess is that they have reached their apogee (that’s the one that means highest point, isn’t it?).
    In the past third parties have been staging points for voters moving from one side to the other. The DLP for those going from Lab to Lib and the Democrats for those on the reverse trip. That meant that they were almost always temporary. I don’t think the Greens are like that. They have to carve out a constituency of their own. That might mean they will be around for quite a while but will limit their potential size. At the moment they are trying to steal from the left of the ALP while keeping their upper middle class conservationists. That will be difficult.
    Pretty clearly, they can’t get a lower house seat without the preferences on one of the other parties.

  20. . says:

    “For people who write articles you don’t like, or people who disseminate leaked emails they’re sent Dot?”

    For aggravated murderers, traitors, seditionists, pirates and terrorists.

    C.L – rendition is counterproductive and immoral. Assange is probably more likely deranged than evil.

    I wouldn’t mention his alleged transgressions until they are proven.

  21. C.L. says:

    Dot, don’t be precious. Assange, as I said, is an alleged rapist.

    Assange is probably more likely deranged than evil.

    Who cares?

    FDB, would you agree with me that doctors and nurses who perform a late-term abortion on a baby with Down syndrome or a cleft palate are murderers who ought to be arrested and jailed? Yes or no?

  22. dover_beach says:

    Being filled with the urge to kill over a newspaper article, and writing about that like it ain’t no thang, implies an attitude to murder which is incompatible with censuring CL’s actual incitement to murder. That was my very plain meaning.

    Oh, forgive me, FDB, you meant only that she was literally “filled with the urge to kill over a newspaper article”. Appalled by Judith, yet applauding the release of information that will actually be used to murder people.

  23. Sleetmute says:

    I’m loving this: you put the Greens last and they reward you with an open ticket! Just confirms the masochistic tendencies of the Green mindset. Maybe if you put them after FF, they will put you second…

  24. Peter Patton says:

    my guess is that they have reached their apogee (that’s the one that means highest point, isn’t it?).

    Indeed. In contradistinction to perigee.

  25. . says:

    Not wanting to smear someone on pending charges isn’t precious, it’s perfectly acceptable behaviour.

  26. C.L. says:

    Yes FDB, you need to turn the Outrageous! Outrage! nob down from eleventy. Your claim that Judith is a potential murderer would be regarded as OTT even at Larvatus Prodeo.

  27. C.L. says:

    Dot, Assange is accurately and lawfully described as an alleged rapist. You’re being silly.

    I wouldn’t mention his alleged transgressions until they are proven.

    So you’re calling for a crackdown on press freedom?

  28. FDB says:

    “information that will actually be used to murder people”

    Really? What information? How?

    “Your claim that Judith is a potential murderer”

    Well, it’s lucky I never made such a claim, or it’d be me looking foolish instead of you! Phew… dodged another bullet, and just by not being a moron!

  29. rog says:

    So you’re calling for a crackdown on press freedom?

    Free wikileak!

  30. rog says:

    Sarah thin gummy is no more outrageous than screw loose Bolt or ‘hello John this is Piers on the line’ Ackerman.

  31. dover_beach says:

    Really? What information? How?

    Ah, would you like me to hand you a towel PontiusFDB?

  32. THR says:

    Hey, you vote for a party that includes Andrews, the Bishops, Hockey and co, you don’t really get the privilege of calling others ‘dumb’.

  33. boy on a bike says:

    Can someone check my maths.

    The Greens polled 297,931 votes in 2006 in the lower house.

    As of now, they have polled 278,859 – with 95.25% of the vote counted. Extrapolate that to 100%, and they end up with 292,765 lower house votes – fewer actual votes than they got in 2006. Their share of votes went up slightly because turnout crashed between 2006 and 2010. But fewer actual people voted Green at this election.

    I wouldn’t say that their support is “on the rise” based on those figures.

  34. daddy dave says:

    Really? What information? How?

    The identities of Afghanis and Iraqis who are informants to the US.
    “How”
    … I’ll leave that to your information. The Taliban can be rather inventive in that department.

  35. . says:

    “So you’re calling for a crackdown on press freedom?”

    Stop being a dickhead C.L.

  36. boy on a bike says:

    Similarly, in the Upper House, the Greens got 314,847 votes in 2006.

    In 2010, with 96.11% of the vote counted, they are up to 293,222. Extrapolating that to 100% gives you 305,090.

    Hmm.

    2006 – 314,847
    2010 – 305,090.

    Somewhere along the way, 5000-10,000 Green voters have dropped off the face of the earth. Percentage-wise, they have gone up. People-wise, they have gone backwards. They shed just over 3% of their voters between elections.

  37. C.L. says:

    Judith:

    “Am I the only one around who becomes uncharacteristically homicidal when I see Sarah Hyphen Hyphen on the television or in print?”

    FDB on eleventy:

    “Just what is it with this site and the casual attitude to murder lately? … Judith here just whimsically pondering her murderous fantasies over a pretty harmless opinion piece. It’s pretty bloody wrong, if you ask me… Being filled with the urge to kill over a newspaper article, and writing about that like it ain’t no thang…”

    Me:

    “Your claim that Judith is a potential murderer.”

    FDB #2:

    “Well, it’s lucky I never made such a claim…”

    ——————————

    FDB, I think it’s time you hobbled outside and took a breath of fresh air.

  38. C.L. says:

    Dot, the accepted and lawful style for describing a person under indictment or who has been charged is to say he is (in this case) an alleged rapist. See here. Your insistence that the charges not be mentioned unless he’s convicted is bizarre and certainly antagonistic to freedom of speech.

  39. . says:

    I’m not telling you to do anything. If my suggestion carries the force of law, call me Caesar Dot Augustus, P.P., N.N.

    The (rape) charges were withdrawn once. They pursued him on sexual harrasment charges.

    Why did you bring it up C.L.? Tell me you were trying to be fair and balanced.

  40. conrad says:

    “Coming back to the Greens, my guess is that they have reached their apogee (that’s the one that means highest point, isn’t it?).”

    I’ll bet the opposite (perhaps pinnacle is a higher frequency word!). One general reason is that their support tends to be in the younger demographic, which means that those kids will begin to progate through the system more in the years to come. The other reason is state specific, which is that both the Labor and Liberal parties are far more socially progressive in Victoria than other states, so I imagine that means people simply have less reason to vote for them here, so I doubt Victoria is greatly representative of Australia in this respect.

    I think it also depends what Labor does — if they stay in their current form, with very little appeal to younger groups who can’t remember a time when Australia manufactured stereotypical stuff (like cars), then voting for Labor won’t simply be the default choice for people not wanting to vote for the Libs. I also think that if Gillard does nothing and the Greens drive Labor’s social agenda, the Greens will also get more votes from that, although it appears Arbib has seen that writing on the wall already, so I guess Gillard will get the chop for it.

  41. FDB says:

    “Because she is now in Burma or Thailand … I guess my homicidal thoughts should not prove dangerous”

    So if she were closer at hand, what would happen?

    Look, of course I’m not suggesting that the mild-mannered Judith is a potential murderer. It’s just a very odd way to express the hyperbole people often use. Typically folks take it up a notch to make it clear they’re being silly – “I’d like to throttle her” or “take ’em out the back and shoot ’em” or whatever.

    I can’t imagine it would be fun to read that someone you don’t even know is having homicidal thoughts about you – the matter-of-fact tone makes it kinda spooky I think.

    I’m sure Judith doesn’t need you sticking up for her though, and can set SHY straight that she’s in no real danger.

  42. . says:

    FDB,

    Let’s contrast your silly crusade with every bit of same hyperbole and bigotry from LP.

  43. FDB says:

    Criticising someone’s tone is a crusade?

    My comments here are comparable to those of completely different people at a completely different blog?

    What a strange comment.

  44. C.L. says:

    Why did you bring it up C.L.?

    Clubs stand down footballers until their names are cleared of rape charges. I think we’re entitled to maintain a degree of moral scepticism about an information morals crusader facing prosecution by the usually gentle Swedish authorities.

  45. dover_beach says:

    Actually, the strangest comment on this thread is yours at 2.38pm.

  46. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Unless the ALP is politically suicidal, it does indeed look like the Greens have reached their ‘peak stupid’.

    I don’t really agree with Conrad at 1434, the very young may well vote Green for a time for the ‘cool vibe, I’m a revolutionary, man’ buzz, but after the time they get a job and meet the real world most will realise that the Greens are fantasists who want to cost them opportunities and money. It’s pretty much only the ideologues, the terminally bewildered, the venal, the perpetually-unemployed-and-welfare-dependent, the stupid/gullible and the professional activist types who stick with these fantasist fringe groups.

    Here in teh ACT it’s been an ALP-Green coalition, and the impact is disastrously wasteful of public money. Eventually, people notice a perpetual tax-and-spend mode.

    markL
    Canberra

  47. Peter Patton says:

    conrad’s reading of the Greens, the ALP, Victoria, and indeed Australia is bizarre and completely tone deaf.

  48. FDB says:

    “Actually, the strangest comment on this thread is yours at 2.38pm.”

    I’d still maintain that the strangest thing on this thread is the post, but can you tell me what was strange about my 2:38 comment?

  49. dover_beach says:

    I’d still maintain that the strangest thing on this thread is the post, but can you tell me what was strange about my 2:38 comment?

    That the following remark, “Am I the only one around who becomes uncharacteristically homicidal when I see Sarah Hyphen Hyphen on the television or in print?” should illicit the following:

    Look, of course I’m not suggesting that the mild-mannered Judith is a potential murderer. It’s just a very odd way to express the hyperbole people often use. Typically folks take it up a notch to make it clear they’re being silly – “I’d like to throttle her” or “take ‘em out the back and shoot ‘em” or whatever.

    I can’t imagine it would be fun to read that someone you don’t even know is having homicidal thoughts about you – the matter-of-fact tone makes it kinda spooky I think.

    I’m sure Judith doesn’t need you sticking up for her though, and can set SHY straight that she’s in no real danger.

    is very strange. Turgid, contradictory, paranoid, and moralistic.

  50. Judith Sloan says:

    It’s a joke, Joyce. Everyone calm down. And I’m not personally worried if someone has homicidial thoughts towards me – the competition of ideas is a great thing!

  51. Peter Patton says:

    FDB

    Not only do you see racists under the bed, but now homicidal maniacs! Do you see dead people? Can you still hear the lambs screaming, Clarise?

  52. daddy dave says:

    conrad’s reading of the Greens, the ALP, Victoria, and indeed Australia is bizarre and completely tone deaf.

    I thought he made some reasonable points. I agree with him that Gillard’s pandering to the Greens and moving left is potentially disastrous for Labor.

  53. Peter Patton says:

    dd

    He doesn’t say anything about Gillard’s “pandering” at all. Actually he said nothing of any coherence whatsoever.

    I also think that if Gillard does nothing and the Greens drive Labor’s social agenda, the Greens will also get more votes from that, although it appears Arbib has seen that writing on the wall already, so I guess Gillard will get the chop for it.

    Que?

  54. Peter Patton says:

    And where is Gillard “pandering to the Greens”?

  55. Peter Patton says:

    The three standout demographic indicators of a Greens voter are:

    1. Degree in Creative Arts, Soft Social Studies, or Architecture.

    2. High income

    3. Inner city dweller

    4. Childless

    The most crucial is number 4. Age is not significant, EXCEPT. As young Greens voters have a child they stop voting Greens.

  56. Peter Patton says:

    Er, FOUR.

  57. daddy dave says:

    where is Gillard “pandering to the Greens”?

    nowhere Peter. She’s tough as nails, principled as hell, and as right-wing as Ghengis Khan, our Joolz. The Greens? Ha! She eats them for breakfast.

  58. daddy dave says:

    As young Greens voters have a child they stop voting Greens.

    You can’t know that without longitudinal data. Don’t try to pretend to be an expert in something that you’re not.

  59. Peter Patton says:

    I would sooner live on a diet of prunes than ever describe myself as an “expert”.

  60. Peter Patton says:

    But you could do with a double dose of your own words:

    I agree with him that Gillard’s pandering to the Greens and moving left is potentially disastrous for Labor

    Jesus.

  61. daddy dave says:

    “double dose”? Totally missed what you’re saying Peter. I was merely offering a personal opinion that happens to be shared by plenty of commentators.

  62. rog says:

    Dunno about #4 PP, the greens I know are empty nesters.

  63. Samuel J says:

    If they applied the intelligence test the LNP is proposing in Qld, young Sarah would be one of the first to depart the Senate.

  64. THR says:

    The most crucial is number 4. Age is not significant, EXCEPT. As young Greens voters have a child they stop voting Greens.

    Yet again, there’s no evidence for any of your wild, stereotypically Boltesque assertions about the Greens. When I provided you with empirical evidence, it was clear that Greens voters were not necessarily either childless or professional, but critically, were ex-ALP voters, or people keen on the environment.

  65. Peter Patton says:

    dd

    I see. While you proffer ‘personal opinions’, I proffer pseudo expertise. While your ‘personal opinions’ require only the validation of “plenty of other commentators”, I am required to get a PhD in Statistics, and link to my “longitudinal studies”.

  66. Peter Patton says:

    rog

    That is a potentially interesting demographic trend, which I can also add some data points. More research should be directed here, particularly given the size of that demographic bulge.

    But again, it bucks the self-serving “Greens as groovy young things” being peddled by the likes of conrad and THR. It also doesn’t address the significantly relative childlessness of the Greens voters of working age.

  67. daddy dave says:

    While you proffer ‘personal opinions’, I proffer pseudo expertise.

    You stated the following as fact, not opinion:
    “As young Greens voters have a child they stop voting Greens”
    Maybe you thought it followed naturally from the Green demographic findings that you’d summarised, but it doesn’t. For example, breeding and not-voting-green might both be the result of a third factor (such as conservatism) rather than breeding causing people to stop voting green. What you stated as fact simply can’t be known at this point in time.

    Yes, I followed it up with a kick, but come on mate, you lined up for that one. Don’t be so thin-skinned.

  68. Peter Patton says:

    No dd. I don’t think you get it. I stand behind my what I said. Why you have imposed this PhD is stats requirment is weird. But even then, you are hopelessly wrong

    For example, breeding and not-voting-green might both be the result of a third factor (such as conservatism) rather than breeding causing people to stop voting green.

    No shit Sherlock. Dude, how does my point offend your brilliant sociological insight?

    And your posts are still illogical, particularly your one “agreeing” with conrad, where you are agreeing with something he didn’t even say.

  69. THR says:

    But again, it bucks the self-serving “Greens as groovy young things” being peddled by the likes of conrad and THR.

    Nobody has peddled anything except you. You’re peddling unsubstantiated and imbecilic right-wing talking points masquerading as demographic insight.

    It also doesn’t address the significantly relative childlessness of the Greens voters of working age.

    Nothing like this has to be addressed, since this is another ‘insight’ you pulled out of your arse.

  70. daddy dave says:

    I stand behind my what I said.

    Why? because you said it and now it’s “out there”?

    particularly your one “agreeing” with conrad, where you are agreeing with something he didn’t even say.

    He implied it.
    You seem flustered and angry, Peter.

  71. Peter Patton says:

    Oh, OK, now we’re agreeing with implications you’ve latched onto like fairy floss. Look dd, you made a silly post agreeing with conrad’s incoherent post, which you hadn’t properly read. No biggie.

  72. Peter Patton says:

    Oh, lookie, li’l THR’s back wanting to play ‘here we go around the mulberry bush’ once more.

  73. THR says:

    So you admit you have no evidence whatsoever for your ignorant assertions? Excellent. Now we can move on. Tell us again about that second-year paper on Hellenic fascinators you once wrote.

  74. MarkL of Canberra says:

    … imbecilic…
    …right wing talking points…
    … pulled out of your arse…

    HRT’s infantile whining is delicious:

    But again, it bucks the self-serving “Greens as groovy young things” being peddled by the likes of conrad and THR.

    Nobody has peddled anything except you. You’re peddling unsubstantiated and imbecilic right-wing talking points masquerading as demographic insight.

    It also doesn’t address the significantly relative childlessness of the Greens voters of working age.

    Nothing like this has to be addressed, since this is another ‘insight’ you pulled out of your arse.

    Y’know why he bawling his poor little eyes out, of course.

    Making utter garbage up and assigning it to someone else is his schtick.

    He can only dish it out and is too thin-skinned to take it. The sobbing and wailing when he thinks he’s taking the same treatment from someone else is amazing to behold. It’s all so unfair to be hoist on one’s own petard, you see.

    MarkL
    canberra

  75. THR says:

    Okay, Mark L, perhaps you can find the evidence that PP is lacking for his demographic ‘insights’.

    GO!

  76. THR says:

    He can only dish it out and is too thin-skinned to take it.

    No, you’re the spineless sycophant who recently accused me of a lack of life experience. Coming from a guy who spends his days on blogs in, er, Canberra, that’s pretty funny.

    So what’s your ‘life experience’ consist of, Markie? In-trays? Timesheets? Fetching coffee for Dierdre in accounts?

  77. Peter Patton says:

    With THR, not only does da stoopid burn, but it is a two week long Grounhog loop.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/16/the-demographic-of-green-voters-rich-but-destined-for-extinction/

  78. MarkL of Canberra says:

    HRT, dry your eyes, princess.

    Your tourettes is improving, I have noticed. Well done!

    MarkL
    Canberra

  79. THR says:

    You’re being evasive now, PP. You made a series (four, I believe) of substantive claims about the Greens. Now, Mark L’s dementia may lead him to think I’m projecting those claims, but they came from a poster under moniker. You certainly didn’t qualify your claims as mere opinion or conjecture. So, what’s the basis for these demographic claims? Are you saying that 10% of the entire state of Victoria are inner-city, architect, childless hipsters? Do you have any evidence at all for your claims, or are you merely reiterating the sort of bilious, pig-ignorant tripe that one finds at other right-wing sites?

  80. THR says:

    HRT, dry your eyes, princess.

    So you’ve moved on from using references to children as your principle means of abuse, to references to women. Your parole officer must find you delightful.

  81. MarkL of Canberra says:

    …dementia …
    …bilious, pig-ignorant tripe …

    Looks like HRT is holding forth, again.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  82. MarkL – how was the head this morning?

  83. Can we go back to discussing Sarah hyphen-hyphen?

    Despite a decisive swing to the conservative side of politics, the Greens still managed to increase their vote in both Houses, even if it is unlikely to result in extra seats. If preferences had flowed similarly to 2006, the Greens would have won the Lower House seats of Melbourne, Richmond and Brunswick.

    The Green primary vote across those three key electorates actually fell from 26,494 in total in 2006 to 24,184 in 2010. 2,310 Green voters went walkies between elections.

    Their share of the primary vote only went up because the Labor primary vote imploded even further than the Green vote. When those Labor voters bother to get out of bed and vote at the next election, the Green share will go backwards as well. That should put an end to claims about “increasing votes”.

  84. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Fine today BOAB. Monday…. Monday was kinda ugly.

    Never tasted better taro, though (it’s normally a little stodgy). Cooked in a lovo in taro and banana leaves after being rubbed with a mix of chili, salt and a bit of galangal. Absolutely brilliant with pork, which was cooked above it in the lovo so the juices dribbled downwards. Seriously tasty.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  85. Rococo Liberal says:

    Why all the kerfuffle?

    All Greens are twits and Sarah Hyphen Hyphen is an absolute twit.

  86. Peter Patton says:

    The really weird thing is there is no question they have more voters with degrees than other parties. So why do they come across as so dumb? I mean dumb in the IQ sense?

  87. . says:

    IQ tests are arguably just a measure of how good you are at doing certain types of jobs.

    What degrees anyway? Do some of these qualifications really need to be degrees?

  88. Peter Patton says:

    No, I think that’s the point. These are the kids they now squeeze into the Dawkins system, because it’s cheaper than paying them dole.

  89. Rococo Liberal says:

    PP

    Don’t confuse quantity with quality.

  90. Peter Patton says:

    Excellent way of putting it!

  91. papachango says:

    SHY is scary – she reminds me of Rob Oakeshott. She’s got that same half-crazy, fanatical look in her eyes.

    Yes there are lots of deeper, more intellectual reasons why I think her and most of the Greens’ policies are wrong and damaging for both the economy and personal freedoms, but they’ve been adequately covered here.

  92. JC says:

    papa:

    I’d argue the oak has the frightened deer in headlights look.

    No one in the Greens has that same stare which does seem to come out of the lunatic asylum.

  93. FDB says:

    “Yes there are lots of deeper, more intellectual reasons why I think her and most of the Greens’ policies are wrong and damaging for both the economy and personal freedoms, but they’ve been adequately covered here.”

    Actually, as far as I can tell nobody’s even mentioned Greens policies. Which is fairly typical – easier to blather on about doctors’ wives and lattes, and circle-jerk your prejudices to a nice satisfying catharsis.

  94. JC says:

    FDB, you nong.

    We have been dissecting greens policies for years, you nimbus.

  95. FDB says:

    ‘Dismissing’ is probably a better word JC, but in any case I took ‘here’ to mean on this thread.

    If not, I stand corrected.

  96. JC says:

    What would you like to know about their abject sad mental derangement? I’m here to help. You know that.

  97. FDB says:

    You’re a dickhead, JC.

  98. JC says:

    I’m a dickhead? FDB, you voted for the biggest party of dickheads we’ve ever known. Your loon buddy, who you always praise looks like central casting’s choice for the role of national turd award winner.

    You’ve got it backwards.

    Seriously, do you think you ought to be embarrassed even admitting that you voted for that human junk?

    Policies? Take one.. ban on all things nuclear. Ban on domestic manufacture of medical isotopes. Ban on importation of nuclear materials including medical isotopes and the concealed ban on the policy of banning nuclear medicine.

    Take another. Their demand for a 40% cut in emissions in 10 years by substituting to renewable and no use of nuclear.

    Don’t slink away like a coward, FDB. Defend the polices you voted for. Dare ya.

  99. MarkL of Canberra says:

    it cuts deeper than this.

    Civilisations collapse where they run out of ‘subsidies’ and start to eat their capital. Rome is the classic case.

    The periphery starts to break up, inviting the barbarians in because it relieves them of a rapacious Imperial centre from which they get very little in return for much rapacity.

    As the world has no ‘barbarian frontier’ and whan a society collapses some civilised border state just moves in (per the GDR), the next collapse would have to be global.

    Our ‘subsidy’ is energy in the form of fossil fuels.

    The Greens, being utter fabulists, fools and frauds, want us to abandon that ‘subsidy’, the cheapest possible energy. They truly are the enemies of civilisation.

    markL
    Canberra

  100. JC says:

    That’s about it, mark . They’re barbarians at the gate. FDB of course slinks away and won’t defend what he voted for.

  101. FDB says:

    Defend it against what? You still haven’t made any criticisms that make the least bit of sense.

  102. Peter Patton says:

    FDB

    Actually, as far as I can tell nobody’s even mentioned Greens policies. Which is fairly typical – easier to blather on about doctors’ wives and lattes, and circle-jerk your prejudices to a nice satisfying catharsis.

    Come on dude, you know this place is policy dissect central. Feast your eyes on this for a dissection of the Greens policies.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/

  103. JC says:

    D

    efend it against what? You still haven’t made any criticisms that make the least bit of sense.

    Can’t you man-up? I posted two policies of the junk party you support that are irrational. You choose to avoid any response.

    You asked for any policies. There they are.

    So man-up and respond.

  104. Peter Patton says:

    She’s got that same half-crazy, fanatical look in her eyes.

    She is a funny looking thing. Part spider, part voluptuous come hither.

  105. DavidJ says:

    “So man-up and respond.”

    Come on FDB, summmons up your bad boy Wollongong fish and chip persona to see if you can earn some extra squid rings.

  106. Peter Patton says:

    Though you’ve got to hand it to her. She was a Senator at age 26. None of us was.

  107. JC says:

    It’s called riding the wave Peter. She rode the wave of a portion of the country’s population attracted to junk extremist parties. Nothing there to see in terms of having any great ability. Just a former media studies graduate in the right place at the right time.

    And to out it mildly at 26 a regular dude ought to be trying to make their place in the world. A politicians life looks positively dull.

  108. murray says:

    Though you’ve got to hand it to her. She was a Senator at age 26. None of us was.

    Probably says a lot about the lack of quality available in the party.

  109. Peter Patton says:

    The people still voted for her.

  110. murray says:

    The people put their mark above the line in the box next to ‘The Greens’.

  111. FDB says:

    “Part spider, part voluptuous come hither.”

    Popular in broader pollies’ drinking circles says my man in Canberra, and can really put them away.

    JC – we’ve already been through nuclear. How many times do I need to tell you I think that policy’s stupid?

    A 40% emissions reduction in ten years is quite doable. Easier if nuclear were in the mix, but it’d take that long to get up and running anyway. Renewables, geothermal, phasing out the older, shittier coal plants, plus efficiency and planning/design improvements would do the job.

  112. Jc.. says:

    Sactly,

    Vote above the line and you end up Sarah hyphen hyphen and Steve conroy.

  113. FDB says:

    Probably says a lot about the lack of quality available in the party.

    Orly?

  114. JC says:

    So if you think their nuclear policy is stupid and their 40% reduction in 10 years is achievable but only with nuclear why are you voting for these human dredges? Umm.

    Lack of quality? Does he support dumb policies?

  115. FDB says:

    Spot the difference:

    “easier with nuclear”

    “only with nuclear”

    Dickhead.

  116. DavidJ says:

    Another fail FDB.

    Wyatt Earp has never challenged for the deputy leadership. SHY has some mighty foolish tickets on herself.

  117. JC says:

    Renewables, geothermal, phasing out the older, shittier coal plants, plus efficiency and planning/design improvements would do the job.

    You are truly pathetic. You’re as stupid as they are. A 40% or 50% cut from the 2000 baseline would be next to impossible to achieve in 10 years without nuke. It would drag living standards to less than 50% where they were in 2000.

    You’re just as big a clown as that junk you vote for.

    innumerate clown.

  118. FDB says:

    Please revisit the conversation above DavidJ, and tell me at what point deputy leadership arose. I think you’ll find it was in your own comment, just now.

    Epic, epic fail dude.

  119. FDB says:

    Saying things doesn’t make them true JC.

    I agree of course that it’s NOT going to happen, but not because it can’t. It’s because only the Greens think it’s worth doing, and they’re not in power.

  120. JC says:

    DavidJ

    FDB is trying to man-up a little here. He trying to do it by leaving abusive statements at the end of a rant. He thinks it gives him the gravitas to rise up into manhood. It’s best to simply laugh at these failed attempts.

  121. Peter Patton says:

    FDB

    She also looks like she’d know how to party.

  122. FDB says:

    Perhaps you’d prefer JC, that I deliberately distort, misrepresent and misquote what other people say?

    I reckon being fair to what people say, pointing out that it’s wrong, and tacking on a little abuse for shits and giggles is the more honourable course, and I’ll stick with it.

    You sad, silly old man.

  123. murray says:

    #

    Probably says a lot about the lack of quality available in the party.

    Orly?

    Didn’t realise he was elected on a senate ticket, thanks for the correction.

  124. JC says:

    Saying things doesn’t make them true JC.

    Depends, nimbus. Depends if they are true.

    I agree of course that it’s NOT going to happen, but not because it can’t.

    We’re not talking hypothetical. We’re talking about what is achievable in the context of not damaging living standards. The human dredge you support would destroy us economically.

    It’s because only the Greens think it’s worth doing, and they’re not in power.

    They’re power sharing now thought the alliance.

  125. Peter Patton says:

    Oh FFS guys. If you can’t acknowledge it is god-smacking achievement to be elected to the Senate at age 25, sheesh.

  126. Peter Patton says:

    Damn. Can I rethink posting that. Two words just popped into my head. Steve. Fielding.

  127. MarkL of Canberra says:

    FDB: A 40% emissions reduction in ten years is quite doable. Renewables, geothermal, phasing out the older, shittier coal plants, plus efficiency and planning/design improvements would do the job.

    I am afraid that it is not even possible (and obviously, it is utterly unnecessary, the world is cooling – see project Argos data – and it’s merely a natural cycle anyway).

    I’ll ignore your first sentence because it’s an unsupported statement based on a AGW/Gaia cultist dogma.

    Easier if nuclear were in the mix, but it’d take that long to get up and running anyway.

    Agreed. We need nuclear power in our baseload mix.

    Renewables,

    No. worthless for baseload, never more than 20% efficient and mostly 13% efficient, incredibly expensive to maintain and far too polluting (look at their production demands, wind is much more polluting per KwH produced than brown coal)

    geothermal,

    No. Completely unproven tech except in active volcanic areas and we have none. Ask Tim Flannery, he lost a bundle of money on this. GT has failed disastrously in Australian experimental plants to date. It needs a chemically super-stable room-temperature superconductor to work efficiently. That does not exist.

    phasing out the older, shittier coal plants,

    This process was completed in 1967 when the last of the 1920s pre-grid stations was mothballed (IIRC Zaara Street Power Station in Newcastle on the east coast). There are no ‘older, shitter’ coal power stations in service. None. Zero. the last one which could be recommissioned was Wangi-Wangi (but IIRC it’s been canned by now) which was retained as a ‘hand fired coal powered startup’ in case the entire NSW grid crashed.

    plus efficiency

    Bit late. Already been done in the 1960s-70s. That’s when we drastically cut energy demands per unit of industrial output. That’s what China is starting to do now.

    Nope, to cut output of the beneficial trace gas CO2 by 40% in baseload you have to reduce everyone’s electricity consumption by 40%. That means the elderly dying of exposure in winter. That’s the price of the green madness. if you do not want to do that, it means making use of all aircraft illegal, making use of long-haul trucks illegal, banning private cars, trains ONLY for cargo. Want to visit Sydney from Melbourne? Catch the weekly coastal liner. That would cut fossil fuel CO2 production by roughly 40%.

    Of course, there might be a few economic impacts.

    and planning/design improvements would do the job

    Which ones, to what? This is a throw-away which is completely worthless without specifics. What do you plan to force everyone to do, and what sort of political system is demanded in order to force compliance??

    MarkL
    Canberra

  128. JC says:

    Perhaps you’d prefer JC, that I deliberately distort, misrepresent and misquote what other people say?

    You could revert to that method. It’s not as though you would be new to it as you tried upthread.


    I reckon being fair to what people say, pointing out that it’s wrong, and tacking on a little abuse for shits and giggles is the more honourable course, and I’ll stick with it.

    Speaking truth to power I see. Good for you.

  129. FDB says:

    “She also looks like she’d know how to party.”

    Heh.

    Just had a weekend visit from my ‘other man in Canberra’, who related drinking in a bar last week with loads of mostly staffers and a few pollies, and suddenly finding himself one of a gaggle of young besuited males from across the pol.sci. spectrum, all competing for her attention.

  130. Peter Patton says:

    Oh, are you saying you do know folks in Canberra who’ve partied with her?

  131. Peter Patton says:

    she is married with a child.

  132. Peter Patton says:

    Another real party animal down there – well before she got married and gave birth – was Sophie Ponopolous

  133. FDB says:

    Not ‘partied’ in the sense of having fucked her, no.

    And I have no reason to believe anyone untoward has – just that she’s got a certain something apparently, especially in person.

  134. Peter Patton says:

    You grub. 🙂 I meant boozing.

  135. DavidJ says:

    “she is married with a child.”

    She used that vulnerable child as her prop in her parliamentary breast feeding stunt.

  136. FDB says:

    Yes, in that case. A mid-level DFAT guy, and a Greens staffer.

  137. Peter Patton says:

    A lot of them are very, very social. A mate of mine was quite a bigshot at the Oz, when the Libs were in gov’t. One Thursday night he phones me pissed as a fart at about 11 pm from the Stonewall Hotel on Oxford Street, and screams “dude, come up here now, Christopher wants to meet you, don’t you Christopher”? Then Christopher Pyne gets on the phone, “yes daaarling, I want to meet you”.

  138. FDB says:

    A stunt!?!? In Parliament!?!?

    Heaven forefend!

  139. Peter Patton says:

    DJ

    Well a kid’s gotta eat.

  140. FDB says:

    I think the more successful pollies (who don’t have a path plotted for them already by fixers), can only succeed by being ready to meet almost anyone. Well, any kind of person – especially those they wouldn’t normally meet through their own party/faction/mindset.

    A drunken conversation with an erstwhile opponent can really sharpen you up. If they’re bright, you learn how to deal with their better arguments, by countering or distracting when that’s too hard. If they’re not, you learn how best to hoodwink them into thinking you represent them.

  141. murray says:

    I’m not saying it isn’t a fair achievement PP. I’m saying it says a lot about the talent pool available to the Greens that someone with her demosntrated lack of ability can score a spot on their senate ticket and ride the waves of preference flows into office.

  142. Peter Patton says:

    Oh don’t get me wrong, I think she is an abomination and a pox on our polity, but delightfully a nail in the Greens coffin.

Comments are closed.