Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

Ian said:

Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

It’s very easy to say we need it.
How do we get anyone to vote for such people? We just had an election. People preferred corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas.

Ian said:

Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

Kneejerk reaction. A warped view of what is actually happening but basically correct.

Warped in terms of applying hypocrisy to the wrong group of people.

The real problem is that you don’t get into politics or climb up the political ladder by doing honourable things.

You get pre-selection to stand for election by being pally with the right people in your party branch, slandering and back-stabbing other contenders, and then when you get elected you manoeuvre your way around the party machine under the guidance of people who’ve been doing not-honourable things for years on end.

They demonstrate to you the rewards available to those prepared to do not-honourable things, and introduce you to the lobbyists and donors who can provide you with those rewards.

They show you how people who are prepared to not rock the boat about the not-honourable things tend to get favoured for higher post within the party and governement.

Politics has never been, and will never be, a job for honourable people.

mollwollfumble said:

Ian said:

Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

Kneejerk reaction. A warped view of what is actually happening but basically correct.

Warped in terms of applying hypocrisy to the wrong group of people.

To whom should we be applying hypocrisy?

captain_spalding said:

The real problem is that you don’t get into politics or climb up the political ladder by doing honourable things.

You get pre-selection to stand for election by being pally with the right people in your party branch, slandering and back-stabbing other contenders, and then when you get elected you manoeuvre your way around the party machine under the guidance of people who’ve been doing not-honourable things for years on end.

They demonstrate to you the rewards available to those prepared to do not-honourable things, and introduce you to the lobbyists and donors who can provide you with those rewards.

They show you how people who are prepared to not rock the boat about the not-honourable things tend to get favoured for higher post within the party and governement.

Politics has never been, and will never be, a job for honourable people.

I gather this is true of all the pollies you know personally?

Witty Rejoinder said:

captain_spalding said:

The real problem is that you don’t get into politics or climb up the political ladder by doing honourable things.

You get pre-selection to stand for election by being pally with the right people in your party branch, slandering and back-stabbing other contenders, and then when you get elected you manoeuvre your way around the party machine under the guidance of people who’ve been doing not-honourable things for years on end.

They demonstrate to you the rewards available to those prepared to do not-honourable things, and introduce you to the lobbyists and donors who can provide you with those rewards.

They show you how people who are prepared to not rock the boat about the not-honourable things tend to get favoured for higher post within the party and governement.

Politics has never been, and will never be, a job for honourable people.

I gather this is true of all the pollies you know personally?

I haven’t known any politicians personally for a long time.

However, the process described above was related to me by one who i did know. An old-time, long-serving Labor MP and minister.

It’s a broad generalisation, but equally broadly applicable. It caused him some despair, as well.

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

captain_spalding said:

The real problem is that you don’t get into politics or climb up the political ladder by doing honourable things.

You get pre-selection to stand for election by being pally with the right people in your party branch, slandering and back-stabbing other contenders, and then when you get elected you manoeuvre your way around the party machine under the guidance of people who’ve been doing not-honourable things for years on end.

They demonstrate to you the rewards available to those prepared to do not-honourable things, and introduce you to the lobbyists and donors who can provide you with those rewards.

They show you how people who are prepared to not rock the boat about the not-honourable things tend to get favoured for higher post within the party and governement.

Politics has never been, and will never be, a job for honourable people.

I gather this is true of all the pollies you know personally?

I haven’t known any politicians personally for a long time.

However, the process described above was related to me by one who i did know. An old-time, long-serving Labor MP and minister.

It’s a broad generalisation, but equally broadly applicable. It caused him some despair, as well.

I’d contend that pollies are broadly representative of the general public at large: the good and the bad. If you’ve ever been familiar with the petty politics of kids sporting clubs and similar the actions of pollies make some sense. Personally either the pollies i know are experts in Machiavellian duplicitiousness or are genuinely good people doing things for the right reasons.

dv said:

Ian said:

Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

It’s very easy to say we need it.
How do we get anyone to vote for such people? We just had an election. People preferred corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas.

+9192631770

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Ian said:

Australia’s future depends on clever, idealistic young people heading into politics.

We need honourable people with a big-picture plan. With regard to climate change, we don’t need new scientific or technological discoveries – we just need new politicians. We don’t have to invent fresh, complicated ways to burn coal more safely, we simply need political support to establish existing renewable technologies.

…Climatologists took more time (compared with insurance companies) and collected more data for the greater body of proof that scientists need, to act. But in 1989 (yup, that’s over three decades ago) the climatologists agreed that global warming was happening and that this time it was caused by humans.

Big Fossil Fuel looked at their options. Not idealistically – they were simply aiming to maximise their income for as long as they could.

For a few years they swapped emails among themselves – discussing the most successful business alternatives. They considered remaining energy companies who could gradually evolve out of burning carbon. But any change to their business structure meant accepting some risk to their profit margins.

Otherwise they could opt to stick with “business as usual”, burn coal, and back-up this plan with a well-funded denialist campaign about climate change not even being real. And if pushed to accept it was real they could then argue about whether it was caused by humans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/07/karl-kruszelnickis-2020s-vision-we-need-a-new-wave-of-idealistic-politicians

What is wrong with the above?

It’s very easy to say we need it.
How do we get anyone to vote for such people? We just had an election. People preferred corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas.

+9192631770

just a sec!

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

It’s very easy to say we need it.
How do we get anyone to vote for such people? We just had an election. People preferred corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas.

+9192631770

just a sec!

more correctly specified as “i second that”

ChrispenEvan said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

It’s very easy to say we need it.
How do we get anyone to vote for such people? We just had an election. People preferred corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas.

+9192631770

just a sec!

Ha!

We don’t need idealists in government, the problem is we already have too many of them. We need more pragmatists, including those who would listen to science. This is really just arguing for a different brand of idealists.

party_pants said:

We don’t need idealists in government, the problem is we already have too many of them. We need more pragmatists, including those who would listen to science. This is really just arguing for a different brand of idealists.

We have too many ideologues.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

We don’t need idealists in government, the problem is we already have too many of them. We need more pragmatists, including those who would listen to science. This is really just arguing for a different brand of idealists.

We have too many ideologues.

Yes.

And fuckwits, we have far too many fuckwits too.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

We don’t need idealists in government, the problem is we already have too many of them. We need more pragmatists, including those who would listen to science. This is really just arguing for a different brand of idealists.

We have too many ideologues.

Yes.

And fuckwits, we have far too many fuckwits too.

Too many ideologues, fuckwits, crooks, clowns, potatoheads and Nazis.

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

We have too many ideologues.

Yes.

And fuckwits, we have far too many fuckwits too.

Too many ideologues, fuckwits, crooks, clowns, potatoheads and Nazis.

I suspect that we actually don’t have any real, actual Nazis. Disapointing, but…

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

Yes.

And fuckwits, we have far too many fuckwits too.

Too many ideologues, fuckwits, crooks, clowns, potatoheads and Nazis.

I suspect that we actually don’t have any real, actual Nazis. Disapointing, but…

Wotsisname was an actual Nazi, Fraser Anning.

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Too many ideologues, fuckwits, crooks, clowns, potatoheads and Nazis.

I suspect that we actually don’t have any real, actual Nazis. Disapointing, but…

Wotsisname was an actual Nazi, Fraser Anning.

All political Frasers are Nazis.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

I suspect that we actually don’t have any real, actual Nazis. Disapointing, but…

Wotsisname was an actual Nazi, Fraser Anning.

All political Frasers are Nazis.

Malcolm Fraser was a bit of a lefty towards the end.

He was even more left-wing than PWM, if that’s possible.

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

that’s socialist science though. look what happened with lysenko.

;-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

Interesting? Got any refs?

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

that’s socialist science though. look what happened with lysenko.

;-)

>>He (lysenko) is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.<<

Not the type of scientific research I had in mind. He had poorly researched ideas, not well researched scientific study, which should be sorted by peer review.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

Interesting? Got any refs?

No. Just something i read somewhere. Probably natural in a society with a dearth of lawyers.

I’ll investigate what the CCP politburo studied…

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Science graduates are overepresented in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

Interesting? Got any refs?

No. Just something i read somewhere. Probably natural in a society with a dearth of lawyers.

I’ll investigate what the CCP politburo studied…

Only 2 of 7 of the current politburo standing committee are science graduates but 5 of the last 7 presidents and premiers were.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Interesting? Got any refs?

No. Just something i read somewhere. Probably natural in a society with a dearth of lawyers.

I’ll investigate what the CCP politburo studied…

Only 2 of 7 of the current politburo standing committee are science graduates but 5 of the last 7 presidents and premiers were.

what about the current chap

PermeateFree said:

We just need to act on well researched scientific study. The problem is convincing the people, most of which would not have any idea about much at all, except personal gratification. Perhaps moving from a Democracy to a type of Scientific Dictatorship, where future safeguards can be directed rather than corrupted by the eternal debate of the insincere.

STEMocracy

Less prominent than they used to be:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/chinas-overrated-technocrats-stem-engineering-xi-jinping/

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Interesting? Got any refs?

No. Just something i read somewhere. Probably natural in a society with a dearth of lawyers.

I’ll investigate what the CCP politburo studied…

Only 2 of 7 of the current politburo standing committee are science graduates but 5 of the last 7 presidents and premiers were.

Small number and obviously of limited scientific learning, but even so, better than us. With the quickly changing world, you need the means to adapt quickly. Democracy despite its many advantages is not very effective in such circumstances.

So we’re broadly in agreement that our pollies are “corrupt, head-in-the-sand, unshiftable goombas”.

I think we have a few idealists in parliament and a few with a scientific bent. Karl’s proposal to encourage a new lot of honourable young pollies to get themselves to Canberra is good in theory but is going to take far too long given that we are already living on a planet in a “climate emergency”.

What a great idea Dr K, elect better politicians.

How?

AwesomeO said:

What a great idea Dr K, elect better politicians.

How?

Education

A step ladder approach might be a good way to do it.

Tafe course

University course

Those that want to sit on the back bench can do a Tafe course.

Those that want to go into cabinet can do a uni course and critical reasoning.

Those that want to go into the senate do an ethics, logic, human rights course and critical reasoning.

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

What a great idea Dr K, elect better politicians.

How?

Education

A step ladder approach might be a good way to do it.

Tafe course

University course

Those that want to sit on the back bench can do a Tafe course.

Those that want to go into cabinet can do a uni course and critical reasoning.

Those that want to go into the senate do an ethics, logic, human rights course and critical reasoning.

Most of those in Parliament have done all sorts of education and as a group are all highly educated. It’s all a bit nebulous, your idealistic is my off with the fairies.

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

What a great idea Dr K, elect better politicians.

How?

Education

A step ladder approach might be a good way to do it.

Tafe course

University course

Those that want to sit on the back bench can do a Tafe course.

Those that want to go into cabinet can do a uni course and critical reasoning.

Those that want to go into the senate do an ethics, logic, human rights course and critical reasoning.

It would not change the structure very much smarter people will be encouraged into government, dummies towards the backbench.

Pretty much the way it is now.

AwesomeO said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

AwesomeO said:

What a great idea Dr K, elect better politicians.

How?

Education

A step ladder approach might be a good way to do it.

Tafe course

University course

Those that want to sit on the back bench can do a Tafe course.

Those that want to go into cabinet can do a uni course and critical reasoning.

Those that want to go into the senate do an ethics, logic, human rights course and critical reasoning.

Most of those in Parliament have done all sorts of education and as a group are all highly educated. It’s all a bit nebulous, your idealistic is my off with the fairies.

Except there is one problem, everyone is coming into government with fragmented knowledge, 25 percent of lower house members come from a legal background, the other 75 percent don’t.

People’s educational skills are all different and some skills are not there at all.

to satisfy dummies people can get a basic tafe course with a competent pass A tafe course can get them onto the backbench.

for the more ambitious who want to go into government they can get uni courses

We train people in the trades and office workers are trained, we have apprenticeships

Its about time we had quality in Federal parliament regarding people who know what they are doing.

Public servants come from highly skilled backgrounds and have many qualifications, time for politicians to become more aware of things.

Too late

We have already passed the event horizon

The damage psychologically has already been done hence the profusion of flags outside government buildings, the Victorian police raised the Chinese flag outside of one of their buildings recently.

Amusingly all the left wingers brainwashed in uni ended up in places like asio, afp, public service, politics etc. One poor kid was relating to me recently how he had been rejected for the navy as a sub technician because there were too many men in this job and they were only recruiting woman for this role. The AFP only recruit women now.

That point of getting any sane or reasonable person into politics has ended – we are only getting lunatics because australian society is falling apart.

If you are desperate to get into Australian politics just become a Chinese intelligence agent , the liberal party are hiring them as MPs at the moment.

My advice? Enjoy this while it lasts

wookiemeister said:

Too late

We have already passed the event horizon

The damage psychologically has already been done hence the profusion of flags outside government buildings, the Victorian police raised the Chinese flag outside of one of their buildings recently.

Amusingly all the left wingers brainwashed in uni ended up in places like asio, afp, public service, politics etc. One poor kid was relating to me recently how he had been rejected for the navy as a sub technician because there were too many men in this job and they were only recruiting woman for this role. The AFP only recruit women now.

That point of getting any sane or reasonable person into politics has ended – we are only getting lunatics because australian society is falling apart.

If you are desperate to get into Australian politics just become a Chinese intelligence agent , the liberal party are hiring them as MPs at the moment.

My advice? Enjoy this while it lasts

L
O
L