Is Garrett a Hypocrite?

[Ghetto23]

People, wasting away in paradise
Well, well, well, Peter Garrett. A lot has changed since 1982 hasn't it !

I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...

27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.

What does this make me?

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Yes, sounds familiar too - I was relying on memory too. Except for the 3-eyed fish, seen documentary evidence of that (admittedly animated).

So now Japanese chefs, when making fish-eye soup can get three eyes for the price of two!!!!

The benefits of nuclear energy are endless! It just keeps on giving!!!!

Oh, God, no. Someone tell me it just couldn't happen!
You just have to be joking, Krusty.

Yes and speculating. :

For one thing, he's simply not bright enough.

Really, I believe he's actually a qualified lawyer. Although that actually could be another reason not to like him!!

For another (and I usually avoid being personal) he's just horrible to look at.

Be kind, Winston Churchill was not exactly a looker, but was a very effective leader!!! :

 

[trainspotter]

I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...

27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.

What does this make me?

The point you make is fairly hard to dismiss but I will give it a try. The entities you have named are more than likely to be fictional characters (Jesus is a moot point though) and somehow the characters you have produced have not changed their tune. Even though the opinion of the writer may have changed with the new evidence produced to sway your thinking, the fact of the matter is that they still are acceptable in todays society.

Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING.

To now flip flop his widely regarded inclination AGAINST uranium mining under the pretext that he has now changed his mind because he has now made an "informed" opinion means to me that he has sold out his idealogy for the greater greed of the almighty dollar. More than likely to appease his Labor masters. Peter Garrett must hire a man to shave his head because he would not be able to look himself in the mirror. Pishaw I say.

To answer you question of "What does this make me? " .... well I believe that you have now reached a mature age whereby you have TURNED into being the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus etc etc (skip the Jesus bit)

 

[Buckeroo]

Off course Garrett is a hypocrite and so are all politicians - its the nature of the beast. When you enter parliament, the first thing you give up are your convictions.

Whats really horrible though, we have an Environment Minister with an ugly duck dance and he not afraid to use it!

Cheers

 

[explod]

Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING

And maybe it was just about the millions from the very beginning. Strewth, is that an unusual trait.

I have 7 siblings and all of us were dead against uranium and all its facits 20 or 30 years ago. All but two have changed stance since. We need all the alternatives to coal and oil we can find. Nuclear is expensive, will not meet all the needs and hopfully temporary till better technology is developed.

Garret, two faced for sure but can change his mind and be normal. Huh, whats normal?

 

[trainspotter]

Is Peter Garrett a lawyer ? NO ! Since he was a teenager Peter Garrett was interested in social and political issues. He studied to become a lawyer, but realised that it was not the career for him. He became a singer in a rock and roll band. The ‘Oils’ were renowned for their fierce independent stance and active support of a range of contemporary concerns including the plight of homeless youth, indigenous people's rights and protection of the environment.

Just wait until he has to make a decision about extending the life of the PHOSPHATE mine on Christmas Island within the next few weeks !!! (insert maniacal laugh here) Bwaawwaahhahahhahaaaaaaaaaa !

 

[trainspotter]

And maybe it was just about the millions from the very beginning. Strewth, is that an unusual trait.

I have 7 siblings and all of us were dead against uranium and all its facits 20 or 30 years ago. All but two have changed stance since. We need all the alternatives to coal and oil we can find. Nuclear is expensive, will not meet all the needs and hopfully temporary till better technology is developed.

Garret, two faced for sure but can change his mind and be normal. Huh, whats normal?

Read my previous response about North West Shelf and Gorgon gas. LNG is the future. Not nuclear. I have stated I am all FOR nuclear power. Once again this is not about generating electricity by boiling water with nuclear rods. It is about digging another hole in the ground to mine YELLOWCAKE. The destruction to the environment is paramount. There are already 4 uranium mines in S.A. Do we really need a 5th ??

 

[noco]

Hmmmmm .... I have a vague recollection of the "Polar Ice Caps" are melting and the "Hole in the Ozone layer" in the early 1980's which turned into GLOBAL WARMING? There already is FOUR urnanium mines in SA. Peter Garrett has allowed for the FIFTH to be opened. It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Have we not learned from Jabiluka, Cobar 2 Prospect, Ranger minesites in the Northern Territory? The Cobar 2 Prospect site had a pond overflow that contaminated about 100 acres of waterlands killing wildlife and essentially making the area barren for the next 1000 years or so. GOSH !!

Nuclear power generation in itself today is extremely safe. Approx 70% of France light bulbs are run by this method. Some Eastern Bloc country whose name escapes me is about 55% nuclear and the U.S. is a lowly 20% or less.

We do not have the ability to refine Yellowcake in Australia (to my knowledge and please correct me if I am wrong) It is sent overseas to reach critical mass before being able to create nuclear fission and used as fuel rods.

What sticks in my craw is for someone like a Peter Garrett who was so ANTI urnanium mining has now changed his song and dance routine to allow this kind of destruction to occur on his authority. Do you not see the irony in it?

I am not for coal fire powered electricity generation by the way. Do we not have MASSIVE reserves of LNG? Gorgon Gas and the North West Shelf of Australia is literally leaking of cheap, combustible, low polluting NATURAL GAS. Where do we send it? Ohhhhhh thats right ..... to China so they can run their furnaces to melt our iron ore. DOPE.

Trainspotter,
Whist I know this has little to do with the thread in question, I thought you might be interested in the following stats on Nuclear Power generation thoughout the world.

As at 2005 15% of the worlds power is generated by 439 Nuclear power stations in31 countries.

France 58
USA 100
UK 34
JAPAN 70
RUSSIA 30
CANADA 24

I understand China has several but I do not have any figures.

In addition to stationary power plants there are 150 nuclaer powered naval ships.

 

[trainspotter]

*Trainspotter thanks noco profusely for the info.* Where is Banana Republic Lands nuclear reactors ? Ohhhhh Lucas Heights is a scientific one for research purposes.

http://www.uraniumsa.org/about/faq.htm

 

[Who Dares Wins]

I loved Santa Claus in 1982. And the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Jesus, you name it...

27 years later, after getting some new information my point of view has changed.

What does this make me?

No sorry Ghetto theres no comparison.

Its not comparing apples with apples. I suspect in 1982 you were a child with an undeveloped mind, unable to evaluate information yourself. Peter Garret was an adult when he made his very public stance against U mining and was able to assimilate all the information available.

We all change our minds during our life about various things but this is flip flop from one end of the scale to the absolute other!

How can he retain any credibility?

 

[Macquack]

Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.

It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.

 

[explod]

Read my previous response about North West Shelf and Gorgon gas. LNG is the future. Not nuclear. I have stated I am all FOR nuclear power. Once again this is not about generating electricity by boiling water with nuclear rods. It is about digging another hole in the ground to mine YELLOWCAKE. The destruction to the environment is paramount. There are already 4 uranium mines in S.A. Do we really need a 5th ??

LNG will run out very quickly behind oil.

We have to look further than that IMHO

 

[trainspotter]

Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.

It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.

On what basis do you make this assumption? Do you swap lawnmowers with him on weekends? Do you go fishing with him? Knocked the froth off a few coldies on a hot day after a hard days yakka? I resemble the f@cking whingers remark because I want to know how is it that he had a certain bent about saving the environment and now has completely chosen to ignore all the respect and credibilty the man had built up over his 29 years of preaching his conservation first approach.

No one is damning him Macquack. We just want to know why?

 

[Julia]

Be kind, Winston Churchill was not exactly a looker, but was a very effective leader!!! :

Ah, but Mr Churchill had many other talents, i.e. a substantial intellect and a gift for oratory. Mr Garrett sadly appears to lack both.

Peter Garrett is a top bloke, and unlike all the f@cking whingers here, he has put up his hand, taken the baton and is running with it.

It is easy to criticise by damning someone if they do and damning them if they dont.

Nonsense. He is being criticised for a very good reason, i.e. completely changing his philosophy for the sake of political acceptance.

More like originally running with the baton against uranium mining, and then - when it suited him for reasons best known to himself - forsaking these ideals absolutely. Essentially, handing the baton to the other team.

I'm pro uranium mining and the use of nuclear power. That's not what we're discussing.

What's without question is Garrett's having completely turned himself inside out in a moral and/or philosophical sense. Ergo, he's a hypocrite.

 

[trainspotter]

LNG will run out very quickly behind oil.

We have to look further than that IMHO

True, very true explod. I don't believe we should be burning coal. Why can't we run a gas pipeline to run the turbines for the short term? Why haven't we explored solar power for all it's worth? Why don't we make the houses we live in more efficient and solar passive?

Nuclear is a long term prospect for sure. I can't quite wrap my head around boiling water to make steam to drive a turbine (whether it be coal, gas, nuclear etc) when we already have solar panels that generate electricity free from the sun?

 

[trainspotter]

hypocrite  /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ [hip-uh-krit] –noun

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

So as the dictionary points out YES ... he is.

 

[Ghetto23]

The point you make is fairly hard to dismiss but I will give it a try. The entities you have named are more than likely to be fictional characters (Jesus is a moot point though) and somehow the characters you have produced have not changed their tune. Even though the opinion of the writer may have changed with the new evidence produced to sway your thinking, the fact of the matter is that they still are acceptable in todays society.

Peter Garrett made millions singing about ANTI NUCLEAR themes and was a founding member for the NDP. He was widely noted by the press as to his opinionated stand on such matters and many people followed him and his train of thought in regards to NO URANIUM MINING.

To now flip flop his widely regarded inclination AGAINST uranium mining under the pretext that he has now changed his mind because he has now made an "informed" opinion means to me that he has sold out his idealogy for the greater greed of the almighty dollar. More than likely to appease his Labor masters. Peter Garrett must hire a man to shave his head because he would not be able to look himself in the mirror. Pishaw I say.

To answer you question of "What does this make me? " .... well I believe that you have now reached a mature age whereby you have TURNED into being the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus etc etc (skip the Jesus bit)

Nice argument.

I guess the point I was trying to make is: Peter Garret is a hypocrite, but so are a lot of people. Is it really that big of a deal?

 

[trainspotter]

Thanks ghetto43 for the pat on the back ... you are right, it is not that big a deal at the moment. Like my previous response a coupla posts back. Wait until he has to make a decision about extending the life of the PHOSPHATE mine on Christmas Island in a couple of weeks time. This will test his intestinal fortitude no end.

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Ah, but Mr Churchill had many other talents, i.e. a substantial intellect and a gift for oratory. Mr Garrett sadly appears to lack both.

Very true - he was a great speaker with the power to persuade the people.

I don't know if I would really trust Mr Garrett's judgement as a wartime leader.

Does anybody know what Garrett actually said his reasons are for this change of stance???

 

[Julia]

Krusty, I heard him being asked that question in a radio interview.
His response was pretty honest, i.e. that now that he's part of a political party he has to toe the party line.

So, at least I can respect his being truthful.