Say “Yes” to Lies on Ties and Knots

Sen. Bob Brown, in answering a question from Mark Riley at the National Press Club, said:

I was doing my Windsor knot [he fiddles with the knot of his necktie] before I came here thinking of the House of Windsor and, of course, they always get wound into these conspiracies, don’t they.  No—look—we are moving towards a globally informed community that’s got to live with itself, and we have always espoused democracy.  I can tell you that the two moves the Greens have made for a Global democratic—umm—support for moves in the United Nations, have been voted down by all other parties, both in 2002 and earlier this year—this is conceptual.

Did anyone at that function believe that Sen. Brown really had a notion of the House of Windsor as he knotted his necktie that day?  Judging only on appearances, the notorious senator’s necktie was not noticeably tied with a Windsor knot because it was not markedly wide or particularly large.  According to the Duke of Windsor, in A Family Album (1960):

The so called “Windsor knot” was I believe regulation wear for G.I.s during the war when American college boys adopted it too.  But in fact I was in no way responsible for this.  The knot to which Americans gave my name was a double knot in a narrow tie—a “Slim Jim” as it is sometimes called.   It is true that I myself have always preferred a large knot, as looking better than a small one, so during the nineteen twenties I devised, in conclave with Mr. Sandford, a tie always of the broad variety which was reinforced by an extra thickness of material to produce this effect.  As far as I know this particular fashion has never been followed in America or elsewhere.  [p. 116]

According to Thomas Fink, co-author of The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie, the Windsor:

produces a large, solid, triangular knot, which is not worn as frequently as it was in the first half of the 20th century.  [In From Russia with Love], Bond thinks the Windsor knot is “the mark of a cad”.  Today it is, curiously, the knot of choice of (once) communist leaders and dictators; Hugo Chavez, Putin and the Chinese leaders Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao are examples.

Now, nota bene, this may seem to be a trivial matter—what knot may or may not be a Windsor knot—but of great importance, notwithstanding, is how casually the leader of the Australian Greens may prevaricate when questioned—though, we recall, the Greens “value trustworthiness, sincerity and truth”.  Sen. Brown is either unaware of how a Windsor knot (a knot of nine moves) differs from a four-in-hand (a knot of five moves, also known as the schoolboy knot) or he naturally dissembles when attempting to invent a credible response on the Greens’ policies of one world government (or, of course, both)—or was referring to a half-Windsor knot: see UPDATE II below. 

To us here at Say “Yes” to More Taxes, Sen. Brown’s necktie appears to have been tied with a stock-standard four-in-hand knot, but we could be wrong.  We have asked the senator to settle this knotty matter and we shall notify our readers of any response.

UPDATE I (6 July):  John Dodd of Sen. Brown’s office has kindly responded to our enquiry; he writes:

Senator Brown ties his tie in what he has always understood to be a Windsor knot but, being unfamiliar with the intricacies of the ins, outs and unders described by you, is unable to say to which of the models you have described that his practice conforms.
He will however keep you in mind if he ever feels the need for a personal style consultant.

UPDATE II (8 July):  We were wrong—or half-wrong.  Sen. Bob Brown (by way of Kelly Farrow) has very kindly responded; he writes:

You spotted it correctly!
It was indeed a half-Windsor made with very thin material.

We thank the senator for his message and, accepting his clarification, we apologise for our error.  Thomas Fink, by the way, writes this:

If a man claims to know a second knot in addition to the four-in-hand, it is likely to be the half-Windsor, the third of the four classic tie knots.  This symmetric knot [of seven moves] is medium-sized, with the silhouette of an equilateral triangle.  It can satisfactorily be worn with collars of most sizes and spreads.  Although the name of the half-Windsor suggests it is derived from the Windsor, there is little direct evidence for this claim.  Moreover, the half-Windsor is not half the size of the Windsor, but rather three-quarters.

We should also like to add that we here at Say “Yes” to More Taxes, though disagreeing with the senator and his party strongly on many issues, have met Sen. Brown many times over the years, and have found him always to be a kindly and courteous gentleman.  On the issue of CAGW, we consider that Sen. Brown acts honestly, though mistakenly: he is not evil, just wrong.

Say “Yes” to an Honest and Informed Debate

Sen. Christine Milne demands that the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance:

call off its planned advertising campaign against a price on pollution until it is in a position to engage in honest and informed debate.  [...]

Misinformation, as is being foisted on the Australian public every day by Tony Abbott and his allies, can only undermine our democracy.

“These groups should call off their campaign until an agreement is reached and announced and they are in a position to engage in honest, informed debate instead of a scare campaign that spreads yet more misinformation.”

The Australian Greens, of course, always engage in honest and informed debate, but is “undermining our democracy” really the only thing that the alleged misinformation of “Abbott and his allies” can do?

The “pollution” whereto Sen. Milne refers is not pollution but carbon dioxide, the trace gas essential for life on earth.

The Greens would never engage in an hysterical scare campaign for, remember, they “value trustworthiness, sincerity and truth”:  they’d never claim, despite a complete lack of scientific proof and with no empirical evidence, that anthropogenic global warming would inevitably cause more droughts, more floods, higher seas, more warmth, more coolth, coral bleaching and more bushfires, would they? 

Greens leader Bob Brown says bushfires like the ones raging across Victoria and New South Wales this weekend [February, 2009] will be more frequent if climate change continues.   [...]

“Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25%, 50% more,” he told Sky News.

“It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change.”

The oil, coal and big-resource companies put off the day of action and edged the world further into super-heating  [writes Sen. Brown in the Herald Sun, December 21, 2009].

That means worse drought, bushfires, snow-melt, tropical storm damage and accelerating sea level rises.

The Greens will force the introduction of a carbon price if it wins the balance of power in the senate, leader Bob Brown promised hundreds of party faithful in Brisbane [in July, 2010].
Senator Brown gave two Queensland examples – coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, and the recent impact on water supplies of coal companies pushing into farm land on the Darling Downs – as direct reasons why.

“Burning coal is a major cause of global warming [claims Sen. Brown in a media release of 16 January, 2011].  This industry, which is 75% owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades.  As well, 700,000 seaside properties in Australia face rising sea levels.”

UPDATE:  Despite the hysterical and deceitful shrieking of the duplicitous Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg, the corals of the Great Barrier Reef are not deteriorating from supposedly warmer seas.  See Kate Osborne et al., “Disturbance and the Dynamics of Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef (1995–2009)”:

While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980's suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995.

UPDATE II (4 July):  For more on the very silly Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, see “The Hypocritical Coral Whisperer”, at ABC Watch.

UPDATE III (5 July):  For even more on the foolish Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, see “Slurred by a Coral Whisperer”, at ABC Watch. 

UPDATE IV (6 July):  For an account of Sen. Brown’s ability to give trustworthy, truthful descriptions, see “Bob Brown v. Reality” at Stop Gillard’s Carbon Tax.

Say “Yes” to Tortured Tropes

Not since Sen. Bob Brown referred, many years ago, to “a slowly unfolding kettle of fish” have we heard such a finer exponent of the tortured metaphor as that rug-selling carpetbagger, and sometime school-bully, Mr. Andrew Wilkie MHR.  This week, on the ABC’s “4 Corners”, he opined that the Gillard Government’s implementing pre-commitment technologies on poker machines is:

one of the key issues upon which my support for the Government hinges.

From the same interview, the dippy but poetic parliamentarian explains vividly: 

It wasn’t on the radar.  No senior politician in the Government or the Coalition would go anywhere near an issue like this with a barge-pole.  It’s an absolutely [sic] minefield for one of the big political parties because it is just so hard.*  [...]
The moment I opened my mouth publicly I became a lightning rod.

The highly conductive member concludes:

People will be helped but if for any reason the wheels fall off and these reforms are not realised, so long as I know I’ve given it my very, very best shot, then I’ll be able to live with myself afterwards. 

*  such language, seemingly, is contagious: the reporter, Matthew Carney, explains:  “Julia Gillard was locked into Wilkie’s deal.  If Gillard didn’t make the reforms law by Budget 2012, Andrew Wilkie would pull the pin.”  The pin, no doubt, not of a grenade but of a lock’s hinge.

Say “Yes” to More Radical “Refugees”

Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young asserts that we should welcome all alleged refugees who have paid ten grand or more to be smuggled into the country—even those who might call for an overthrow of Australian democracy* or those who would demand that halal training centres† be funded by taxpayers—because refugees since federation have contributed to Australia.

“Australia’s a better place because of the more than 750,000 refugees who have settled here since 1901.

“From businessman Frank Lowy, who has changed the face of retailing in Australia, to comedian Anh Do, whose best-selling memoir which [sic] makes you grateful for one’s family, refugees have helped improve this great country.  [...]
“We also will continue agitating for all sides to back our bill before the Senate to amend the Migration Act so all MPs and Senators can have a vote on expelling asylum seekers to any third country, not just Malaysia.”‡

It is good to see Sen. Hanson-Young approve of Mr. Lowy’s capitalistic efforts which, usually, the Greens tend to calumniate;  see, for instance, Sen. Bob Brown’s media release, from March, 2009:

“The Greens welcome the government’s belated decision on ‘golden parachutes’ but we will continue to tackle the government’s failure to regulate CEO greed, which sees some annual remuneration exceed $10 million.  Most CEOs will be considering public hostility to excessive pay packets, but it’s the few who give the rest a bad name who require curbing,” Senator Brown said. 

*  see “Democracy is evil, Parliament is evil’ says radical Muslim cleric in billboard debate”, by Clayton Hinds, in Christian Today Australia:

Democracy and parliaments are evil, declared a radical Australian Muslim cleric in Sydney on Friday night during a debate with two Christian politicians.

Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan also called for the overthrow of the Australian legal system in favour of the controversial sharia law, the Islamic legal system.

“[the Australian legal system is] the primary cause of the spiritual, economic and environmental crisis in Australia,” he said.

“Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil,” said Mr Conlon.

†  see “Australian Muslim community demands ‘taxpayer-funded halal training centre’”:

Australia’s top Muslim body has demanded a new taxpayer-funded halal training centre that would prepare refugees for jobs slaughtering animals in rural areas.

‡  The Migration Amendment (Declared Countries) Bill 2011 seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 to require that any agreement to send asylum seekers to a third country is brought before both houses of Parliament as a disallowable instrument.

Say “Yes” to Removing Unsatisfactory Polls

Until recently, the websites of all The Australian Greens’ federal members provided a poll (available since May, 2009) whereby people could vote on the question, “Do you support the Greens’ plan on emissions trading?”  Here it is on Sen. Bob Brown’s website:

For some reason—uncharitable cynics (which does not include us) might suggest that the results were not quite was the Greens would favour—the poll is no longer available.  Joanne Nova reports that, of 2,000 votes, 80% were “No”.  The Greens, however, do provide other polls for concerned visitors to express their agreement, or otherwise, with Green policies:

We have written to the Australian Greens asking for an explanation for the poll’s disappearance; naturally, we shall provide details of any response we receive.

By “emissions”, the Australian Greens refer to industrially produced carbon dioxide, that benificent gas which we all exhale and which is necessary for life on earth.  According to the Greens’ policy document, “Why do we want to cut emissions?”:

It can never be said too often that emissions reductions have one purpose only – to avoid catastrophic climate change. 

The Australian Greens will surely be glad to learn that reputable scientists can assure us that anthropogenic carbon dioxide does not and will not cause catastrophic climate change; the Greens can, therefore, safely reject any proposal for taxing carbon dioxide.

UPDATE I:  David Paris, Digital Communications Coordinator for the Greens’ Parliamentarians, has kindly and swiftly responded to our query; he writes:

We have not used the poll feature on our website for some time.
There are several old items on our site that relate to the 2009 negotiations around the Rudd government’s deeply flawed CPRS that have been removed to avoid confusion with the current debate about a price on pollution.  The poll you are referring to is one of those – from May 2009.

By “price” he means a suitably punitive tax-rate, we assume, and by “pollution” he means carbon dioxide.  Someone might excusably wonder whether the poll question—still open—from 12 October, 2009, “Do you think the Government should support the Greens’ Safe Climate Bill”, did not also relate to “the Rudd government’s deeply flawed CPRS”.

UPDATE II (10 June):  The story continues at Joanne Nova’s site. 

UPDATE III (11 June):  See, there is no recent, catastrophic warming: