SA Footy

What are peoples thoughts on Peter Garrett, the man who once sang in opposition of the United States, campaigned against the mining of Uranium and protested against the destruction of the Tasmanian forests but has since done an about face and is now a supporter of each of these?

For mine he was a bloody good musician and is now a bloody good hypocrite.

The sad thing is, I believe in his heart of hearts he still holds his original beliefs but the Labor machine has engulfed him and he has no option but to fall in line.

If he had any credibility he would have stood for the Greens...

That's the nature of politics, unfortunately.

Another example is Phillip Ruddock, once a liberal in the true sense of the word, now a total turd.

At least we have the saying "Peter Garrett doll" to use when referring to male genitalia.

Never had any in the first place IMHO. As far as the music was concerned a couple of good tunes, but very sanctimonius

Guess it's a classic case of people who go into politics full of great ideas but unfortunately get told that they have to 'go along to get along'

A bit like former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and and former Vice President Al Gore who are now only to happy to promote certain evils that are going on but if they'd come out with that sort of rhetoric while they'd been in office they would have lasted five minutes.

They should have given him "Aboroginal Affairs "if they had any sense.The second they gave him "Enviroment" it was going to be a matter of time before he looked silly.

He's about as credible as Cheryl Turncoat. I wonder whom he had an affair with to get a seat for Labor?

Psyber wrote:He's about as credible as Cheryl Turncoat. I wonder whom he had an affair with to get a seat for Labor?

I hear hes been a good mate of Gareth's for years

If he is supporting the use of Uranium as I have read on here, then I would support him on that for now and encourage the debate.
Years ago Uranium promised little more than the means to mass destruction, and not so long ago I also believed that was all it was. After I read some material by scientists a few months back I am more sceptical of that view.
The issue of global warming isn't going away, and it is getting worse. Scientists are becoming more united in the belief that our best chance in saving our habitable environment lays in the immediate switch to Uranium for all our energy needs. All other technologies aren't as advanced and Uranium puts no pollution into the air. Putting the brakes on CO2 output needs to happen right now, this is the line used by prominent scientist and Green Tim Flannery, our Australian of the year, and also being embraced by many in the scientific community.
Is being taken into account in this question of "credibility"?

Any reason that North Korea and Iran can't join in saving the planet then?

The U.S is causing more harm to the human race at the moment than Iran or North Korea.
Nuclear war is still a future problem, whereas global warming and its affects are happening right now. The possibility of using uranium for violent means is what kept me in staunch opposition to it for a long time. But in educating myself about the global warming problem I have found that the most informed people are leaning towards uranium as our best solution. The reasons are that it is the most advanced of our clean alternatives. Wind and Solar hold promise but to get enough of the world running on it to make an impact is too far off, and we would have baked the crap out of our habitat if before they become viable.
The threat of nuclear war will remain whether we open more mines and start using it as the world's primary energy source or not, and if that threat remains regardless of what we do then why not use it as a peaceful, clean energy source in answer to our current crisis?

did anyone watch chasers last night when they tried to get garret to sing beds are burning?
he didnt look too happy.

crushinator wrote:did anyone watch chasers last night when they tried to get garret to sing beds are burning?
he didnt look too happy.

Very uncomfortable with the fact that when he was a high profile private citizen he could make all sorts of outlandish (well intentioned) statements, however in mainstream politics you cannot afford to upset what is a very conservative electorate, otherwise your career in a major party is a short one.

Total sell out by Garrett and he has no credibility at all.

The government havent even started on him yet in this campaign. Stupid move by Labor that at some stage will hurt their election hopes.

Cambridge Clarrie wrote:What are peoples thoughts on Peter Garrett, the man who once sang in opposition of the United States, campaigned against the mining of Uranium and protested against the destruction of the Tasmanian forests but has since done an about face and is now a supporter of each of these?

For mine he was a bloody good musician and is now a bloody good hypocrite.

The sad thing is, I believe in his heart of hearts he still holds his original beliefs but the Labor machine has engulfed him and he has no option but to fall in line.

If he had any credibility he would have stood for the Greens...

Was always going to happen in a major party machine and yes he should have joined The Greens.

I did laugh however when Brendan Nelson called Garrett a hypocrite. That would be the same Brendan Nelson who was head of the AMA (A Union!!! ) and a paid a member of the Labor Party and is on record (as late as 1993 IIRC) as saying he'd never voted Liberal in his life and never would vote Liberal.

Leaping Lindner wrote:

Cambridge Clarrie wrote:What are peoples thoughts on Peter Garrett, the man who once sang in opposition of the United States, campaigned against the mining of Uranium and protested against the destruction of the Tasmanian forests but has since done an about face and is now a supporter of each of these?

For mine he was a bloody good musician and is now a bloody good hypocrite.

The sad thing is, I believe in his heart of hearts he still holds his original beliefs but the Labor machine has engulfed him and he has no option but to fall in line.

If he had any credibility he would have stood for the Greens...

Was always going to happen in a major party machine and yes he should have joined The Greens.

I did laugh however when Brendan Nelson called Garrett a hypocrite. That would be the same Brendan Nelson who was head of the AMA (A Union!!! ) and a paid a member of the Labor Party and is on record (as late as 1993 IIRC) as saying he'd never voted Liberal in his life and never would vote Liberal.

I think Dr Nelson is a good old fashioned opportunist, probably has no real political philosophy but sees a better future for himself in the LP. As far as the AMA being a union I would have said Mafia was closer. I don't have a problem with opportunists because their behaviour is fairly predictable, less so for the idealist caught in a reality trap like poor old PG.

mick wrote:... As far as the AMA being a union I would have said Mafia was closer. I don't have a problem with opportunists because their behaviour is fairly predictable, less so for the idealist caught in a reality trap like poor old PG.

Back in the 1980s when Bob Hawke and Paul Keating decided that what was wrong with Medicare was that we had too many doctors and they were seeing patients unnecessarily to generate income the AMA was labelled such when they said he was wrong. Now we have a major doctor shortage which is going to get worse because a lot of them are fast approaching retirement age.

As a union or "Mafia" they are not very effective - the Medicare rebate has risen by only 64% of inflation since 1973. All my medical acquaintances are encouraging their kids to do Law, Dentistry, or Veterinary Science.

But don't worry the socialists will eventually allow cheaper enrolled nurses to diagnose and prescribe after a 3 month course to upgrade their skills! But of course pollies will still be seen by the few medical consultants left even if everyone else will be lucky to get a Dr Patel.

I really got into the Oils in the heyday. thought they stood up for something. Now the guy is a total sell out.

I cant even listen to a song when it comes on the radio.

Garrett's full of s**t!!!!

Don't know where you are living mate a mediocre GP can clear $200k without much problem a general surgeon can make $50K a month, my colleagues in the public service without any medical defense make > $200k for a <40h week my brother is a lawyer and sure there are barristers who make $3k a day but most don't. But don't try and tell me medicine is no longer a lucrative profession. The top specialists don't need the AMA. The medicare rebate is rather irrelevant if you need specialist help I'm in favor of nurses being able to prescribe or treat for "coughs colds and sore holes" makes perfect economic sense. The majority of medical problems don't require six years training, in any case at some medical schools economics (making the degree as cheap as possible) has so devalued the quality of the degree I would rather be treated by an older graduate of at least 40 years old or a nurse. I have been involved with medical education for a number of years, some of my colleagues quite openly say medical education has been set back 300 years in some medical schools. As a person who is >50 years the quality of medical education is a huge concern to me. If you are smart medicine will still attract the best, because at the highest level it offers the greatest intellectual challenge, plus you have the feeling of doing something good while being paid fairly well. Do lawyers and accountants have that same feeling? Vets maybe but not sheysters and bean counters.

mick wrote:Don't know where you are living mate a mediocre GP can clear $200k without much problem a general surgeon can make $50K a month, my colleagues in the public service without any medical defense make > $200k for a <40h week my brother is a lawyer and sure there are barristers who make $3k a day but most don't. But don't try and tell me medicine is no longer a lucrative profession. The top specialists don't need the AMA. The medicare rebate is rather irrelevant if you need specialist help I'm in favor of nurses being able to prescribe or treat for "coughs colds and sore holes" makes perfect economic sense. The majority of medical problems don't require six years training, in any case at some medical schools economics (making the degree as cheap as possible) has so devalued the quality of the degree I would rather be treated by an older graduate of at least 40 years old or a nurse. I have been involved with medical education for a number of years, some of my colleagues quite openly say medical education has been set back 300 years in some medical schools. As a person who is >50 years the quality of medical education is a huge concern to me. If you are smart medicine will still attract the best, because at the highest level it offers the greatest intellectual challenge, plus you have the feeling of doing something good while being paid fairly well. Do lawyers and accountants have that same feeling? Vets maybe but not sheysters and bean counters.

I don't know where your figures come from, but in Victoria the salary for a senior medical specialist was recently a bit over $160,000, but the vacant jobs are not being filled because the state government has not provided the salaries in the annual budget. Sydney has been offering $225,000, if your are prepared to work in Mt Druitt, where I'm told an armoured Hummer is the best work vehicle.

I also don't know about your "clear $200k" for a GP comes from. In private practice an acquaintance of mine is grossing $200,000 on a 36 hour week, but running expenses are eating over half. GPs do a little better than some specialties because they get higher bulk-bill rates for some patients [100% of the "schedule fee" instead of 85%] plus Practice Incentive Payments if they jump through all the hoops. GPs are now favoured because there are more of them and keeping them on side makes the bulk-billing statistics look better.

Some surgeons make really big money - e.g. Orthopaedics - but non-surgical specialties are being squeezed, which is why in some fields there is no shortage of training positions despite the squeals of the states because they are only getting half as many applicants as there are positions. In Vic in 2006 there were 25 applicants for 56 training positions in Psychiatry.

I have medical degress, but I bailed out of the mainstream years ago for all those reasons, as many are. At least 3 friends have quit Medicine and done Law since. [The problem is rigidity and sticking to rigidly to the book-learning rather than going beyond it based on experience.]

There are some excellent nurses and there are some shockers and my experience in my hospital days suggests a pretty even split. But here are already problems with doctors and tunnel vision who work on "you have this and the treatment of choice is", so I would hate to have my health in the hands of someone with narrower and more limited education, especially if I couldn't second guess them myself.