Steve Evans ("Advance Australia corflutes suggest it's lucky David Pocock was tougher when he was a Wallaby", canberratimes.com.au, April 28) writes that because Pocock once chained himself to a bulldozer, that makes him "a green".
Based on that logic, if Steve ever went on a bender at uni and got too drunk - as a random example - then he must be an alcoholic.
Apparently single actions in one's life now brand you a certain way for life. I once accidentally did 20km/h over the speed limit in an honest mistake. The police pulled me over and let me off with a warning. I must be a speeding menace on the roads now though, branded for life by Steve's logic.
Steve's argument is as hollow as the intentions of the LNP around an ICAC and as facetious as the LNP's take on climate change. One can care about climate change or attend or even participate (heaven forbid) in a protest without being "a green" or any other label you want to pigeonhole someone with.
Steve's attempted defence of Advance Australia's ads about Pocock is weak and simply false. I hear Pocock showed compassion one time as well, must be soft woke lefty for sure. The Canberra Times has generally stayed above this level of puerile discourse so far but this opinion piece is a glaring exception.
I would ask Steve to please go and shine some light on something that matters instead of using so many words just to call Pocock "a green".
Steve Evans correctly identifies a thick skin as an essential attribute for a politician, given the continual lowering of the bar by the conservatives.
But whining about your opponents' tactics is also bread and butter politics. Mr Pocock is simply demonstrating he has a range of political skills.
Steve Evans thinks David Pocock is weak for getting offended by the Advance Australia corflute depicting him as a covert member of The Greens ("Lucky Pocock was tougher as a player", April 28). The corflute suggests that Pocock is dishonest by publicly presenting himself as an independent he is really representing The Greens. Publishing something that suggests someone is dishonest or deceitful has been grounds for many a defamation action in this country.
If Pocock is to be accused of any form of weakness that makes him unsuited for Australian politics, it ought to be because he has merely complained rather than sued.
Our politicians lead the world in taking outraged umbrage and suing their defamers.
The list of defamation alumni includes former prime ministers Bob Hawke and John Gorton, former deputy Labor leader Tom Uren, former Whitlam minister Jim Cairns, and Howard-era ministers Tony Abbott and Peter Costello. Not to forget Joe Hockey, the Treasurer who was not "for sale" and Christian Porter.
Would Steve Evans have called that lot sissies?
Senator Zed Seselja says the deceptive signs arranged by right wing group Advance Australia are acceptable because "the Greens and David Pocock look very similar in their policy outlook".
Seselja's own views on a wide range of issues are much closer to the right-wing rump of the National Party than those of the majority of his Liberal colleagues.
Presumably it would be quite okay to depict Seselja opening up his shirt to reveal a National Party T-shirt.
Zed Seselja is wrong. Again.
Remember when he was running for ACT chief minister and asserted on enormous posters that rates would be three times as high unless he was elected? He was wrong then. Perhaps whoever worked out those figures for him is still there and now asserting that Ginninderra CSIRO can be turned into houses in the space of a year.
People weren't fooled last time. If they know anything about what is involved in such a development, they won't be fooled this time. It's time to move on, Zed.
Jenna Price was being too kind in naming a number of candidates "wacky" ("There's no shortage of wackiness when it comes to Australian politicians", canberratimes.com.au) I suggest they were more "mad, bad and dangerous to know".
The most egregious was not the foul-mouthed Morgan C Jonas, nor the violence-advocating Craig Cole, but Labor's captain's pick in the seat of Hunter, Daniel Repacholi, who loves coal.
As Price rightly notes, this is one of the worst captain's picks "coming as it does in the middle of a climate emergency".
What did Labor think they were doing? They cannot pretend to be better on climate than the Coalition if they pick a candidate like Repacholi. It would have been understandable had it come democratically from a vote of the local branch, but a captain's pick?
Labor's support, albeit qualified, for opening new coal mines is unforgiveable, as is its lack of opposition to funding for gas exploration in the Beetaloo Basin.
If we are to stay below two degrees warming, 1.5 degrees now being almost unattainable, we have to not just prohibit the opening of new coal and gas mines, we have to rapidly close down existing ones.
Those who care about climate action have no choice now but to put the Greens or Climate 200 candidates ahead of both major parties.
How sad. Now, even the Anzac Day dawn service from Gallipoli has been afflicted by the scourge of political correctness. This year's event was not a service, as such, but a ceremony which has become secularised.
Gone were all traces of traditional hymns and prayers. It's fine to have a digeridoo player introducing the ceremony, but surely we can have both that and the traditional content?
On previous occasions, the communal singing of Abide With Me in the context of remembering the fallen was intensely moving, as was the playing of Elgar's Nimrod. This year all we had was a song in a modern pop style sung by a solo vocalist.
In the entire "service" there was only one prayer, plus the final blessing - for which the priest was almost apologetic, asking for people to accept his words in the spirit of their own beliefs. Whatever next? How long before they have a rock band playing at Gallipoli?
We may have become a largely secular society, but that's no reason to jettison traditions which inspire reverence and respect on solemn occasions.
Expect no reduction in global warming if Australia ends the use and mining of fossil fuels by 2030, because "major emitters such as India and China will simply get their coal from other suppliers", says Kym MacMillan ("Radical action a grave risk", Letters, April 23).
This is akin to saying "I will continue supplying your drug of addiction, otherwise you'll get it elsewhere".
When the definitive history of climate change is written, will the record show that Australia, courageously and exemplarily, took the long-term view, sacrificing profits in order to protect the global environment?
Or will it be revealed that, shortsightedly, we joined those that grabbed the easy lucre and run? For a second opinion we could ask the island nations threatened with sea rise.
Given recent developments concerning China's interests in the South Pacific, it may be advisable to pay special attention to what the Solomon Islands government might have to say about Australia's success, or lack thereof, in its handling of the climate change crisis.
Here's one simple fact and one simple question for Chris Aulich (Letters, 24 April). Fact : there are 151 members elected to the House of Reps. Question: how many independent and minor party candidates do you, in your wildest, unrealistic dreams, think will be elected on May 21?
The reality is that for anything meaningful to be done about climate change it will need the full and unequivocal support of one of the major parties.
The best chance to achieve that, as Roderick Holesgrove advocated (Letters, April 22), is to join a political party and work from within. At present the only major party where you'd have any real chance of success on that front though is the ALP.
I just read these words: "Does it need stating yet again that people shouldn't be asked to work for wages that leave them hungry and cold?" To which I add "and homeless"?
Shame on this federal government.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.