Sadly the truth about the fashion industry has always been that its the leading proponent of built in obsolescence because its products become obsolete before they are sold and they then fall to pieces before the season is even over.
I seldom agree with you Ian but I do admire your chutzpah for engaging with your critics and putting your views, robustly so, rather than lobbing a ‘hand grenade’ and leaving the thread.
I love a good argument and the only way to get that is to come to a place such as this where I know that I am unlikely to find many who agree with me. The thing is when I get some measure of respect from my interlocutors like your comment above it means more to me than a thread full of furious agreement in a more conservative place.
If the boot was on the other foot, what we could count on is for you to be whining like the diff in an old taxi, but for once you would be justified.
On the contrary I am simply no fan at all of an employee of any entity violating their commercial need for discretion no matter which side of politics they leak too
But the shoe is never on the other political foot is it.
Of course it is on either foot from time to time
It is always conservatives crapping on about Laura Naurder and buying 48 flags to tactfully place on the posium. Right?
Wrong! Neither side has a monopoly on playing the law and order card.
The difference between us is not our levels of compassion, its that I am simply more honest about who I can realistically care about.
It is central to our nature as human beings that we have a hierarchy of compassion, we are simply not capable of “caring equally” for every other person on the planet. You can pretend otherwise as much as you like but you are kidding your self if you believe otherwise.
Simple question if you had to choose between saving a perfect stranger from drowning or someone you know who would you save and why would you choose them? You can’t save both and if you try to save both they will both die.
Try this contrary opinion
“Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.”
It is essentially impossible to determine the impact of 4 percent if you have very limited knowledge about 95 percent.
The IPCC tried to downplay the role of water vapor in affecting global temperatures by amplifying the role of CO2 and CH4. The range of numbers used to determine greenhouse effectiveness or Global Warming Potential (GWP) suggested people were just creating numbers – it was not scientific. The IPCC note,
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) is defined as the time-integrated RF due to a pulse emission of a given component, relative to a pulse emission of an equal mass of CO2 (Figure 8.28a and formula). The GWP was presented in the First IPCC Assessment (Houghton et al., 1990), stating ‘It must be stressed that there is no universally accepted methodology for combining all the relevant factors into a single global warming potential for greenhouse gas emissions.
What if my assumption are correct regarding the costs of dealing with global warming/climate change?
For your assumption to be correct what humanity has been spending on mitigating what some believe to be a cause of climate change would have to have some sort of real and measurable effect on the climate. Thus far there has been no evidence that all of the emissions trading and carbon taxes ect have made the sligfhtest bit of difference.
Again you are entitled to your view, just as I am entitled to question your view. Why should we continue to treat our planet as a dumping ground for our carbon emissions?
Without Carbon dioxide all of the plants would die and with out plants all of the animals would die too. We are all just animals after all…
What if the climate scientists are correct about our climate changing rapidly and sea level rise being more than 60 cms before 2100?
For us mountain dwellers that would just bring the beach closer
You continue to ignore present day signals such as glaciers retreating world wide, natural snow falls continuing to decline over time at many ski resorts, animals migrating earlier or later responding to a change in our climate.
All of which can and are likely to be a natural consequence of factors other than humanity
Then again you may be right, but just ask the insurance companies the odds they put on your assumptions being correct into the future?
Its a false comparison because we can not make any difference to the climate and Insurance in all of its iterations is simply bullshit
A bit like my street has quite a few households that throw rubbish everywhere. If I clean up my mess, it makes no difference to the appearance of the street.
At least you know you are doing the right thing by trying to act responsibly, despite what your neighbours are doing.
No matter how warm ad fuzzy inside you may feel your effect in the cleanliness of the street is still effectively zero isn’t it? Now of your futile efforts come at a very high effective cost to your household economy you have to ask if those warm and fuzzy feelings are worth the cost don’t you?
By the way the cost of doing nothing now, will prove much more expensive in the future. It will need international cooperation. We did it with helping to close the hole in the ozone layer. We can all work to lower our carbon emissions without it being a waste of our time, effort and treasure.
The flaw in the “it will cost us more in the future if we don’t do “something” now” line of argument is the false assumption that paying to do something futile now will lessen future costs to do something effective later . It simply does not make any logical sense, its the worst kind of pointless virtue signalling.
China has agreed to take action along with the rest of the world? You may be sceptical of this but why wouldn’t they take action?Anthropogenic global warming will hit them harder than many countries.
because No one except you gullible AGW true believers thinks that China is being at all sincere about this issue.
Incidentally, when life becomes unbearable due to AGW where do you think all those climate migrants are going to be heading for?
Antarctica, Siberia, northern Canada or Greenland I would think.
Will you be volunteering to put some of them up or do you think we should have machine guns loaded at the ready around our coast line to stop them entering?
I favor machine guns
You forgot to say how water vapour is significant.
You wouldn’t want people to think you are trying to downplay the effect of CO2 would you?
As opposed to those of you who want to argue that a trace gas that is a very minor part of the Green house effect that keeps our planet habitable and fecund is the only part of a vast dynamic we should be interested in. Water vapor is THE main green house gas in that dynamic.
With China predicted to double and treble its Carbon emissions this country is powerless to do anything about it even if we closed down our entire economy, Resistance is entirely futile so we will have to adapt if and when we have to, any other course of action is a waste of time effort and treasure
The one thing that all of these sorts of articles ignore is that we simply do not need every person to have a degree and the only people to benefit from trying to get every more students into tertiary study is the already bloated education industry.
You could start by learning to write. And spell.
My prose is more than adequate thank you very much and my poor spelling has been a cross that I have carried all of my life.
The word you were after there is ‘monetise.’ Not ‘monitise.’
Is it? both your offering and the way I spelled it show as errors according to my spell check. That said you got my meaning didn’t you? So does it matter that much? I think not. One final thing about any spelling cited in a dictionary its descriptive not prescriptive because English like all living languages changes over time.
There clearly will not be much of a global market for your self-published work.
So what I’m not trying to create or disseminate anything with a literary pretension.
Also ‘authors’ in the middle of a sentence does not take a capital and you’ve used ‘entirely’ twice in the same sentence.
Your services as a spell checker would be much appreciated if I had the ability to correct said mistakes but it does reveal your arrogance much more than you probably realize.
Your sloppy writing points to your muddled and sloppy thinking.
Does it really? Would you be telling that to someone you agree with? Hmm your pedantry says more about you than you think it does, mainly it shows that you lack any generosity in debate sadly all to common failing of the regressive left
Your comment is staggeringly ignorant.
Literally no country on earth applies the policies and rules the ‘Productivity Commission’ wants to bring in. Why? Because they know the harm it will do. The only exception is NZ and consensus seems to be that the local book industry has been damaged without providing cheaper books for readers.
You complain about my writing spelling and then you contradict yourself within three sentences!
Also Australia is almost alone among nations in charging full, or even any, GST on books. It is you who is completely out of touch with, in your inelegant phrase, ‘the modern literary paradigm.’
Well to be frank I had not thought about the issue of GST on books but I personally don’t see why they should be exempt. If someone is poor there is no reason that they can’t access the very best literature for free via our excellent public libraries
Will be if the gov gets its way. But then if the gov is voted out it won’t happen. Depends on what you want.
government policy on books is not going to be a vote changer which ever way the election goes and no government can afford to hold back the tide of the global market for reading material.
Boooooooooooooooo Iain ….. what a lazy defeatist attitude you have …….. Use a pen to cast your vote for the status quo buddy
How many books do you read each year?
how many do you own?
My guess is that your answer will be not many to both questions
I myself am a voracious reader but I recognize a couple of things about the publishing business have changed irrevocably because of the rise of screens as a place to read our literature. Dead tree books are going to become a niche way of accessing the written word within a very few years and as such Authors are going to be able to self publish their works to the entire planet entirely bypassing the current publishing infrastructure entirely. The trick for all authors will to find a way to monitise the access to their works.
$400,000 per person per year for offshore detention, against $12,000-15,000 for onshore, and they want to complain about cost. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
When you have an ever declining number of people in detention the higher cost is reducing and will eventually be zero but if you have an increase of the magnitude advocated for by the Greens and Labor then the total cost is going to be more to pay the many a social security benefit fro the rest of their lives, that is the sort of basic numeracy that Dutton suggested was incomprehensible to some refugees, Are you one of them?
Gay people who are married also adopt.
If we ignoe your attempt to move the goal posts there are two problems with your proposition here Firstly gay people can not marry a same sex partner here, so there are married gay couples here and secondly even if they could the number of babies available for adoption in this country is very small indeed, so few in number that they are for all intents and purposes non existent. Thus what I feel about adoption is simply not relevant to our conversation. So how about you go back a step and address the points I was making about your citations instead of trying to keep the goal posts in constant motion?
All of your citations are at least a decade old and as you don’t provide links to their sources I can only assume that they are like all such surveys on same sex parenting, namely they have small sample sizes and have the same self selection problem that has been evident i n other “research” into this subject. In any event I have never argued that a same sex “parents*” can not do an adequate job of raising children. I argue that the realities of biology mean that a third party MUST be part of the equation and that has to have consequences fro the children thus created because those children will be alienated form at least one of their biological parents and in the case of Male same sex couples there is a serious likely hood that poor women in the third world will be exploited as surrogates to gestate the children that they wish to create.
…how can I be wrong when we already have the fringes of the activists doing precisely what you insist can not happen?…( sic)
You can be, and you are, wrong. Marriage equality has nothing whatever to do with pederasty, bestiality, or any other of the strange sexual practices that you seem to be obsessed with, so get over it.
I am too old and weary to be obsessed with any sort of sexual practices however I am still spry enough to notice when activists begin to try to normalize pedophilia with articles in the media (like the one at Salon dot com) and when other activists use Gay marriage as a precedent for further changes to the marriage laws to include more than two people. Now you may choose to ignore these events but I and many other people see them as quite significant.
… but the push for Gay marriage wants more than that the desire is to have socially endorse those relationships, something that is both divisive and unnecessary…( sic)
Unnecessary to you, perhaps. But for those who want their relationships to be treated equally, marriage equality is very necessary.
I want the winning lotto ticket but my life will not be ruined if I don’t get what I want. The simple fact of our society taht you choose to ignore is that NO ONE AT ALL has to approve any sort of domestic arrangement that any two consenting adults want to create all that is required is that the participants in that relationship want it to continue. There is no need for subterfuge or any sort of concealment either our society is actually OK with same sex relationships so what is the real need here?
…if you mention the slippery slope the howls around here are unrelenting…
Rightly so, because your proposition, that marriage equality is somehow a ‘gateway’ drug to practices like pedophilia, bestiality, et al, ala’ Cory Bernardi, is not only repugnant, it is just wrong.
Really? how can I be wrong when we already have the fringes of the activists doing precisely what you insist can not happen? (see my citations in the previous comment)
In the first place your assumed equivalence between same-sex marriage and these other things is just that – a piss poor, unsubstantiated, scurrilous, and weak-minded assumption, based on nothing other than your own homophobia.
I ‘m not claiming equivalence here activists on your side of argument are the ones citing Gay marriage as a precedent not I
In the second place, you warn of the ‘consequences’ of marriage equality, while blithely ignoring the fact that so-called ‘traditional’ relationships regularily result in the deaths of women at the hands of their erstwhile partners – more than one woman a week dies this way. Gee, that is a track record worth defending, eh?
Sigh domestic violence? Really? do you want to go there? because domestic violence within same sex relationships is either pretty much the same as it in Heterosexual relationships or even worse according to some research . Here or here
Finally, if you are really worried about ‘consequences’, then you ought to focus on them, if, and when, they arise. When someone tries to pass a law legalising pederasty, then I will man the barricades with you.
Better to act now than to wait until it gets that far IMHO
Until then, accept the fact that you have no right whatever to tell other people what kind of relationships they are entitled to, and STFU, because no one wants to hear any more of your scare-mongering bloviation.
I have repeatedly argued that any consenting adults should be free to form any sort of relationship that pleases them but the push for Gay marriage wants more than that the desire is to have socially endorse those relationships, something that is both divisive and unnecessary. you may not have noticed but we live in a democracy and that means that we all have the right to participate in the debating of issue such as this.
If you don’t think anything goes, then stop saying it does. Or at least don’t be surprised when conservatives – who strongly dislike the idea of anything goes – aren’t impressed by it.
Thank you for your line of argument that very much echos my experiences here at the Guardian. I have repeatedly argued against eh Gay marriage idea because I am concerned about the consequences changing the marriage act and the effect that such changes are likely to have for any children created for same sex couples. No matter how much I argue that I have no problem at all with people having consensual relationships with other adults, no matter how much I applaud without reservation the current openness that we enjoy about sexuality its not enough to avoid being abused.
It seems to me that most of the Gay marriage advocates here really are of the “anything goes” variety (as you describe them) who are all suffering from the most terrible case of wilful blindness, we already have activists turning towards using Gay marriage as a precedent for various forms of polygamy and we already have activists from the fringes trying to normalize Pedophilia and yet if you mention the slippery slope the howls around here are unrelenting.So as you suggest if those in favor of Gay marriage want to progress the issue they are going to have to work a great deal harder to convince the people that the change they desire really does have the limited scope they claim for the movement then they have to make that case. Its having to do the actual work of defining what they want (in precise legal terms) and define the limitations to the precedents that the changes they advocate. Its simply not good enough to pretend that the consequences will have no negatives as so many here inist on doing
Your comments don’t seem to relate to the realities of what small theatre have to endure. Do you actually go ?
I live 12k up a winding mountain road from the nearest small town and that itself is 30ks away from the edge of the big smoke. So naturally enough I can’t go to the theater. But I did study Drama and media when I did my degree. And then like now the issue was always one of economic viability and I thought then as I do now that theater is not going to be able to survive long term. Frankly if it was a person you lefties would probably suggest that it should be put out of its misery. I have been to a few shows over recent years but its always very expensive for me because it requires a long journey in frantic traffic , difficulty in parking, then either a night in a hotel or at the In laws along with someone to look after the kids, basically its a logistical nightmare. On the other hand I can watch anything I like on the big screen at home without any of the worries mentioned above and it will cost a fraction of what it costs to go to a theater even if I splash out and buy the DVD rather than borrow it form my local library. You see a night out at the theater will coat at least $100 per head once I factor in travel parking and food &drink where as that DVD is likely to be around $30 for a new release and I can get by with a cuppa . That sort of difference is why theater simply can’t survive economically in this day and age its become elitist luxury entertainment and there is just so many better bang for you buck ways to get your fun.
Cultural cringe – a deeply held, irrational belief in the inherent, across-the-board weakness of one’s national culture as a whole, regardless of evidence.
Don’t look at me on that score, I love Aussie culture and I see no reason to cringe at all.
You have unfortunately missed an important facet of what exactly the arts are.
They are not for everyone all the time.
Well then why should everyone . through our taxes pay for them?
They should be difficult.
Why should they be difficult?
Art should challenge and question.
Why should they do that?
Art can not be entertainment. ‘Bums on seats’ is no proof that the work is ‘crap’.
Utter rubbish, the Bard was working playwright who wrote plays to entertain first and foremost because iof they were not entertaining then no one would have come to see them and no one making them would have been able to eat ect. Any deeper significance could only work because they were in the first instance entertaining. Even Brecht understood that having a political message still needed to give the public an entertaining experience with some stiring songs.
Art is a subjective experience and you don’t speak for ‘me’ or ‘we’. Art is political and if it doesn’t fit your world view, leave the seat for another bum.
Your Karl Marx underpants a too tight which is why you and other “arts aficionados” are simply not resonating with the public when it comes to “art with a message” its often the case that less is more and that being subtle is far better than boring the pants of your audience with left wing political polemic pretending to be a good night out.
Absolute rubbish – you should try going to the theatre in Sydney. And see what an oily rag some try to exist on.
At least once.
Before you make such ridiculous pronouncements.
I actually have a degree in Drama and as much as Like the idea of theater
its place in our society have mostly been taken over by film and television when it comes to telling the stories of our lives. What is left is a whole tribe of people who are in love with the medium but who have thinking that eschews the idea of their art having to profitably entertain. Instead they think the government should eternally subsidize their efforts. That said the price of producing for and presenting video online is incredibly cheap and something that those displaced from the no longer subsidized arts industry should consider exploring if they have anything they think is socially worthwhile enough to share.
Your preoccupation with masturbation is pretty sad.
I would think that it would have to be you projecting your own obsessions when you consider what else you could have quoted from my comment above
See if you can make some friends,
I have friends
maybe read a book,
I have been an avid reader all of my life
go to a gallery,
Why do you assume I haven’t done so?
or otherwise try to expand your mind a bit.
My mind does not need “expanding”
Then maybe you will be able to understand something about modern and contemporary art.
I already understand more about art than you obviously don’t. You see I long ago worked out that Art in all of its forms and iterations is always about communicating ideas and if it requires too much “explanation” or too much “training” to be comprehensible to the audience then it fails in its primary purpose. Your comments on the other hand are all arguments for indoctrinating those you would clearly describe as the “great unwashed” with appropriate deference to their betters (like yourself) in the arts industry who are the self appointed priests in the religion of “modern art”. We the people are simple disinclined to believe in the emperor’s fine threads when we can clearly see that his arse is swinging in the breeze.
You really are desperate to defend the value of the “arts industry” aren’t you?
Ah, true colors come shining through.
I make no secret of my conservative vales
Goebbels would be proud.
That constitutes a Godwin’s violation
Stamp out all that nasty, provocative ‘degenerate’ art, and everything will be fine, eh?
Notably I said no such thing so your man of straw is actually just dome dry grass.I’ve been a “maker” all of my adult life which means that I appreciate the nature of the creative process and its why I am so dismissive of the pretensions of so much “modern art” one example I saw at Goma was an instillation made of different colored plastic shopping bags. This artwork was described as a critique of our consumer society but really it was just a pile of old tat dressed up with a wanky explanation. Worse than that all artworks of this sort are so derivative of Marcel Dechamp’s urinal and his other “ready made” artworks of the 1930’s .
…The fact that they do need an whole lot of salesmanship to convince the ordinary people that…
Two presumptions, neither proven.
No I offer my observations from many years of interest in the creative process and those within this “industry”
The arts, all of them, always have been and no doubt always will be, popular.
Well it all depends on how you define popular doesn’t it? As i pointed out earlier sport in all of its forms is more popular by orders of magnitude
You assume that your own blinkered view is ‘ordinary’.
No I come from a very ordinary working class background and I know lots of “ordinary ” people
Philistinism and ignorance may be commonplace in the circles you run in, but that narrow sample does not prove the wider case.
Your terminology( in bold above) reveals your inner elitist and your disdain for the unpretentious working class who like simpler things like sport rather than wanky modern art which has never really recovered from the invention of photography.
And the public interest in any kind of sport is orders of magnitude bigger than any interest in the willfully obscure “arts industry”
Nope, nope, nope.
Every weekend, more people go through the turnstiles of galleries than go to footbrawl or thugby matches.
You ignore of course the number of people who watch every game in their own homes (assuming of course that your claim is true) You likewise ignore how much is written and eagerly read about the sports that we play and enjoy watching too, the armature and junior iterations of the main sporting codes
More people are employed in the arts than in mining.
the difference being that those in mining are not all sucking on the taxpayer’s teat
The arts are not obscure, or for the minority.
The modern arts are entirely analogous to that fine suit of clothes worn by that apocryphal emperor they are only there while the bullshit is being delivered and people are willing to pretend they exist.
The arts are integral to every aspect of our society.
Rubbish, they are at best a condiment or a sauce to the meal of life
Unless, of course, one is a gormless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive knuckle-dragger.
I love it when people like you trip up on their own argument! Its simple if as you claim “the arts are for everybody” then they should not need explanation or education to be universally appreciated. The fact that they do need an whole lot of salesmanship to convince the ordinary people that they are worthwhile suggests that they are, as I have said, vastly overrated.
I am not by any stretch of the imagination that keen on sport but it obvious taht the vast majority of are keen on sport and to many Aussies being successful at sport is a very big part of the national identity. frankly when there are more than 100 sports fan to every fan of the Arts why are you surprised that the government is more keen to encourage the former instead of the later?
…to quote the bard…
If you understood anything about the arts, you would know that Shakespeare:
I do know something about drama in particular as it happens because my degree was in drama and language in the media.
a) was talking about life itself signifying nothing, not the arts,
As working playwright the bard clearly understood the value of recycling and re-purposing a good phrase or sentence if it suited more than one narrative intention. Its only elitists like you who seem to think that meaning has to fixed and approved by academia.
b) was one of those artists you revile, and
What makes you think that I revile Shakespeare? I quite like his plays as it happens.
c) referred to philistines like you in that soliloquy when he said ‘…a tale told by an…’
I think that your understanding of his works is rather shallow as it happens
Sports stadiums are very much better used than art galleries by our ordinary people who enjoy the art of a perfect six from a great batsman or than amazing try by the man who runs the length the field while the other team simply can’t stop him, Or even seeing one of our determined women showing power and grace in the pool. That is the people’s art and we should not be denounced for preferring that over some sort of willfully obscure example of conceptual art that is, to quote the bard. “sound and fury signifying nothing”
One thing that I saw which confirmed my dislike of the “arts industry” happened in the judging of a local art competition run by our local council. the winning work was a framed tracing of a small boat and it looked like something done in about two minutes, but it was chosen above more skillful works because the person who submitted it was a “name” in the Art scene it was forelock tugging undue deference on a monumental scale and a betrayal of all of the other artists who entered the competition.
And the public interest in any kind of sport is orders of magnitude bigger than any interest in the willfully obscure “arts industry” so why are you surprised that the government thinks that investing in our sporting artists is better value for the taxpayer’s dollar?
There are votes , lots of votes
Show me any branch of the Arts industry which has even a significant proportion who would vote for the LNP and I will eat my hat, people in this industry are consistently either left-wing ALP or Greens voters so they won’t be changing anything if they vote in the way that they usually do now will they?
The problem with any funding of the arts comes form the practitioners themselves their “work” is on the whole either utterly irrelevant to everyday Australians or willfully obscure. Add to that the tendency for most in the “Arts” industry to be very left wing in their politics and its not hard to see that cutting funding is a no-brainer for any government with limited money to waste on cultural indulgences.