That you feel able to blithely dismiss content in Scientific American as ‘typical left-wing’ gives you no credibility whatsoever to contribute to a discussion concerning education.
Strangely enough no matter how hard I try I can’t find any dismissal of any source in my comment in this thread. lets check , here is what I said again :
One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.
Yep that’s right no mention of a citation at all…
Good luck sniffing out those ‘cultural marxists’…
Thankfully the sort of willful blindness you exhibit is not contagious.
Did you miss the bit about ‘shoestring budget’? Depending on her parent’s skills etc there is potentially plenty of work available which, while not at all well-paid (e.g. ESL teaching, service sector) provides enough for a very modest life of living abroad. Being wealthy is not required.
One persons shoestring is actually a bloody big anchor rope to another person of lesser means.
I would suggest that there are doctors in the area of womens health who are well and truly aware of the existance of terrorists in the christian community. I would also suggest utilising google before making such bold assertions.
You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of christian anti abortionists willing to kill for their beliefs which is utterly infinitesimally small compared to the number of Muslims willing to kill in the name of Allah. There fore yours is a totally false comparison, And I don’t need to use google to make my argument thank you very much.
Why is a reformation such a good idea? The Reformation in Europe led to the Thirty Years’ War.
But after that war the result was a a christian faith that was more able to cope with social and technological change. Islam needs reform so that it can accept the concept that women are fully human beings and that the individual has an inalienable right to believe or not according to their conscience and most importantly it needs reform because it is totally unacceptable to kill in the name of its god.
‘most pointedly’? Are you serious?
completely serious. as I always am here
How is my exposure to your ‘citations’ more germane than the material I offered to you concerning the cultish misnomer of ‘cultural marxism’?
Your citations are both typical left-wing pieces asserting the same argument that Wilson makes and like you they are big on the ad hominem argument. Taht said I realize now that the Sargon vid I linked you too was just a short promo for a ,much longer one were he interviewed a young journalist involved with the infamous behavior of Melissa Glick.This one gives a better picture of the point I was trying to enunciate
Of course I watched the pieces. That’s precisely why I said I felt dirty. It’s hard to sit through such a garbled mish-mash of half-truth, speculation, partly-understood, context-less, at times barely coherent, self-aggrandizing which, as the Scientific American source I provided to you notes, clearly are inclined to ‘reject all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seek only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth’. There are thinkers on the right I disagree with who are nonetheless worth listening to for a range of reasons. I am a regular reader of The Economist, for instance, which adopts a generally conservative line (particularly on international finance). But those guys? They are utterly remote from any notion of serious sources of credible information or analysis. I hope I never cross their paths again.
I simply don’t believe you actually watched either vid which is why you launch into more character assassination rather than addressing any of the content
I don’t like to accuse anyone I hardly know as being deceitful, but it is difficult to credit your claim that you read ‘far more writers of the left than I do of the right’ if you are willing to describe CB as ‘center left’.
I have been watching his vids for quite some time and its VERY clear that he is what he claims to be , namely an old fashioned small l liberal.
The man is a near-irrational opponent of feminism, just to begin with.
I bet that you think that any one who questions any aspect of contemporary feminism is ” near-irrational” would that be a fair understanding of your position? Because Feminism like any ideology needs to be properly critiqued and questioned rather than just cringingly accepted the way so many men of the left accept it
But perhaps, as with your embrace of the notion that ‘cultural marxism’ is an illuminating concept (did you read the Southern Poverty Law Center piece?) your idea of a ‘left writer’ is somewhat removed from reality.
You see i don’t think that Cultural Marxism explains the entireity of the modern far left, its clearly part of it but much of it stems form the fact that the habit of activism is sadly as addictive as heroin or Crystal meth and that once some cause has been achieved its proponents seek some new social woe to conquer and there in lays the problem because those former radicals now cozily tucked up inside our universities teaching want to relive their glory days of student activism even though their current causes are well, self indulgent bullshit. Its the reason that we on the right are so dismissive of the modern SJWs (like yourself?) they simply don’t seem to realize that they are trampling on the hard fought basic rights of our citizens and trying to institute some truly regressive social changes that diminish us all.
Most pointedly you ignore my question about what exposure you have had to the gentlemen I offered as citations so does that mean I am right that you’ve not watched any of their stuff? I suspect that you are variate like Wilson who bases his opinions on the usual far left critics of Their output rather than listening to what they say and responding to it. As it happens Sargon (real name Carl Benjamin , which is no secret) is one of you classical small l liberals and is a more to the center left and frankly he just has a soft left sort of political output not that you would think so from the way you reacted in horror and the mention of his pseudonym.
I have read widely and I continue to do so and in fact I read far more writers of the left than I do of the right.
So once again I ask you did you watch the pieces I cited or not?
Oh my lord – sargon of akkad and Rocking MrE are your social and political analysts of choice? This is how you think the world works? This is your idea of “well-argued”!?
Yes both gents do a good job at putting a calm and reasoned argument, far better than Jason Wilson any day of the week
My god. Iain.
Iam just a man not a deity
I feel kinda dirty being dragged into the murky nether-realms of patreon-milking internet reaction, but at the same time it’s so illuminating. Such terrifying evidence of the potential echo-chamber effect of the internet, narrowing rather than expanding the range of ideas people are open to considering, slowly swirling so many into an abyss of partisanship and ignorance. Seriously unnerving stuff.
So all you can say in response is an ad hominiem?
Congrats to you for still having a look at the Guardian from time to time; I hope not simply to feed your dismay at all the ‘cultural marxists’ everywhere eroding the foundations of western civilization.
I have always been a political omnivore in my reading, you should try it
Here’s a small thing to consider sometime, if you will — a tiny thread of rationality. Pull it whenever; you may find certain assumptions slowly unravel. Here it is, look:
some of the most trenchant critics of postmodernism are Marxists.
Which is relevant how precisely?
The commentators you seem to favour routinely include postmodernity (and philosophical relativism, not quite the same thing) in the ‘cultural marxist’ rubric.
Says who? because that is not what I hear from either gent.but somehow I doubt that you have even watched their stuff and taht instead taht you are relying on secondhand criticisms.
In reality, Marxism is an expression of the Enlightenment tradition (not the only one of course). Postmodernists seek a radical break with this tradition.
Postmodernity and Marxism is at odds, not part of the same project. See e.g. the writings of Jurgen Habermas or Fredric Jameson.
And how precisely does that counter the concept of cultural marxism?
You need to be real about this Iain. Read. Think. Reason. Don’t just absorb rants.
For example, Herbert Marcuse (of Frankfurt School fame) was teaching at Colombia and Harvard in the 1950s my friend. And you’re suggesting that students ‘indoctrinated’ by cultural marxism are yet to come of age? In academic terms we are talking about some three generations of scholars between then and now. What’s been happening in the meantime?
It takes time for any ideology to reach critical mass and that is precisely what has happened with cultural Marxism its only now since the collapse of Communism that we have seen the rise of cultural Marxism and it began with indoctrinating the educators and now we are seeing it at a retail level.
Turn your attention to the history of the New Left in 60s – so much more was going on than Marxism, whether Orthodox or Cultural. Then look at the rise of the New Right and Neo-Liberalism. Get beyond the lazy distortions and misunderstanding.
O.K. Iain_Hall, I’ll take the bait and reply on one point only.
Ah, I must have used the correct bait says he as he caresses the online fishing rod…
If you found Rudd objectionable enough to stop voting for the ALP, how can you presently vote for the Coalition after Abbott (whom you have previously defended) and Turnbull (who has completely abandoned his previous convictions)?
You make a number of mistaken assumptions here because I have not enunciated why found Rudd so offensive that I gave up a life time of voting for the ALP. There were two issues in play here. Firstly Climate change and secondly Asylum seekers/uninvited immigrants. The former was simply oversold and over hyped and as a skeptic I simply found Rudd’s posturing ridiculousness incarnate. And the second just showed what a detached from reality political player Rudd was. I predicted the flood of boats that followed Rudd’s ill fated decision to ease border security and when it was clear I knew that abandoning Labor as a voting option was the right thing to do. For all of their faults the LNP is very much a lesser evil.
Like you, I have changed my vote over the years, but in the coming election I will place the Coalition last, because it has been a shambolic government, worse than Rudd’s, and it doesn’t deserve a second term.
they certainly have made a few minor mistakes but on the big things they have been pretty good and that is why I will vote for them despite personally preferring Abbott. A labor government would simply not be good for the country.
Wilson’s not defending it — he’s suggesting it’s a chimera, a conspiratorial fantasy; right wing blather.
Well he would say that because he is as I pointed out one of those involved in propagating it. I have known Jason since before he began writing for the Guardian BTW.
If you think he’s ‘totally wrong’ you could at least suggest where and why.
You only have to look at recent activists own goals and protest activities Like this one and their hierarchies of victim hood, safe spaces, trigger warnings and other such nonsense.
The whole story is transparently barmy. If humanities faculties are really geared to brainwashing students into accepting the postulates of far-left ideology, the composition of western parliaments and presidencies and the roaring success of corporate capitalism suggests they’re doing an astoundingly bad job. Anyone who takes a cool look at the last three decades of politics will think it bizarre that anyone could interpret what’s happened as the triumph of an all-powerful left.
This is Jason being rather disingenuous here because the generation of students thus indoctrinated are only now getting to an age when they might be getting into positions of power, The notable example of one getting into a significant office that comes to my mind is Justin Trudeau, who seems to have made a big deal about deciding who would be in his cabinet based on the contents of their underpants rather than because of any ability they may have
Indeed , witness the monotonous lock-step of government policy and neo-liberal economics over decades. So lighten up my friend, remove the tinfoil hat and look about you — even if such a thing (whatever it would actually look like) did exist, its patently failed.
No its only just now that cultural Marxism is on the rise and that is why you can’t see it’s effect
The present system is workable only for the elite, in that it transfers wealth from the “Commonwealth” to corporations and wealthy individuals.
No I don’t agree at all because it is the motivated individuals and corporations who create wealth that is then a benefit to all.
It is bad for the “Duncans” (re. Q&A last night) in our society and the inequality is growing by the day.
I missed QandA so I’ll take that on advisement
And no, I don’t advocate communism or socialism, but a more equitable system such as exists in some countries (e.g. Norway and Switzerland); I just don’t think that today’s economic neoliberalism, as practised in Australia by the two main political parties, is good for the vast majority of its citizens.
Yet the majority of bour citizens are living good and productive lives, we have low unemployment and a high level of personal consumption. Heck even the unemployed can live well enough on the dole if they are frugal
The ALP at least does try to give the battlers an education, a health system and some social welfare, whereas the Coalition, influenced by the likes of the IPA, intends to take everything away from them and give it to the affluent.
The ALP make a pretense of caring but they really have the same tendency to try to contain the costs of their apparent compassion as the LNP does.
As for the Greens, they seem to care for the unfortunate in theory, but they don’t always follow that in practice.
You, Iain_Hall, from your general comments, seem to be a Coalition man through and through (or a shill, but I give you the benefit of the doubt), so it is pointless to discuss anything further.
i have actually voted Labor more often than I have voted LNP and it was not until the rise of Rudd that I decided that I could no longer follow my family tradition of voting for the ALP
Oh now you’re speaking on behalf of mankind? The arrogance is astounding.
I’m actually a humble bloke who values humility. None the less I do have some understanding about our shared human nature
Significant global concerns (that actually impact us all) may not be in ‘your nature’ Hall.
Contemporary news media certainly allows us to see what is happening all around the world but that does not oblige us to care about what happens in communities other than our own and frankly trying to do so can be very bad for your mental health.
But many of us actually give a damn about the state of the earth, future generations, and about those less fortunate than ourselves.
We each only have a certain amount of care and compassion to give my friend, that is the way we are made.
Yet again Hall exposes the ugly side of the White, middle aged, Australian, heterosexual male (someone who has never had to question his slot in society) and his broad apathy for the plight of others. Shameless.
Its pointless having much care or compassion about things we can not change and people we can not save which is not “apathy” its realism and we think like that not because we are in any sense bad but because we are human.
Benny Hill once said if you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
I am making predictions not sharing assumptions
You’d do well to heed his advice. Nowhere did I suggest the Greens. More myopia from the infamous Iain Hall.
You were denouncing both the ALP and the LNP which leave s the Loony Greens as the next cab on the rank. But if I’m wrong to think you meant the Greens then please tell who else do you imagine in power if you have eliminated both the LNP and the ALP?
The Greens would be an utter disaster if they got into power in their own right, we would have open borders for a start and the sort of people flows they have seen in Germany, we would have open slather on narcotic drugs, constant blackouts because they would close down coal fired power. Petrol would be $10 per litre and we would all be forced to become vegetarians.
We dislike change for a very simple reason , so much of it has not been, as promised , beneficial to the majority of us. Remember when Rudd changed the border protection policies? He promised us that this would have no negative consequences, well 50k uninvited “asylum seekers” later and billions of dollars to support them and we still have a residue on Manus and Nauru. Nah give us some “steady as she goes”for a couple of terms at least before we change anything else thank you very much.
Actually the Australian people crave predictability and rest form the constant change that seems to be pursued by the politicla class all of the time. We don’t need teh wheel reinvented every three years what we need is stability, which we won’t get under Shorten
1. Replace all territory, state and federal governments with a single national government, preferably with an elected head of state. This would result in savings and eliminate the excuse of who is responsible for what service.
No it would cost a motza to do and result in no real savings (they tried it with council; amalgamations up here and it was a disaster. If there was to any change you have to realize that you need at least two levels of government, local and national.
2. Replace the existing electoral system with one of proportional representation. This would eliminate the two-party system and give all parties who elect representatives a voice in parliament.
NO NO NO !!!!!! just look at the countries that have PR and see how unstable they are. You would end up with an eternal hung Parliament situation where factional deals benefit those with a balance of power
3. Any important issues should be put directly to the people to decide by referendum, rather than be left at the hands of politicians, a lot of whom often represent vested interests.
As much as I support the proposed plebiscite putting too many things to referendum can be a disaster as we have seen in some places that do this kind of thing
The present system is inequitable, wasteful and tends to favour the elite. It is not a true democratic system, despite being touted as such.
ou mean those “pointless” changes like no-fault divorce,
Being able to divorce as easily as we can marry does have virtue but to imply that the whole family court edifice is perfect when its very deeply flawed is silly
Likewise a far from perfect system open to abuse form activists
rights for Indigenous peoples and,
if those rights exceed the rights of all other Australians is it really such an improvement?
later, the floating of the Australian dollar.
I’ll give you that one
Yeah, pointless if you’re a white, privileged male.
You were doing so well until you decided to take up the line of the cultural Marxists
Every 20 something I know cares and most are more aware and care more about the future than the middle aged people I know.
Maybe they just know that you are a politics junkie and respond accordingly
Maybe it’s the circles you & I move in that gives us our different views. Or, maybe its your personal bias that gives you the dismissive view of youth that you posted.
I think that you will find its only a small percentile of that demographic that care about politics at all.
The ones NOW, who have done their best at school, now in the workforce, never had a pay rise in 5 years, AND WHO WILL NEVER.EVER. be able to afford a home of their own, because of a tax system, designed to make the rich richer, with negative gearing that enables those with 5-10-20 houses, to buy even more, and THEIR taxes help them to do just this. These people make bank robbers look
I don’t believe that a young person won’t ever be able to buy a house, however they will have to actually work hard, save their money and aspire to a modest house just like by nephew who has just taken possession of a smart town house. He worked two jobs and made it happen, just like anyone else can. But so many instead dive right into the consumerist treadmill and very expensive debt to do so.
Tell me what Gen Y of sound mind would vote for a PM on $500,000 p.a base pay, who wants to pay them $4 an hour whilst removing their job opportunities and skills base offshore.
Most would just dream of emulating Turnbulls income
(Holden, Ford, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Telstra, IT, defence contracts, climate science industries, and thats before we even look at the TPA provisions of moving jobs and skills off shore.
And its you socialists who are to blame for that because you have driven up our pay rates to a level that makes our manufacturing noncompetitive
That sounds to me like a politician who doesn’t have any faith in Australia’s economy, the economy their “team” is responsible for managing. We know this because his own immense wealth, reportedly hundreds of millions, is invested off-shore to avoid local tax laws.
I sense great envy in you that someone else can be a success in their life
Actions speak louder than words even when those words carry as little weight as a politicians promise.
Hmm…. have you looked at Shorten lately????
Young Australians care about the Future and there is No Future in the Coalition.
That is utterly wrong, its just that the Coalition encourages people to make their own future while Labor wants to spoon feed everyone a sort of rehashed ersatz socialist future.
The one’s who have parents that teach and educate them to be politically engaged because it effects their lives.
You don’t have children do you? because if you did have you might realize that its not so easy to make them into copies of yourself politically.
The ones who vote, of course And they all do, because voting is compulsory in Australia.
So most see it as a chore or an inconvenience, assuming that they have actually bothered to register to vote
Besides they are more intelligent than you realise and don’t see the value in getting paid $4 an hour
But its not “$4 per hour” in reality bis it? its money on top of their dole which has to be a step up if you have been trying to get by on that pittance
And they wonder why their uni fees are going to triple, locking them into exorbitant loans and out of the housing market for decades to come.
The smart ones will probably avoid going to uni altogether and get into building themselves a career or business, instead of doing a useless “social justice” course.
The reality on education that you will never see labor admit is that its not more money that we need in our schools its a change in the teaching culture to eschew the cultural Marxism with all of its “politically correct” baggage and to focus on actually teaching our children the core skills with a far greater thoroughness than we see now.
No. They did it by cutting taxes and increasing spending. See your own post on this.
Had they not cut the taxes (on Carbon and mining )that they campaigned on abolishing would you be complaining that they failed to keep their promises?
It’s simple. Otherwise they use it to pay down existing debt or keep it in the form of improved profits.
Much to the chagrin of business ordinary consumers do that too
Making sure people have money to spend is the best way to promote business growth and the coalition’s wage policies are exactly not that. Hence this is a reason for my opinion on the coalition’s lack of economic nous.
Less profits that have to go in tax means that businesses can employ more Labour
Actually, the Reserve Bank just agreed with me. Did you see the report? They said that any policy to reduce leverage (i.e. negative gearing, capital gains) would be a good idea. Our economy is too tied up in housing and not in productive growth. Even ScoMo said this last week.Not sure where marxism comes into this.
Growth is not where our economic future lays because nothing can grow forever
That will have a massive negative effect on growth – you are aware of that? Much more than removing negative gearing.
We have enough people here already and NOTHING will deflate the houseing bubble more than reducing population growth.
Actually, the cost of producing alternative energy is now well below the replacement cost of a conventional coal-fired or nuclear powered generator, particularly when you factor in the forward estimates and environmental costs/hidden subsidies.
Which totally ignores my point about not being able to store/export energy
Yup. The national security implications of our loss of production capacity were not even a factor, were they?
No of course not because logistics tells us we don’t have to worry about being invaded
Well I don’t think think religious instruction belongs in schools.
Nor does cultural Marxism but its utterly entrenched and arguably more pernicious than any iteration Christianity
You want your kids to be indoctrinated?
All education is to a greater or lesser extent indoctrination
The state shouldn’t be paying for it. Nor should it be paying for a separate referendum on marriage equality – if it needed to be done as you say (and I don’t agree), then it could have been added to the existing election for a fraction of the cost.
Maybe it would have saved a few quid BUT it would have made that what the election would have been about.
A tiller is a steering device for a boat. A tiler is someone who fixes roofs.
“doubled the deficit,
Due to the residue of Labor policies
have no clear economic policy direction,
that is just your opinion
not understanding that cutting taxes doesn’t result in economic and employment growth,
To be frank I disagree with you here and I also think that the effect of said tax cuts has such a strongly positive effect either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
sending money to the rich where they will waste it in property speculation over jobs-related investment,
That is just marxist nonsense
failing to understand that the housing bubble is currently the biggest threat to our economy and that the heat needs to be taken out of the market,
My solution to housing problem is simple slash immigration and encourage people to live outside of the big three cities.
failed to adequately invest in alternative energy and undermining research just as the rest of the world was putting its foot on the pedal,
Lets be real without costly subsides there would be no “alternative energy” and frankly I don’t see how we can exploit such tech anyway, we have no ability to make the tech and no ability to store and market collected energy. Maybe in a hydrogen economy that might be possible but hydrogen is hard to store/export
only having one policy (dropping the fringe benefits tax) to save the car industry despite its massive flow on benefits to the economy and importance for national security but letting it all fall apart anyway,
The unit cost of cars has fallen so much and the expectations of sophistication has gone up so much that we simply can not compete as a manufacturer with our high wages. The fall of car manufacturing has been coming for decades and it sadly has happened now but it was unavoidable
wasting massive amounts of taxpayer cash on school chaplains
I disagree that this is a waste of money
, marriage equality referendums,
Its the only way to solve this issue
early elections, and pork projects…” um… anything else?*
An election in June when its due in September is hardly that early
Apart from those few things, they have a fairly firm hand on the tiller (not sure who the ’tiler’ was).
Its a steering device for a boat
But at what cost to suffering individuals.
Who precisely are you refereeing to here?
No party in this country is anti the environment
…and their economic record?….really????
Given the mess that they inhered from Labor they are doing OK
despite my unabashed favoring of the current team I do recognize that its all really a game and that no matter what the fanbois here for the other side may say to the contrary the current team have done more that is right than they have done wrong, their fumbles have not been on big things like Rudd’s monumental error in his dismantlement of the pacific solution in 08 or Gillard’s disastrous Carbon tax in 2011. The basic plot of the current soapie just works better for most of the viewers
Iain, thanks. I know you just come here to troll, but you have provided so many people with an opportunity to lost up all the reasons why the LNP doesn’t deserve reelection. So, credit where credit is due, I say.
Yes so many here are lost…
As you must appreciate its the journey as much as the destination and for every one on your team who mouths off against the current incumbents I get a chance to give a good comeback ;o)
Ian, explain how the LNP have not been a disaster in this term….government has been moribound.
They stopped the boats
they abolished the carbon tax
they abolished the mining tax
reduced the numbers in immigration detention
they have been a steady hand on the economic tiler
Ian if your claim is that the LNP are awful because they can not convince the senate to agree with them it only proves the point. They are trying to bring home policies they can’t sell because they are awful! This DD is proof of just that. There is no honour in being a lousy salesman and if you seriously don’t think the last 3 years has been a full on soap opera for the LNP then you aren’t watching!
Totally disagree with all you say here
There is an easy comparison between Libs and Labor for this election.
Libs took office and in less than 3 years have had 2 leaders. Shorten commenced as leader of Labor just after the last election and is still the leader.
That means nothing once you consider how Rudd changed the rules in the ALP
Abbott is still in the wings, hopeful. Turnbull is hanging on by a thread to hold his leadership. And Morrison is waiting in the background ready to make his move.
Wrong, Abbott accepts that his time has come and gone, Morriosn may well be a future PM but he is more than happy where he is now
Even if Libs get into office again, who will lead the party for the 3 year term???
Damned by faint praise Iain. Is that really the best your sorry mob can do? ” vote for us because the others are too risky” sounds pathetic because it is pathetic. The LNP have shown they are divided, out of touch, bereft of policy ideas and increasingly talking like parrots JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH JOBS N GROWTH PIECES OF EIGHT
The Labor party are a party who are tron between the far left and its unrepentant cultural Marxism (hence their embrace of the gay marriage issue) and the troglodytes in the union movement its not a good place for any party to be and it shows in their rather pathetic invocation of “class warfare”
The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters
Which doesn’t come close to explaining your claim that ” most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.”
I wasn’t trying to explain that claim I was countering your point about recent polling is a good predictor of the result
Present tense v future tense. What you claimed as fact you have now admitted was a prediction.
You are not even close to being right
Iain, Direct action. How many billions wasted paying big polluters to undertake projects they were doing anyway? How many billions channeled to ineffective projects by LNP party donors?This is just ONE coalition policy where they have wasted taxpayer money on a massive scale. Doing nothing would have been better.
I’m pretty sure that I have pointed out that I’m no fan of the direct action policies frankly I say we should spend zero dollars on mitigating climate change because then we will have more resources to spend on adaptation if and when we need to adapt to a changed climate.
The current LNP government is the most shameless, deceitful and inept government in my lifetime. They need to spend ten years in the political wilderness rediscovering their own principles.
That is just your confirmation bias in overdrive They are a steady hand on the tiler, who are hardheaded enough to do what was necessary on border control and they are simply better economic managers than Labor can ever be because Labor just won’t stop over-promising and then under-delivering.
Gillard got a hell of a lot more legislation passed in a hung parliament than either Abbott or Turnbull have managed with a majority in both houses. So who is inept?
Yeah sure she managed to pass some bills by selling her sould to those with the balance of power and the current government had to repeal her big ticket items as the first order of business because they were so crappy
People earning less than $80K, the majority, work just as hard as people earning over $80K. The LNP only ensures that the disparity in wage growth continues to grow ever wider.
Those earning less than 80k don’t actually pay that much tax, and they are still enjoying the very large benefit of the rise of the tax free threshold to 18k as well as a host of other benefits. No one’s wages are going up at present unless you can prove that you are worth it.
It appears to me that you are happy with the extreme right opera in the coalition.
The coalition are not in any sense taht matters “extreme right” they are at best center right
Perhaps you are happy to support Andrews, Abetz etc which are really dangerous for Australia.
They are not at the helm of the party or the government
Give me any time the ALP (which it is not my first preference ) before the coalition.
Ok you are clearly a rusted on Green aren’t you? then your vote will not decide the election because that will be those who swing who make the difference over those attached with iron oxide.
You were clearly a big fan of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd soap opera but most of us are so over Labor ineptitude.
Given the polls of late, your statement is just wrong. Labor is slightly ahead and at least line ball.
The election campaign will inevitably remind the voters just how bad the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience was and the part the Bill Shorten played in that soap opera and that will turn around the doubters
Rudd or Gillard are not running for government, nor are they involved in Australian politics at the federal level so your point is moot.
No almost all of the current Labor luminaries are from the alumni of the last disastrous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd experience. Its not the stars of teh soapie who are significanbt here its the showrunners and they are the same people who bought us serries one, two and two point two.
The shambolic IPA led Liberal party has presented enough evidence of ineptitude to last a life time.
On the contrary although the LNP have not been perfect their missteps have been very minor and nothing like the whoppers Labor gave us like the carbon tax and endless boats.
Bit the Libbies are so staggeringly inept. And they lie. And lie. And lie.
The Libbies are only interested in the wealthy and large companies.
No they are simply more interested people having the opportunities to thrive than the state trying to mandate an outcome
They don’t care about ordinary people.
They do actually but they also want to stay out of their lives as much as possible
The want to eviscerate Medicare,
Making it sustainable in the longer term is not eviscerating Medicare
they want to increase subsidies to private schools,
There was none of that in the budget.
they want to cut the minimum wage,
There was none of that in the budget.
they want to up GST.
There was none of that in the budget.
Under their rule, the deficit and the debt have exploded.
Thanks to an intransigent senate
They most definitely do not deserve to win.
According to you, but I expect that the voters will think otherwise.
It’s very difficult to see what point you are trying to make. Climate change due to CO2 emissions is an extremely serious problem. Nobody who isn’t an idiot or a liar would argue otherwise at this point.
Its not that hard to appreciate that as the AGW proposition claims to be a global level problem that NOTHING done here, up to and including shutting down our entire economy will make the slightest bit of difference, except to utterly impoverish our entire nation
Are you saying we should do nothing?
Pretty well if all of the “somethings” will make no difference
Just sit there and dismiss everybody who ever used fossil fuels for anything as a hypocrite?
If they are protesting against “climate change” then expecting them to walk the walk is not unreasonable.
What’s the point of that?
True believers should live what they preach or admit their hypocrisy
What does it achieve?
Nobody doubts that the transition would be difficult.
No its politically and technically impossible
This is essentially the same pathetic distracting tactic as the argument that dismissed Occupy protesters because they bought coffee and owned tents.
Its was valid then and its valid now.
It is strange how little inventive people are. Burning rocks seems to be the only way they can think of as a way to make electricity. It feels like some prefer electricity made from the burning of rocks, as if that electricity somehow taste(sic) better.
On the contrary I fully understand that electricity has no taste
We have a perfectly fine fusion reactor in the sky. We can harvest it in so many ways, as that fusion reactor power the water-cycle, the winds and the currents of this entire planet, in addition to blessing us with a filtered source of short-wave radiation. It provides the energy for basically all kinds of life on the planet. It is a great wonderful thing.
You see if you were a maker of anything then your thinking would tell you that harvesting the energy of the sun is not the real problem with renewables, the problem is storing energy when it is available so that we can use it when its not. At present we do not have a cost effective way of doing that and until we do have viable storage we will continue to need to burn coal.
It will provide perfect amounts of energy for another billion years. After that it may become a bit too effective. In a billion years calculations suggest that the temperatures here may reach the boiling temperature of water. And then we or…something do not want to hang out here any longer.
So what you and I will be long dead by then
The upside is of course that the time is close to twice that of events having happened since the first animals crawled on shore.
So I think we can have faith in our very own thermo-nuclear reactor in the sky. As for burning rocks….so 19th century.
Of course you have faith what else would one expect from the true believer in the Green religion ?
Oh and how many frequent flyer points have you accumulated on your overseas holidays recently?
Oils is fine, oil is great. Just don’t burn it. Are you really this thick? It’s not the plastics themselves that cause CO2 emissions, is it?
You don’t understand the way such plastics are made do you? Nor do you understand how much energy is required to mold those plastics either.
But then you are Iain-Hall, the deeply intransigent disbeliever of all and any form of science that doesn’t fit your small-minded belief system. And cherry picker extraordinaire, whilst I’m at it.
You are right that I am me however I would back my understanding of science against your religious convictions about climate change any day of the week.
The kayaks are being used for the highest good – to make more humans aware and the SAVE planet from further coal emissions.
That is sanctimonious claptrap for a misanthropic religious agenda
Your argument against the protestors is pathetic as is your pro-fossil fuel attitude.
There is nothing pathetic in pointing out the hypocrisy of you millennials when it comes to protests, In my day the boats would have been made by hand and out of wood.
Just how do you think that we can make a quid out of this? We can’t make solar panels at a competitive price, we can’t turn nay collected energy into a storable commodity that we can export. Heck we can’t even supply our own needs 24/7 from renewables, in other words what you advocate can’t work.
If the very worst predictions about the Reef come to pass what will happen is that the reef will effectively migrate south where the seawater will be cooler in the hotter north there will be different species of coral that are better suited to the different to the warmer water.
The thing that this article ignores is that even if they were to get everything that the Tourism operators are asking for it would simply make zero difference to the climate because this is claimed to be a global level issue not something that can be addressed by any national level government.
The essence of my comment was to point out that this current government have finally achieved an effective zero number of children in immigration detention. The fact of the matter is that no government enjoys detaining people, but the cohort in question are clearly playing the odds and they have been more than happy to use their children as bargaining chips in their quest for an immigration outcome. None the less we have gone from more than a thousand children in detention when Labor were in power to now when there are effectively none . Of course you don’t like this turn of events because it makes it a great deal harder for you to denounce the government for “imprisoning children”.
I am a realist and if a child commits a crime heinous enough then I have no trouble seeing them imprisoned, Likewise if someone is nominally a child (IE an adolescent) and they try to circumvent our immigration controls by claiming to be an asylum seeker then I have no trouble with treating them as an adult either.
David, as the article points out and as I noted in my last comment having just two juveniles in immigration detention is not actually any kind of big deal, especially when you realize that we will also have some “children” detained because they have been charged with criminal offenses, The child refereed to in the article is NOT described as an asylum seeker. As you must appreciate there are individuals who are detained by the immigration department because they have either committed a crime here or otherwise invalidated their visa, frankly its more likely that not that these two children HAVE committed a crime which is why they have been detained.
You say with great certainty We shouldn’t gaol children. End of however your sanctimonious statement ignores the fact that children do sometimes commit some rather horrible crimes do you expect that such children should just be sent to the naughty corner?
Oh dear. If you’re just going to do the lying thing it’s a bit pointless, isn’t it? There are children in detention, as you know perfectly well. It speaks volumes about the merits of your argument that you show no hesitation in stooping to this. Truly pathetic.
I stand corrected its seems that according to this article on April 6 that there were just two and it would seem that neither are “asylum seekers”
Frankly that is such a tiny number that my error is insignificant because my substantive point remains that you can’t claim some sort of moral high ground because the thanks to the LNP government we no longer have thousands of children in detention as we did under the ALP
Except of course well north of 90% ARE found to be refugees. But hey, let’s not let the facts get in the way! Mate you’re entitled to hold whatever warped view you like, but it has to be based on something OBJECTIVE, not simply what you reckon – contrary to all the evidence.
Of the latest cohort on Manus less than half have been found to be “refugees” David so you are wrong and the high numbers in the past was an artifact of a far from rigorous process that gave then too much of the benefit of the doubt.
You forget that the more people try to do as you have the more demand there will be for lithium and that will mean an inevitable price rise in the cost of batteries…
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.
Seventy plus responses out of 1278 (not 1400, and yes, I checked) is a relatively small proportion. But you didn’t say that; you described those 70 replies, and your 8000 words, as ‘my tiny involvement’. Unless you’re mentally feeble, with no understanding of commonly used English words, you’ve resorted to intellectual dishonesty, again. Since you claim a degree in English from a reputable university, we really have no choice but to assume the latter.
Sigh the definition of” tiny ” is this :
adjective: tiny; comparative adjective: tinier; superlative adjective: tiniest
“a tiny hummingbird”
synonyms: minute, small-scale, scaled-down, mini, baby, toy, pocket, fun-size, petite, dwarfish, knee-high, miniature, minuscule, microscopic, nanoscopic, infinitesimal, micro, diminutive, pocket-sized, reduced, Lilliputian; More
All rely on a comparison to a larger whole thus my involvement in this thread even at
“70” out of 1285 comments IS a tiny proportion of the whole and my description of said postings as my tiny contribution both accurate and of course entirely honest
And this is how it goes: you pile one intellectually dishonest statement on top of another, as I found out many months ago when I responded to some of your arguments in good faith. I’m long past the point of trying to engage with you on those terms.
But You are the one being dishonest here not I
Rather than do that, I choose to highlight your ongoing intellectual dishonesty, by examining the content and style of your posting. But that certainly doesn’t make me a vigilante moderator.
The content and style of my posting is tot the topic here and by trying to police them you certainly are trying to be a vigilante moderator
Now obviously, you don’t like being criticised like this, but since this isn’t your forum you simply can’t control how other people respond to you.
You are simply meddling in a role that is beyond the remit of any commentator here which is to discuss the topics put up by the staff writers.
If you don’t want to be criticised for being dishonest, don’t be dishonest. That’s entirely within your control. Very little else is. And obviously, if it’s not me criticising you, then it’s going to be someone else. That is the simple reality you have to face.
You have made this claim before it was bullshit before and its bullshit now. your obsession with me will not be placated by anything I do now just as it has never been placated in the past in other forums when you have used other names.
The whole point of these threads is that ordinary folk can discuss the issues and enjoy doing so.
In saying that you highlight exactly why it is that it’s so important that your behaviour is challenged. You aren’t ordinary folk: you’re an extremist with an axe to grind, and have no concern for reality, logic, or decent argument – those things only get in your way. Your ongoing intellectual dishonesty removes any possibility of others here enjoying an argument with you. I’m clearly not the only person to think that.
I am simply not in any sense an “extremist” my political position on the political compass turns out to be slightly left of center in the more libertarian quadrant, And clearly the only one with an axe here to grind is you.
Your intellectual dishonesty is, of course, also extraordinarily arrogant: so far as you’re concerned, the rules of civilised argument simply don’t apply to you.
Lets consider what the rules of civilized behavior are in this place, Hmm It boils down to being polite and affable to your interlocutors and trying to stick to the topic, yep I think I manage to do that pretty well without any major trouble, But lets look at your behavior here by way of contrast… Every comment you have posted to this thread have been intended to bag me personally (contrary to community standards) not one of them has addressed the topic and you have even managed to have about half of those comments disallowed by the real mods so it would seem that YOU are the one who does not get the rules of civilised argument not I
“It’s not hard to see the religiosity of many of the arguments from your side of the issue.”
My side of the issue is that of my fellow scientists. For those not trained in the intellectual rigors of that discipline old habits of thought die hard. I see even more similar patterns among those who deny the science but rather than accuse them of being a religion I criticise their lack of evidence, lack of logic and sheer scholastic sloppiness. Science is a discipline.
I am not trained in the sciences but I have had a life time interest in debating believers about their religion this webpage lays out the science as a religion proposition quite well
But don’t despair because like many religions Science certainly has some good utility when it comes to living our lives better.
Similarly you need to provide evidence for your assertion re scientists such as me; otherwise you are merely expressing a belief, bereft of evidence.
This piece looks at the issue as a matter of semantics
I have some family members who are christian but can’t make sense of their beliefs.
I have long rejected any notion of the supernatural but at the heart of Christianity is the simple notion of treating others as you would wish to be treated and various rather admirable ideas about being kind to each other.
I’ve known christian ministers who have become atheists.
Yes and I have known a few dedicated Marxists who started out as Catholics, maybe the common ground is certainty and a love of central authority
I had a number of colleagues who are muslim and have traveled into the then war zone muslim regions of the southern Philippines. They have the best food.
Not for me, I come form the English tradition of plain food
rather than having so many flavorings added that you can’t taste what you are actually eating.besides which I could never give up bacon!
To remind you yet again of what you should already know: the heart of delusion lies in maintaining an idiosyncratic belief or impression, despite that belief or impression being contradicted by reality or rational argument.
You are over thinking what is an entirely innocuous participation in this comment thread by little old me
And quite clearly, the gap between reality and what you think and say goes directly to the issue of delusion. So let’s see what new evidence you provide.
You are the one who is delusional here
…you obsess with my tiny involvement with a thread that has nearly 1400 comment by other people in it.
The hard reality is that you’ve made more than 70 replies in response to this article, and have pasted considerably more than 8,000 words, yet you characterise that as your ‘tiny involvement’.
I had not bothered to count my comments here but even the most rudimentary math will tell you that even with 70 comments out 1400 is substantially less than one twentieth of a single percentile of the whole thread and unlike your comments (which are all,including the ones removed by the mods, about bagging me) I have been engaging in a civil and affable manner with people like Walsunder and mostly on the topic here as well.
Do numbers as uncomfortable as those really not serve as a wake up call to just how far away your thinking is from reality?
The whole point of these threads is that ordinary folk can discuss the issues and enjoy doing so. I am in fact quite good and keeping to the posting rules here and I really don’t understand why you are so obsessed with confronting me when I comment here. Its simply not your place to play vigilante moderator and if you would stop playing your silly game it would be better for everybody here.
Sadly, the rest of your arguments are hardly any better.
The tory bloke I handed out how to vote cards next to at the recent council elections was mad keen on Rugby Union as are so many of his ilk. In Brisbane Rugby League has always been the working class game.
Another thing we agree on.
As I said I have spent years knocking football of all types now as I get older I enjoy following it as common ground with my two brother which has meant that I have had to try to get may head around its rules and conventions I now think I know enough to just about have a conversation about the game and not sound like a total noob…
“I just don’t rate many of the things done ‘to address climate change’ very highly when it comes to their effectiveness.”
You should give yourself more credit for what you have done as one of the 7.4 billion and as one of the human population of a country with one of the
highest per capita carbon emission rates.
Well I have done my bit when it comes to treading lightly on the planet and I have been really big on reusing and recycling stuff….
That said can I explain why I think that the use of that per capita claim is rather bogus? It does nothing for but suggest, . erroneously, that we are more imprtant in the global equation than we actually are and its only ever raised to activate reader’s guilt chips (mine has long been disabled) in fact its essentially a rather dishonest polemical device invented to let the much bigger emitters like China and India off the hook > In terms of the global problem a per-capita measure of emissions is meaningless. Surely you can see that can’t you?
I have three cats and much experience in their herding. However we are talking about science and its application, something I’ve spent a lifetime doing with some success.
Sure but as you will probably appreciate when you try to herd four cats its exponentially more difficult than heading three of them, five is an order of magnitude more difficult and sic is more difficult again ect ect
We are not talking about religion and singing from the same song sheet. I note that for someone who like myself claims to not do the god thing or religion thing, you keep using the language and ways of thinking of religion and those who talk of god things.
Its a metaphor Wal
As for singing in tune my partner has a good singing voice as has our daughter. I can harmonise passably. These things are somewhat genetic. We got free stout in Ireland.
The point being that singing together is not easy or can be reliably assumed.
“the band you are a big fan of”
I don’t think of my appreciation of the many bands I’ve seen and enjoyed could be classified as fandom. The last wonderful band I heard was that behind Mary Black earlier in the year but at my age fandom is not the right word to describe my appreciation but neither was it the right word to describe my appreciation of Roy Orbison in 1968 or the Talking Heads in 1979.
I was probably at that same Talking Head concert in 79 if it was in Brisbane ! loved that band and the album “more songs about buildings and food”
Musicians are people who’s work I appreciate in much the same way as I appreciate the work of scientific colleagues. Some however are outstanding in what they produce. My partners teenage boyfriend among others invented punk rock and is still very good music. A work colleague did groundbreaking work and received a Nobel Prize and is also still doing good work.
I’m married to a music teacher as it happens.
You talk of ” the faith” that I “have become part of”. I am not part of any faith. Where is your evidence that I am? Are you basing this assertion on your belief rather than evidence?
Like a lot of atheists I have always been fascinated by religion and belief and as such you start to notice the religiosity of believers in lots of things. I have been following the climate issue for a very long time and its not hard to see the religiosity of many of the arguments from your side of the issue.
“Any thread here at the Guardian is usually full of its” (Iain’s religion’s) “true believers.”
How do you know these posts are from true believers in your religion if you don’t attend their church?
I have never been inside a mosque but I none the less know a fair bit about Islam and likewise I have never been a member of any church but I have learned a great deal about Christianity. What irt boils down to is if you engage with the believers in a faith for long enough you do learn a lot about the tenets of that faith over time.
My church going in the last year has unfortunately been restricted to funerals.
Yeah I can dig that a family friend of mine dies unexpectedly yesterday and its very sobering to see how fragile life is.
My partner grew up in a Rugby League mad family. My daughter goes to matches and socialises with some of the players
My immediate family think that I have caught a dread disease because I have taken an interest in league very recently after spending years describing it as “the unspeakable chasing the uneatable” But I do have two brothers who are mad Keen about the game and its nice to share that with them.
If as you claim the carbon footprint of your family is lower than the per-capita average why do you discourage your family? I encourage my large family in their many endevours.
I don’t discourage any of them, in fact I bore the pants off then talking about how to be energy efficient and enthusing about good design and engineering. I just don’t rate many of the things done “to address climate change” very highly when it comes to their effectiveness.
So here you are, an obvious political extremist,
No that is not correct at all did one of those political compass things only last week and I come out slightly to the left of the political center
claiming that you can accurately represent not just your own thoughts on the subject of the UN, but the prior hopes and expectations of two former leaders of the ALP, one of whom was previously the youngest-ever Federal Court judge, went on to become the President of the UN General Assembly, and helped to draft the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.
Its hardly that much of a stretch to suggest that those who created the UN had expectations of it that are different to the current reality. Especially if you have some understanding of the the historical period. Heck all you need to appreciate is that the UN was created in the hope that it would stop war and help resolve international conflicts and compare that to what has happened to see 6taht the expectation has not been realized.
To do that you provide not even a single skerrick of evidence, either of what their expectations were or how the UN has failed them, but let that whole astonishing argument rest on your own authority.
Just read some post WW2 history or go to Doctor Google
So far as I can tell, despite your occasional attempts to claim that it’s just ‘little old me’ behind all of these posts, you genuinely think your authority is enough for an argument of that gravity.
You really are desperate to vilify me at every opportunity aren’t you? I am here in a place were we ordinary folk can discuss the issues de jour in a very casual way and everyone, with you a notable exception, seems to get that its a place for laid back argument more a kin to the back bar of the pub than the hallowed halls of our parliaments or a court of law. As such I am not the one being arrogant here, you are.
The exact same arrogance was on display right at the start of this thread, with your woeful and completely unsupported misrepresentation of government’s primary purpose.
Its simply my opinion and as a conversation starter, given that mine was the first comment its served well enough.
And yet – although you repeatedly pull stunts like these,
What stunt would that be? getting out of bed early enough to be first commenter in a thread?
demonstrate time and again that you’re incapable of presenting or even following a reasoned argument, and clearly have no commitment at all to intellectual honesty
The opinion I started this thread with may be right or wrong but how is it “intellectually dishonest”?
– you have a problem when people wonder if you’re essentially delusional?
I think that YOU are the one who has lost touch with reality here as you obsess with my tiny involvement with a thread that has nearly 1400 comment by other people in it
To remind you of what you should already know: the heart of delusion lies in maintaining an idiosyncratic belief or impression, despite that belief or impression being contradicted by reality or rational argument.
You are clearly projecting your own issues here, But then this is nothing new for you is it? You can change the name, as you have so many times but you can’t change your style or your obsessions.
You say that “in terms of the global whole we are responsible for less than two percent of the whole” (world’s net carbon emissions) so how can we believe that what we do matters when the rest of the world is not really going to dance to the hymn to Gaia?”
The human population of the “global whole” world is 7.4 billion or 296 groups of roughly 25 million people. Almost every one of these groups of 25 million people is responsible for less than 2 % of the total net global carbon emissions. But together in conjunction with our outstanding contribution they make quite an impact. We all contribute. We’re all responsible.
Yes but you miss my point here because getting that whole population to all sing form the same song sheet and to be in tune is like trying to heard cats and about as melodious (how is that for mixed metaphors!)
This is not a matter of belief but a matter of simple mathematics. What every one of those 296 groups of 25 million people do matters. What Australia does matters. What you do matters. We must face up to our responsibilities particularly as a country with one of the highest per capita carbon emissions.
So how precisely are we going to get them singing in tune Wal? My wife is a music teacher so I have seen how hard it is to get one person to sing on key getting 7 billion in tune is nigh on impossible
The the vast majority of those other 295 groups of 25 million people have carbon emissions less than those of Australia and are making efforts to reduce their emissions.
You are kidding yourself on that one, a few are trying a greater number are paying lip-service and the rest think that climate change is a lower priority than waging war or Jihad on their traditional foes.
I’m not familiar with the hymn to Gaia of which you speak. I hope it has a good beat and is fun to dance to. But at least you are being realistic in realising that your funny little religion and its dance rituals will not catch on in the big world outside the appropriately named Mount Mee.
I am not the one trying to propagate that hymn Wall that would be the band you are a bog fan off. My tune is more the hum of the mig welder and the roar of an angle grinder as I work on my current eco friendly project.
I am anonymous for family and political reasons, but am honest about my most enjoyable career in biological and geological science. Will provide a synopsis of my career if you require it.
Does that mean that you family are embarrassed by your political opinions?
As for your CV, thanks for the offer and I’ll take a rain check on that if its OK with you. As I’m sure that you will appreciate anonymous people can make any sort of claim that they please about their qualifications and it is simply impossible to know how truthful they are, Others also use anonymity maliciously to harass and defame people and I am rather sure that the internet would be a far more civil place if everyone was required to post under their own names.
I don’t bother with books on religion particularly those from North America.
maybe you shoukld because then you may understand the faith that you have become part of better.
Do you have any experience with this religion.
Any thread here at the Guardian about climate change is usually full of its true believers and thaey are equally evident on twitter as well
I note that you live on the far outskirts of town where the more fundamentalist and right wing religions often pop up. Haven’t seen any of it here in the city.
If that is so then I have not seen it in the more than thirty years that I have lived in this part of the world, but then I’m an atheist so church going is not part of my life (apart from the occasional wedding or funeral)
Unfortunately the Broncos more experienced players are away at State of Origin camp. It’s hard to relax with my partner screaming at the TV.
Some common ground!
I totally agree that the absentee of star players makes the Broncos weaker however the State of Origin Games make up for it even for the most diehard Bronco fans.
Another day and back into the fray.
As for those of us who carbon emissions are well below our country’s per capita value, such a virtue should be celebrated as it’s far from an empty gesture. Don’t be so disparaging of those who are doing something practical.
Believe it or not but the carbon footprint of my whole family is lower than the per-capita average too.
The commenting lark is not a quest to impress anyone, its a game I play for my own amusement.
In that case, I’m not interested. Like I said; childish.
So are you claiming that your commenting here serves some higher purpose other than your own amusement?
“Coral reefs that have high rates of coral death following bleaching can take many years or decades to recover.”
If you read the report you will see that coral bleaching does not necessary equal coral death as you are suggesting here
I’m afraid Iain that “many years or decades” does not qualify as “a very short period of time”. Who’s sprouting bullshit now?
In terms of climate events it is a short period of time but the report also points out that bleaching does not equal coral death and that only about 5% of the bleached coral will not recover from the bleaching events
There is no absence of global level action as countries around the world, including our own, undertake to reduce their carbon emissions.
Two things about that , is it enough of an effort to have a measurable effect?
Secondly is there any actual empirical evidence that shows reducing Carbon emissions will make a difference to the climate?
The warming of our climate is a response to net carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels increasing our atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm in just over a century. Reducing those net emissions literally reduce the degree of further warming and in time lead to a decline in warming.
Can you cite some empirical evidence that this assertion is verifiably true?
Reduction in our country’s emissions can be achieved without shutting down entire economy as shown by the reductions achieved in 2012/13 and 2013/14 during a period of economic growth. Unfortunately the current governments efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been more expensive, less effective and less practical.
You are missing the point of me mentioning shutting down our entire economy, in terms of the global whole we are responsible for less than two percent of the whole so how can you believe that what we do matters when the rest of the world is not really going to dance to this hymn to Gaia?
So, based on your practicality the way to address what are becoming alarming and very serious environment issues is to ignore (and even airbrush) the truth and do nothing until someone else bothers.
No my approach is to avoid the urge to “just do something, anything” if that “something, anything” makes no difference.
What do you think can be done? Come on you chide me for may cynicism but do you have any bright ideas about how we can even try to address this problem?
The reports of government and intergovernmental agencies of the physical realities uncovered by science are but one step to finding the truth of what’s happening.
In this respect the reports of UN bodies such as UNESCO are no more unreliable in regard to their summaries of the scientific literature than are the reports of government bodies such as GRRMPA.
I would trust an Australian entity far more than one under the control of the UN everyday of the week.
Australia through its Government representatives, Frank Forde and Herbert Evatt, played a key role in the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 in San Francisco following the Second World War.
And sadly it has not really lived up to their expectations and hopes
The many and various UN bodies such as UNESCO, UNICEF, the Human Rights Commission, the WHO, the FAO and thew IMF all play an important role all over the world.
They try too but they are all rather deeply flawed and subject to political agendas of those who run them, for instance the Human rights commission is chaired bay the bloody Saudis at present and you think that fine and dandy???
I’m not familiar with the “Green Religion” and its rites that you are talking about.
In this innovative and deeply felt work, Bron Taylor examines the evolution of “green religions” in North America and beyond: spiritual practices that hold nature as sacred and have in many cases replaced traditional religions. Tracing a wide range of groups—radical environmental activists, lifestyle-focused bioregionalists, surfers, new-agers involved in “ecopsychology,” and groups that hold scientific narratives as sacred—Taylor addresses a central theoretical question: How can environmentally oriented, spiritually motivated individuals and movements be understood as religious when many of them reject religious and supernatural worldviews? The “dark” of the title further expands this idea by emphasizing the depth of believers’ passion and also suggesting a potential shadow side: besides uplifting and inspiring, such religion might mislead, deceive, or in some cases precipitate violence. This book provides a fascinating global tour of the green religious phenomenon, enabling readers to evaluate its worldwide emergence and to assess its role in a critically important religious revolution.
GBRMPA (the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), whose “Coral Bleaching Risk and Impact Assessment Plan”, has the task of managing the impact of coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef.
Yes and I have cited them several time sin this thread
They do not have the task of addressing the underlying cause of bleaching events on that reef and others becoming more severe and more frequent.
Well just tell me what it is that we can do that will make any difference to said events. And No doing something which “may” help in a century or more does not count.
This is the task of other sections of the Australian government and of the governments of other countries concerned with the reduction of net carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Well my point is that such action is simply not going to happen, in fact global emissions are going to keep increasing no matter what we say or do in this country.
In recent years the Australian government has not been doing everything it practically could to address the cause of the global bleaching events we have seen since 1997/98.
what more do you think we can do that will give us tangible results?
A pathetic reply, practically no where on earth is enough being done to combat environment issues and in any case you are simply being obtuse and you know it.
Which is sort of my point. You see first and foremost I am a completely practical man so when someone argues that we need to do something my very first question is always “will that thing do any good?” which is why I don’t buy into there being any advantage in things like ETS or carbon tax regimes. For them to work at all they would have to be operating at a global level with every person on the planet involved. That is simply impossible for political reasons
Your lame attempt to praise the government for censorship on this issue is transparent and clearly demonstrates your real purpose as a right wing apologist.
Besides the fact that wanting to opt out of a Unesco enterprise not being “censorship” I am apologizing for no one here.
The right wing have yet (if ever ) been able to get up to speed on environment issues mainly because greed is more important than actually looking after the world we live in. So much for credibility on the economic future.
No we just like to see effort and treasure expended on things that will actually work where as your side of the polity seems to be really big on making gestures that have one one result which is to signal your “climate virtue”
Hook, line, sinker, rod and boat.
On a mobile phone, avatars area hard to discern.
Kept you busy.
Thought you might have been on a phone, I stick to my PC which has clear advantages namely a proper keyboard and no predictive text even so I am sadly not immune to typos.
You did not even try to answer my question, you just give a vacuous response that I’d expect from a schoolchild, and then whinged about being asked difficult questions to do with the law and stuff.
OK I’ll try to give you what you want, all government needs revenue to function and in this country that revenue is raised by levying taxation on the economic activities of our residents and citizens. Naturally enough it is more a more sustainable revenue stream if the administration runs its affairs in a way that facilitates the creation of prosperity. Thus, as I said earlier, the entire Constitution implicitly prioritizes protecting our economic activity above the needs of other countries or non citizen individuals.
You don’t impress anybody by posting screeds of responses all of the same low quality “argument”.
The commenting lark is not a quest to impress anyone, its a game I play for my own amusement.
So why do you condone government lying, if you are confident all is being done ?
In what way is the government being untruthful here?
Or is striking evidence from the record not lying, including lying to your paying customers, the tourists?
No one has struck anything “from the record” the department simply did not want to have anything to do with a corrupt and worthless UN instrumentality.
Your reply post to me is as fatuous and as superficial as all of your posts.
Just took the time to check out exactly how I last responded too you and I think that I gave reasonable responses to each of your err “arguments” so as you wnat serious lets consider just how well you practice wht you preach shall we?
You possess little in the way of knowledge and you can not engage in mature argument at all and the infantile rubbish you post is worthless.
Empty assertion and insult is all we have in this sentence
As for being old well you certainly seem to have wasted your life because judging by your posts you do not possess either the academic back ground or anything more than a rudimentary education.
I have a degree from Queensland University as it happens and there is no way that you are in any sort of position to judge my life as wasted. Essentailly this sentence is like the one before it just more ad hominem fallacy.
You will never change anyone’s opinion on here or any other sight(sic) if any of these post(sic) are your usual effort quite simply because you can not put aside the stupidity and form a cohesive argument that makes any sense.
Essentailly this sentence is like the one before it just more ad hominem fallacy.You see its like this, if you always play the commenting game on “easy”, as you do, by seeking out a place where you know that will be accompanied by many ideological fellow travelers its easy to get up votes for your comments an to therefore have a false sense of your own self worth. But what you are really doing is kidding yourself. On the other hand I know that I have to work more to be appreciated here. I am playing the game here on “hard” and therefore each up-vote I receive is actually worth more to me because it takes more effort to earn it.
As for humour do not fool yourself any further you just come across as ignorant, stupid and infantile.
I pointed out that you have no sense of humour and you respond in an utterly humourless way with more insults
As for proving anything to you about my public or private life forget it as for referencing my comments get off your lazy butt and do it yourself age does not give you the right to be an ass nor does it prove you are knowledgeable.
It is simply good manners and good form to provide links to any thing that you quote in a comments thread, clearly you have neither.
If you wrote posts that produced a cohesive argument and respect for the argument and the people who give their time to engage with you then the tone of the replies to you would begin to show some respect instead of the derision shown here.
No one is holding a gun to you head and forcing you to respond to my comments, as for tone I simply respond in kind to my interlocutors, often with sarcasm but that is what we grown ups do.
As I said before grow up.
Right back at you because I sense a great deal of emotional in your arguments where you would be better served reason.
I will leave you to your trolling.
LOL you should try using less of the ad hominem fallacy.
On the contrary it shows that we won’t waste time and effort on empty gestures to signal our climate virtue
You’ve just spent four hours pretending that Australia’s economy is more important than the future of the entire planet.
No that is not my argument at all, and I have not spent that much time on this site either
You’ll probably be shocked when no one heeds your cry for help when a tsunami fails to quell the relentless forest fires in the outback.
We call them “bushfires” here so I guess that you are not an Aussie are you?
You might want to heed Adam Hills’ advice about being a dick.
If I wanted advice about being a Dick I would certainly look to one as experienced as Adam Hills.
You might have been correct except the fact that our unique environment, (what our tourism is based on) will be destroyed and therefore any tourism with it. You aired against yourself which is a unique achievement.
You are working on an erroneous assumption that “addressing climate change” is going to be at all effective in solving the bleaching issues of the Barrier reef Frankly if you read what the government is actually doing you will see that they ARE doing everything humanly possible to deal with the issue.
In the very short term perspective, here that means tomorrow and the next few weeks, the Australian government may be taking the right course of action.
In the long term it is taking the worst possible course of action.
What more do you think we can do?
The Australian government needs to take it’s head out of the sands of denial and start implementing some positive actions to combat climate change.
you do understand that we can only have any effect on about 2% of global emissions don’t you? Even if the AGW proposition is absolutely correct how do you think that we could do anything more than we are doing now?
Back to the old superhero of the intellectual right, stuff, eh?
You need to lighten up a great deal, its Friday, kick of your shoes crack a cold one and chill out a bit, if it takes your fancy there is Friday night football and its Broncos v Wests Tigers playing so it should be a good game
I am here because I love a good argument…
And that old lie as well! Bingo!
What other reason would I be here for? and why would I lie about it anyway?
That’s not a given. What immunity to testing by the scientific method? The proposition or hypothesis that the global warming of the last century is due to net carbon dioxide emissions from humans burning fossil fuels has been well tested by the scientific method and is now an established theory to explain observations.
You really don’t seem to understand the scientific method Wal
As what is being told about is reality there is no need for personal belief. Hence your thoughts are based on an error that you have made.
I’m not trying to be a smart-arse here but is English your first language? because what you have given me above simply makes no sense.
except that what is being discussed above is reality and I doubt that anyone whatever their politics are in love with that reality. It says much about your state of mind that reality is toxic to you.
I think after reading your comment here my grasp of reality must be a great deal firmer than yours is.
What would be better ? To protect the economy by actually taking real action on orotecting the environment and thereby protecting it in to the future or to protect economic enterprises by airbrushing the truth that the environment is under real threat, the barrier reef ( as an example ) is under severe and irreversible threat and the more people that know that will mean more people will seek to protect it. Censorship and head in the sand thinking is promoting short term ignorance at the cost of long term economic viability.
If you go to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority website and check out what they are actually doing about the problem then you may see that they are doing everything that is humanly possible and unless you have any better practical suggestion of how they can better address the issue then please share it.
The “lies and half truths of you panic merchants” is Iain’s term for the reality of 50% coral bleaching on the northern Great Barrier Reef.
Actually what I am trying to point out here is that the government through the GBRMPA is doing everything that it practically can to address this problem (see the PDF here) but typically those of you who have got the Green religion all seem to think that what is really needed is some sort of expensive but futile genuflection to Gaia even though those particular actions will make no practical difference to the climate in the foreseeable future
With your present attitude towards environmental issues the elimination of the Australian people would seem to be a priority.
You certainly deserve the Eichmann prize for silly justifications for genocide! Please enlighten me as to why the attitude of this humble scribe to the environment would justify the the murder of 20 million of my fellow Aussies?
Pathetic and sad. All that proves is that you’re incapable of discussing issues at an adult level.
really you have the gall to say that here? Have you not noticed that a goodly proportion of those who comment here just want to vent their hatred of the government? On the other hand I do try to answer all of those I engage with politiely and in affable manner and you can’t be more adult than that.
If the Australian government wanted to protect the interests of our economic enterprises they would not only support accurate reporting on the risks climate change poses to our natural assets and the knock on impacts on tourism, they would be taking serious action to address climate change.
In the absence of any coordinated global level “action” nothing that our government can do (up to and including shutting down our entire economy) will make the slightest bit of difference to the climate.
So what precisely do you think that we can actually do?
That they are doing neither shows they don’t give a shit.
On the coronary it shows that we won’t waste time and effort on empty gestures to signal our climate virtue
You make assumption after unsubstantiated assumption not unusual for someone who can not support argument.
When your interlocutors are hiding behind a pseudonym as you do one is forced to use deduction to determine their bonafides
My private history is none of your business but I have been an extremely successful farmer who never needed or required government assistance unlike some of my lazy and stupid brethren who spend too much money on cars, equipment and holidays when they don’t have the money and can never seem to save in case of problems with the weather or pests (including moronic LNP politicians).
I’ll take that on face value
Instead of posting something as childish and idiotic as –
“Those Karl Marx underpants of yours must be awfully uncomfortable becase they are obviously TOO tight.”
Your sense of humor has obviously had a by-pass. In my experience an excess of dour sanctimony is a sure sign of the regressive left’s pernicious influence.
Do something original like stick to the subject or perhaps ask a question or writing something less infantile than a 10 year old.
Lighten up and try being more generous in debate, you may both enjoy the process more and have a better chance of convincing other that you are correct.
Actually Australia has become one of the worst countries in managing its environmental assets and now ranks as the 12th most polluting country per capita in the world.
When ever we see something with a “per capita” caveat we should know that some one is feeding us bullshit, especially when they provide no citation for their claim
Try reading, try researching try to assimilate some knowledge before making and absolute twat of yourself online or answering my posts.
What make your posts so special? you are just another anonymous AGW blowhard
Finally it is more than obvious that your knowledge on the subject of farming is not even rudimentary it could not even pass as superficial and I’m more than confident in saying that if you have ever farmed then your endeavour would not have been successful.
Simple question for you given you claim to be a successful farmer, when using any fertilizer were you always mindful of using it frugally because you were aware of the downstream effects and the need to reduce the cost of production?
Laziness is the bane of many people and your superficial one answers lack even a hint of intelligence and instead are reliant on poorly written innuendo and stupid insults.
I see that you don’t get sarcasm and banter
I wish I was still young enough that I could “grow up” However as I’m actually an old codger I will just continue as I am thank you very much
When the reef is gone, what will you say to all the tourism operators?
The reef will not be gone any time soon, what may happen though is that there could be some changes at its northern limits if the seas remain too warm on a consistent basis, I expect also that we may see it extend further south into waters that are currently too cool. The bottom line though is that there will remain a tourist attraction of great beauty long after you and I are gone from this world .
Iain, you can paint a shit chrome but you can’t turn it into silver.
Clearly metallurgy is not your strong-point. Firstly one does not apply chrome as a paint its usually applied by way of electroplating and on top of that Chromium is an entirely different element to silver
Keep trying though buddy, it’s fun to read
I aim to have fun commenting here so I am glad to have fans of any sort, even those with an unusually high pitched singing voice thanks to the surgeon’s knife like yourself.
If it’s a religious movement Ian then you will burn in hell, the hell created by wilfully blind zealous bigots like you and other science-denying idiots.
As a life long atheist I have long been immune to threats of eternal damnation
It’s not a matter of left and right Ian, it’s a matter of right and wrong. And you are manifestly wrong.
Given the immunity of the AGW proposition to testing by the scientific method I don’t think that you can be so sure that I am wrong.
Pathetic and sad. All that proves is that you’re incapable of discussing issues at an adult level.
The first step towards winning any debate is to get your opponents to argue on your terms and I won’t fall for your attempt to get the debate focused on the minutiae of our constitution.
Try something other than pedantry and leagalese
Its is the lies and half truths of you panic merchants that I object to on this occasion which is why I think the government has done the right thing here.
See here’s the thing Iain, I don’t agree that I tell lies on the subject of climate change
.Telling a “lie” does by definition require an intent to deceive.
You think I do and you object, which is fair enough.
I think that you personally believe that you are telling the truth, but that belief is erroneous.
But you tacitly admit that the Government tells lies and you approve of it.
If that was what I wanted to say I would just say it, that said I recognize that in the game of politics all players dance around the dichotomy between discretion and open veracity
One side can lie, the other side cannot.
That makes you a hypocrite, Iain.
The thing is I reject your claim here, Both sides are adept at the dance of truth and how well they each manage to impress with their moves is the point of the game.
Your comments provide a compelling argument that elements of the LNP and their apologists should not be trusted with governing a progressive modern democracy.
Well thankfully ours is a “modern democracy” rather than ” progressive modern democracy”
You make statements that beggar belief with the use of false premise (primary purpose) , straw man tactics (usual suspects) and simplistic and Imprecise assumptions.
How is my premise false?
How does my turn of phrase constitute “straw man tactics”?
‘Usual suspects’? Suspected of what?, ‘self flagellation’ another attempt to insert demeaning and emotive terms to support a weak and trite argument.
Sigh you are obviously unfamiliar with my allusion to the classic film Casablanca which would see the corrupt police chief (played by Claude Raines) order his flunkies to “round up the usual suspects” Its a light hearted way of describing your fellow activists. As for Self-flagellation well its a most apt allusion to the pennants of the middle ages who thought that by the infliction of self punishment they could buy their way out of Purgatory.
I think it is a good thing that you post here because you set a benchmark that we can all use as a reminder that our concern for the future is justified. Could it be that you are actually planted to cement those concerns?
I am here because I love a good argument and because I think that so many ideas that the Regressive left are in love with are actual toxic and should be challenged here as much as anywhere else.
I know you love facts, text, credible sources, cut and paste and slabs of information and have tried to get me removed in your previous posts and report button hits, whining that information I present doesn’t conform to community standards!
Oh you are the same person who has had three different identities over the last few months alone, by way of contrast I have been posting here under my own name since 4 Jun 2013 so what does that say about who can play the game here properly?
It would seem to me that your citations are arguing that Unesco is corrupt therefore we should have nothing to do with anything it does, which is another good reason that any efforts to have Australia removed form its pronouncements is a good thing on that basis alone. That siad I have just heard on the ABC that the minster is saying theta he knew nothing of the report at all anyway.
Iain, you are so wrong mate. Get your head outta your asre and realise that there will be zero interest from abroad once the word gets out on social media…..and tell that to your pollies mate..fukcing idiots.
You must be young because what so many of the twitterati fail to realize is that social media is utterly ephemeral and its a left wing bubble that is largely disconnected from the greater realities of our polity.
I wonder how much tourism dollars will flow in once all the coral is bleached and there’s no marine life to see cos it’s moved on elsewhere….
Coral reefs are actually very resilient and in a very short period of time those areas that have experienced bleaching will recover, just as they have many times in the past.
Iain, perhaps you need to educate yourself about the economic impact of climate change on Australia.
The climate has NEVER been static and what we need to be and therefore do is flexible so that we can exploit the opportunities that a tinge in the climate may bring and survive the challenges that it also delivers
Pretending it isn’t happening won’t make it go away.
Likewise panicking about the things that may never happen is a great waste of effort and emotional energy. Being able to adapt if and when we have to is a far better thing to aspire to than just jumping up and down screaming “the sky is falling!!!! “
Your usual support for Coalition lies, deceit, disinformation, secrecy, lack of transparency, censorship….a faithful factotum of the Coalition, couldn’t give a damn about the corruption as long as his Coalition is in power.
Breathe, man, breathe….
Sick stuff mate, an enemy of the state those that adhere to such a prescription for ‘democracy’.
You need to work on your sentence structure; because this one makes no sense at all
Iain , you are absolutely correct BUT with one slight edit, it should read………
“It is the “CURRENT Australian governments……………………….”
No my original claim need no edit
and there in lies the problem and why the Govt. must change at the next election
The Labor party should be kept as far away from the treasury benches as long as is humanly possible until they learn to have greater fiscal responsibility, most especially we need to see them embrace the idea that they should promise less but deliver more.
Yes Iain, climate change is all a left wing plot invented just to annoy you.
No its a religious movement exploiting our secular age and the misanthropic tendency of you minions of the left… Any annoyance that it may give me is incidental rather than being a core intention.
They’ve done the right thing?
Yes, of course they have if your one of there mates and you’re running off with pockets full of tax payers money!
We are not talking about Labor and the Greens
The neoliberal LNP have covered up extensive abuse of the Australian environment that the Australian tax payers will in the long term have to pay for.
We are one of the better countries in the world when it comes to managing our environmental assets as it happens
And they done it for what and who?
The Australian People that’s who
A bunch of neoliberal hangers on who have ripped the guts out of the environment for dodgy developments and farming practises for nothing more than unsustainable short term gain. Short term gain that only these few dishonest farmers and developers will get any benefit from.
I bet that you have never been closer to any sort of agriculture than the produce section of the supermarket, because if you had any experience then you would understand how hard our farmers try to control the use of fertilizers simply because they are not cheap and more importantly because these men and women of the land do think about the future far more than you give them credit for.
This sort of behaviour is nothing new from neoliberal LNP governments and is just the same as little Johnny Howard wasting over a decade’s worth of profits from irreplaceable natural resources that were shipped overseas and the forgone tax used to pad out the profits of despicably dishonest companies that headquartered themselves oversea to avoid even more tax.
Those Karl Marx underpants of yours must be awfully uncomfortable becase they are obviously TOO tight.
The LNP have a long record of funnelling wealth up the ladder to corporations and wealthy individuals and that money mostly ends off overseas in the pockets of non Australians leaving us the tax payer to clean up useless developments and polluted, toxic mine sights(sic). With just a nudge and wink to the companies to get out before they are caught.
Your should try reading something other than Das Kapital
The Australian government’s primary purpose was to hide it’s gross dereliction in addressing climate change in any meaningful way.
You may not have noticed that the Labor party is not currently in office (thankfully!) and the current scheme, for all of its shortcomings has met all of its targets at a rather modest cost.
Bullshit, the Australian government has multiple responsibilities to its citizens
Sure but I suspect that you failed to notice that I cited the PRIMARY responsibility not the ONLY one.
and it is irresponsible to reduce everything to crude market economics that always gets prices wrong because it does not factor in the social and environmental costs of production.
And I wads not doing that either
Unfortunately we are all stuck on the same planet together where a capitalist creed of self interested parasites operate at the great expense of the Australian people and it flora and fauna.
Capitalism may be imperfect but it actually works better than any of the socialist alternatives that failed so badly during the latter part of the last century .
The Australian government’s primary purpose is to protect the interests of our economic enterprises and they have therefore done the right thing here. Of course the usual suspects here will argue that instead we should engage in endless self flagellation and have no regard to the one species that minions of the left fervently wish would become extict, namely the Australian people.
Gee you sound just like two other “people” who thought that pasting big slabs of far left text from elsewhere constitutes a proper comment. It doesn’t actually and in fact its against the community guidelines.
That said had the Labor party’s NBN conception been commercially viable then it would not have been necessary for the government to create a more affordable option. Interestingly I had a conversation with a group of people at may local library yesterday and while we all had our beefs about the quality of the broadband that we can get the conclusion that we came to was this, what we need is reliable internet, rather than the Ferrari that Labor promised we all agreed that a Ford would be adequate, especially if it meant that those of us in more rural circumstances would have a chance to get improved services sooner.
Iain, c’mon, if you can’t do better than this, give it up. Of course, lowered carbon emissions for a few years didn’t impact on the climate.
So how long will it take before we can see any results then Jane? You clearly believe that emission reductions will be a big part of the “cure” so how long will it take before we can see a result?
Do you know anything at all about climate science?
Clearly more than you do
Maybe you should learn more about this and less about merely asserting free market ideology.
Never been a big fan of “free market ideology” as it happens in fact quite teh opposite on this issue because I think that all dreivitives trading (of which the carbon market is an example) is either/or a giant Ponzi scheme or a form of gambling wearing a sort of false cloak of respectability.
Still not the point, Iain. Are you by any chance a lawyer?
It is precisely the point.
Look imagine that you have a slow degenerative disease, like say MS now we know very well that this disease is untreatble and then a man comes along and offers a cure that will make regular withdraws from your wallet with the vague nation that the payments will eventually make some small chnage to your condition and some vague time into the future. how long would you keep paying for the “cure” without seeing any tangible result? One year five years Of fifty years?
Its the same with all of those ETS and Carbon tax schemes; Vague promises of an effect that are not due to be met within our lifetimes, Yet you are absolutely certain that they will work because some white coated priest has insisted that they will.
Basically you’re saying that Australians are too lazy to foster a basic level of science literacy.
ERR… No that is not what I am saying at all
You don’t get to “buy the claims”, no more than you get to tell a surgeon how to remove a tumour.
Its a figure of speech that you obviously don’t understand, as for surgery, as much as I respect and admire the skills involved (and I have watched a fair bit of it online because I am interested in such things) the principles are actually quite simple its like anything else that humans do with tools and in many ways rather akin plumbing.
This is the greatest challenge – How to educate people who are so arrogant in their (complete lack of) knowledge that they refuse to “believe”? (emphasis on “believe”, as if you get a choice to “believe” in science or not).
My point which obviously needs reiteration to you is extremely simple we are told repeatedly that if we reduce emissions of CO2 it will mitigate the prophesied climate change I just want to know how will we even know of things like the European ETS scheme (which has been running for more than a decade ) has made the slightest bit of difference?
You clearly believe in this Green religion but I want to see some empirical data that shows all of these efforts worth it.
2) carbon emissions went down when the ETS was operating, so it did have some effect.
The issue is not that carbon emissions may have decreased but did that decrease make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. I say it made NO measurable difference.
Not the point, Iain. You said that we simply don’t buy the claims that these measures will make the tiniest bit of difference to the climate Just you and a few other denizens of the deniosphere believe that. We do not accept your and your fellow-travellers’ claims.
If that were the case then you would have no trouble at all demonstrating just how the climate has been positively improved by any one of the existing schemes, like the long standing ETS in Europe. Can you show any difference to the climate as a consequence of that scheme having existed? ANY Difference?
The facts are simply this, if there has been a difference because of the existing schemes then we simply can not measure it they are precisely like this
Just look at the ALP primary vote figure is still well below 40% and as such Labor can not win on that.
The ALP is not proposing a tax; they advocate an ETS, which is different.
Call it what you like Janeee in the eyes of teh public is still an unnecessary impost that has the same fouls smell as Gillard’s unloved Carbon tax
Face it, you only have to imagine you hear the word tax and you need a sedative and a lie down.
On the contrary I fine with taxes in general its Taxes imposed on a bullshit pretext that I detest.
Bill Shorten has put an ETS squarely on the agenda and it isn’t hurting him in the polls, despite the less favourable economic climate post GFC. You focus on the individual cost of addressing climate change, but don’t consider the costs of NOT addressing it. People will work it out if the case is made properly.
The coalition have not even really began to eviscerate Shorten on his attempt to revive the carbon tax but you can be certain that their advertising closer to the poll will make sure the electorate has a comparison with Labor’s now abolished tax and this new iteration. The only reason that he released this policy so early was in the hope that it will fall off the people’s radar by polling day. He is going to be sadly disappointed barbecue people do not forget how Labor has form for lying about energy taxes and they will down vote them as a consequence.
Surely the biggest impediment to any development in indigenous areas is the absence of a tradition of good governance and sound management practices of both communities and projects. Get that right and there will be lots of progress but if you can’t achieve these things then we will still be reading about the “promise” of development in a decade from now.
Well it seems to me that you are counting chickens that are very far from being hatched here. I don’t usually think much of NM because its is so far too the left but I do agree that with such a long campaign this election is going to all be about attrition and to that end the government is taking the right approach of chipping away steadily at the ALP’s credibility and no where are Labor weaker than they are on their accounting and costings.
Actually he’s trying to conflate live exports and drownings at sea as an unsubstantiated attack on Labor. Pretty obvious.
No its more of a suggestion that Indonesia facilitated more boats as payback for the Gillard’s ban and its not an unreasonable suggestion that does fit the historical facts. Gillard like most Labor leaders was shit scared of anything that would further antagonize the inner city luvvies who would desert Labor for the Greens so instead of using a more delicate and considered mechanism to address those cruelty issues she chose the blunt instrument of a export ban. Indonesia has never been afraid to use the “asylum seekers” as a foreign policy tool and all that Barnaby has done is suggest that the increase in numbers at the time could well have been deliberate rather than a coincidence.
Rather typically you seem to think that we should be Kowtowing to Indonesia all of the time, but I don’t think they would respect us if we did so. Barnaby is very clearly talking to his own rural constituency when he talks about the disastrous suspension of the Live cattle trade done to placate the inner city trendies because it was they who suffered real loses because the Gillard government were too stupid to address the bad optics in a way that did not harm our own interests in the process.
I think your suggestion for swags is good for that small percentage who are homeless by nature, by that I mean those who refuse to seek help and somehow can’t stay in a job/ house.
Glad we agree on this
But the greater proportion of homeless people can be helped, and do seek it. Mostly this is people with children. For those, money is the only solution. Receiving their first month rent, and help with other services and advocacy, is the difference between getting a step up and being left to sleep rough/ kids being taken into care.
Sure I appreciate that, most people in this category are clearly “savable” with intervention but for many its just a short step down into the first category of permanent inability to maintain a place to live.
As for the ‘inherently homeless’, I just think we need to change our view of them. Homeless can be a way of life. Understanding them and treating them as a non threatening element of society, would be refreshing.
I agree with that too which is why I endorse the services that help mitigate the worst aspects of their situation, the ability to be clean and to have a decent meal and a warm and dry billet does wonders for the well being of the destitute
I have personally been through various situations. I realised a house isn’t a home necessarily, and for many people, home was something that was destroyed very early on…
Yes I can appreciate that I have not ever been destitute but then I had parents who lived through WW2 in England and they inculcated all of their offspring with the importance of first paying your rent, then your tucker, then any luxuries. The easy credit culture that we now have often leads people into terrible debt and an inability to manage their lives in a sustainable way. Once you have debts you can’t pay its easy to end up homeless and as I expect you clearly understand once you have gone over that cliff its bloody hard to get on your feet again. But for that economic resurrection to “take” you have to chnage your habits and THAT is more of an impediment to solving the homelessness problem than a lack of money.
The point that so many who opine about the homeless ignore is that there will always a small percentage of our population who can’t manage their lives well enough to maintain a roof over their heads and short of running their lives in a very paternalistic manner no amount of money is going to “save” them from their own vices. I long ago concluded the best solution to the homelessness problem was two fold firstly for those who need it give them a “street swag” so they can sleep warm and dry and secondly arrange for them to have a locker of sorts where they can store their possessions during the day. Services like the mobile laundry and grooming services have value too but anyone who claims that the problem can be solved by just more throwing money at it is simply kidding themselves.
Julie Bishop glowing – think you need to adjust the brightness on your set.
I was speaking metaphorically as you must know.
The only thing glowing about Bishop was her fake tan running into the crevasses of the bitter black holes she calls eyes.
That ideological underwear is a few sizes too small
Angry is the word I’d use.
If your read of her emotion is that far off you have a problem with your perceptions
All the fascists are angry when they have a fight on their hands as it confuses their born to rule mentality.
Read less Karl Marx its rotting your brain…
6 weeks to go…the LNP will self implode the further it goes,
No they won’t, they are a very disciplined crew
forever attempting raids,
The AFP does not dance to the LNP tune
vilifying displaced people,
punishing those telling the truth by law. and trying one desperate measure after another in their now familiar race to the bottom politics (thanks Johnny).
The applause was for Pyne’s gifts as a rather arch and camp panto villain. I’m always reminded of Kenneth Williams in Carry On mode. He could be hilarious, but you were never in any doubt that there was a deeply troubled and unpleasant individual underneath.
You are amazing;y wrong on both counts, Christopher Pyne is a good minister and a very erudite man to boot and for the most part there was never much real malice in any of Williams Carry on characters, and the man himself was, like Pyne, a real gentleman.
Iain, Newspoll says Coalition majorly on the nose.
If you read more that Guardian headline you will see that Labor have not made much of an improvement in their primary vote at all, and Turnbull is still much preferred over Shorten as PM. At best you could say its even money
If you are relying on a fucking TV audience to get your electoral poll results you are in serious trouble.
Qanda audiences are almost always left leaning which is why I noted Pyne’s good reception there
Newspoll is the one poll even more accurate than the bookies.
No, the only poll that is ever truly accurate is the one counted on the night of the election
I watched the Bishop interview, but with the sound turned off. The effect was startling, because her face was so mobile, smiling, eyes dancing, radiating and glowing as though she had not a care in the world, she was almost flirting with the camera, and the sum effect was that she was trying too hard to project a message that “everything is fine here”.
You may not like it but what you have just said confirms what I posited earlier namely that the government are traveling well and not in despair as joey Rocca was claiming( I don’t think she was actually “trying too hard BTW)
It has nothing to do with like or dislike, she had an easy ride on 7.30 last night.
Why do you think that such interviews should be confrontational?
I get out plenty, the scare and lie campaigns are not working this time.
Yes, I don’t think much of Labor’s campaign either.
The LNP are blasting all sorts of Ads and nonsense, I tune out very quickly nothing of substance in them.
frankly most of teh Colalition ads I have seen have been quite positive so far (and I am a subscriber to their youtube feed.
Labor more than deserve to govern, these last 3 years of destruction and inaction from the Coalition have been a disgrace.
What do you mean by that in bold?
You must have your mind closed wide shut if you can not see the damage this government has done over the last 3 years.
Pray tell us precisely what you think the problems have been, Bet you nominate asylum seekers, Gay marriage and Climate change
How does a doubling of the deficit and the imminent loss of the triple A rating strike you?
Not a big deal actually but if the senate had not been so obstructive that would not have happened as you well know
Pyne, ? Australia’s answer to Donald Duck, but slightly less intelligent.
Bishop, ? Bring my helicopter round James, we don’t want to be driving as much as 50 miles to-day do we. After all $5k is peanuts for a “Politician” when it’s only taxpayers money we are blowing
i think that your Che Guevara underpants are too tight matey, they are cutting off the circulation to your brain….
Come off it, she is pathetic.
we get that you don’t like her but you prejudice probably means that you did not even watch the interview that I was alluding to.
Labor has come a long way and all the dirt and muck the Coalition tries on is failing.
Of course labor have come a long way but I simply don’t think they have come far enough to deserve government, they need quite a bit more of time in opposition.
As for the effectiveness of the government campaigns, well if you get outside of the Guardian left wing bubble you will probably find a very different picture of how effective they are.
If you don’t want to be identified as an LNP shill, I recommend losing the “Rudd/Gillard/Rudd” bit . . . it’s a bit of a giveaway.
I have been using that term for longer than the LNP have and I will continue to do so because its a great way to remind people of just how dysfunctional the ALP were when they were last in government.
Your a dill mate.
No just a conservative
Nobody has worshiped Gaia since well before the Council of Nicea made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire when the worship of the Greek Dark Age mother goddess was pretty much extinct.
Who said anything about worshiping an ancient deity?
Confusing a dead religion with the scientific Gaia Hypothesis, which turns out to now to be an accepted theory, as taught in Earth Systems Science modules in Universities around the world just shows was a bigoted uniformed closed minded petty individual you really are.
I am not at all confused but you are right that I am alluding to Lovelock’s hypothesis but you are confused yourself if you think that my metaphor is meant to be read literally. Its a simple descriptor for the the way that the Greens seem to think that Humanity is an antagonist to the biosphere rather than being as much a p[art of it as any other animal is part of it.
You’re in for a rude shock when the ALP win the election.
Labor certainly can win, however I don’t expect that they will win. They may pick up a few more seats BUT I don’t think that they have enough in the tank to overcome the sins of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.
Julie Bishop glowing? Now that’s a stretch, sourpuss wouldn’t know how to.
Clearly you did not see the show in question.
Labor are moving along nicely, releasing policies and Bill is doing a great job interacting with the community, a natural leader.
Yet their primary vote remains at an unwinnable low level
You are projecting you deepest desires here but it is totally at odds with reality. I saw Christopher Pyne on QandA last night and he did well enough to get the strongest applause at the end (over Albo) and I also saw Julie Bishop on the 730repoet and she was positively glowing. If there is any desperation out there its from Labor and the Greens who are trying to propagate the same sort of nonsense that you are delivering here. There are still six weeks to go until the election and until the votes are all cast its anyone’s to win or loose.
The more it discourages the better, we could do better with less of these Lycra’d Loonies,
Try living on my mountain they are a total menace most weekends
although your comment re helmets is lunacy at it’s greatest. Head trauma is the most serious of injuries and any protection is not enough
No it recognizes a very simple truth that many people would use bicycles for short trips around their home but they don’t because of the stupid looking helmets.
for too long Cyclists have been able to get away with some quite bad behavior on the roads, ignoring red lights, and other road rules with impunity. A crackdown on that sort fo thing is a good thing. However the compulsory use of helmets is an affront to our civil liberties and it discourages a lot more casual use of bicycles within our cities and towns.
Australia isn’t broken?
not in nay fundamental way it isn’t. We have a functional economy, a divers polity and a working democracy/ While we are not perfect there is a lot more that is good than bad here
If that’s your best standup line son, then you’re better orf sticking to your day job shouting the odds for the IPA/LNP/News ltd Partei and their appalling handmaidens …
Sharing my wisdom here is not my day job, its just my vocation.
On the contrary, this is exactly what is happening. They are not being prevented from enrolling, they are being dissuaded. The end result is the same.
How so, when its well known that the very day that a young person turns 18 they are expected to enroll to vote, at every election the electoral commission runs advertising campaigns to get them to enroll, In fact none of this would happen at all if anyone was trying to dissuade young people from voting
Wow. Luckily we don’t all have that attitude. We’d still be living in caves bashing women over the head with big sticks.
We as a society long ago gave up using blunt instruments as a courtship tool because there ARE better ways to find and keep a mate. The point is we changed to something that definitely is a better way. Too often You minions of the left just want to change just for teh sake of change with a vague hope that the change will be positive, sometimes it might be but more often it is a step backwards that could have been avoided with just a tiny bit more caution in the first place
That is not what you implied in your first post.
You see democracy is a very liberal club in this country which is very easy to join, you fill in one very simple application form, prove you are a real person and you are in for life. In my opening comment I was actually alluding to the old adage that goes something like this ” if you don’t vote for the left when you are young then you have no heart, but if you continue to vote for the left as you mature then you have no brain” and trying to imply that young people being lured into leftism is a waste of time for our polity.
Uhuh. Sure thing buddy. You go on living in your little mind cave. The rest of humanity will progress without you.
One thing you learn when you graduate into long trousers is that change for its own sake is seldom a good idea and instead you appreciate the adage that if it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it.
Society is leaving you behind.
Not at all
Don’t be scared of change.
I’m not scared of change, but I do loathe the “all chnage is good” mindset of the left because I have seen too many examples where your fellow minions of teh left have changed things for the worse and as a consequence I would rather see change only when we have a very high confidence that it would actually be a good thing.
You might find empathy rewarding.
How does empathy matter in this context?
I love democracy Slender, but part of democracy is letting the politically unengaged waste their votes if they fail to register to vote or if they are too stupid to cast a formal vote. Both registering to vote and casting a formal ballot ain’t that hard so do you really want the result of an election to hang on the stupidity of those who can’t learn to vote properly?
And the problem here is what precisely?
The young people in question would probably be wasting their vote on the Greens or the ALP so its no great loss if they neuter their own suffrage
Throwing the Captain overboard to install the Messiah — who turned out to be just a very haughty boy — was ‘playing the long game’?
One thing that is certain is that Abbott is not doing a Rudd and whiteanting his own party so I think That the sadly necessary leadership change will be a benefit. That said I was of course talking about the long game of the campaign itself and on that score I don’t see Shorten going the distance with out a major stuff up, its the Labor way
But be patient, Iain: Games of Tones will resume soon after 2 July.
The game that interests me is what will the Labor party do when it works out that its lurch to the left has not payed off for them
“the Carbon Tax card
still stings the ALP and is hated by most voters, a good card actually
the Asylum seekers Card,
Once you get away from this place and out into the real world that one trumps the ALP every-time.
and The union thuggery card”
If the remaining unions were not either irrelevant or hot beds of thuggery you might have a point…. What are they down too now? 17% of workers?
Your house of cards is about to come crashing down.
On the contrary its a good hand for this current game
Well I think that the Coalition are playing the long game better than the ALP who seem to be a greater risk of running out of steam before the big day.
That remains to be seen. The tranche timing of the ALP policy will have been carefully measured.
As will the Coalition’s campaign
Don’t forget that the LNP were caught on the hop with the timing and depth of the ALP on corporate tax concession and the negative gearing policies.
I don’t agree with that assessment
This indicates a considered strategy which if well orchestrated will see the campaign through.
Both sides clearly have a plan but I think that the ALP still carry more unsavory baggage that has yet to be exploited by the government
What I would like to see is the financial details of both parties.
To what end?
Maybe by right wing gronks.
No by most sensible people
Well received means a bounce in the polls however small.
I’m not sure what rock you live under but since that budget the Coalition’s and Mr Harbourside’s popularity has continued to slide.
Well from under my rock I can see that we are in an election campaign whcih makes Polling less trustworthy that usual
Why are the tories so opposed to honesty?
We’re not, that is a leftist failing
I certainly don’t know how conservatives work, you all seem very broken to me….however I do understand middle Australia as I “are” one.
Middle???? pull the other one!
Agreed. My judgement is that you are simply wrong…but this is a sport to you and you’ve chosen a side who you will support regardless.
No I have chosem the lesser evil of the two choices
SSM is a good thing
You may think it a good thing but very few in the center or among conservatives will change their vote because of it and in fact many RW labor voters may well go the other way because of it so not a vote winner fro Shorten.
an emission’s trading scheme is a good thing
Apart from the Greens Fringe who won’t vote ALP this is not a positive
I’ll see your Union scare and raise you one Mafia
I don’t know where you get the Mafia thing from (though there is a new game due out October7) but the Unions have been a liability rather than an asset fro the Labor party for sometime
Not even worth rebuffing as its just so fatuous.
Fatuous or not its true
You are quite correct there Tim, but its not only the boats that a Shorten/Greens win would revive there is also the Carbon tax, more license for Union shenanigans and the usual labor infighting that worries the voters.
Turnbull may not be perfect but his are a far safer pair of hands that Shorten’s every day of the week.
its over for Turnbull Coalition Team
Its part of the labor party DNA to have a great acuity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
shorten/Labor have more than enough policies to talk about
Yet they have no way of paying for them OR fixing the deficit problem without killing our economy stone dead
What has the Turnbull coalition Team , lies about jobs and growth which coalition supporters do not believe
No they have the potential to give us stability and that is a very attractive possibility.
Problem is, it’s May and the Coalition have been empty since the 2014 budget …
Not at all, the latest budget has been rather well received as it happens and its the ALP cup full of a toxic Koolaid (carbon tax revived , disunity on boats, and the possibility of them getting ion bed with the loopy Greens) that will be more significant.
Ah I well remember the Newman invincibility claim as well and the polling numbers supporting Newman…but on the day, with pencil in hand, QLD kicked him out with one huge swing.
That was then this is now and We have a crappy Labor administration in the state Parliament so the voters can see that choosing Labor was bad idea then and now its even worse with Shorten & the Greens as the option other than Turnbull.
Lets face it Iain…Turnbull has been a massive disappointment to middle Australia and he still have a du front bench filled to the brim with an assortment of weirdos and throwbacks.
As a card carrying lefty I don’t think that you have any idea how conservatives or middle Australians weigh up the options and how in the end most of us choose the lesser of the evils. Shorten is by far a worse option that Turnbull and with his endorsement of Gay marriage , and the possibility of him reviving the Carbon tax, his debt to the union movement and almost Zero charisma he simply can’t be trusted.
Yes Iain, I’m sure they’d much prefer ‘believable’ promises such as those made with regard to education, health , pensions, the ABC and so on.
No matter what the ALP promise in any of those categories they always have great difficulty explain how they are going to pay for their grand schemes, Financial management is always Labor’s weakness and the voters will undoubtedly be reminded of their tendency to over promise and under deliver on those promises.
Yes, of course there is a way to go. However the current trends do not bode well for the Coalition.
The ALP primary vote has hardly moved and all of the preference assumptions in the polling is based on the last election when Clive Palmer was in the mix, his political and financial implosion alone should make you skeptical of the results of that polling. Turnbull still leads Shorten by a big margin in the preferred PM question.
Your personal observation or ‘sense’ is, unless you have statistically significant data to support that opinion, at odds with the current analysis.
Some times Gut feelings are just as good as polling
I personally don’t trust polls per se as they, as in the example of the UK election, were spectacularly wrong. I also believe they include a proportion of tactical ‘votes’.
Agree with you there
Nevertheless, Australia has an entirely different voting system, not dependent on turn out and smoothed through the transferable vote.
Sure I understand that
What is more interesting is the consistent and significant slide in Turnbull’s personal ratings. To me this is a better barometer of the country’s emotions.
Well I think that the Coalition are playing the long game better than the ALP who seem to be a greater risk of running out of steam before the big day.
Can’t identify a 100 year long term temperature trend, what hope have to got with a 30 month poll trend?
Shorten is actually rather like CO2, insofar as the true believers like yourself vastly over rate his influence on our political climate when in reality he has about as much charisma as a used franger.
Counter your Ace with my Joker:
Landslide win to Shorten on 2 July.
You are right about one thing and that Shorten is a Joke in the political pack, but in this game Jokers are not wild they are worthless, especially when they are in the same hand as the Carbon Tax card , the Asylum seekers Card, and The union thuggery card…
Not here in the make or break state of Queensland where is 58 to 42 in favor of the government. frankly I expect that in the end people will value stability over some unbelievable “promise” from the ever unreliable ALP. They will also remember the ALP’s greatest hits to the economy like the Carbon tax and the endless boats
I meant to say the second of July but as it happens the second of June is probably when Shorten will have blown is load anyway…
There is many a slip twixt cup and lip, so the minions of the left who are already celebrating should take a chill pill. There are many days to go until the people decide and then we will see what people actually do. Personally I am not sensing the ALP being attractive enough to do it. If anything I am seeing a party that is going to be running on empty by the second day in June.
Your comment highlights the real issue in so much of the third world, namely the almost total lack of any sort of consistent or(by our standards) good governance which will of course be more of a threat to the people of those countries than any chnage in the climate.
Same old hypocrisy about fossil fuels from the followers of the new Green Religion
Have you been following the Lib’s pre-selection battles? Not bad for a party that does “not have factions”.
Not much such things are of little consequence to me because I am more interested in the ideas than the minutiae of party processes
Small l Liberals lost control of the party to the knuckle draggers 3 years before Abbott was elected. Some of the small l part are fighting to get their party back, others have given up and now support independents (like Windors) or the Greens.
The thing is, I firmly believe that being part of a major party is always better than being part of a fringe group like the Loopy Greens
That is especially true for the younger generation.
The right of the ALP have a lot more in common with the current Liberals than they do with the “progressive” side of politics like the Greens. That is why some many ALP heavies keep on attacking the Greens.
You point out the core problem for the ALP, namely it is uncomfortably wedged between the Liberals on their right and the Greens on their left and they risk losing support if they stray from the precarious tight rope they try to walk. Worse still they are restrained by the necessary pragmatism that they have to maintain on some controversial polices (like asylum seekers and Gay marriage) because if they abandon such pragmatism they risk losing more than they will gain form the left. Gay marriage is a good example of this while they may gain some preference votes as a consequence they can also expect that some of their conservative catholic base may also be lost. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
The Coalition simply don’t have the same problem and even though there are different factions they don’t have an ideological family member like the Greens snapping at their heels. In fact they truly are a broad and inclusive church and that enables them to have internal diversity that is a strength rather than a weakness.
Not so sure about the ‘one’ Ian; ,let’s not forget that last week you reported seeing the first swallow of the Liberal Spring.
I know its early days in a long campaign but I think that the government is traveling better than the ALP. Shorten already looks disheveled and burnt out where as Turnbull is looking confident and dare I say it Prime Ministerial…
The simple truth of all human history is that the we have always fought of the control of territory and resources and that means that every human being on the planet has ancestors who have killed for the benefit of their descendants. Thus its utterly pointless for any contemporary person to feel guilty about something that is ubiquitous to the human condition.
What is done is done and all of the guilt-tripping in articles such as this well may serve the identatrian politics of the far left with their hierarchy of oppression but in the real world we accept that unchangeable events of the past good bad and indifferent and instead look to making a better present so that we can build a better shared future.
In Queensland the Greens have been courting extreme right wing shock jocks recommending optional preference allocation that benefits the Liberal National Party. Which begs the question of whether they are an extreme right wing party or an extreme left wing party.
In reality the political spectrum is not on a flat linear axis but instead is circular with the so called left and right extremes meeting on the other end of the diameter from the moderate centre of politics. Project that two dimensional circle onto one dimension and you get the standard spectrum.
Agreed its more of a compass and here is where I am
Both the extreme left and the extreme right of politics have more than their fair share of individuals whose hide bound ideological filter hinders their ability to see what’s really happening. They lose touch with reality.
Agreed and that is why I find the accusations that I am extreme right wing form people here both lazy and strange.
Bloody motorcycles they are such fun. One university friend was hit by as priest turning right across him at the intersection right next to the old Royal Brisbane Hospital. They put him in the ward overlooking the intersection where his fellow patients told him about the accident they saw last night. I lived for a while near the bone and spinal rehab unit on Swan Road where at night the carpark was full of the beautiful old motorbikes of visitors.
I simply loved the visceral experience of riding them and the elegance of some designs
I stayed away from those beautiful machines getting my adrenaline kicks from large and sometimes deep caves and again getting obsessed with the science of such places.
Caving? Mate, much respect but I could never do that because its simply to claustrophobic!
When I worked on coal petrology my colleague was a small Persian woman who’d been a gymnast who had a number of vertebrae bolted together. I think of her every time I see olympic gymnasts doing those double flips then landing thump on their two feet.
Well I have compression fractures in two of my vertebra from a crash and I have enough pain to be on morphine patches My friend had similar surgery to your Gymnast friend and he is in worse pain now than he began with which is why I am so keen to avoid the surgeon’s knife.
I used to run down loose scree slopes on mountains and in caves but am happy to move at some pace down stairs. At my local petrol stations I see the beautiful new modern bikes of people heading up the ridge through Mt Nebo and Mount Glorious. At walking pace I can see the plants. Keep moving for that hip’s sake and your own.
Are you talking motorcycles or pushbikes here?
But yes I keep moving and now I’m off to may workshop to build a jig for my current project
True, but in most cases this is to pay for drugs made prohibitively expensive due to their criminalisation – treat drug addiction as a medical problem, decriminalise the drugs and allow them (and safer alternatives) to be provided on prescription, and most drug-related crime won’t happen. There are numerous countries to have tried this successfully and it has worked pretty well.
I’m not sure that I totally agree with the ‘anything goes” approach mainly because the junkies that I have known have been socially toxic even when they had no trouble with affording their drugs without resorting to crime.
It downright silly to worry about the extreme left and right wings of politics as it’s in the moderate middle of the political spectrum that most voters reside and in which elections are won.
The thing is , when the ALP is so desperately trying to court the left wing voters defecting to the Greens mean that the “regressive left” have a great deal more influence than they deserve on issues such as this one.
That doesn’t stop the extreme regressive right wing of politics being obsessed with the extreme left wing of politics, but it does stop them both wielding any political power in the longer term as Tony Abbott found out.
Its the Left who have been the biggest worry to our society far more than anyone on the right
It was soon bumped off the top spot. It a bit unrealistic to program as Labor Government propaganda when the affected coastal councils are almost entirely Liberal National Party dominated.
Its the public this is intended to impress, especially those with, shall we say, a climate focus like yourself.
Both Allan Sutherland, Mayor of Moreton Bay Council and Margaret De Witt, Head of the Local Government Association of Queensland and Councillor for the west Brisbane ward of Pullenvale, are members of the Liberal National Party but were critical of Geoff Seeney’s attempt to outlaw responsible coastal planning by local government during the time of the ill fated Newman administration.
Local government are always willing to accept money form the state or federal government, its not really ever an exemplar of any political principles ap[art form their own empire building
I’ve spent some wonder(ful) times on empty (of people) beaches mainly in Western Australia.
Loved it around Esperance and cape Le Grand NP when we were traveling around the country the water is so clear over there. But one of our more favorite beach places is Hat head in NSW a lovely little town surrounded by National park outside the school holiday season its pretty close to being heavenly
It’s overpopulated in the east. In Queensland even on relatively empty beaches these days you have to dodge four wheel drives.
I am with you on that concern
I get a lot of exercise but none of it formal. It’s mainly walking down and up that maze of tracks in the national park between you and me. My scientific obsessions stop boredom during such exercise.
I used to do a fair bit of bush walking but I simply can’t do it any more because I injured myself in a Motorcycle crash 17 years ago I have to pace myself or my pain becomes intolerable
A year ago, I my osteoarthritis stalking horse took a turn for the worse but I’m now on the way back to doing 2 hour walks in the hill and will be scaling up to 4 and 8 hour walks as the weeks progress.
Paint me green with envy! I can’t walk that far without my hip giving me a hard time
I’ve entered a gym for the first time at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital as part of a program to delay knee surgery – last resort at best. Stationary cycles can be a bit boring but I can now walk down the stairs almost normally at a reasonable speed. Interesting to think about that interaction between muscles and joints.
I hope it works because I have known a couple of people who have had less that efficacious results from back surgery.
Understanding and punishing criminals are not mutually exclusive.
They are according to the regressive left play book where they tend to think that criminals are an oppressed victim of the system
Many reasonable people in the moderate middle of politics realise the advantages of both punishment and rehabilitation to both the prisoner and the economy and effective rehabilitation comes out of understanding the prisoner.
The important word in your sentence is “effective”and that is why I am VERY cynical about the alternatives like “community service” and even probation orders because the recidivism rates of such programs tends to be very high, so high in fact that they are obviously not fit for purpose. .
Currently the lead story on the Guardian Australia is entitled “Queensland bankrolls council projects that mitigate effects of rising sea level” showing a photograph of Burleigh Heads with Mermaid Beach waterfront properties in the foreground. This is one part of an area you characterised in your biblical language as “Sodom and Gomorrh”.
Its not the top story on my front page but having read it all I can say is that it looks like typical Labor lip-service to Climate change and them getting the best propaganda outcome from money they would have given those councils anyway.
I have got down to the Gold Coast one a year at most in recent decades. Last year in July I went down with my daughter, her husband and their two children and stayed in a waterfront high rise at Burleigh Heads.
She was presenting the medals for the Gold Coast Marathon while her partner was running in the half marathon. We looked after the kids and watched the race. What impressed us most about during our short stay was the number and variety of family activities suitable for all ages occurring on the foreshore strip under the Norfolk Island pines – a far cry from your characterisation of “Sodom and Gomorrh”. We’re looking forward to going back next month.
As I said its not my idea of a beach-side holiday, that would be an empty beach and no facilities to speak of
What do you do to keep yourself fit and healthy?
I am not a smoker or a drinker, I try to live a low stress lifestyle, eating sensibly, I must say that I am rather ambivalent about formal exercise (its time you won’t get back), for its own sake but then I have a chronic pain condition which means that I have to pace my physical activity but I can manage a little Yoga and a certain amount of walking.
I don’t think it’s a left-right issue.
Well it always seems to be those from the left who are the ones wanting to “understand” criminals rather than punish them.
There is no single one cause for all crime instead, it is a result of a huge number of individual and social factors. It follows from this that, in some cases – many even – fear of punishment plays a major role in deterring crime. It also helps victims of crime deal with the outcomes.
The mistake, however, is to assume that it is an effective deterrent or an appropriate response in the cases of all crime. In the case of drug use, it may actually make the problem worse and lead to a cycle of dependency, crime and violence.
that said I am not totally opposed to the relaxation of the prohibition against the recreational use of cannabis. Anything that is a pill or a powder though is another matter entirely.
No I don’t buy that line of argument at all, in almost every case those who have become addicted to drugs turn to criminal behavior to sustain their habits after they have become addicts not before.
If you read a little bit about this subject (a quick Google will turn up plenty of articles) you’ll find plenty of prison governors, politicians and academics who believe that most of the women currently in prison shouldn’t be there. You could start by reading these two pieces:
Well that may play well to the gullible left but back in the real world we know that women are no less capable of continuing pernicious behavior than men are and as such the chances are that by the time a woman receives any custodial sentence they have in all likely hood racked up a long history within the justice system they would have had a go at all of the alternatives to prison well before they end up in jail . Their short sentences would probably translate into a substantially longer bid for the same crimes if they were men.
Both include the views of Clive Chatterton, a former governor of Styal Prison, who describes himself as “scarred” by the experience:
‘Chatterton is calling for a “warts-and-all review of the aims and intent of the use of custody”; an immediate end to short sentences; more women to be transferred to secure mental health units where they can receive the right care; and alternatives to prison that could be funded by the “huge” savings that would be derived from not jailing the third of women currently imprisoned for minor offences.’
Letting women “get off” and avoid prison undermines the entire justice system and I suspect that your problem here is that you don’t think that the purpose of prison is as much about punishment as it is about “reforming” offenders.
Of course, Chatterton merely has 37 years’ experience of working in prisons, so what does he know in comparison to the frothing mob of men’s right activists below the line?
Well I have had sixty years as a member of our society and that experience has taught me the necessity to punish criminal behavior in a fair and proportionate way regardless of the special pleadings from softhearted fools who think that female criminal is some sort of victim. They aren’t.
What the doogooders need to appreciate is that not every criminal can be reformed and more importantly “community corrections” like probation and community service are incredibly ineffective at changing criminal behavior and more importantly the crims totally understand this.
I think you’ll find that the second and third last paragraphs deal with this issue – imprison violent and sex offenders, regardless of sex; use alternative punishments for non-violent crimes for men and women.
The thing that you, and so many folk on the left fail to appreciate is that most of the alternatives to prison are tantamount to “getting away with it” In other words they have no utility as a punishment for crimes committed. but I imagine that you think that the point of prison should be all about “reforming” a criminal rather than punishing them don’t you?
This will result, based on the statistics presented here, in very few incarcerations of women.
Which goes to my point that treating women even less equally to men is a bad idea fro equality and for justice.
However, the question then, is: why not frame the article in a way that doesn’t sound like you are calling for special treatment for women, when in fact you are not?
My guess is that the author doesn’t think that women are equal in their humanity to men.
Women already receive lesser sentences than men do for committing the same crimes and yet this article wants them to be exempted from imprisonment?
Equality before the law has to mean something and if a woman commits a crime then she should expect to do the same time as a man would receive. Any thing less than that is an afront to both gender equality AND justice.
By changing a supposedly factual document to protect their own interests,
Your adjective identifies the problem with UNESCO quite well its supposed to be factual but it isn’t and it never would have been because the Quango is simply agenda driven, corrupt and not to be trusted
Hunt’s team have both degraded the integrity of the document and that of the UN.
They simply wanted to disassociate themselves from a disreputable player in eco polititcs
Furthermore it was a deliberate attempt to deceive, even if you think it was only to deceive would be holidaymakers, deception is underhanded.
Your say so is not enough to make your case here..
Firstly, that’s a diversion, secondly, it has no relevance here. Your argument is that suppression of references to Australia is good no matter what those references are. You’re saying that reporting anything is bad because there will be potential for criticism. It makes no sense – unless your head is completely up the fundament of the LNP.
I simply do not think that anything produced by UNESCO is of any value or virtue and the usual suspects and all of the leftwing worshipers of Gaia were always going to seize upon a report that is even just partially critical of the government.
The rancor expressed here is imply not resonating enough to chnage a single person’s vote in the seats that matter. In other words its a confected outrage of no importance.
So if I was your doctor and had a report saying you had cancer, but then proceeded to erase the diagnosis you wouldn’t consider that I’d lied to you?
Your analogy fails because UNESCO is nothing like a dispassionate doctor, its more like a snake oil salesman.
Using that logic do we need to correctly guess and ask every politician what they are witholding from us?
If this was about a the actions of a Greens government you would be saying nothing. Your problem is that you think that UN quangos are worthy of respect, we sensible folk don’t think they are.
Pretty sure you just enjoy the attention but in case you are serious it’d be interesting to gauge where your head is at?
Its at the top of my spine, as usual
Deflect, distract, cover up….seems to be all the LNP are good at (although not very good, clearly).
How have any of those things been evident here?
This is a government with no credibility and I believe that most of us live in a country where we’d prefer to be informed of the issues and of what those who are meant to represent us are up to.
This government are orders of magnitude better than Labor and the misnamed Greens on environmental issues because they appreciate that humans are part of the equation too.
It is pure fairyland to imagine that one’s party never gets anything wrong and yet that seems to be the predominant stance of Liberal supporters.
I have actually voted Labor more often than I have voted for the coalition during my life time. I don’t simply endorse everything the party does but I do like to point out when you lot make much ado about nothing as you are in this thread.
Yes it’s so much better now that we know they covered up not only the bad bits but the good bits as well…so we have a lack of transparency and stupidity walking hand in hand.
UNESCO is, like most of the UN, pretty worthless so dissociating from both praise and approbation from them is always a good idea
Sounds like another well trained compliant Dept. in need of a cleanout.
no they had the clean out when they got Labor’s grubby paws out of governing this country.
Talking of usual suspects, here’s Iain to spruik the usual climate change denying LNP bullshit. One thing about conservatives, you never tire of being wrong do you?
No Petunia we have a mission to bring the light of truth to banish your socialist gloom.
In my family NONE of the women are at all interested in sport and they look askance at me because I am marginally interested in watching the rugby league.
I know that Netball has a good following in terms of juvenile participation however the number of women who continue to play after they have finished schooling is quite small.
A start? No Ian., your not even facing the right way in the blocks.
If that is so (which it isn’t) then you are not on the same planet
Smaller pool? Netball, swimming, athletics, hockey, etc.. All new sports to you are they? What absolute tosh.
I’ll give you an example that vI have observed myself. Around here where I live we get people who are into cycling riding up and down our road most days and on the weekend there are literally herds of loonies in Lycra and of them I would say that there are less than one person in thirty who is a woman. And the best woman is going to be a long way behind the best man when they ride together in the same race.
The simple fact here is that women are less inclined to want to play sport or partake in sporting activities compared to men.
Ok Iain I’ll buy in: First:
Not to detract from Breachly’s abilities but the number of women surfers is somewhat smaller than the number of male surfers.
As In my first point Iain were the waves fucking smaller!!
No what I meant was that there are fewer women competing so any one person has statistically easier chance of winning. In any event Surfing, like forms of competitive dance is more about style than athleticism and in some senses its not a sport at all
And as for women’s tennis only playing 3 sets. Women have far more stamina than men, that’s how we have babies Iain, and are more than capable of playing five sets of tennis if the relevant authorities allowed. Just ask Sarina. Or don’t you watch her Iain because you know, shit….she’s not a man and all.
Your claims about birthing children does not counter what I was saying about women playing fewer sets, a difference that the women wanted to keep BTW, they play shorter matches because they want to.
All I can say is I hope you don’t have daughters and my commiserations to them if you do.
I do have a daughter and she detests sport in in any shape or form.
What you ignore here is that people can have more than one reason for watching a particular sport including the eye candy quotient. As a straight bloke I don’t mind watching fit women play sport either. But as you note not all sports people are equally easy on the eye .
Can you explain these standards to me Iain?
Basic physiology shows us that men have greater upper body strength and physicality when it come to any sporting feat. they run faster hit harder and can lift more than any woman playing the same game
So does that mean when Layne Beechley surfed a wave it was a “smaller” wave?
Not to detract from Breachly’s abilities but the number of women surfers is somewhat smaller than the number of male surfers.
Or when Lauren Jackson (voted best player in the US NBA) was the hoop lower? Or in the women’s cricket team was the pitch shorter? Or in the women’s rugby is the field shorter?
You tell me why women’s tennis matches have fewer sets than the male matches? And why are females always slower than the equivalent males on the track?
men and women are different in ways other than the content of their track pants you know.
Your comment is a classic case of a strawwoman argument we are talking about sport not study in stem fields.
I was trying to show you how your statement represents a flawed logic by using your words but changing the topic.
I know what you were doing which is why I refused to dance to that particular tune
your argument essentially boils down to “things are like they are, so we shouldn’t try and change them”
No my argument is really about bill Shorten’s desperate desire to run up every possible “progressive” issue and try to win votes with it. Today’s is woman’s sport and he is like all minions of the left trying to play the politics of envy and to over egg the female sport pudding.
Can you see that any status quo isn’t “right” just because it is the status quo?
sure but by the same token can you appreciate the idea that we should not try to fix something until its broken? Sport is not broken in this country.
Hence my example of historical attitudes towards womens education, which mirror your attitude to womens sport.
I have never been that keen on any sport and I have serious reservations about professional sport because in someways amateur sport is more pure than sports that have become big business, played for the love of it rather than to honor Mammon its well more sporting
In any case, it seems you are letting your misogyny get in the way of your libertarianism by arguing against funding for
Not agreeing with every feminist issue and argument does not make anyone a Misogynistsport, rather that against funding for sport in general.
I don’t expect that it would have been very high.
It was high enough that a couple of sponsors and a commercial channel (10? if I remember aright) thought it worthwhile to take it on for a few seasons – it’s now with Sky.
It was undoubtedly small change compare to other more popular sports
There are ample slots where the ABC presently airs repeats of repeated programmes.
Just how many times do we need to view Antiques Roadshow, Midsommer Murders and the likes of Silent Witness.
SBS could prune any. number of Food presentations, and use some of the time wasted on advertisements. Half of them seem to be Liberal Party propaganda disguised as Government infomation anyway, so there would be little net loss to treasury in the process.
Don’t you dare limit the foodie porn on SBS!!!
The thing is I’m pretty sure that teh shows you cite would rate better than most women’s sport
Easy, instead of having news 24 they could have sport 24, or take all news a current affairs and replace with sports that get little to no coverage.
What a silly idea!
Why do we need so many foreign reporters globe trotting when all that cash could be used on local female sport. I mean its not like the ABC makes a profit!!
There is a simple reason really, what the journalists report on is actually significant and important, sport is at best light relief and trivia and women’s sports are uninteresting to the majority of sports fans. Coverage should reflect the public’s interest not some sort of ideological goal.
I would be interested to see what the ratings were for the netball that the ABC was showing I don’t expect that it would have been very high.
Ignoring the fact that it is SBS and Fox Sports that have been broadcasting the netball, where does the fact Channel 9 have now paid a motza to broadcast the netball live on Saturday nights fit into your low rating theory?
What was the actual dollar amount paid, I bet it was not much compared to any men’s sport, more importantly will those broadcasts make a profit? I doubt that they will.
I know of a better target for that “very simple” bit, and if you look in a mirror, so will you.
Starting with an Ad Homeniem is never a good look
Your argument is crap, and demonstrates that like a few misogynist pollies, (any come to mind?), you’re stuck too deep in the ‘men only’ syndrome.
No I am all for women as well but why does it have to be at the cost of things that men are interested in?
Get out a bit, look at the crowd make-up, and don’t play follow-the-leaders just for trolling purposes, there’s a good little soldier.
Its certainly a good thing that women share some of the interests of the men in their lives but the clear reality is that interest in women’s sport is orders of magnitude less than the interest in male sports and that difference is reflected in the respective the coverage.
Actually the ABC should be forced to televise these sports. That’s is the reason for the ABC to televise things other privately owned broadcasters either don’t or wont.
Even for the ABC its important that they have viewers, so how do you propose that they fund this extra sports coverage?
Iain, where is the suggestion that something is being taken away from men? Did you not read the story which said “an additional 500 hours of women’s sport”?
Read the comment from photographofgeorge that we are both responding to because he is making the suggestion I am denouncing.
Football is not the only sport Cat.
I would be interested to see what the ratings were for the netball that the ABC was showing I don’t expect that it would have been very high.
The problem here though is not that Shorten wants to encourage women’s sport but that he wants to force the ABC to show it. Why should the national broadcaster have such a burden imposed on it by the Labor party?
The reasons are actually something very simple men are generally more interested in watching sport than women are and as such the amount of hours devoted to the sports that men like to watch have been maximized. As spectators = revenue either from ticket sales of from selling advertising its entirely reasonable that there should be more male sport on TV.
Well there’s a surprise, iain in his alternate looniverse saw the debate as a win to the right winger…would have thunk it?
Read what I said again:
watched the leaders debate last night and while neither player landed a mortal blow. I thought that Turnbull gave a slightly stronger presentation and narrowly won on points.
It was close to a draw and I said so
can’t say it better than I did before:
Watch it again and see how rushes all the way over to Malcolm’s lectern and instigates the handshake. Like Latham before him he is simply just a bit too eager and a bit too strident. He is simply trying too hard and it shows.
Did you watch the same debate as me?
On the ABC at 730? Yes? then I think I must have been.
No clear winners but purely on performance, I found Malcolms style with all that hand waving and finger pointing more like a lecture to a group of school kids than a serious debate.
Like you I thought no one “won” but I thought that the things you chide malcom for were actually a positive for his performance
A couple of things that won it for Shorten in my opinion
were when he pulled Malcolm up on his comment that the Libs were better economic managers and condesendingly suggested that Labors projections were erroneous and the surplus expected not to return for quite a while.
The clear message form last week was that Labor’s figures are at bets dodgy and its just a question of how dodgy they are.
Shorten pointed out the bleeding obvious, tripling of the deficit under this term of government.
Of course what shorten failed to mention is that much of that is because the government were unable to get a goodly number of their countermeasures through the senate thanks to Labor being less than helpful.
The other issue was on how jobs & growth would be achieved.
MT said this would be achieved by a basic trickle down effect, hence investment in big business (clearly now shown to be a load of tosh)
The second was that we have to invest in technology for the 21st century. I just about laughed out loud.
Personally I tend to agree that this should have been better argued but we were never going to get much detail in this sort of debate , it was always going to be very broad aspirational principles rather then nuts and bolts.
Not one journo picked him up on the outdated shambolic mess the NBN is. Definitely not 21st century technology.
To be fair not one Journpo picked up on what a Mess the ALP NBN plan was either.
Shorten to me had the slight edge and did not prevaricate on any issue.
Its probably confirmation bias for both of us but I felt that Shorten was far more disheveled in both his appearance and his delivery
As to your comment about hand shaking. It is the polite thing to do after such an event and if MT was reluctant to engage then that just shows the mentality of the man that just gets in a snit when he hasn’t rattled his opponent.
Watch it again and see how rushes all the way over to Malcolm’s lectern and instigates the handshake. Like Latham before him he is simply just a bit too eager and a bit too strident. He is simply trying too hard and it shows.
I watched the leaders debate last night and while neither player landed a mortal blow. I thought that Turnbull gave a slightly stronger presentation and narrowly won on points. Shorten’s desperate urge to shake Turnbull’s hand at the end did have a rather Lathamesque twinge to it though.
I have expressed no distain for religion. You are imagining things that don’t exist.
No see my previous comment
Time scales beyond the human lifetime and distances as great as and much greater than the diameter of the Earth have not stopped science developing by experimentation in geology, astronomy and cosmology. What big gaps that must be filled by speculation and guesswork are you talking about?
All of those “known unknowns” like the assumptions about climate before the beginning of the instrumental record.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 increases expressed as degrees C rise in the climate of the Earth for a doubling of CO2 concentration is between 2 and 4 degrees C with most calculations putting it at 3 degrees C.
Which is a rather wide range that hedges lots of bets doesn’t it?
Major changes in the planetary orbit have not occurred in the last 200 years as no mechanism exists.
Really? That is not what Wiki says
Solar activity has not changed at the scale necessary to explain the warming of the last century or so.
Climate and the Sun
One natural factor attributable to climate change may be that the brightness of the Sun varies over decades or centuries. Brightness variations are in step with the sunspot cycle, a series of changes in the Sun’s magnetism that have a period of ~11 years. Climate models suggest that changes of ~0.5% in the Sun’s brightness would produce global average temperature changes of ~0.5 °C over a century or so (5).
In defining the tremendous impact the Sun has on climate, we must understand the actual movement of the Earth around the Sun. Three variables—orbit shape, tilt, and wobble—profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth’s orbit is not a circle, but an ellipse, in which one end is farther from the Sun than the other. In a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth causes its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that keeps the Earth closer to the Sun to a long, flat ellipse that allows it to move farther from the Sun and back again.
While the Earth travels in its orbit, it also spins around an axis that tilts lower then higher over a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the poles, the contrast between winter and summer temperatures is greatest when the angle of the tilt is large. The Earth also wobbles because it is spinning on its axis, tilting back and forth. Thus a temperature drop in the Northern Hemisphere occurs when the planet tilts away from the Sun; the Southern Hemisphere cools as the tilt changes, and the cooling trend moves north again over a 22,000-year cycle. This means that ~11,000 years from now, the northern midwinter will fall in July instead of January, and the glaciers may return in full force. It also means that summer temperatures peak in the tropics twice as often as the concentrated heat of the Sun passes back and forth across the equator.
The Sun drives the climate. Even if the Sun’s energy output did not vary as it does, the amount of sunlight reaching different areas of the Earth would still change because of the way the Earth moves around the Sun. Climate drives the ebb and flow of glaciers and vegetation: Ice sheets spread and shrink within the 100,000-year cycle of orbital change. Glaciers dominate the land for 60,000–90,000 years during the cold phase of the cycle, and they all but disappear during the warm phase.
Was biology the only science subject you did in years 11 and 12 of high school?
I dropped out of school when I was 16 and it was only in my mid twenties that I went back to get my matriculation as an adult student
Did you do any maths subjects in those years?
No maths its never been my thing, to matriculate I had to do four subjects, English, Ancient History, Modern History and Biology.
When I say that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere increased from 280 ppm or 0.028% to 400 ppm or 0.04% which is an increase of 40%; I am simply being mathematically literate and correct. I am not trying to be dramatic. Percentage is not an absolute measure but a way of expressing a fractional increase of the original quantity.
The CO2 concentration increased from 0.028% of the total atmosphere by 0.012% to 0.04% of the total atmosphere. 0.012 divided by 0.028 multiplied by 100 gives you a percentage increase in CO2 concentration of 42.9% which is rounded down to 40%.
Yes I do understand all that however you don’t seem to be comprehending That its equally valid to describe the change a from 0.012% to 0.04% but that doing so does not make that change appear to be so significant, so which way do you think makes the same data look more serious.or more urgent??? You would have to say that the “40%” clai8m has a greater propaganda value wouldn’t you?
You can look up both in the scientific literature. I am as familiar with plant species data as I am with climate change data. I am no more relying on the authority of authority of climate scientists than I am relying on the authority of the botanists who have worked on that catchment.
But you can’t seem to lay that data out and explain why it convinces you that the AGW proposition is correct can you?
You are making silly assumptions now about me.
Well I don’t know you so I have to make assumptions and deductions based upon our conversations here don’t I?
What eucalypt and rainforest species do you have on your five acres?
I am not big on plant taxonomy to be frank but we have most of the species endemic to the area
The key papers on climate science are not hard to find. Which ones pertaining to which facets of the current established theory and its evidence are you having difficulty locating? I don’t need to give you citations to such well known work.
But you do actually because you are the one saying that you have seen the evidence and it convinced you, so I’m just asking to tell me what that eveidence was and why it was so definitive for you.
There is no such thing as an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) proposition? You keep repeating the same ludicrous mistake. There is a well established anthropogenic global warming theory well substantiated by much evidence.
First you denounce my choice of words as a descriptor then you define precisely what I am talking about, so its neither ludicrous or a mistake is it?
Science is the best way to find out the truth about the real world around us. If you made the effort to study it properly you would not make such silly mistakes. You may have to go back to high school and study some physics, chemistry and mathematics.
I have the greatest respect for most science and I even agree with you that it provides a good way to understand the world but I am rather less impressed with the one particular disciple that deals with climate because I see it as something that has become the captive of the misanthropes from the regressive left.
When I say no climate scientist s are telling you the world will be destroyed, you say just “look to google to find an almost endless list of dire predictions about the climate” (with an attached link). The link to a googled page provides four scientific websites that do not tell you the world will be destroyed and four dodgy newspaper articles. Once again you have lost touch with reality.
You don’t seem to get that a google search result has more than one page of results don’t you? in fact that search has About 96,600,000 results so you finding 4 contrary results on one page does not counter my point.
“It all boils down to the same sort of emotional blackmail that the Profits of other religions have explored.”
And you’re the bloke who asked me if English was my first language. There’s no religion here mate and no emotional blackmail just a direct question to you about human qualities that you yourself have mentioned.
If that is so then how can you explain the religiosity of so many of those on your side of this argument? As for emotional blackmail Just read through any thread on climate here at the guardian and look at how any heterodox opinion is desperately screamed down.
You misunderstand Michael Mann’s use of the word trick and the process of peer review – the perils of eavesdropping. Your disagreement is of no consequence.
No I perfectly well understand Mann’s “trick” of trying to replace part of a data set with an entirety unrelated data set because it fitted his narrative better and gave him the result he was seeking. Its simply bad and dishonest too boot.
You as an atheist say I have a dismissive view of religion.
Yes that is because I have known many atheists who feel the need attach the belief of others. My relationships with religious people are cordial and frequent. So why do you say I have a dismissive view of religion?
Because you are so offended by the notion that science is filling the role of religion in our more secular society.
The know what science is and I know what christian religion is and I know they are not the same. You are confused about both.
My argument is that Science is A religion which does not require it to be the same as Christianity, No more than the Rastafarians , Or the Buddhists, its similarity to religion comes from the way that we as a society look to it to answer the big questions, you know things like “why are we here?” “where did we come from?”, “how does the universe work?” This is actually a good thing in my view because its way of explaining these things “works” better than with supernatural explanations of other faiths, to me anyway.
Were you born in Queensland?
No I was born in London
I’m not part of your “we” who you claim to know something or other.
I was of course using the word “we” to designate something that is generally known, but I suspect that you knew that and you are just being unnecessarily pedantic.
The term denier is used to denote what someone is doing and is not by itself a perjorative term. The something denying the existence of evidence. Climate change deniers deny the existence of evidence of climate change.
Holocaust deniers deny the existence of evidence of the Jewish holocaust. They are denying different things What is being equated is the denial of evidence. Both groups are deniers.
No matter how you define it the term is used as a pejorative in terms of climate change discussions something you do not deny…
Oh and when it comes to the evidence I am still waiting for you to produce said evidence something I have asked you to do more than once
Climate change denial and holocaust denial are both associated with the extreme right of politics.
Really? Only by the minions of the extreme Normal folk don’t see any common purpose between those of us who are skeptical about the AGW proposition and the atrocities of the national socialists being subject to historical revisionism.
One of Australia’s extreme right wing climate change deniers Eric Abetz is the nephew of the military officer who was the administrator of Paris during the Nazi occupation and was responsible for the rounding up and dispatch of many thousands of French Jewish to the holocaust death camps.
Talk about going the smear! mate I thought you better than that!
There are no “true believers” involved in climate science as science is about evidence not belief. You have been told this before but you do not know what science is.
Is the evidence really and truly definitive beyond all doubt?
Are there any gaps at all in the understanding of how the climate works?
If, as I suggest is the case, there are any “gaps” in the evidence then it takes faith or belief to accept the proposition without being able to fill said gaps with the necessary evidence.
The only sceptics in this process are the scientists as scepticism comes the discipline. No one is equating scientists with holocaust deniers. Your one sentence above shows a most astounding disconnection with reality.
Wal that is such a great example of semantic hair splitting that I might think that you are a secret wannabee hairdresser!
as we can when we read the scientific papers on climate science.[..]
With climate science the evidence is clear and much of the processes involved are as well understood[…] That you can’t understand the evidence and the processes involved reflects more on your knowledge of science than on the quality of the evidence and scientific work underpinning these three fields.
well established ” AGW” (anthropogenic global warming) theory ” as clearly, can you.”
I can. Why can’t you. Haven’t you read the scientific literature on the subject?
You keep saying that you can see the evidence and I keep asking you to present it but instead all you do is assert again that you can see the evidence.
So please lay out the evidence that convinces you that the AGW theory is correct.
Climate science is no more willfully obscure then medicine or engineering.
That is simply not true. with engineering its easy to test the strength of materials , how to cut them and how to join them to achieve your goal we are a too using ape and even our most complicated tools work on easily understood principles and medicine, although we take care with it is comprehensible. But Climate is chaotic and is so vast and with so many variables that much more difficult to comprehend.
There are sizeable segments of the public that do not accept facets of medicine such as immunisation and facets of engineering such as the need for sufficient but more costly structural integrity in a retaining wall above their neighbors property.
Its not a good analogy really because in medicine if people are anti vaccination then its only they or their children who may be affected (my children are fully vaccinated BTW) and as long as their numbers are quite small they won’t affect anyone else. As for retaining walls well most people who build shonky ones are doing a quick and dirty renno to sell a place
The changes in the climate resulting from global warming affect us all if only in that we wonder if we’ll ever need to buy new winter clothing again. They don’t wear out with one week of cold weather on average per year.
Only if it happens as predicted and so far they are not that accurate in the predictions at all
“You blithely say that the rise in CO2 is the cause of the recent warming” (over the last century or so) “but how can you be so sure it is the actual cause.”
I didn’t say that without proper thought or care or in any way that could be construed as blithely.
There is no need to split hairs about my choice of adjectives you don’t like.
We can be sure that the recent global warming of the last century or so is due to a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 because all the other possible causes have been eliminated as possible suspects.
That is not definitive proof or in fact any sort of substantive proof for the proposition and in reality its not a “40%” increase at all because the only way to properly describe the increase in CO2 is in terms of the whole atmosphere and in that case going from 0.028% to 0.04% is really only a 0.012% increase which is just a bit over one hundredth of one percent. Of course that does not sound as dramatic as your claimed “40%” though does it? I tend to think that this is in fact a very minuscule change in the atmosphere and that there are other variables that are more significant than that.
“You have a belief that it is the cause”.
No I don’t. I have evidence.
Then kindly enunciate what that evidence is and explain why it convinces you.
In the same way as I have evidence of the 3,000 species of plant in the Enoggera Creek catchment.
That can not be the case because with those 3000 species you have seen the data and respect the process used to gather it. Have you been as intimate with the climate data? I doubt it in stead you are clearly relaying on the authority of the climate scientists
What trees and other plants do you have on your 5 acres at Mount Mee?
Its mainly “gum trees” with a smattering of rain-Forrest species That my wife and I have planted at I have a few nice Grevllia robusta, lots of stag horns , other epiphytes and orchids the bird life is quite varied too here, lots of different parrots, Tawny frog mouths, Wallabies, snakes, Lace monitors, Antchienus.
No. It’s been done many times and at various stages with the passage of time, with the various steps of what is a complex hypothesis and with the various alternative null hypotheses.
Citations needed I think
As true sceptics scientists are not proponents of any particular theory. They don’t believe in the theory but accept the evidence of the mechanism the theory explains.
We both know that the AGW proposition is NOT treated like that. Its the truth and the aim is to substantiate that Truth
What is happening fits with the theory so once again there is belief involved merely observation of what is happening. You are projecting the way of thinking of the religions that you have long been fascinated with onto the very different way of thinking practiced in science.
No I am making an observation and once again I suggets taht you need to take a step back form your usual disdain for religion so that you can see the religisity of the “climate change” true believers
A theory is an hypothesis that has stood the test of repeated experimentation. Experiments are designed to disprove null hypotheses not to prove hypotheses or established theories.
Well I put it to you that as the theory encompasses the entire planet and time scales beyond a human life span it can not be tested by experiment and observations. There are some very big gaps that must be filled with speculation and guesswork
The climate models are based on empirical data and established theories which are not crap. What assumptions are you talking about?
“It is not the devices I am suspicious of its the assumptions used in the models.”
Climate sensitivity to Co2 increases for a start, an assumption that the planetary orbit is unchangeable, that the solar activity is unchanged. The assumption that the effect of water vapour is a zero sum game.. The effects of clouds is a big unknown
You seem to be saying you have observed something that you call climate science that is like many millenialist religious cults and provide five observations that you claim illustrate this similarity, namely in summary.
No seem about it I am saying that it is a Millenarian cult
1.It takes many years of study and hard work to understand the subject matter fully. Note this applies to all areas of science and its applied forms such as medicine and engineering.
Sure but the public can easily understand the utility of Medicine and Engineering where as “climate science” is very often willfully obscure
2. We are told to trust the experts. This I do every time I cross the Captain Cook Bridge. I also trusted my cardiac surgeon and large number of other medical professionals when my faulty mitral valve threatened my continued existence.
Sure but with each of those we can easily see the proof of their respective puddings can’t we?
Having a basic understanding of science over a number of disciplines I’m able to discuss matters of bridge design and mitral valve repair plus their ensuing complications with the relevant experts. It pays to go to the right person. The evidence was clear and the processes involved were understandable.
With climate the evidence is less than clear and the processes are not that well understood no matter how much certitude is asserted.
I did not go into denial about my medical condition nor the recommendations regarding the safety of the bridge.
Because you can see the evidence for both, you can’t see the evidence for the AGW proposition as clearly can you?
Denial is not just a religious term, yoiu need to broaden your field of study. In all these matters the true sceptics are the scientists and applied practitioners.
We both know that its used as a pejorative by the true believers and we know that the connotations are to equate skeptics with the holocaust deniers
3. We are told the world will be destroyed. No climate scientists are telling you the world will be destroyed.
Just look to google to find an almost endless list of dire predictions about the climate
4. We (who ever that is) are told we are not caring for the future or the future of our children. The disruption of ecosystems and human economies dependent on them resulting from the changes in climate wrought by global warming will have deleterious effects on the future of our children and our grandchildren. Kindness and caring are important human considerations independent of religion. Do you object to kindness and caring about the future for your kids and grandkids.
It all boils down to the same sort of emotional blackmail that the Profits of other religions have explored
5. There was nothing of any consequence in what you hysterically call “climate gate”. Your talk of ends justifying means has more than a hint of conspiratorial paranoia.
As I’m sure you will appreciate I disagree with your dismissal of the “climategate” revelations. Distortion of the peer review process to exclude heterodox papers on climate is a pretty big deal, as is the “trick” used by Micheal Mann to make his Hockey stick “work”
So your “observations” are either features common to all areas of science and its applications or you are seeing things that really don’t exist. If you see climate change and climate change science as a religion you are deluding yourself.
No I am not deluding myself, nor is my view of science taking on the same social role as religion has in the past that controversial. I think that you object because you have a dismissive attitude to religion and you resent the comparison as a consequence.
Understanding how the oceanic dipoles interact with global warming has direct benefit to a country such as Australia whose weather systems are more at the mercy of such processes than any other place on Earth. We are also the Southern Hemisphere leaders in this field for obvious reasons.
Maybe, it is but how much more does it need to studied?
Many of sciences nice to know moments such as quantum theory and evolution have with time come to underpin our industrial and technological prosperity.
As the global warming of the last century or so is a result of an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to over 400 ppm to say that “the claim that it” (global warming) “is all due to human activities certainly does” have something “to do with true belief”, begs the question of where else did all that extra CO2 come from?
You blithely say that the rise in CO2 IS The cause of the recent warming but how can you be so certain it it is the actual cause? You have a belief that it is the cause but what is the foundation of that belief? Is it any more substantive than you believing the so called “experts in the field” asserting CO2 as the cause the way that yo8u assert it here?
The claims of relative certainty of the well established anthropogenic global warming theory are based on empirical evidence.
As a man of science then you should surely be able to show just how the hypothesis has been tested by the scientific method, you know by a properly repeatable experiment. Hang on that is impossible isn’t it? The proponets believe in the theory and they also believe that what is happening fits with the theory but it simply can not be definitively proven can it?’
The climate models are scientific models like any other scientific model or algorithm based on empirical data and the best current scientific understanding of the processes involved.
As the old adage goes “crap in =crap out” in other words the veracity of the models very much depend on the assumptions that go into those algorithms so while its good that these models are based on empirical data if the assumption are wrong then so to will the results be wrong.
They are not electronic idols of what you call “the religion.” In the seventies, I used to bash out ecological models on a glorified adding machine with a printout like a supermarket cash register. Personal computers were a decade away. There is no need to be suspicious of electronic devices. This is science not religion as it’s based on the evidence from the real world.
Its not the devices I am suspicious of its the assumptions used in the models
Anyone with a GPS that can tel you elevation can tell what the risk of a rising sea level might be to a particular property
You have to be shitting me ? This complety misunderstands how GPS works
and misunderstands the dangers of SLR.
Its even easier than that really, If the property is close to the current sea level you could be subject to flooding, So what? My brother has a beach side house and the ground is just a couple of feet above the high tide level neither he nor his neighbors are worried about SLR and nor should anyone else.
In answer to my question as to the value of a beachfront property at Mermaid Beach, you ask if I “really think it would be a loss to our culture if the Gold Coast were to be swallowed by the sea?”
I thought that you might have worked out that I am no fan of the sort of development that has seen the Gold Coast become a rather glitzy and crass tourist trap.
That stretch of sandy coast is my friend’s country and it’s important to his culture and mine. As a Queenslander of many generations I have a great respect and love of the many parts of this wonderful state. Where do you come from?
Your friend must have either a good memory to still see the spiritual in that blighted stretch of sand it what would qualify as our own Sodom and Gomorrah
The local state LNP member for the area would have a concern for the multimillion dollar monetary value of those beachfront properties.
If I never visit the gold cost within the next two life times it will not be long enough away from it. I happen to like beaches undeveloped and largely unpopulated by spivs and shysters.
The Gold Coast and in particular the beaches from Burleigh south including Currumbin, Kirra and Snapper Rocks have played a pivotal role in the history of Australian and world surfing. Have you tried surfing. A three metre point break on the southern Gold Coast breaks is a wonderful thing.
I have never been much of a swimmer and I only learned how to do it at all in my late twenties. As a consequence I simply do not swim in water that moves. On the other hand I did love riding motorcycles on winding mountain roads like the ones around here but now I have a clubman sports car which can be just as sublime as your point break to drive up and down the mountain.
Notwithstanding the fact that the reality of global warning has nothing to do with true belief,
The empirical evidence of warming that we can see certainly does not require belief, however the claim that it is all due to human activity certainly does
which begs the question why you are stuck in religious ways of thinking, it’s should be patently obvious to you, if you were paying attention, that the scientists were talking about the basic facets of climate science which are most certainly settled.
On the contrary the claims of relative certainty of the AGW proposition are all based upon faith in the electronic idols of the religion, namely the climate models, You see I see this issue in religious terms because that understanding absolutely with my observations and they are so much like other millenarian cults both recent and modern.
1/The understanding of the faith (science) is said to take years of study just the same as the religious claim for the aspects of their belief
2/We are expected to trust the experts (priests of the faith) and heretics ( called skeptics or deniers, very religious term) are told that they will burn in hell or that they are evil for not accepting the truth.
3/ we are told that the world will be destroyed if we don’t repent/accept the orthodoxy .
4/ we are accused of not caring for the future or the future of our children if we don’t accept the one true Climate faith .
5/ True believers have demonstrated time and again that they are operating on an “ends justify the means” principle as was revealed in “climate gate”.
And you wonder why I see “climate change as a religion?
Many of the consequences of that global warming on climate patterns and oceanography are far from settled. At least one of the scientists made redundant by the changes in focus of CSIRO, under the leadership of Tony Abbott’s appointee, is an expert on oceanography and the interaction between oceans, global warming and longer term weather patterns which have considerable impact on Australia’s economy.
Sure but would his work have any direct benefit or is it just going to be another those nice to know that moments?
Do you like making a mockery of yourself Iain? I’ve got a nice throne, once owned by King Canute, yeah, genuine, that I’ll sell you and you can sit on it at your favorite waterside location and command the seas not to rise. I’ll throw in a snorkel once owned by Doubting Thomas for free.
If you are going to cite the story of king Canute then you would do better if you understood the point that king was trying to make too his own people with that apocryphal tale. essentially he was trying to show that he was not in any way the super human that many of his people thought him to be. Although his exercise in demonstrating his humility has often quoted it is just as often misunderstood the way that you misunderstand it here.
My cousin also completed an arts degree from UQ majoring in English literature but in her retirement has taken an interest in the flora and fauna of Australia and in that of the Enoggera Creek catchment more specifically. She has come to appreciate the importance of geology and other physical sciences in understanding biology and ecology. Not that either of us have stopped reading novels and poetry. You would do well to learn from her insights.
I have lived in a rural circumstance for more than thirty years and I do actually have a very sincere interest in ecology and have done so since I did my matriculation biology* as an adult student in the seventies.
We have five acres hillside here and it is apart from the house area rather wild bush which keeps me quite grounded and well aware of the biosphere
*managed to get a 7 or a high distinction for the subject
“I have a degree already.”
However as you wish to comment often on scientific matters you would be well advised to complete a degree in science to prevent you from looking so gormless when commenting.
the point that you are missing with that advice is that the Guardian is mot by any stretch of the imagination a scientific journal, it a place of politics and current events not science .
Note that there is one little bit of England north of the Tweed and it’s bigger than Tweed Heads. It’s rather flat country and as you drive the short distance north into Scotland the country changes as the ravines, becks and ridges increase. It seems the English could go no further once they reached the country the Scots were at home in. State of Origin on Wednesday. Do you remember the Tweed Heads tick gate?
I certainly do recall the tick gate and I also recall a time when the Gold Coast was worth visiting for a nice day at the seaside.
Looking forward to Wednesday BTW
I knew Tim as a intelligent,helpful and pleasant colleague in the mid 1980s and at no time found him lacking in any sense of initiative nor foolish. We talked about Pleistocene paleontology which of course included climate change but at no time made mention of anything called “Gaia”. After all we were talking about science. Tim’s warnings about the increased dangers of drought and declining water supplies are still valid as the residents of Perth and the farmers of western Queensland will attest.
I don’t doubt that he is a nice Guy Wal but he has made a few dire predictions that were well to be generous “over reach” You know like his suggestion that our dams will never be filled again
made just before the drought broke.
And what is the value of where I grew up, the Gippsland Lakes, only centimeters above sea level.
Which probably means that the area has been inundated before
I could show your kids amazing things, but you should hurry up, they won’t be there for much longer
There is no need to panic
“That might be because the work they were doing was of no real value you know…”
I could not possibly tally the number of times AGW true believers have told us that ‘the science is settled”so the refocusing of CSIRO on adaption was a sensible move which is the fact I was alluding to with the line you cite.
what’s the value of a beachfront property at Mermaid Beach?
Do you really think it would be such a loss to our culture if the Gold Coast were be swallowed by the sea?
Your lack of contact with reality in regard to Tim’s old residence on the Hawkesbury only leads to mocking of your assertions about the risk of sea level rise to such a location. The fact that the area is called something or other Point makes it plain to anyone familiar with the region that the house would be located high above the river level on steeply sloping sandstone. Get real mate.
Ah but you never know what erosion could do to any riverside property even one at seemingly safe elevation…
That neither he nor any of his kids have anything to worry about. Anyway Tim’s a good swimmer having spent his childhood snorkeling in the then not some polluted waters of Port Phillip Bay 100 metres south and 10 metres below his family home.
Sure sounds like he comes from a rather privileged background.
You already have a degree? Well that appears to have been a waste.
Not at all it was three happy years in my life, and where I met my wife and had that meeting not happened then I would not have my lovely children…
If you’re using the Herald Sun, or any News Ltd source for that matter, as a source of evidence then you’re doing it wrong.
I just took the first reference form Dr Google and to be frank the Herald Sun and News ltd are no worse than the Guardian as a citation. they just have different biases
Still waiting for you to take up some tertiary education Ian.
I have a degree already
Its not too late.
Which is why I recently did a course on Hadrian’s wall and Games theory for the pleasure of it.
First year logic in a philosophy course would have dispensed with the “Tim Flannery lives near water therefore no need to worry about climate change ” sophistry.
But that was not what I was arguing, my point was that there is a certain delicous irony in the contrast between what Flannery claims we should be worried about and what he chooses to have as a holiday home
You really think the global re-insurance industry and the Pentagon and NASA are making it up just to increase your blood pressure?
My blood pressure is fine, good for my age in fact
Quoting Tim Flannery, could just as well apply to Duncan or Nova or…….
The thing about Flannery is that there is something so wonderfully gormless about the man that just makes he perfect for mockery about his failed dire predictions made in his service of Gaia.
as evident by your consistently inaccurate postings,
you fall for any old meme that comes along….
……………………….especially when it’s hatched by a shock jock.
No its just a delicious irony that someone so big on “we are all going to drown panicking should want to live by the (rising)sea and I can’t help but wonder if he has a Lifejacket under his beach-side pillow…
Perhaps you should stop obsessing about Flannery and read some science.
Its hardly an obsession because this is the first time I’ve mentioned him here for ages.
Then you would find out sea level rise is uneven around Australia and inundation risk is also affected by landform.
Well as a mountain dweller I like to make jokes about rising sea level bringing the beach closer to my house…
Don’t leave it too long, the CSIRO scientists who look at this stuff are being sacked.
That might just be because the work they were doing was of no real value you know…
Anyone with a GPS that can tel you elevation can tell what the risk of a rising sea level might be to a particular property. But as even Tim Flannery has a water-side property maybe there is no real need to worry about this sort of stuff after all.
Strange comment. One minute you want our borders closed, next minute you want us forcing open other peoples’ border to wage wars of aggression against them.
Pretty sure that I did not mention border control in this thread, hang on I will check…. what I was alluding to of course was the ex[ecation that in the event of a war, any war, that the civilized world should “do something about it”
Terrorism? You really mean NON-WESTERN terrorism. Violence and terror (and of course torture) are as much the everyday tools of our ruling classes as they are of any (very much smaller) non-Western “terrorist” groups whose methods you profess to despise. While the West officially claims to promote international equality and the international rule of law, “our” conduct is precisely the reverse. Western nations are the worst enemy of international prosperity and order.
Typical Trotskyite nonsense !
Such is the bloodlust and arrogance of such buffoons and their attack hyenas that every opportunity for criminality, stupidity or wanton slaughter continues to be used to demonstrate the impunity with which they can practice their gratuitous viciousness. Afghanistan, then Iraq, then back to Iraq, then to Syria – a litany of cost, killing and impunity– and of failure.
You do understand that if we (the west) wanted to we could kill every single human being in all of those places don’t you? We have the technology and we have the bombs to do it yet strangely enough there are still people living in all of those places. How could that be if the desire of west was just to slaughter of theses countries as you claim. You of course ignore the fact that vast majority of the killing in all those countries has been done in the name of Allah and you also ignore the blatantly imperialistic aspirations of the Jihadists which is why we had to go into Afghanistan in the first place (you are probably one of those conspiracy nutters who blames Israel for 911 aren’t you?) As for Syria do you really want to leave it to the Jihadists? You probably do.
while the blood was flowing in the dusty streets
Think of that all by yourself?
I did actually.
Yeah, that’s not over the top at all.
Sadly its an understatement in a world where not a day goes by without a new atrocity done in the name of Allah by the unending extremists. Believe me I wish that it were not so but one thing that is certain is that looking away will not staunch that blood flow.
Until the extremists of Islam are comprehensively beaten we will need to take them out where ever they oppress and make war upon their fellow Muslims, lest we be deafened by the cries of people like yourself for standing by and doing nothing while the blood was flowing in the dusty streets
Except that there is not the infrastructure to distribute said energy to where it might be needed NOR is there any way to store that energy for later use. All such pie in the sky claims should be taken with a with a very large grain of salt because until there is a cost effective way to distribute and or store the collected energy its a big pile of steaming camel crap to claim that solar panels in the desert is any sort of solution at all.
An ETS is simply a Ponzi scheme and a rather bad way to address emissions, a far better and more effective way to lower emissions is to simply mandate, through a bill in the parliament energy/emission standards the way that it has been done with cars in other places. That way you get the result you want without enriching a whole swag of sleazy derivatives traders in the process.
The suffering of a few is sadly necessary because nothing else actually works in stopping them coming here
John Cook Proprietor of SKS, Repeat Coauthor of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Caught Red Handed Impersonating Lubos Motl for Purposes of a University of Australia Research Project
UPDATE: Just to be clear to the crowd. Nobody believes this had to do with LOG 12,13 or papers of the moon landing genre. Not sure what the study had to do with. Also, these Lubos posts were not initially visible to the public but were made visible to an unknown number of others by John Cook and eventually released to the public by someone else. Not that I care either way, I just don’t want to be accused of saying something I didn’t say. I was rather grumpy when I wrote the post and I suppose I still am, that is why it is called the Air Vent after all.
After being libeled in a journal by Lewandowsky and Cook in 2013: “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation” where Cook and Lew made claims which they knew from personal…
View original post 533 more words
I’m sure that some readers may have noticed that I am no longer updating this blog on a regular basis so I feel that after ten years that I’m going to give writing this blog a rest . I am still interested in a good argument but with my on going health issues I just can’t muster the energy to write here regularly any more, things may change in the future so I’m not going to close the blog because I do see some real value in keeping this blog open as an archive that I can refer to when I am commenting elsewhere.
Anyway farewell for now Comrades
Over at New Matilda I constantly hear that the detention centers are akin to the concentration camps but like a lot of minions of the left they are very much addicted to hyperbole so I suggest that they should just compare the pictures below…
Manus is by any measure absolute Luxury compared to any of the Nazi camps