Miscellaneous comments from 28 Jan 2016
Comments made on the previous Miscellaneous comments page from 11 Nov 2015 can be found here.
If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed in other articles, please add your comments here.
Comments
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 2016-01-29 14:40
Permalink
Tasmanian fires
I don't entirely agree with this article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/27/world-heritage-forests-burn-as-global-tragedy-unfolds-in-tasmania
The Tassie fires were all lit by napalm - oops flash 21. Most, 95%, of lightning is negatively charged 'cold' explosive lightning and does start fires. The 5% is positively charge lighting that does every time. It can last 1 second or more, but is almost invariably followed by rain. This is just an attack on the wilderness and natural history - that is not very 'successful' by the sounds of it - despite the hype - 70 fires burning 7,000 hectares not 70,000 as I have been told - hard to confirm and no time.
Vivienne Ortega
Sun, 2016-02-07 12:48
Permalink
Shorebirds are in trouble – serious trouble.
Every year around 5 million migratory shorebirds take flight from Australia to their arctic breeding grounds.
But their numbers are plummeting at an alarming rate because of coastal development in Australia and their stopover sites in the Yellow Sea. "Coastal development" is a euphemism for environmental destruction.
If the numbers keep falling it could mean extinction – forever – for birds like the critically endangered Eastern Curlew which has lived alongside us for many thousands of years. If they don't have their stop-overs, they can die. Tired birds are more apt to collide with obstacles or falter in flight. This is especially true if the birds' flight path passes through storms or unfavorable wind patterns, or if the birds are migrating later in the season and must cover more ground each day to reach their destination.
Illegal hunting and poaching are also a threat at this time, and even legitimate hunters may make mistakes and inadvertently shoot protected birds that they have misidentified in flight.
Deforestation, the draining of wetlands, planting of non-native trees, the loss of areas to urban developments and intensive agriculture are major threats to birds. Numbers of many species are in serious decline as a result of habitat loss and these losses are particularly serious on islands, where bird populations are often small and very fragile.
Shorebirds need champions like you to fight for their survival.
Donate to Birdlife: Every $1 you donate will be worth $2
James Sinnamon
Sun, 2016-02-07 23:23
Permalink
John Howard's 1998 rort to bring in the 'never ever' GST
As Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, manoeuvres to try to get re-elected and increase the 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST) to 15%, we should not forget how in 1998 Australia's Parliamentary democracy to bring about the GST that then Prime Minister Howard had previously promised voters would 'never ever' happen. The following has been posted to discussion Increasing GST: not worth the effort. How about inheritance taxes? (5/2/16) on JohnQuiggin.com
Thank you, Chris O'Neill on February 7th, 2016 at 01:22 and BilB on February 7th, 2016 at 08:47.
Chris O'Neill wrote:
Another more recent example, is Senator Barnaby Rubble - sorry, Joyce, who promised at the 2004 Federal elections to oppose the privatisation of Telstra (or was it then still called 'Telecom'?). After he got elected, he voted for privatisation, contrary to what he had told voters. I recall that his one vote allowed the legislation to pass the Senate. If he had voted against privatisation, Telstra would have remained in public hands.
Of course, as he did with the GST, Howard said almost nothing about Telstra during the 2004 elections and again, after the vote, claimed a mandate for a policy, about which he and the newsmedia had intentionally kept the public in the dark during the election.
For his part, Kim Beazely refused to commit Labor to reversing privatisation should Labor have won the following election.
On the GST election rort, I found myself unable to find any information on Hansard about the 1998 committee to supposedly 'investigate' 'tax reform'. I am sure that an exhaustive search through the 1998 Hansard pdf files would reveal the information, but does anyone know the name of Liberal member, who, upon realising that it was only a vehicle to promote the 'never ever' GST, resigned from that committee?
BilB wrote:
Thank you. Please feel welcome to visit my own web-site, candobetter _dot_ net which is linked to, over to the left.
On that site, we try to cover a range of topics which we consider critically important, but which are not given space on any other Australian blog site of which I am aware.
anon (not verified)
Tue, 2016-02-09 13:41
Permalink
Failure of "economic growth"
Surely having to increase GST to 15% is indicative of the failure of the "economic growth" model. If our economy is growing, why is our budget performing more and more poorly, and our nation costing us more to run?
In order to pursue the most central objective of modern economics – perpetual economic growth – amid increasing resistances from the laws of nature, and also the law of diminishing returns, modern economics has had to come up with a wide range of strategies for raking in ever increasing amounts of economic growth from the future.
The massive culture of consumerism and entitlement that has taken over the world, so that we can continue living as far beyond our means as at all possible.
Economic law states that if one input in the production of a commodity is increased while all other inputs are held fixed, a point will eventually be reached at which additions of the input yield progressively smaller, or diminishing, increases in output. A good example of diminishing returns includes the use of chemical fertilizers- a small quantity leads to a big increase in output. However, increasing its use further may lead to declining Marginal Product (MP) as the efficacy of the chemical declines.
If we must keep increasing taxes and costs of living, in a desperate attempt to keep our economy running, enough to keep our health, education and maintenance of infrastructure, then inefficiencies have crept in, and the cogs aren't turning properly. Our economy has become diseased by dis-economies of scale, an imbalance of cost/benefits, and too big and unwieldy to be "economical". Grabbing more and more from the hip pockets of the public, while our services are sliding backwards into crises of funding shortfalls, then our returns are diminishing. Our "economic growth" model sounds lucrative and reassuring, but it's nose-diving into more and more poverty and debt!
quark
Tue, 2016-02-09 16:25
Permalink
Talk of increase of GST to 15%
My thoughts exactly. The apparent current need for government to raise more revenue from taxes would indicate to me that more taxpayers do not make it easier for governments to provide for their citizens. i remember that the argument around population and infrastructure, especially related to rail services between capital cities in Australia went like this "We just don't have the population.If we had a greater population we could afford better transport in Australia." It now looks as though we are able to afford less with more people as other needs must be met by governments and there is a call for more taxes. I never hear anyone in the media interviewing members of the government asking why this has happened.i.e that they they now need more taxes than they used to.
Greg W (not verified)
Sun, 2016-02-14 08:57
Permalink
At last The Conversation sees bleeding obvious
anon (not verified)
Tue, 2016-02-16 11:36
Permalink
Russia Has Destroyed the CIA's Arms Smuggling Operation in Syria
Mme Lafarge (not verified)
Wed, 2016-02-17 23:29
Permalink
World Population simulation Video to 2050
From Population Education at http://www.populationeducation.org/content/world-population-video
World Population Video
Watch human population grow from 1 CE to present and see projected growth in under six minutes. This "dot" video, one of Population Education’s most popular teaching tools, was updated in 2015 and is now more accurate than ever with all dots placed using GIS. Stream below or purchase your own copy of the World Population DVD that includes the narration in six languages and closed captions.
Copyright 2015.
Accompanying the video is the companion site World Population History. Created for both classrooms and a general audience, the site lets visitors zoom in on the map for a closer look at population centers and many of the population dots are annotated with events and information about the location. A historical timeline simultaneously gives context to the changes on the map through milestones that have impacted population over the years. Readings, interactive tools, and classroom lesson plans make the site even more interactive experience for all visitors.
anon (not verified)
Tue, 2016-02-23 08:00
Permalink
EEG is again suing VicForests in the Supreme Court.
Are we getting ... (not verified)
Fri, 2016-02-26 09:14
Permalink
Australia buying substandard weapons
John Bentley (not verified)
Fri, 2016-02-26 12:46
Permalink
Kennels
admin
Fri, 2016-02-26 23:52
Permalink
Russia bans import as well as production of GMOs
From Russia Bans US GMO Imports (26/2/16) | New Eastern Outlook
Russia is making consequent its decision last fall to ban the commercial planting of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO in its agriculture acreage. The latest decision, effective February 15, 2016 does not at all please Monsanto or the US Grain Cartel.
On February 15, a Russian national import ban on soybeans and corn imports from the United States took effect. The Russian food safety regulator Rosselkhoznadzor announced that the ban was because of GMO and of microbial contamination and the absence of effective US controls on soybean and corn exports to prevent export of quarantinable grains, also known as microbial contamination. The Russian food safety regulator added that corn imported from the US is often infected with dry rot of maize. In addition, he said, corn can be used for GMO crops in Russia. The potential damage from import and spread of quarantinable objects on the territory of Russia is estimated at $126 -189 million annually.
...
Sheila Newman
Sat, 2016-03-05 18:50
Permalink
Excellent article: Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected
Eric Claus (not verified)
Mon, 2016-03-14 14:11
Permalink
Immigration discussion on Sunrise
Dennis K
Fri, 2016-04-29 20:31
Permalink
The Age article on population growth
ecoengine7 (not verified)
Sun, 2016-05-01 12:50
Permalink
Fairfax limitations
admin
Fri, 2016-04-29 23:34
Permalink
Australia both a perpetrator of the First World War and a victim
The following was posted to a discussion, Anzac Day, 101 years on …, on johnquiggin.com.
As terrible as the Gallipoli campaign was for Australia and New Zealand, even worse carnage awaited our soldiers in France and Belgium after 1916.
"The Murdoch Archipelago" (2003 - 580 pp) by Bruce Page shows how war correspondent Keith Murdoch - so lionised for blowing the whistle on the Gallipoli campaign - was subsequently uncritical of the campaign in France and Belgium.
On a related issue, "Hell-Bent - Australia's leap into the Great War" (2014 - 353pp), by Australian Author Douglas Newton, shows how, on two occasions prior to the start of the First World War, the Australian government actually tried to persuade the British Governent to go to war. The first occasion was the Agadir crisis of 1911. The second was during the Second Balkan War of 1913.
On each of those two occasions, popular opposition within Europe prevented the outbreak of a larger war.
In 1914, after the Sarejevo incident, the majority of the British cabinet was initially opposed to going to war.
However, in the ensuing weeks, the Australian government did all it could to persuade the British cabinet to declare war. As we know by 4 August 1914, that majority was reduced to a minority. So, Britain and the whole Commonwealth went to war and lost 900,000 lives, 60,000 of which were Australian.
So, Australia was both a victim and a perpetrator of that war.
Dragonfly (not verified)
Thu, 2016-05-12 14:01
Permalink
Are you sick of The Conversation's mealy mouthed 'research'?
John Bentley (not verified)
Sat, 2016-05-14 09:47
Permalink
The Conversation(less)
Sheila Newman
Thu, 2016-08-25 21:26
Permalink
NSW: Save Blenheim Park - No Highrise
There is a petition at https://www.change.org/p/cityofryde-ryde-nsw-gov-au-save-blenheim-park-no-highrise?recruiter=589003133&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive
Save Blenheim Park - No Highrise
16 STOREY HIGH RISE IN BLENHEIM PARK PROPOSED
The developer of the three low density residential properties in Blenheim Park has successfully persuaded the Department of Planning to consider their proposal to rezone the 3 houses to allow a 16 storey development on the site. This will be considered by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) as a pre gateway determination on 31st August 2016.
This recommendation by Departmental bureaucrats is despite Council rejecting the proposal and unanimously endorsing the acquisition of the properties and returning them to Blenheim Park. The Department of Planning has stated that it will not be considering Councils unanimous proposal for parkland until after the 16 storey tower proposal has been considered!
Clr Craig Chung, Chris Turner and Brad Powe, along with Minister Dominello, have had a productive meeting with Minister Stokes to express the community concern at such a proposal.
Remember! This fight will only be won if we unite to push back the push for massive towers right in the middle of Blenheim Park. Resist the urging by some people for name calling and partisan politics. This is about a united community issue and defeating overdevelopment on our doorstep.
Let’s remember, when a developer buys low density residential home sites (Zoned R2) on the hope that they can rezone the land to high density for home units – it is a purely speculative proposal. It is a risk. It is a commercial decision. There is nothing underhanded about the community saying “Thanks but no thanks”. Allowing a mix of housing in the appropriate locations is one thing, but North Ryde has done its bit with the development of Lachlans Line and the North Ryde Station precinct.
*The proposed high rise development doesn’t fit in with the low rise residential development nearby
*It is a massive overdevelopment of the site overlooking the beautiful Blenheim park
*Traffic and parking in the area is already diabolical
*The intersections of Blenheim/Pittwater/Epping/Delhi Roads are all at failure and cannot cope with a high rise development on this site
*Infrastructure in the North Ryde area needs significant improvement before we can consider any more high rise development
*Victor Dominello MP has recently saved Tennis World from high rise redevelopment and now we have to fight the battle all over again with another site adjacent to Blenheim Park.
As a comparison, it is useful to compare this proposal with other developments that are either underway or about to commence:
Allengrove is 1.5:1 maximum 5 storeys
Whiteside is 0.99:1 with a maximum of 5 storeys
Ryde gardens is 4.3:1 with a maximum of 99 metres
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO HAVE AN FSR OF 4.3:1
16 STOREYS
120 APARTMENTS
Sheila Newman
Sun, 2016-08-28 19:40
Permalink
Unauthorised ads on candobetter.net have been removed
VivKay (not verified)
Thu, 2016-10-06 15:22
Permalink
Baird government declares war on NSW wildlife
John Bentley (not verified)
Sun, 2016-11-20 12:13
Permalink
Balkans Campaign and Operation Barbarossa
James Sinnamon
Thu, 2017-04-13 12:42
Permalink
Flattr taken over by AdBlock because of flawed business model
The comment below was posted to the Flattr blog in response to the article about Flattr having recently, on 5 April, being bought out by Addblock Plus. Flattr is a system to provide any Internet user with an easy way to make a small payment to any creator of content - textual, graphic, video, visual or audio - that he/she sufficiently appreciated. It was launched in March 2010.
It's obvious to me that, two years since I joined Flattr, contrary to my hopes and to what was predicted by its creators, Flattr has made little noticeable impact on the Internet.
Instead of deriving adequate income through Flattr, each content provider still has to struggle to attract advertising to his/her site or go without income.
Those, who are not advertisers, who want to support web content producers are still obliged to use older means: credit cards, PayPal, direct deposit from bank accounts, etc.
Surely, it's time that the creators of Flattr ask themselves why it has not taken off.
The reason I no longer use it is that (as I recall) a Flattr users must commit himself/herself to paying a fixed amount each month.
Why?
Why not just make a payment and only have to pay more when it runs out?
What if one stops using the Internet for a period of time? What if over a given mopnth one one is unable to find sufficient content that he/she judges to be worth a Flattr payment?
Under the existing business model one just has to just keep on paying a fixed amount each month, regardless.
Jenny W (not verified)
Mon, 2017-07-17 17:03
Permalink
Terry McCrann's pop article trumps Jessica Irvine's nonsense
quark
Tue, 2017-07-18 08:13
Permalink
Propaganda boredom
Sheila Newman
Tue, 2017-07-18 11:53
Permalink
Australian cooking and the coffee culture
quark
Thu, 2017-07-20 08:02
Permalink
Ingredients and cuisine
Flora Fauna (not verified)
Fri, 2017-07-21 22:30
Permalink
Fauna First Aid courses in Tralgon 16th and 17th September
Add comment