Comments
Phew!
World's population will blow-out before the next millenium!
Al Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physic, University of Calorado Boulder in United States, has stated that in 780 years there will be only one square meter for each person on the planet's land at our rate of population growth! It is clear that this human density will never be achieved as our ecology will be depleted long before this!
The things that we feel good about, such as family size, immigration, good health etc will be the factors that actually make our species come to their conclusion even faster. The things we don't want, such as zero population growth, high mortality etc, the factors that will help us in the long term.
We will not make it to the next millenium! Is the human race so blinded that they are heading faster towards mass suicide?
Albert Bartlett: "Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way
aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
Our Government keeps adding more people to Australia. Do they fail to understand the exponential functions of growth, or are they just going ahead "business as usual" until the next election knowing that they are contributing to our final demise?
Constructive discussion invited
There's plenty of constructive ideas at http://www.quietas.net/Page51.html where there's also an invitation to comment by email.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Going legal - sending a bad dog owner packing?
Tigerquoll, there's a limit throughout the land of two dogs per suburban dwelling. More than two requires the issuance of a kennel licence which may be denied if anyone within 200 metres of the proposed kennel objects. This distance should be raised to two kilometres.
I'd welcome details of your success. It's usually the tormented victim of barking who has to move out.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Public has been fed lies to justify Majura kangaroo massacre
You're not trying to stop the barking?
Discussion still going around in circles.
A good find
Thankyou Tigerquoll, for a good find. I appreciate your interest and I'm grateful for your comments.
The catch with this legislation lies in that seemingly innocuous word "unreasonably." This damned word, along with others elsewhere like it such as "excessively" - is undefined.
This means that nobody knows what the boundaries of tolerance are. It leaves the so-called "enforcement authorities" floundering for actionable standards. It leaves the complainant without firm criteria. An eventual standard can be set by a particular court in a particular matter - but by then it's prettymuch too late. It's all way too sloppy by far.
The impact of Noise is extremely subjective person-to-person, so setting actionable boundaries is problematic. What annoys me tonight when I'm lying in bed unable to sleep won't annoy me tomorrow night when I'm so tired I sleep right through it.
When I was a kid in Suburban Sydney everyone intuitively respected his neighbours' rights to live in peace and quiet.
That consideration has substantially dissolved nowadays, hence all the troubles.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Maplewood 'Noise Control' solution applied to Barking Dogs
No, never. Never ever ...
ANY form of subsidy to dog owners is RIGHT OFF the radar screen. It must NEVER happen!
Australia's dog plague and all the suffering that goes with it is significantly out of control as it is - and it's FAR worse in America, the nation which habitually abuses its freedoms more than any other.
Instead, the reverse should happen - that dog owners be FORCED, not only to pay for EVERY expense associated with keeping their animals cruelly incarcerated, but to pay EVERY expense incurred as a consequence of their ignorant, reckless stupidity. I refer, for example, to ALL the costs incurred, and for the fullest possible recompense to the family whose head was killed when he ran off the road on his way to work because of the tiredness brought about by the previous night's barking of his neighbour's dog. This is just ONE ghastly example of the innumerable invisible tragedies and suffering associated with the keeping of dogs. There's millions of lesser examples - EVERY DAY!
Shall I speak now of the maulings, the disfigurations, the DEATHS - of those attacked by the so-called domestic dog? Even when a local dog killed his little girl her father said "Oh, it was just an accident!" Like hell it was. Because of his ignorant, selfish, mindless stupidity, the dog owner had SET IT UP!
Dog ownership is nearly always an indulgence, and an extremely selfish one at that. I don't expect anyone else to subsidise any of my few INESSENTIAL indulgences such as chocolate, and I'm not going to subsidise the cost of my neighbour's backyard swimming pool, either. If he wants such indulgences, then HE can pay for them! Fully!
Those dependent on their dog for their irrational source of narcissistic supply should pay all the costs associated with their damned fool drug addiction. Don't look to me for one cent of those costs - I've managed my life for 70 years without having needed a dog for even one second.
Except in quite rare circumstances, dogs are NOT ESSENTIAL.
I admire a well-trained farm dog's ability to herd sheep, and I'm awed by the astounding sensitivity of a customs' dog to sniff illicit drugs, and I recognise that the salary of a dog that keeps its vision-impaired owner less helpless is low, and I can accept the desire of the elderly for live-in companionship that's therapeutic - but beyond this, NO.
The reality is that dogs, by their nature, are unsuitable creatures for city and suburban conditions.
Our society will eventually realise this, but in the meantime it's as loopy as a hula hoop.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Imports mean that harmful industries stay offshore
What does RSPCA CEO Heather Neil have to say about this?
We are a community mainly of consumers
Barking Dogs.
Discussion may be going around in circles
Courtesy.
More Australian anti-Noise websites
Australian anti-Noise websites generally inactive or not maintained are as follows:
1. Quiet Australia at http://quietaus.blogspot.com/ and its associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietAus/
2. Noise Tasmania at http://www.geocities.com/noisetas/
Peter Bright
Quiet Tasmania
www.quietas.net
Australian anti-Noise websites
I'm aware of only three Australian anti-Noise, anti-barking websites.
These are my own comprehensive and sometimes updated website Quiet Tasmania at http://www.quietas.net and its supplementary and much shorter associated and regularly updated website Quiet Tasmania News at http://www.pebri.net
There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania/ where membership is immediate and posts are not moderated.
---o0o---
Mr Matthew Ridgeway of Melbourne has VODAAN (Victims of Domestic Animal Attacks and Noise) at http://www.geocities.com/vodaan/ however this is currently not maintained and enquirers are referred to Quiet Tasmania. Matthew's family was forced to relocate because his council refused to control neighbourhood barking.
Matty has an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vodaan/ which is currently maintained by Quiet Tasmania.
I'd welcome knowledge of any other Australian websites.
Peter Bright
Hobart
www.quietas.net
World's most informative website on the human health hazards of
Not impressed
World's best website about barking
Those struggling for knowledge and understanding of dog barking can do no better than explore the world's most comprehensive website on the subject. It's called barkingdogs and the address is http://www.barkingdogs.net/
There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Choice.
Correct me if I am wrong,
Unreasonable expectations and human rights.
noise - parallax perspective
attribution of motive faulty
Look at it this way
Personal attacks versus discussing issues at hand
Another rally against the Rally a great idea, but ...
(Although I am from Brisbane and not from either Kyogle and Tweed Shires) I agree there should be another rally against the Rally and a good many more until plans to stage this obscenity are abandoned.
However, it takes a good deal of time, effort and money to organise each rally. If you are in a position to lend a hand, as well as to attend the next rally, I am sure that the No Rally group would be more than happy to hear from you. Some contact details can be found in the No Rally Group's "What you can do" page.
You can phone the No Rally Group on 0438 357 452 or the Caldera Environment Centre on (02) 66-721-121.
The No Rally Group's e-mail address is no.rally[AT]yahoo.com
I don't give much for anyone's chances of being able to meet Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to discuss this issue.
Firstly, I think the chances of him wanting to help would be slim.
Secondly, as it is somewhat removed from his own direct responsibilities, it would be easy for him to fob you off.
In my opinion, efforts would be better directed towards people who are in a position to decide the outcome one way or the other, or who are likely to be sympathetic and who could use their public profile to win public support for your cause.
In the former category, I would include Peter Garrett, the Federal Minister for the Environment, any member of the NSW Parliament, and local councillors. In the latter category, I would include Independents and Greens in and, possibly, Liberal or National MPs in the NSW and federal Parliaments.
Barking dogs.
Will There Be Another Rally?
Labor Caucus rules modeled on CPSU constitution?
Part of the noise problem
Bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end
Author says much nonsense has been talked about fire bunkers
Hi. I’m Joan Webster, author of "The Complete Bushfire Safety Book" (RRP $34.95) (Random House) and "Essential Bushfire Safety Tips" (RRP AU$29.95) (CSIRO)
So much bunk has been talked about bunkers. One, faxed with fervour through all the media, was designed by a NSW solicitor. A flimsy timber trapdoor set in a timber verandah. An ember could ignite the verandah. If this happened before entry into the bunker, no-one could get in. If after, no-one could get out.
Commercially available concrete cylinders are advertised as being airtight when closed. Shelterers would suffocate. One is designed to be buried below 900mm of earth. How then could one enter it from the top? Is the 900 mm of earth to be shored up to keep the entrance clear? How? And how not create a perfect lodging place for tumbling, burning debris?
A refuge room of whatever kind needs to be well away from the house and reached by a vegetation-free path. It needs to be constructed with fire rated, insulated, reinforced concrete walls and floor, have a roof secured with cyclone clips, an outer metal-mesh screen protecting a fire-rated door and sheltered on 3 sides by a 2 m radiant heat shield, about 5 metres from
its exit.
Inside, it needs:
- a small reinforced spy-window
- pure wool blankets and drinking water
- ventilation
However, scientists have not yet discovered a system to provide both protection from smoke and spark entry and ventilation.
Probably the best use for a bunker is for emergency shelter of the aged, frail and very young, and for storage of precious possessions. Householders really wanting a bunker, should be advised to check the proposed design with the CSIRO Division of Building Research and check their site for suitability with a senior officer of the CFA’s Community Safety Department. Those who have enough money to construct a bunker would do much better to put it into protection for the house, into window shutters, eliminating the roof/ceiling space, building-in the sub-floor and installing low-flow roof sprinklers.
You must realise that while sheltering in a bunker, you cannot know what embers may be doing inside the house.
See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives", which disputes some of the content of this article and comments and "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end".
Joan Webster
A.F.P.A. Community Safety award 1990
Author of:
Essential Bushfire Safety Tips (Random House 2001, CSIRO 2008)
The Complete Bushfire Safety Book (Random House 2000)
In and About Parliament (Parliamentary Library of Victoria 2000)
The Complete Australian Bushfire Book (Thomas Nelson 1986 Penguin 1989)
Gate Crashed (MacMillan 1976)
Manuscript Assessment Service, Mentoring, Effective Writing courses.
Email: jwebster[AT]castlemaine.net
Bushfire bunkers built from shipping containers
Originally sent to me on 1 June 2009. Apologies for the delay in posting this. - JS
My name is Diederik Haneveld and have a project underway. Check out Faint
Voice shipping container bunker discussions.
regards,
Diederik
Kyogle Repco car rally
People can't draw the dots!
ABC bias breathtaking
The Australian again reveals its anti-democratic colours
Check out this astonishingly nasty editorial from Rupert Murdoch's Australian:
Bob Brown should think again before he decides to sue
JUST this once, Bob Brown should stop making a martyr of himself. On Monday, the Greens senator told the world he would lose his Senate seat if Forestry Tasmania bankrupted him over $240,000 he owes in legal fees. And - what a surprise - environmental activists immediately rallied to his cause. Pensioners promised to bake cakes and Dick Smith said he would see what he could do to help. Perhaps Senator Brown was surprised by promises of assistance, or perhaps it was what he expected, given the years he has spent cultivating his image as a fearless fighter for forests.
Not satisfied with having a personally ruinous bill imposed upon Bob Brown, The Australian would presumably have Bob Brown accept bankruptcy alone without accepting help from others and being thrown out of the Senate for having courageously stood up for forests which the Tasmanian Government is willing to have destroyed. The editorial continues:
But whatever his expectations, in ensuring the debate is all about him, Senator Brown avoids explaining what this matter actually involves -the way activists attempt to use the courts to impose their opinions on everybody else. Senator Brown took Forestry Tasmania to court to stop logging in Tasmania's Wielangata Forest, which supposedly threatens the habitats of two endangered birds and one beetle. The case took four years to complete, ending last year when a panel of High Court judges denied Senator Brown permission to appeal to the full court. The decision meant he was stuck with Forestry Tasmania's costs.
Tough. Every government agency and private business that has faced environmentalists whose MO is to use the courts when parliament will not give them what they want is familiar with this sort of strategy. It is a lot easier to go to court when your business is not at stake and when somebody else will ultimately pick up the bill. If it wasn't so serious, this whole affair would be frivolous.
Timber the most sustainable of all building materials, but ...
Forestry - take more than a minute because this is important
Why do people think that logging of a forest is the end of the story. Biology regenerates - that is its very nature. Australian's of the present rightfully should take it upon themselves to ensure that biology maintains the ability to regenerate - this includes maintaining healthy ecosystems. But that does not then mean that logging is somehow evil. In deed native forestry and associated timber production is about as natural a system as you can get; miles ahead of food production, mining, energy production, etc - and yet humans need these activites and resultant products for the lifestyles they demand. In the knowledge that native forest in Australia is managed sustainably, I would rather have a timber power pole than concrete, timber house frame than steel, timber furniture than plastic, wood fireplace than coal-fired power. Why do people not realise that when they say no to logging (in general) they are instead saying yes to using up more of the earth's NON-renewable resources.
Vivienne, I agree in all respects
Parks & DSE 0/10
Peter Garrett should pay Senator Bob Brown's court costs!
Just stop for a minute...and think
Two Wrongs...
Independent zoologists have clout
Map of Port Phillip Bay dredging
Population growth caused by Bligh another excuse for fire sale
If you look at Anna Bligh's speech in which she announced her privatisation plans in state Parliament, she uses population growth as one justification for privatisation:
"The global recession has also confronted us as a state and as a government, as the stewards of our economy and of our public finances.
...
"...Confronted with the need in these tough financial times to continue the infrastructure task to build for a growing population."
So, population growth is justified as being good for the economy, but somehow, such costs that the Queenslander are being made to pay, privatisation being only one of many, have been omitted from the studies that the Murdoch press is so practised at citing. See, for example, this quote from the Australian's editorial "Workers welcome" of 16 May 09:
More migrants will inevitably cause pressures in other areas of the economy, including the tight housing sector where a shortage of stock is leading to rapidly rising rents. But the economic case for more skilled migrants is clear. Treasury estimates the $1.4 billion cost over four years will be more than offset by $2.9 billion generated in additional taxes and charges.
More more migrants have, indeed, caused pressure on the "tight housing sector", so much so that increased rents have almost literally turned vast numbers of even professionals into slaves -- not just my words, that is what a surveyor, who lives nearby, who has been slugged with massive rental increases every six months has put to me -- and the problem of homelessness has grown massively.
But we were assured by the Murdoch newsmedia that the alleged economic prosperity caused by immigration would make all these associated costs, now also including privatisation, well worth it.
Population growth does not ensure economic growth or prosperity!
Free-Trade agreements are not "free"
In defence of kangaroo meat
4 lane highway through Majura will threaten species!
Barking dogs
Barking dogs are kept by bullies. The decline of social cohesion has facilitated increased levels of bullying wherever the opportunity presents itself. Bullying is not confined to school grounds. Neighbourhoods are now governed by adult bullies who use their dogs not as companions, but as means to control the happiness and comfort of surrounding residents. But this cannot last much longer, because receptors of barking ---- whatever amount of it is regarded as objectionable ---- are fighting back. We are no longer prepared to accept the delivery of someone else's noise into our sleeping and living rooms. We are putting the bullies on notice. Shut your dog up, or we will see you in court.
Enforcement needs sufficient proof
Statutory Declarations on their own offer insufficient inducement for an enforcement body to enforce, although in my 15 detailed barking control recommendations to the Tasmanian government I've sought to have them utilised much more than they are now. A sworn oath should carry an appropriate level of gravity and should be better respected by the judiciary.
Magistrates like to have witnesses in the witness box so their integrity may be directly evaluated and their statements more readily challenged.
Those of us who detest barking and the hellishly miserable life forced upon us by innumerable reckless neighbours, many of whom are entirely unsuited to dog ownership. eventually realise that our torment is not in any way the dog's fault. The dog itself is a victim of its selfishly moronic owner.
This means that, despite our original tortured feeling that the dog should be killed, and the sooner the better, it would be wrong to inflict any hurt at all onto an innocent party.
You mention that 1080 poison is for the control of feral animals, so I assume it would be much more fairly applied to dog owners than the poor, unfortunate, incarcerated creatures held perennially captive in their so-called care.
The Tasmanian government has recently proposed that the din from car alarms be restricted to 45 seconds, this being a sufficient indicator that something is wrong. Our government copied the NSW law that originally specified a 90 second limit.
Seizing on this splendid proposal, I've recommended in Quiet Tasmania's submission that the same 45 second time limit be imposed for barking. More and more people are however, demanding a zero tolerance threshold, and I support that.
Car alarms and dog alarms are both examples of loud, invasive, impulse noise deliberately designed to attract attention and their message is the same .. something is urgently wrong.
You can read more about this on my developmental website, Quiet Tasmania News, at
http://www.pebri.net/index_13.htm
Peter Bright
http://www.quietas.net
Desalination plant should be re-thought too!
No Fuel for Repco Motor Rally
Kangaroos were here first
The kangaroo killing industry has a well-oiled publicity machine
The kangaroo killing industry has a well-oiled publicity machine to continually justify their evil trade to the public. Even urban dwellers have swallowed their tirade, that kangaroos are a "pest"! They have been labelled a pest due to grazing pressure and competition with livestock, but science ruled this one out! Then kangaroos became a "renewable resource", or a "green" meat, using green-washing, but the meat is not clean nor humanely "harvested". Now, in Canberra, scientists have been paid to "prove" that kangaroos are an environmental threat! If this were so, Australia would be already wrecked before the First Fleet came here! The Kangaroo Advisory Committee is just a rubber stamp for the industry too. More kangaroos are killed here than the number of baby seals in Canada, but we in Australia are so apathetic and so easily swayed by the opinion of pastoralist rednecks who want to shoot any native animal that may come onto their property. The reality is that our Government wants kangaroos to be only in sanctuaries or zoos.
Reply to 'Anonymous'
Disputes accuracy of article about kangaroo killing
No excuses
There is no excuse for the application of wilful cruelty to any living creature.
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Humans are herd animals heading towards extinction of the planet
Truth News challenges censorship of 9/11 discussion
John Quiggin censors JFK's speech against secret societies
As I feared, my previous post citing JKF and the ancient Athenian lawmaker Solon have been deleted by Professor John Quiggin. Here are his words:
"Deleted. I think everyone is aware of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I see no benefit in having them discussed here. I specifically requested no metacommentary on my decision, and you’ve chosen to ignore that. You’re banned for 24 hours."
Update: (1 June 09): Shortly after the 24 hour ban expired, I #comment-238230">posted the following to the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" :
If questioning what Prime Minister Kevin Rudd insists is the reason why Australia has no choice but to continue its involvement in the Afghan war, now overflowing into Pakistan, is #comment-238137">deemed inappropriate for a forum discussing that conflict, can I at least commend #comment-238207">Duckpond's excellent article, also about that conflict.
However, people need to be warned before they click on that link: The last time I looked, at least #comment-14119">one of the comments appeared to contain references to subject matter deemed inappropriate for this discussion.
---
The setbacks to the Tamil Tigers as well as the Pakistani Taliban, however we view those movements, illustrate that it is folly to assume that popular resistance can always overpower the military might of powerful imperial nations like the US or their local proxies. Even where it succeeded as appeared to be the case in Vietnam, it was at a terrible cost in lives and material.
So, it seems to me that Ho Chi Minh and others, who tried to emulate his strategy, may not have been as smart as they have been held to be, particularly given that Ho Chi Minh failed to seize opportunities to decisively end the conflict in 1945 and 1954, claiming, retropectively that a people's war would bring victory at a cheaper cost.
I guess at least we can all sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that our rulers would never contemplate using the awesome firepower that they have used against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan against their own people.
My response to Professor Quiggin deleting my comments
The following was posted #comment-238137">here. As I noted in my last comment Professor John Quiggin has threatened to permanently ban me from his site for such 'meta-comments' as this which challenge his earlier deletion of my contributions. It would be interesting to see if quoting the words of President John F Kennedy were to result in my being banned.
Dear #comment-238111">Professor Quiggin,
How do you respond to the following words of President John F Kennedy in his speech against secret societies given on 27 April 1961:
"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy."
By rebuking me for making known to this discussion basic facts relating to the current ongoing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by having deleted my earlier post, and by not having responded to #comment-234274">questions I put to you on another occasion, it seems to me that you are, indeed, shrinking from controversy.
What if, in response to allegations that North Vietnam was invading the sovereign democratic nation of South Vietnam in the 1960's, I pointed out that most of the 'invaders' were, in fact, Vietnamese independence fighters from the south, who had been duped into being repatriated to the north following the 1954 Peace Agreement, that the South Vietnamese Government was an unelected dictatorship and that even Australia's Foreign Minister Casey had acknowledged that the Viet Minh would have won overwhelmingly, in the South as well as in the North, if the elections scheduled for 1956 had not been cancelled? How is that different from what I contributed to this discussion in regard to the current war in Afghanistan?
My intention was not to hijack this discussion. I contribute to many disucssions on these conflicts and rarely these days do they go off on long tangents. To the contrary, it seems that the discussions are put back on track, usually with a minimum of fuss, because apologists for the Bush administration tend to desist from using 9/11 as a blank cheque to excuse each and every crime of Bush and his allies. If you like, I can show you where this has happened.
If you do decide to permanently ban me from posting to your site as a consequence of my having made this post, then please say so here, so that I can know whether or not to devote more of my time to contributing to forums on this site from now on.
John Quiggin deletes 9/11 comment from Afghanistan discussion
The post included below was deleted from the discussion "The end of the Taliban?" by Professor John Quiggin. Professor Quiggin justified his action #comment-238111">thus:
"Daggett, you've had your say on this, and you are hijacking the thread against my previous request. I'm deleting your most recent comment and will deleting anything further on this topic. Any metacommentary, attempting to dispute my decision or similar, will result in a more extensive ban. I don’t have time to waste on this kind of thing."
I intend to respond to this.
Post which was deleted from John Quiggin's blog
#comment-238072">Jill,
Many of your points are valid. I well remember being appalled and disgusted by the behaviour of the Taliban rulers, particulary for their barbarous destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan.
In 2001/2002, I welcomed the US invasion of Afgjhanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban on those grounds and because I fully accepted the fiction that 'Al Qaeda' which had been given sanctuary by the Taliban, had perpetrated the 9/11 atrocity. Even when I protested against the invasion of Iraq, I never questioned the US government account of 9/11. Like Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911 I was critical of the US for not pouring more resources into Afghanistan to finish off Al Queda instead of launching the invasion of Iraq, which clearly had no relationship with Al Qaeda.
I became subsequently dismayed to learn that, instead of the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan being totally repudiated by Afghans, they were able to undergo a resurgence. Whether or not the insurgents could be viewed as the same as the former Taliban rulers, the fact that many Afghanis found them preferable to the United States and the government they had intalled, is surely an appalling indictment of the US occupation, so it seems to me that we have not been given the complete story about Afghanistan. It seems that for a more complete account, we need to look on web-sites such as Winter Patriot and Global Research.
I can't know what would result from a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, but it could not possibly be worse than what woud result form their continued occupation.
More recently, I have made the effort to study the evidence of 9/11 and have realised, over seven years too late, that I was wrong to have accepted the official account of 9/11. I strongly suggest that you do the same. Please, at least, look at the video I gave you the link to. It is less than 10 minutes in length. I am happy to discuss with you any questions you have about that or any other 9/11 Truth material.
#comment-238077">Donald Oats, I accepted the story of the respective impacts of the two planes and the fire causing total collapse of the twin towers at near free-fall unquestioningly for over 6 years. However, it has since become obvious that explanation does not take account of all the observations and eyewitness testimony. I urge you also to look at that video I gave you the link to, and then ask yourself if you are still quite so confident of what you have written.
Both the towers were designed to withstand a head on impact from a Boeing 707, a plane comparable to the 767's which struch the Twin Towers. Analysis has shown that there was easily enough structural strength left after the impacts for the full weight of the parts of the towers above to be supported. Most of the fuel, which did did not ignite in the air surrounding the towers, burnt out within minutes and could not have possibly caused the temperature of the steel to be raised anywhere near the temperature that was necessary to cause total structural failure.
Privileged to hear the presentation
Concrete pipe fire bunkers could save lives
Colin Abbott of Jarrahdale, Western Australia has provided us with the link to the very useful article "Fire bunkers to save lives" by Tim Slater in Comment News of 11 May 2009. Collin Abbott's blog site is chabbott.blogspot.com. - JS
Good on you
Post re 9/11 to John Quiggin article "The End of the Taliban"
ABC to the right, and not to the left of public opinion
The following comment was #comment-756176">posted to a Larvatus Prodeo discussion on the ABC, "Balance! I’ll give you balance…". It is currently awaiting moderation.
In reality, the ABC has been well to the right of most public opinion for decades, certainly in regards to questions of privatisation, and economic deregulation.
What has concealed this and allowed some to depict the ABC as being biased to the left is that state and federal labor governments have adopted whole scale the economic neo-liberal dogma (which is, in reality, a justification for the looting of our economies by corporate thieves).
From the 1980's until about 1996, Pru Goward blatantly abused her position as journalist including on the "The 7.30 Report" to peddle her extreme economic neo-liberal anti-union views and to promote the career of John Howard.
In the early noughties the ABC blatantly pushed privatisation. As an example, in 2003 the ABC Radio National's Morning Show presenter Vivian Schenker, even as the Estens Review was supposedly considering the overwhelmingly anti-privatisation submissions and, form that supposedly, deciding the fate of Telstra, told her audience that the only think left to decide was haw the proceeds of privatisation were to be divided up.
For years, the ABC has abysmally failed to hold either Labor or Liberal Governments to account. Kerry O'Brien left Howard almost completely off the hook in one critical interview with him prior to the start of the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 and idiotically referred to the war as 'ethical' whilst assuring John Howard that no irony was intended. I complained of this in a letter that was published in the Canberra Times.
More recently, Brisbane's ABC has given Premier Anna Bligh an astonishingly easy ride during the course of the recent rigged state elections and since then when she has attempted to foist the policy of "Shock Doctrine" style privatisation and public sector cutbacks on the Queensland public.
I have written of this in the articles "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 Apr 09 and "Brisbane's local ABC radio fails to hold Anna Bligh to account over privatisation" of 28 May 09. I have invited ABC journalists to comment on my articles, but none have taken up my offer. Anyone who wants to defend the ABC, here or there, is most welcome to do so.
Ghastly suggestion has merit
What an absolutely ghastly suggestion!
Hmmmmn. But now that you mention it ...
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Retreat advances nothing
James is right. Earplugs are not the answer. Neither is moving house. Neither is building a soundproofed room for when the din becomes too much.
The use of earplugs is a common suggestion from those not fully aware of the principles involved. My brother posted me some of his imported Fimo clay that he used for modelling birds and advised me to mold it and insert it in my ears. Against my better judgement, I did. It melted into a gluggy mass and I had a hell of a job getting it out. No help there.
Relocation is often the police suggestion. This also evades the issues involved. The police don't see barking in particular and Noise in general as crime, and they don't want to be bothered with what the legal system calls nuisances. No help there.
Modifying one room of the house as a retreat for when invasive din becomes maddening was a recent suggestion to a Hobart pensioner by a senior Tasmanian politician who, in common with every other politician, has no understanding whatever of the damage done to helpless victims of invasive neighbourhood did. No help there.
When I was a kid in suburban Sydney, long long ago, all neighbours intuitively respected the rights of others to live night and day in peace and quiet.
To society's great torment and the increasing damage to its health, those natural considerations of decent, caring people have gone. We now have the common attitude: "Bugger you mate, I'll do what I bloodywell want - and if you don't like it then piss off!"
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
The Hollowmen
Public execution
1080 over the counter
How do 1000 people create 4500 extra movements a day?
Earplugs are no solution
Earplugs & firecracker nights
No common ground
Each of us quietists in the anti-barking movement eventually realised the utter futility of trying to reason with besotted canophiles - so we don't.
Instead, I invite any interested persons to access the last dozen or so posts on the popular (300 member) US Yahoo discussion group, barkingdogs. It's at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/
Here's today's post from Aldo:
A challenge for Members - my 2 cents - Aldo
I agree completely, and I think that the problem of barking dogs is really
much more profound and serious than a problem related only with noise,
and in itself, it is a real torture, that causes a kind of deep and
sometimes permanent brain and nervous system damage.
After sometime, it is like a brain washing, that makes who is sensitive to the
barking totally mad, and even can lead this same people to do really nasty,
unreasonable and crazy things, ruining their lives totally, it is a very
dangerous thing not only for the family who is subjected to such abuses, but
also for other people around too, who causes it, due to possible
retaliations.
It is like a dangerous drug, i think. No difference between a continuous
barking for months and months and a heavy use of cocaine, after all,
considering the bad effects over our mind.
Both can kill and damage deeply people's minds , sometimes without return,
causing permanent traumas.
It is a really crazy experience, and I remember that when we ( me and my
family) were submitted to that torture of an intense barking for many hours,
every day, during months, we used to quarrel every day without any
reasonable motive, without control, even without perceiving why, we could not
sleep, rest, eat, study, work or talk in peace, and after a period our hands
and members shaked, we lost our concentration, hapiness, and our son also
suffered a real lot, traumas, with all that disturbances happening around
him.
In fact, during months we lived in a hell !!!
I think that the continuous barking of one or more dogs is like that old
chinese torture, like a drop of water in our forehead all day and night
long, without stopping, we tied up, till finally becaming totally crazy,
loosing our mind.
Such torture creates a kind of permanent fear and a deep sensation of
insecurity and trauma that never more goes way, forever, coming back
whenever you hear a dog barking again ( at least for me and my family).
So, does not matter if the sound of the barking itself is or is not above or
below the noise limits, because, after acertain time you start to reject the
noise with all your soul, you start to hate it ( and the people that allow
it), and you know that it's continuity is damaging your mind, family, is the
real cause of your disturbance, unhapiness, and not only the intensity of the
sound itself, because you know that it will happen again and again, and there
is nothing that you can do can stop it, after all, and nobody will protect
you !!!
The lack confidence in the law, in justice, in any action really capable to
stop it, unless you act with your own hands, the sensation of being tortured
all the time for months and months in total impotence, have your life
destroyed, that is what is more dangerous for our mental health.
It is like a rape (mental) that never ends....
Very sad !!
So, the continuous repeating of the barking is sometimes much more destructive
than the intensity of the sound, imho.
Aldo
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Canine communication argument somewhat misses the point
A lot of what Sheila writes I emphatically agree with.
However, much of what Sheila writes is also beside the point.
I have also had to put up with unwanted noise, including dog barking as well as all those others described on many occasions in my own life so I know, from my own direct experience, how it can completely destroy one's concentration.
I can put a number of my own fail grades at University down to the fact that the noise of barking dogs as well as car horns prevented me from being able to study.
As Menkit pointed out, many, although not all, dog owners are irresponsible and have little concern at the misery that their own animals inflict on the lives of others. Sometimes they even go out of their way to make circumstances worse.
If we lived in less dysfunctional communities, we could find ways to curb dogs from barking as excessively as they often do in our increasingly crowded urban slums,
However, we don't and means to respect the rights of people bothered by excessive barking, including myself, need to be found, until such time as we do.
I believe it is possible, for owners with the will to do so, to curb excessive barking and they must be encouraged to do so with inducements, if possible, as I have argued before, or else made to do so.
Canine communication & other species
Anthropomorphic madness
Your views typify those of many owners, however it's inconsistent to decry human population pressures while condoning and supporting rapidly rising dog population pressures.
I reckon Australia's dog population is twice that of the official four million and that it has been allowed by reckless default to become a plague that's now tormenting citizens everywhere.
Quiet-loving citizens tormented by barking nearly always find that councils won't enforce the laws for control, so the bullying emanates from owners foisting their selfish anthropomorphic stupidity onto peaceful folk rather than from those of us who simply want, or need, to live in a quiet and peaceful environment.
I have a saying: "It's the responsibility of those who introduce the disturbance (of whatever kind) to remove it."
Unfortunately, the police, in recommending that dogs be used as burglar alarms, are exacerbating the environmental degradation being imposed on the innocent. If there are burglars in your area then the police are not doing their job.
The Tasmanian government is proposing to illegitimise car alarm din exceeding 45 seconds. That's good, because it means that if car-alarm din can be outlawed like that, then then so can bark-alarm din. Both are examples of very loud impulse noise used to attract attention.
I have addressed the subject here at www.pebri.net/index_13.htm
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
On the subject of not getting facts straight
Disregard of residents' wishes by Tweed Shire Council
I am not exactly sure why it is that Paul Scott expects that Tweed Shire residents who have strenuously objected to the Nightcap development will accede to his edict that they "live with" the decision of the Tweed Shire Council to ignore their wishes, but I sincerely hope that the Tweed Shire residents tell Paul Scott where to put his advice.
I wonder what Paul's understanding of the concept of 'democracy' is?
My understanding of democracy, to once again borrow US President Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, is 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.
What has happened in Tweed Shire is clearly different.
Clearly, the Tweed Shire Councilors, the majority of which have been voted into office on the basis of being supposedly pro-environment and anti-developer, have been somehow got at behind the backs of those who voted them into office and been persuaded to disregard their wishes.
Paul Scott wrote:
It was not the developer who mentioned the work done to rehabilitate the land as assumed by James Sinnamon but by me who just happens to live and work in the immediate area.
This is completely beside the point. In fact, if it was not the developer that supposedly rehabilitated the land, then they would have even less moral right to build the housing estate. As I wrote earlier, many others in the region have also worked hard to rehabilitate the land, but have not presumed that this gives them the right to profit enormously at the expense of fellow residents by plonking a huge residential development in their midst.
So, Paul Scott, do you, or don't you have a direct financial stake in the development proceeding?
Paul Scott wrote:
"Did you know, that we employ up to 20 people for about 40 weeks each year right here in the valley."
But I thought that they were going to build 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 shops?
It seems like far more dwellings than are necessary to house those 20 people to me, even assuming that their work is socially useful, sustainable and will endure.
Paul Scott wrote:
"Surely if the people choose to live at the Nightcap Village they would become rate payers of the Tweed Shire and therefore contribute to the road costs. Also a sustantial part of the purchase price, known as road contribution, of these blocks goes to the council to cover the road costs."
In fact, it is well understood that population growth costs the local community and does not pay for itself. That is why council rates, water charges electricity charges, etc, are going up in South East Queensland as a consequence of the state Government's recklessly irresponsible policy of encouragement of population growth.
Property speculators openly gloat at how they will profit from improvements to land value made possible by the construction of infrastructure at the expense of taxpayers and local ratepayers, not to mention the Federal and State Government's policies to deliberately drive up population at the behest of the Growth Lobby.
Notwithstanding the supposed road contribution, it is unlikely that the situation with Nightcap will be fundamentally different.
Even if it can be shown that the costs can be fully recovered, it should still be the democratic right of local communities to preserve their way of life should they so choose.
Great article on tourism
Very satisfying and beautifully written description of the tragic situation.
Oh, how humans kid themselves. How did we ever get the nomer 'sapiens'?
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Decision has been made - Live with it...........
It was not the developer who mentioned the work done to rehabitate the land as assumed by James Sinnamon but by me who just happens to live and work in the immediate area. Like that assumption made, many of the other reasons against this development are just that. Assumptions made with little or no regard to fact. How does anyone obtain a living? By having a job, which in the current climate are rapidly disappearing. Did you know, that we employ upto 20 people for about 40 weeks each year right here in the valley.
Surely if the people choose to live at the Nightcap Village they would become rate payers of the Tweed Shire and therefore contribute to the road costs. Also a sustantial part of the purchase price, known as road contribution, of these blocks goes to the council to cover the road costs.
If one was to believe everything one hears about what is going to be built in the village, it is going to be bigger than Sydney with more hotel beds than the Gold Coast.
As I have previously said, protest as is your right, but please use fact not assumptions......
Dogs and Noise
There are responsible dog owners, but they are not the norm
NOISE - damned Noise!
NOISE is a generally unwanted consequence of the concentrated living conditions adversely affecting us all, sometimes to such a hideous extent that noise victims, finding that the authorities won't enforce the laws against it, are forced to relocate - with all the costs and stresses that go with such an extreme move. Noise is the reason most people move out.
But even worse occurs when a victim of noise can't secure protection from his neighbour's noise assaults - and kills him.
We Tasmanian quietists have devised the term "Acoustic Assault" and we want it banned like common assault and sexual assault.
The Tasmanian government is currently pondering public submissions on its proposals to amend our noise laws. One of these proposals is to widen the times at which "music" can be lawfully broadcast in public places. Our Environment Department had offered 10pm for our consideration.
I have seen five public submissions on this topic - and ALL have expressed outrage at what I call "gratuitous din."
In my submission, I have vigorously opposed this further destruction of citizens' rights to perennially live in quiet surroundings.
I'll be happy to forward a copy of my 22 page submission to any interested person. It's in PDF.
Please send your request to: [email protected]
Peter Bright
www.quietas.net
Solutions acceptable to people of good will in both camps
If we are to hope to arrive at solutions that are acceptable to people of good will in both camps, then there needs to be some understanding of the needs of those in the other camp on the part of those in each of the respective camps.
What may make it difficult for many dog owners to train their dogs or desex them may be the lack of money and high price for the services.
The high price of many services is probably largely due to the excessive red tape needed by anyone who wants to set up a 'for profit' business. If people who are able to provide such services as dog walking or dog training were able to work directly for local councils and if the Federal Government were to waive the idiotic requirements of Professor Frederick Hilmer's Competition Policy imposed by the Keating 'Labor' Government in 1993, it would be possible for local governments to provide such services far cheaper than would be possible on a 'for profit' basis.
Whether the costs of providing such services should always be fully, or even partially recovered from those receiving the services should be a matter for rate payers as a whole to decide. The advantage of providing services for free and not requiring cost recovery is that the red tape and administrative costs could be reduced still further. Does anyone here remember how simple life was when doctor's properly bulk-billed?
If this helps create more harmonious and pleasant neighbourhoods, then perhaps the cost subsidy on the part of non-dog owners would be well worth the price.
Conversely those who do not take advantage of such services and thereby allow their dogs to bark excessively would get very little sympathy from the rest of the community when they are consequently fined.
Quiet Tasmania websites
Quiet Tasmania has a comprehensive website on Noise in general, and barking in particular.
There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania
Quiet Tasmania also has a supplementary website called Quiet Tasmania News. Its web address is www.pebri.net
Peter Bright
Hobart
Tasmania
Who decided 1 kangaroo per hectare was okay?
Another matter that doesnt have any science to back it up is the number of kangaroos that are described as "sustainable per hectare". In Australia that's an impossible argument, climate variation, weather variation from day to day, it's all academic speculation. In the high rainfall area where I live, possibly 20 or more kangaroos could thrive on one grassland hectare, yet in high rainforest numbers could be much lower, and in the Simpson desert it may be only 1 kangaroo per 20 hectares. The whole concept is nonsense. As we all know, kangaroos control their populations very well if left alone. Pat
A courteous summary