Back in 2006 I derided her for trivialising the effects of Cyclone Larry.
But now after a pointed attack on greenies, I am starting to come round to her style.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think it was very soon- much too soon- after the fires that this article or one like it appeared in the SMH, facing one by Tim Flannery that blamed global warming. My kneejerk response to them both was: STFU! Didn't think it was the right time to have that argument.
My concern about holding off this sort of debate is that people have very short memories. As the article said, People have been warning that this would happen, yet in spite of being able to point at the horrific events of Ash Wednesday. We still have no burn off policies in parts of Australia. Will it be possible to make the changes that minimise risk when the horror of what has happened this time is dulled by time? And to stir the pot a bit more...maybe the solution would be to ban people from living in these areas - Have a "if its been destroyed once you can't go back" rule...Of course to be fair, that would have to be for all Australians, including us cyclone ravaged types.
Yes, I think the 'don't rebuild unless absolutely necessary' is one of the 'no-cost' responses we should seriously be considering. I definitely would not like to see South Townsville/Railway Estate and the northern beaches rebuilt after the devastating cyclone that *will* eventually destroy them.
I would like to stir the pot even further and suggest that 'rabid greenies' could not cause loss of life or property without that pernicious disease, respect for authority, that prevents people from disregarding regulations about tree removal and burning off. This disease can kill people in many other ways... the fanatically green councils are just one of many adventitious infections, not the root cause. I mourn the passing of our traditional larrikin spirit.
Replies to stimulating comments from Jenny and a host of Clam-like pseudo-persons in last month = 0
What sort of blogger are you, anyway? Go on, prove that you're worthy of the name!
* What do you think of the anti-Marconomic, anti-Clam move to restrict immigration to 'protect Australian jobs'(sic)?
* Don't you feel ashamed of yourself for helping prop up the inefficient and subsidy-bloated private health system? (I am guessing, from some of your pics below)
* On what date during the Lyndon B. Obama administration do you think: (a) The first US soldier will be killed on the Iranian side of the Iran/Iraq border? (b) The number of US soldiers in Afghanistan will surpass the highest number of US soldiers in Iraq in 2003?
* Don't you feel a *bit* like going another ten rounds with Dawkins?
Replies to stimulating comments from Jenny and a host of Clam-like pseudo-persons in last month = 0
What sort of blogger are you, anyway? Go on, prove that you're worthy of the name!
Believe me, I am ashamed :(
* What do you think of the anti-Marconomic, anti-Clam move to restrict immigration to 'protect Australian jobs'(sic)?
I am seething with anger, but note that a lot of Australia's immigration is "locked in" so I am not expecting net migration to change much.
* Don't you feel ashamed of yourself for helping prop up the inefficient and subsidy-bloated private health system? (I am guessing, from some of your pics below)
hmmm... Not really. These catholics that run the hospitals here make it all less shameful.
* On what date during the Lyndon B. Obama administration do you think: (a) The first US soldier will be killed on the Iranian side of the Iran/Iraq border? (b) The number of US soldiers in Afghanistan will surpass the highest number of US soldiers in Iraq in 2003?
I don't quite understand the precepts in (a), but (b) could be quite soon.
* Don't you feel a *bit* like going another ten rounds with Dawkins?
Yes, oh yes. On top of that I re-read your "Show me the metabolism" entries and I believe them to be very good indeed!
(a) is a longer bow to draw, but I was just thinking about that Iranian drone that was recently shot down over Iraq and the Iranian record of provocation there. I don't think it in Iranian interests for the US to withdraw from Iraq- it is a good way to distract US funds and attention from Iran's ambitions, and Iranian proxies in Iraq can probably make more headway against a force constrained by Western rules of engagement and easy to demonise as a tool of the Great Satan than they could against an 'unleashed' but newly armed and trained Iraqi army.
So I can imagine escalating Iranian provocations on the ground over the next year, leading to pursuit of Iranian proxies or regulars across the border.
Provocations that attempt to keep the US in Iraq? Nope. That ship has sailed. Nothing short of a full-scale Iranian invasion and/or nuclear weapons tested on Iraqis will invite the US back on Obamas watch. I, however, note that Iran has a border with Afghanistan where something similar may happen from the other direction, thus (a) depending on (b)
Pah, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't believe they will adhere to anything like the timetable for withdrawal. Politics means the n00b administration has to put the maximum spin on acting differently from the old regime, but game theory means they have to act the same in practice. In fact, I don't want to make a bet about when the last US troops leave Iraq, because I don't expect I will still be alive to collect my winnings.
but game theory means they have to act the same in practice. In fact, I don't want to make a bet about when the last US troops leave Iraq, because I don't expect I will still be alive to collect my winnings.
But wait. Although I think there will always be at least a minor troop presence in Iraq, a win for the US is for an orderly withdrawal with minimum casualties. General stability of Iraq has become irrelevant as far as US-Iraq policy strategy game is concerned. Attacks or anything from Iranian based terrorists etc. are more likely to accelerate US withdrawal at this stage.
9 comments:
I think it was very soon- much too soon- after the fires that this article or one like it appeared in the SMH, facing one by Tim Flannery that blamed global warming. My kneejerk response to them both was: STFU! Didn't think it was the right time to have that argument.
My concern about holding off this sort of debate is that people have very short memories. As the article said, People have been warning that this would happen, yet in spite of being able to point at the horrific events of Ash Wednesday. We still have no burn off policies in parts of Australia.
Will it be possible to make the changes that minimise risk when the horror of what has happened this time is dulled by time?
And to stir the pot a bit more...maybe the solution would be to ban people from living in these areas - Have a "if its been destroyed once you can't go back" rule...Of course to be fair, that would have to be for all Australians, including us cyclone ravaged types.
Yes, I think the 'don't rebuild unless absolutely necessary' is one of the 'no-cost' responses we should seriously be considering. I definitely would not like to see South Townsville/Railway Estate and the northern beaches rebuilt after the devastating cyclone that *will* eventually destroy them.
I would like to stir the pot even further and suggest that 'rabid greenies' could not cause loss of life or property without that pernicious disease, respect for authority, that prevents people from disregarding regulations about tree removal and burning off. This disease can kill people in many other ways... the fanatically green councils are just one of many adventitious infections, not the root cause. I mourn the passing of our traditional larrikin spirit.
Posts in last month = 2
Replies to stimulating comments from Jenny and a host of Clam-like pseudo-persons in last month = 0
What sort of blogger are you, anyway? Go on, prove that you're worthy of the name!
* What do you think of the anti-Marconomic, anti-Clam move to restrict immigration to 'protect Australian jobs'(sic)?
* Don't you feel ashamed of yourself for helping prop up the inefficient and subsidy-bloated private health system? (I am guessing, from some of your pics below)
* On what date during the Lyndon B. Obama administration do you think:
(a) The first US soldier will be killed on the Iranian side of the Iran/Iraq border?
(b) The number of US soldiers in Afghanistan will surpass the highest number of US soldiers in Iraq in 2003?
* Don't you feel a *bit* like going another ten rounds with Dawkins?
Posts in last month = 2
Replies to stimulating comments from Jenny and a host of Clam-like pseudo-persons in last month = 0
What sort of blogger are you, anyway? Go on, prove that you're worthy of the name!
Believe me, I am ashamed :(
* What do you think of the anti-Marconomic, anti-Clam move to restrict immigration to 'protect Australian jobs'(sic)?
I am seething with anger, but note that a lot of Australia's immigration is "locked in" so I am not expecting net migration to change much.
* Don't you feel ashamed of yourself for helping prop up the inefficient and subsidy-bloated private health system? (I am guessing, from some of your pics below)
hmmm... Not really. These catholics that run the hospitals here make it all less shameful.
* On what date during the Lyndon B. Obama administration do you think:
(a) The first US soldier will be killed on the Iranian side of the Iran/Iraq border?
(b) The number of US soldiers in Afghanistan will surpass the highest number of US soldiers in Iraq in 2003?
I don't quite understand the precepts in (a), but (b) could be quite soon.
* Don't you feel a *bit* like going another ten rounds with Dawkins?
Yes, oh yes. On top of that I re-read your "Show me the metabolism" entries and I believe them to be very good indeed!
(a) is a longer bow to draw, but I was just thinking about that Iranian drone that was recently shot down over Iraq and the Iranian record of provocation there. I don't think it in Iranian interests for the US to withdraw from Iraq- it is a good way to distract US funds and attention from Iran's ambitions, and Iranian proxies in Iraq can probably make more headway against a force constrained by Western rules of engagement and easy to demonise as a tool of the Great Satan than they could against an 'unleashed' but newly armed and trained Iraqi army.
So I can imagine escalating Iranian provocations on the ground over the next year, leading to pursuit of Iranian proxies or regulars across the border.
Provocations that attempt to keep the US in Iraq? Nope. That ship has sailed. Nothing short of a full-scale Iranian invasion and/or nuclear weapons tested on Iraqis will invite the US back on Obamas watch. I, however, note that Iran has a border with Afghanistan where something similar may happen from the other direction, thus (a) depending on (b)
That ship has sailed.
Pah, I'll believe it when I see it. I don't believe they will adhere to anything like the timetable for withdrawal. Politics means the n00b administration has to put the maximum spin on acting differently from the old regime, but game theory means they have to act the same in practice. In fact, I don't want to make a bet about when the last US troops leave Iraq, because I don't expect I will still be alive to collect my winnings.
but game theory means they have to act the same in practice. In fact, I don't want to make a bet about when the last US troops leave Iraq, because I don't expect I will still be alive to collect my winnings.
But wait. Although I think there will always be at least a minor troop presence in Iraq, a win for the US is for an orderly withdrawal with minimum casualties. General stability of Iraq has become irrelevant as far as US-Iraq policy strategy game is concerned. Attacks or anything from Iranian based terrorists etc. are more likely to accelerate US withdrawal at this stage.
Post a Comment