Comments on: Defending some “fancy pants arguments”

By: perspective

perspective — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:52:52 +0000

“The Melbourne Model: Adam Schwab writes: Pity poor Christina Buckridge…”

Spot on Adam. MU has a hard time convincing anyone that the Glyn Davis ‘reforms’ are anything short of a disaster. The best I’ve heard said is that perhaps, if you give it another 10 years, it might turn out to work, but all the evidence to date is that the vice chancellor has severely weakened the reputation of the university, caused academic staff losses that were previously unimaginable, and diminished the educational value to students. How long do you let this guy experiment with the staff and students of the university? Ten years?

By: shepherdmarilyn

shepherdmarilyn — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:13:40 +0000

Rudd is absolutely wrong to suggest that he is entitled to force refugee claimants into detention in Indonesia on the grounds either that they are travelling with aid of people smugglers, or because they are “illegal” immigrants.
Refugees use smugglers – and sometimes, regrettably, traffickers as well – precisely because there is no other way quickly, and with even a modicum of reliability, to get out of dangerous places and to a country in which they can seek recognition of their protected status. Australia, like most other rich countries, has erected a myriad of physical and legal barriers – carrier sanctions, visa controls, and the like – that prevents genuine refugees from coming to us legally. Even if a refugee could somehow safely reach and walk into an Australia embassy abroad, we would not issue a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum here. Travel without pre-authorisation is, for the truly desperate, usually the only real option.

Professor James Hathaway.

John, what are you talking about? The DICs have been people traffickers for years. They traffic people like Vivian Alvarez out of Australia without documents and dump them to die in foreign countries, then cover it up for 4 years which cost taxpayers $4.6 million.

They traffic Afghans to Pakistan, Iraqis to Jordan and Syria, Palestinians to Thailand - all highly illegal and criminal under Australian law but they keep right on doing it.

When people feel they have not had a fair hearing and are “forcibly deported”, they are shackled and dumped without papers to await their fates.

Many Afghans have been killed after we did this to them, an 18 year old Pakistani boy was gunned down in Pakistan because we got it wrong, the stories are many and they are ugly.

We even dare to traffic people to the wrong countries without papers after having the gall to lock them up for not having papers.

By: Frank Campbell

Frank Campbell — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:09:58 +0000

“Q: “How should we do it?”
A: By investing heavily in technologies that we know are viable (wind, geothermal and solar). We found trillions of dollars to bail out the banks, so don’t tell me it’s impossible.

And if it’s all a hoax what will we be left with? Just an energy infrastructure that will provide for us in the future without all the pollution of today’s heavy industry. What’s to lose?”

So says Andrew Ballem. Essentially the Rundle argument. 10,000 wind turbines in Bass Strait, then it’s back to the pub. Andrew, if it were just a matter of wind, solar and geothermal power stations, there’s be no argument. But solar is almost non-existent and intermittent. Geothermal works in one or two places but is still rudimentary in average geology. Wind is a fully mature technology which is a proven failure: it accnot provide baseload power and (as penetration increases) it has to be backed up 100% by new or existing conventional powergen. So we have two vague possibilities and one huge fraud.

Of course billions should be spent how on renewables research. But govts aren’t serious about it. The zillions go into wind, pointlessly. If the $ was spent, we are still decades away from nirvana. Best thing to do is close coal plants and convert to gas. This can be done right now.