The rest of his article explains, again, why it is absolute nonsense being peddled by the conspiracy loving Right (facilitated in large part by the massive propaganda campaign of Murdoch's Fox News) to be calling it a "treason" or a "coup".It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Straight talking from James Comey
I like the way James Comey speaks bluntly in his Washington Post column:
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
I think Gillette is just trolling conservatives now
Has Twitter exploded about this yet?:
A new ad campaign from Procter & Gamble-owned razor brand Gillette features a father teaching his transgender son how to shave for the first time.The video shows Samson Bonkeabantu Brown, a Toronto-based artist, opening up about his first experience shaving with his father since his transition.
Wittgenstein's rope
Add a metre to an Earth equator spanning rope and how high does it raise it off the ground?
Watch the 6 minute video to find out.
Update: for those who can't watch a video, here is an explanation from a book footnote. For a yard of extra rope, it's nearly 6 inches:
So for a metre, it's going to be something similar. Enough to trip over for the entire length of the equator.
I'm still having trouble getting my brain to accept this...
I don't think Tim will pay for a copy of this cartoon
In an article in The Australian, about Tim Wilson's (and David Sharma's) failure to get cabinet spots despite (in Timbo's case) his PR campaign on franking credits, is accompanied by this cartoon:
That's a really bad attempt at a likeness of Wilson. It makes him look about 60 and super jowly while still missing the dark circles under his eyes. Tim's probably ordering a copy to burn as I write.
That's a really bad attempt at a likeness of Wilson. It makes him look about 60 and super jowly while still missing the dark circles under his eyes. Tim's probably ordering a copy to burn as I write.
China and greening
Not sure I find this article very convincing, but it's of interest nonetheless:
China succeeds in greening its economy not because, but in spite of, its authoritarian government
There are some sceptical comments following it too: some pro-nuclear, some with a soft denier air about them.
China succeeds in greening its economy not because, but in spite of, its authoritarian government
There are some sceptical comments following it too: some pro-nuclear, some with a soft denier air about them.
A credible figure
The Washington Post did a weird weekend profile of self-hyping George Papadopolous, who claims Alexander Downer recorded him on his phone and was acting not as a dipolmat but as a spy for the Deep State that was determined to sink Donald Trump's candidacy. He looks a very believable character:
He's also only 31.
He's also only 31.
Monday, May 27, 2019
Yet more NYT reporting on those Navy UFOs
Look, it's a pretty intriguing read, and who doesn't love a good UFO mystery; but to me there are aspects of this story that still have an air of "too good to be true" about them.
It sounds like the two ex Navy personnel invovled appear a new TV show about it, so I would like to see how they come across in interviews.
One of the problems I have is that these remarkable sightings were not leaked by anyone for about 4 years.
I would love to know more, though...
It sounds like the two ex Navy personnel invovled appear a new TV show about it, so I would like to see how they come across in interviews.
One of the problems I have is that these remarkable sightings were not leaked by anyone for about 4 years.
I would love to know more, though...
Glass overboard in the 1970's
First, a memory: in about 1974 or 1975, I had my first weekend on the rather decrepit Navy Reserve training vessel TV Gayundah, being a good little Navy Cadet on a first time experience of seeing Moreton Bay and pretending to be a sailor. I remember it had anchored off Moreton Island, at night, and it was a pretty impressive sight getting up in the morning and seeing the blue, clear water and the long, pretty pristine looking island close by. (It had not, at that time, yet been overrun by 4WD on the beach.) The vessel itself was a converted "Motor Refrigeration Lighter", and the sleeping quarters were in what used to be the refrigerated hold. It was pretty cramped, old and smelly, but it had a certain old world appeal. I have found a photo on the 'net:
(Gosh, I must seem old for having been on that...)
That night, people were having soft drinks (or beers?) on deck, and at one point a kindly navy cadet officer (a school teacher in real life) called out to everyone that he had seen glass bottles floating in the water, apparently from our little ship, and he told us to be more considerate and don't throw bottles overboard. True, this may have been because we were near the island and our bottles could easily have ended up there: but still, I think that, in principle, he was sensible enough to feel throwing rubbish overboard was not appropriate.
Fast forward to 2019, and this is what twit Patrick Moore says he was doing, around the same time as my experience, when he was doodling around the oceans with Greenpeace:
That sounds..really pathetic.
(Gosh, I must seem old for having been on that...)
That night, people were having soft drinks (or beers?) on deck, and at one point a kindly navy cadet officer (a school teacher in real life) called out to everyone that he had seen glass bottles floating in the water, apparently from our little ship, and he told us to be more considerate and don't throw bottles overboard. True, this may have been because we were near the island and our bottles could easily have ended up there: but still, I think that, in principle, he was sensible enough to feel throwing rubbish overboard was not appropriate.
Fast forward to 2019, and this is what twit Patrick Moore says he was doing, around the same time as my experience, when he was doodling around the oceans with Greenpeace:
That sounds..really pathetic.
Interesting results
I wonder - would anyone who really preferred to remain have still voted Labour? It did have a remain faction of politicians, didn't it?
To really provide a definitive resolution as to what should happen according to public opinion, wouldn't you need a referendum with three choices (hard, soft, or no exit), and with some form of preferential voting?
Australia is much more sensible this way.
Heatwave in May in Japan
Some extraordinarily high temperatures being experienced in Japan this May, particularly in the normally cooler Hokkaido:
Why are libertarians such numbskulls on this matter?
Two die, nearly 600 taken to hospitals nationwide as heat wave hits parts of nation Unseasonably hot conditions gripped wide areas of Japan on Sunday, with the town of Saroma in Hokkaido setting the highest temperature ever recorded in the country for the month of May.But Australian libertarians and tax haters just had a weekend conference with "star" Australian denier Jonova giving a talk.
Two men — one in Shimizu, Hokkaido, and the other in Tome, Miyagi Prefecture — died and at least 575 people nationwide were taken to hospitals by ambulance suffering from symptoms that appeared to point to heatstroke, according to data compiled by Kyodo News.
The mercury hit 39.5 degrees in the northeastern coastal Hokkaido town at 2:07 p.m. Sunday — the hottest at any observation point in Japan for the month, according to the Meteorological Agency. The previous record, set on May 13, 1993, was 37.2 degrees in Chichibu, Saitama Prefecture.
Why are libertarians such numbskulls on this matter?
Hindu nationalism
This does seem a really good explanation about how Hindu nationalism has evolved (and why Modi is a worry.) It starts:
And then the key paragraphs:
The city of Varanasi is the holiest site in the Hindu faith. It is also, not coincidentally, the parliamentary constituency of Modi, who has just won a second five-year term. He did it, in large measure, by emphasizing Hindutva, an ideology that seeks to reformulate Hinduism into something that most practitioners’ grandparents would barely understand.
And then the key paragraphs:
The term Hindutva can be (sort of) translated as “Hindu-ness,” and that gets (sort of) at what it’s all about: Hinduism not a theology, but an identity. The movement’s intellectual father, Veer Savarkar, wrote its foundational text (helpfully titled Hindutva) a century ago. At the time, the notion of a unified faith or doctrine, let alone a shared identity, would have left most Hindus simply confused: Identity was determined by a person’s family, village, caste. The very term Hindu is merely a loanword (most likely from Persian), referring to “the people who live across the Indus River.” Until the 20th century, most Hindus had never felt the need to describe themselves in any comprehensive way.So, it's identity politics that have taken over.
It was the colonial experience that created Hindutva: Why, Savarkar and his comrades wondered, had India been dominated for centuries by a relatively small number of Muslim Mughals and Christian British? Was monotheism simply better suited for ruling? If so, what did that mean for a faith with more deities than days in the year? During the founding decades of the Hindutva movement, much effort revolved around making Hinduism more like its rivals: building a single shared identity to unite everyone for whom India was, in Savarkar’s words, “his Fatherland as well as his Holy-land.” This definition conveniently roped in Sikhs (a disproportionate number of whom served in the army), Buddhists (whose spiritual cachet helped give the movement credibility), and Jains (who tended, then and now, to be quite rich).
What it pointedly did not do was dictate what this newly lumped-together group of people should believe. Indeed, very few of Hindutva’s leading lights have been holy men, or even particularly devout; Savarkar and K. B. Hedgewar (the founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS—the primary vehicle for Hindutva mobilization) are both described as having been atheists or agnostics. The point wasn’t doctrine, but branding.
The problems with mass migration to space
The Guardian has an opinion piece up expressing scepticism about the likes of Jeff Bezos's dreams of O'Neill style massive space colonies and colonisation of Mars. It's not at all detailed, though, on the technical issues: it more looks at the changing motivation for space colonisation, and notes that it is pretty much now advocated out of environmental concern.
I don't think the change in motivation makes much sense, though.
As I recall (and I am not going to bother searching for confirmation just at the moment), the issues that killed off O'Neill style colonies from popular consideration were:
a. more careful engineering consideration which indicated that the structural stresses on spinning such massive objects to get any decent form of artificial gravity were much higher than initially realised, and pretty much impractical using the initially assumed materials;
b. the number of rocket launches required to put so much equipment in orbit (even assuming using a slingshot on the moon to get raw materials into a processing facility) was going to put an awful lot of pollutants into the upper atmosphere, with possibly deleterioius atmospheric effects;
c. the new technology involved for orbital processing of lunar soil is completely untested and getting that alone to work is surely going to be a big enough task in itself.
As far as point b is concerned, I seem to recall O'Neill addressed that himself when he was alive, and argued it wasn't that many launches. But the Falcon Heavy rocket from Space X does use kerosene and liquid oxygen, and it will be putting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Not sure how much compared to other things, but it is ironic that in order to escape a greehouse Earth, some now propose adding to the problem on the way out.
I don't know if point a has been reconsidered - but I suspect that it is still a very real problem. It might be able to be addressed by using strong materials you can make on Earth, but O'Neill colonies were supposed to be made from pretty basic materials and I find it hard to envisage making more than pretty basic metals in orbit from Moon dirt. It's yet another technological hurtle that would be ridiculously hard to overcome without launching, in pieces, manufacturing equipment made on Earth.
I see that Bezos went to Princeton when O'Neill was there - hence he caught the O'Neill dream early on.
But really, I would have to hear how he thinks the problems I listed above are supposed to be addressed before I consider it as having any real credibility.
The thing is, the problem with greenhouse gases was barely a thing when O'Neill was writing his book in the mid-1970's. More general concerns about industrial pollution were one of the motivations for talking about moving off planet. But now that the AGW problem has been fully realised, dreams of a "let's just move into space" solution (apart from the possibility of microwave power from orbiting solar power satelittes) just seem a fanciful and wasteful idea compared to putting a lot of technological effort into clean energy on Earth.
(Having said that, I still think having a smallish, permanent base on the moon to act as a "lifeboat" for Earth is a good idea. And it is so much simpler to get stuff there and back than from Mars. Once you learn how to run a viable colony there, then you might think about going to Mars.)
I don't think the change in motivation makes much sense, though.
As I recall (and I am not going to bother searching for confirmation just at the moment), the issues that killed off O'Neill style colonies from popular consideration were:
a. more careful engineering consideration which indicated that the structural stresses on spinning such massive objects to get any decent form of artificial gravity were much higher than initially realised, and pretty much impractical using the initially assumed materials;
b. the number of rocket launches required to put so much equipment in orbit (even assuming using a slingshot on the moon to get raw materials into a processing facility) was going to put an awful lot of pollutants into the upper atmosphere, with possibly deleterioius atmospheric effects;
c. the new technology involved for orbital processing of lunar soil is completely untested and getting that alone to work is surely going to be a big enough task in itself.
As far as point b is concerned, I seem to recall O'Neill addressed that himself when he was alive, and argued it wasn't that many launches. But the Falcon Heavy rocket from Space X does use kerosene and liquid oxygen, and it will be putting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Not sure how much compared to other things, but it is ironic that in order to escape a greehouse Earth, some now propose adding to the problem on the way out.
I don't know if point a has been reconsidered - but I suspect that it is still a very real problem. It might be able to be addressed by using strong materials you can make on Earth, but O'Neill colonies were supposed to be made from pretty basic materials and I find it hard to envisage making more than pretty basic metals in orbit from Moon dirt. It's yet another technological hurtle that would be ridiculously hard to overcome without launching, in pieces, manufacturing equipment made on Earth.
I see that Bezos went to Princeton when O'Neill was there - hence he caught the O'Neill dream early on.
But really, I would have to hear how he thinks the problems I listed above are supposed to be addressed before I consider it as having any real credibility.
The thing is, the problem with greenhouse gases was barely a thing when O'Neill was writing his book in the mid-1970's. More general concerns about industrial pollution were one of the motivations for talking about moving off planet. But now that the AGW problem has been fully realised, dreams of a "let's just move into space" solution (apart from the possibility of microwave power from orbiting solar power satelittes) just seem a fanciful and wasteful idea compared to putting a lot of technological effort into clean energy on Earth.
(Having said that, I still think having a smallish, permanent base on the moon to act as a "lifeboat" for Earth is a good idea. And it is so much simpler to get stuff there and back than from Mars. Once you learn how to run a viable colony there, then you might think about going to Mars.)
A handy reproduction chart
I don't think I can copy and paste it here, but Axios has a nice interactive graph showing the national reproduction rates around the world.
Basically, poor African nations are still having babies at a very high rate - but China, the rest of East Asia, the US and Europe are not having enough to replace population. India's rate is not so high now either.
Basically, poor African nations are still having babies at a very high rate - but China, the rest of East Asia, the US and Europe are not having enough to replace population. India's rate is not so high now either.
Sunday, May 26, 2019
In which I quantify just how dumb Queenslanders are
I see (warning: link to a post by Steve Kates at Catallaxy - your brain will hurt if you stay there too long) that Right wing gnome-like commentator Terry McCrann has realised that, if you excluded all Queensland electorates, Labor would have won the election 61 to 55. This is cause for dismay for him and Kates, because they think the rightful result should have been Labor 0, nationwide.
Perhaps I can seek comfort in my fellow Queenslanders not being as dumb as this election indicates by going back to the State election results of 2017. Wikipedia shows that result:
I suppose that is a relatively comforting 45.43% of primary votes to Labor/Green.
LNP and One Nation jointly get 47.42% though. (Although, yes, I know, some One Nation preferences go back to Labor.)
The Federal election seems to have One Nation in Queensland on 8.8%, but I reckon almost certainly Clive Palmer's vote would have stolen a lot from One Nation, and his vote was 3.5%. Add it back in with One Nation and you would get 12.3% - close to the One Nation state vote in 2017 of 13.73%.
And remember, the country wide vote at the federal election for those parties combined was 6.4%
As voting for One Nation or Palmer was one of the dumbest things anyone could do, I think the conclusion is clear: Queensland is at least twice as dumb as the rest of Australia.
Perhaps I can seek comfort in my fellow Queenslanders not being as dumb as this election indicates by going back to the State election results of 2017. Wikipedia shows that result:
I suppose that is a relatively comforting 45.43% of primary votes to Labor/Green.
LNP and One Nation jointly get 47.42% though. (Although, yes, I know, some One Nation preferences go back to Labor.)
The Federal election seems to have One Nation in Queensland on 8.8%, but I reckon almost certainly Clive Palmer's vote would have stolen a lot from One Nation, and his vote was 3.5%. Add it back in with One Nation and you would get 12.3% - close to the One Nation state vote in 2017 of 13.73%.
And remember, the country wide vote at the federal election for those parties combined was 6.4%
As voting for One Nation or Palmer was one of the dumbest things anyone could do, I think the conclusion is clear: Queensland is at least twice as dumb as the rest of Australia.
Tech observations
* Does anyone really like the clutterwall that is a key part of Windows 10?
* On the other hand, I have recently upgraded from Office 2010 to Office 2019, and I do like the way it smooths out the typing (it sort of flows continuously and was not something I expected.) It somehow makes me feel as I am typing faster, when I clearly am not.
* I feel sorry for Huawei, and have a suspicion that the potential for Chinese interference using that company's technology is way overstated. I could be wrong, but it's just a hunch.
Here's a report from Reuters saying that it was Australia that led the way in warning about security issues with the company:
Why is any country going to have to have to have key infrastructure tied up to a 5G network anyway? What's wrong with the way we do things now? What does 5G allow you to do with a power grid that current arrangements do not?
And here's a piece from the Lawfare blog which argues that the complexity of code means it's impossible to know if Huawei has included a "backdoor" at Chinese government insistence, but then goes onto to argue that G5 is being way overhyped anyway, and nations could just avoid the issue with Huawei by improving their 4G network.
If that's all true, then what sense does it make to try to destroy Huawei and its inroads into the 4G mobile phone market?
I think my suspicions might be right.
* On the other hand, I have recently upgraded from Office 2010 to Office 2019, and I do like the way it smooths out the typing (it sort of flows continuously and was not something I expected.) It somehow makes me feel as I am typing faster, when I clearly am not.
* I feel sorry for Huawei, and have a suspicion that the potential for Chinese interference using that company's technology is way overstated. I could be wrong, but it's just a hunch.
Here's a report from Reuters saying that it was Australia that led the way in warning about security issues with the company:
The operatives – agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency – had been given a challenge. With all the offensive cyber tools at their disposal, what harm could they inflict if they had access to equipment installed in the 5G network, the next-generation mobile communications technology, of a target nation?A few questions: what does it mean "to have access to equipment installed in the 5G network, exactly?
What the team found, say current and former government officials, was sobering for Australian security and political leaders: The offensive potential of 5G was so great that if Australia were on the receiving end of such attacks, the country could be seriously exposed. The understanding of how 5G could be exploited for spying and to sabotage critical infrastructure changed everything for the Australians, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Mike Burgess, the head of the signals directorate, recently explained why the security of fifth generation, or 5G, technology was so important: It will be integral to the communications at the heart of a country’s critical infrastructure - everything from electric power to water supplies to sewage, he said in a March speech at a Sydney research institute.
Why is any country going to have to have to have key infrastructure tied up to a 5G network anyway? What's wrong with the way we do things now? What does 5G allow you to do with a power grid that current arrangements do not?
And here's a piece from the Lawfare blog which argues that the complexity of code means it's impossible to know if Huawei has included a "backdoor" at Chinese government insistence, but then goes onto to argue that G5 is being way overhyped anyway, and nations could just avoid the issue with Huawei by improving their 4G network.
If that's all true, then what sense does it make to try to destroy Huawei and its inroads into the 4G mobile phone market?
I think my suspicions might be right.
Saturday, May 25, 2019
More odd election analysis
This is a peculiar thing about the Nationals (and I don't just mean Barnaby Joyce - I give New Englander's honorary dumbass Queensland status for their support of him): the ABC has a piece up pointing out that the Nationals, while feeling very happy with their election outcome in most of Australia, now do exceedingly poorly in Western Australia.
There's one other thing I have been meaning to say: there is still a lot of doubt around that the Adani mine is actually economically viable (see John Quiggin's long held view again expressed in early May, and this separate piece that appeared in Bloomberg a couple of days ago, as well as the news that a nearby proposed coal mine for the Chinese is on hold). Wouldn't it be deeply annoying to Labor (and me!) if the project is granted all government approvals only to go on permanent hold for economic reasons anyway?
There's one other thing I have been meaning to say: there is still a lot of doubt around that the Adani mine is actually economically viable (see John Quiggin's long held view again expressed in early May, and this separate piece that appeared in Bloomberg a couple of days ago, as well as the news that a nearby proposed coal mine for the Chinese is on hold). Wouldn't it be deeply annoying to Labor (and me!) if the project is granted all government approvals only to go on permanent hold for economic reasons anyway?
Get Occupied
I must have mentioned it once before, but I've nearly finished season 1 of the Norwegian/Euro TV series Occupied (on Netflix) and I have an urge to again commend it to readers.
The thing that keeps coming to mind is that the scale of the production (for a political drama involving a more-or-less by stealth takeover of Norway by Russia) is relatively small - it doesn't look cheap but it still has a limited budget feel, meaning it doesn't have the largest cast and government meetings all look smaller than what you expect in reality, even in a small country - and that makes comparison with Australian TV drama pretty easy.
But it is so much better than any similar attempt at a political intrigue show made here.
OK - it's not as if I am being all that fair, because I don't even attempt to watch Australian drama anymore. (I had a look at half an hour of Harrow last Sunday - interested only because it is set in Brisbane and is in a second series, so someone must be watching it - and it was incredibly awful.) But the cringe factor and amateurish nature of nearly all Australian TV drama writing (who is to blame for this? Where do Australian drama writers learn their craft?) gives me an assured feeling that all Australian recent attempts at political intrigue shows are as bad as ever.
Anyway, the other good thing about Occupied is that it should appeal to a wide variety of biases -
POSSIBLE TOO MUCH SPOILER FOLLOWS, READ AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION
the story is basically that a well meaning Green-ish Prime Minister with dubious actual political ability leads the country into a situation where it is virtually abandoned by the rest of Europe and America. So you can hate the Greens and blame him, or blame the Russians for their duplicity, or the European Union for being more interested in gas than national sovereignty over gas and oil fields, or the Americans for suddenly becoming more interested in non-intervention and not stepping on Russian toes too much (shades of a Trump influence there). Any viewer can watch it and find someone to blame in alignment with their pre-existing political biases. How many shows about political intrigue manage to do that?
It's well acted and well plotted - it has never really crossed any line into unbelievability. (Now that I think back, the first episode is perhaps not as strong as later ones - it really does get better the more you watch it.)
And there is a second series (and a third coming it seems).
Not sure why it is not better known....
The thing that keeps coming to mind is that the scale of the production (for a political drama involving a more-or-less by stealth takeover of Norway by Russia) is relatively small - it doesn't look cheap but it still has a limited budget feel, meaning it doesn't have the largest cast and government meetings all look smaller than what you expect in reality, even in a small country - and that makes comparison with Australian TV drama pretty easy.
But it is so much better than any similar attempt at a political intrigue show made here.
OK - it's not as if I am being all that fair, because I don't even attempt to watch Australian drama anymore. (I had a look at half an hour of Harrow last Sunday - interested only because it is set in Brisbane and is in a second series, so someone must be watching it - and it was incredibly awful.) But the cringe factor and amateurish nature of nearly all Australian TV drama writing (who is to blame for this? Where do Australian drama writers learn their craft?) gives me an assured feeling that all Australian recent attempts at political intrigue shows are as bad as ever.
Anyway, the other good thing about Occupied is that it should appeal to a wide variety of biases -
POSSIBLE TOO MUCH SPOILER FOLLOWS, READ AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION
the story is basically that a well meaning Green-ish Prime Minister with dubious actual political ability leads the country into a situation where it is virtually abandoned by the rest of Europe and America. So you can hate the Greens and blame him, or blame the Russians for their duplicity, or the European Union for being more interested in gas than national sovereignty over gas and oil fields, or the Americans for suddenly becoming more interested in non-intervention and not stepping on Russian toes too much (shades of a Trump influence there). Any viewer can watch it and find someone to blame in alignment with their pre-existing political biases. How many shows about political intrigue manage to do that?
It's well acted and well plotted - it has never really crossed any line into unbelievability. (Now that I think back, the first episode is perhaps not as strong as later ones - it really does get better the more you watch it.)
And there is a second series (and a third coming it seems).
Not sure why it is not better known....
But is it a nicer city for it?
I didn't know that Alberta in Canada, by a combination of geography and some very active eradication programs, considers itself virtually Norway brown rat free.
Truth in headlines
A Guardian bit of post election analysis starts:
It's easy to dismiss Queenslanders as coal-addicted bogans...
I'm still not yet in the mood to respond other than with "Because it's true".
The rest of the headline:
...but it's more complex than that
I reluctantly agree that the writer (who works in promotion of renewable energy) makes some nice conciliatory points, although I do have a residual feeling that for too long the Australian rural experience has been people moving out to areas to make a living in places which are only good for what they want to do for, on average, (maybe) every second or third year, and then whinging about how bad they have it. As with agriculture, so it is with mining - both go through boom and bust cycles.
I've long speculated that there is no likely way to solve social problems in remote aboriginal settlements because if a place can't generate enough local economic activity to support itself, people do not have enough to do and are better off not living there. I don't see why I should have a different view for people living in parts of Queensland who had hoped coal mining was their future. Move and find work elsewhere.
It's easy to dismiss Queenslanders as coal-addicted bogans...
I'm still not yet in the mood to respond other than with "Because it's true".
The rest of the headline:
...but it's more complex than that
I reluctantly agree that the writer (who works in promotion of renewable energy) makes some nice conciliatory points, although I do have a residual feeling that for too long the Australian rural experience has been people moving out to areas to make a living in places which are only good for what they want to do for, on average, (maybe) every second or third year, and then whinging about how bad they have it. As with agriculture, so it is with mining - both go through boom and bust cycles.
I've long speculated that there is no likely way to solve social problems in remote aboriginal settlements because if a place can't generate enough local economic activity to support itself, people do not have enough to do and are better off not living there. I don't see why I should have a different view for people living in parts of Queensland who had hoped coal mining was their future. Move and find work elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)