Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yukle

Aussie Politics: Please post your response (No stamp needed)

44 posts in this topic

ABC News has made an excellent result calculator for the not-at-all-excellent postal survey. Just to reiterate: the results are completely meaningless since Parliament will be no more empowered than it already was to act upon (or ignore) the outcome. Nonetheless, it's interesting to see how the demographics affect the result.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-06/same-sex-marriage-result-calculator/8856294

In the meantime, I was looking for a new childcare facility to help me out next year and lo and behold, I found two interesting bits of legislation: Firstly, childcare prioritises single-parent families, children with disabilities (and their siblings), children who face dangers at home and those in special care. By law. As well as that, parents must prove their children's immunisation records before sending them to childcare. By law.

It's not often enough that there are proactive efforts to protect children for the sake of children - they're always spoken of in vague, "WE MUST PROTECT OUR CHILDREN" screeches, but to have stuff put in place to help them is too often overlooked. They are our fellow citizens but they can't vote, so it's not hard to ignore their needs, interests and beliefs.

Childcare is also so expensive, I always tossup if it's worth working full-time and paying for it or going part-time to alleviate the efforts. However, it is subsidised quite a bit, which I also like. But that's a measure more directly affecting the parent, so I like that some laws are there for the child's sake.

I like that. Proud to be Strayan on these matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:17 PM, Yukle said:

Childcare is also so expensive, I always tossup if it's worth working full-time and paying for it or going part-time to alleviate the efforts. However, it is subsidised quite a bit, which I also like.

At the moment I think its better to work part time as you are less likely to reach the rebate cap (or reach it later in the year at least). When the new rules come in there is no cap but there are a bunch of other rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Tones is finally back to being honest about his feelings on climate change. Does this mean he's finally giving up on getting the leadership back, that he's decided the country is irrational enough to agree or simply the (almost certainly right) calculation that he can simply lie about his feelings again if he gets there and the media will go into overdrive to tell the public about his change of heart on this important issue?

Not that any of it matters, we're giving Dutton the Panopticon and all dissenters will be in labour camps soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbott speaks for his party's conservative faction - the same ones Turnbull sold his soul to in order to become PM. Nobody was fooled when he pretended to care about global warming, I daresay that's why Australians voted for a party that he led.

Living in Victoria has made me grow up largely unaware of the huge undercurrent of racism and anti-intellectualism that runs rampant in other parts of Australia. In fact, there even seems to be a backlash against it in Victoria. Victoria and the ACT usually have the most progressive governments and yet both are struggling under the relentless weight of conservative campaigning from the Murdoch press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't head from GS. :(

Has anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS has not yet had his procedure.  The doctors postponed it.

I will keep you informed as and when I hear more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS has told me his now home and recovering from surgery.  It was apparently a complicated procedure, during which he nearly left us.

He is resting and slowly feeling a little better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest well and heal good, GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stubby said:

GS has told me his now home and recovering from surgery.  It was apparently a complicated procedure, during which he nearly left us.

He is resting and slowly feeling a little better.

 

 

3 hours ago, Horza said:

Rest well and heal good, GS

Agreed, many warm fuzzies your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/10/2017 at 9:47 PM, Yukle said:

Just to reiterate: the results are completely meaningless since Parliament will be no more empowered than it already was to act upon (or ignore) the outcome. Nonetheless, it's interesting to see how the demographics affect the result.

Either party would be stupid to ignore a strong result, seeing there has been such a high turnout. 60% or more either way and both sides of Australian politics will likely adopt it as policy.

For  instance, if 60% vote yes, there likely will be a SSM bill passed this year. If 60% vote no, then Labor will likely drop support because there are more votes in it. A close result, leaning either way, is the worst case scenario because then the issue will continue to be divisive.

So I don't think it's meaningless - a majority result will likely force parliamentary action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 0:19 PM, karaddin said:

So Tones is finally back to being honest about his feelings on climate change.

I've come to understand that climate change is not a problem - it's actually a solution to human overpopulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ummester said:

I've come to understand that climate change is not a problem - it's actually a solution to human overpopulation.

Humans are far from the only species that need this planet. It's not ours to ruin, even for our own sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Humans are far from the only species that need this planet. It's not ours to ruin, even for our own sake.

You miss the point, climate change has the potential to save the planet from us. Think about it, if our numbers are decreased significantly and the oceans rise enough to put our centres of technology and industry underwater, we won't have the capacity to interfere with nature half as much as we do now,

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ummester said:

You miss the point, climate change has the potential to save the planet from us. Think about it, if our numbers are decreased significantly and the oceans rise enough to put our centres of technology and industry underwater, we won't have the capacity to interfere with nature half as much as we do now,

Hmmm... most species will not survive that transition though. There may not be a nature left to save, especially not from the perspective of the now-extinct life.

That also assumes the process is reversible, and since carbon dioxide levels haven't exceeded 350ppm as far as we know (it is now over 400ppm), it is not safe to assume that the process can be reversed. A runaway greenhouse effect already destroyed Venus, for instance, and it had to have started somewhere. As carbon dioxide caused too much water vapour to enter the atmosphere, water stopped raining enough and, soon enough, the oceans boiled away because water is a strong greenhouse gas, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Hmmm... most species will not survive that transition though. There may not be a nature left to save, especially not from the perspective of the now-extinct life.

That also assumes the process is reversible, and since carbon dioxide levels haven't exceeded 350ppm as far as we know (it is now over 400ppm), it is not safe to assume that the process can be reversed. A runaway greenhouse effect already destroyed Venus, for instance, and it had to have started somewhere. As carbon dioxide caused too much water vapour to enter the atmosphere, water stopped raining enough and, soon enough, the oceans boiled away because water is a strong greenhouse gas, too.

I don't think there is any chance of us making the Earth unlivable long term - short term possibly but long term no way. There have been multiple major climatic changes on Earth previously, through which life (including human in some instances) has survived and adapted.

Venus is not Earth, the conditions are not the same and that life ever existed on it is pure speculation. I'm not saying for certain it did or didn't, all I'm suggesting is that it's not really relevant to how climate change on Earth is currently playing out and has played out previously.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to Brian Cox talk about this on Late Night on the ABC the other night.

He was very interested in the concept of using the off-planet resources, which are abundant in our solar system.  He pointed that Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Richard Branson all consider the concept to be economically viable for their respective businesses.  The process will go something like this:

  • The moon, Mars, selected other moons and the asteroid belt all have massive amounts of space and mineral activity.
  • Living (in terms of long-term residential colonisation) is not really an option, for various reasons.
  • Establishing heavy industry and mining operations on those place, is economically viable.
  • Earth (the whole planet) becomes zoned residential and light industrial).
  • ALL heavy industry is transported off-Earth to the source points of the resources in the solar system.

The first major economic hurdle has been broken, with re-usable vehicles.  The analogy he used was this: Imagine how much it would cost if every time you flew from Sydney to Perth the plane was blown up on landing.  Up until Musk got the re-usable tech sorted out, this was the way that space exploration has proceeded so far.  The cost of getting into space has been reduced by 95% as a result of this achievement.

The next major economic hurdle will be a viable fuel for the first stage of solar system travel, and hyper-efficient engines for the vehicles to get to the resources.  Cox said that once that hurdle is broken, the process could begin in earnest.  He has spoken with all three entrepreneurs and believes that they are all taking it very seriously.

Cox believes the first off-Earth mining could commence within 20-30 years.  That is how important they all believed the re-usable vehicles were to human growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of a show called The Expanse, Stubby - they use ice asteroids for oxygen, hydrogen power and water also. I do think it is the future but don't think it will happen without another major mass human extinction, war and or economic crash on Earth first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Expanse is based on a series of novels.  You should grab them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope the recovery is going well GS!

So tomorrow is D-Day for marriage equality in Australia. I am hoping for the best (and most people seem pretty optimistic), but a little niggling part of me worries about what the country will say. The best case is probably a 60:40 or greater split, worst case is a narrow defeat. I would be disappointed but relieved if 'Yes' comes out with only just over 50%.

*crosses fingers and toes*

Also, goodbye Jacqui. I suspect though that we haven't seen the last of her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0