text:
February 24, 2018 Brian	183 Comments
1. Growth in inequality is a real and present danger
ABC RN excellent Rear Vision program took a look at the growth of economic inequality in modern times.
Actually they gave us the full history. Inequality started with settled societies and property ownership. It reached a peak during the Roman Empire, but suffered a remarkable setback during the Black Death in the 14th century. In simple terms capital and property survived but the workers died in large numbers making labour scarce and expensive.
Capital gradually restored its position, with inequality accelerating during industrialisation, to reach a peak before World War I when in England 1% owned 70% of everything. However, the workers were looked after during the war to contribute to the war effort. The big shift came with the reconstruction effort after WW II when education, health and infrastructure were funded by rationally high taxes, up to 90% for the rich, even in the USA. Economic growth was also strong during the next 25 years.
From 1980 on, starting with the Reagan and Thatcher 'reforms', the trend has been strongly in the direction of greater inequality. For the bottom half of workers in the USA they earn exactly the same now as the earned in 1980 – on average $16,000 pa.
Look to South America if you want to see the future. Gated communities, also in the US and fences up to eight stories high for the rich to keep out the thieves.
Ultimately infrastructure starts to fail, society fractures and there is no longer any sense of the common good.
Meanwhile it is open to politicians to take corrective action if they are game. Shorten has been talking about the inequality problem and Labor is signalling a 'much more aggressive approach to raising the minimum wage'. However, I doubt we'll see seriously taxing the rich.
2. SA election
The SA election is off and running, with Antony Green's ABC site here. In his election preview Green explains why it is almost impossible for Labor to win outright. Last time they won when the Libs got 53% of the vote by virtue of an Indy and a Lib defector. History is against a fifth Labor term, there has been a redistribution and the entry of Xenophon will shake things up. Still, you would think that Xenophon would support a minority Labor government if it ends up ahead of the Libs, and Xenophon is likely to take more off the Libs than Labor.
Electricity prices and policy are front and centre, about which I'll say more elsewhere.
3. Clive Palmer is back
I'm not sure whether Clive Palmer is entirely delusional, but he's going to have a crack at the next Federal election with his party running in all seats. He says:
"Since I left Parliament I have experienced the frustration and helplessness that all Australians experience with the major political parties,'' Mr Palmer said in the statement.
"It's time for Australia to reset its agenda for economic growth and prosperity.
"The full weight of the federal government has been improperly mobilised against me and my employees.
"(Prime Minister Malcolm) Turnbull and (Opposition Leader Bill) Shorten don't care about our future generation and seek to deprive rather than provide opportunities for young Australians."
First time around he attracted a considerable protest vote after what we thought was the demise of One Nation. There are more protest parties in the field now and I suspect people are done with Clive.
4. Adani misses another deadline
First Adani was going lock in investors by the end of December 2017, then it was end of March, now they say they'll need more time.
Patricia Karvelas sometimes seems a bit thick, not listening to what is said. So her interview with Athony Albanese is couched Is Labor sitting on the fence when it comes to Adani?
Albanese made it perfectly clear that there was no residual issue about whether the mine should be approved. It had already been approved – twice. Albo made it clear that Labor would not revisit the approval if it came to government, nor would it change the environmental legislation under which it was approved.
He said that Labor had always said that the mine should only go ahead if there was private sector funding, which looks increasingly unlikely. He said the Queensland Labor had shifted its position to align with Federal Labor before the last Queensland election.
Labor still supports the coal mining industry, but it is purely hypothetical to ponder whether they would have approved the Adani mine if they had been in government. Shorten is talking up "environmental concerns" and:
Mr Shorten, after a series of public forums in Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton this week, said there needed to be "a plan for jobs that just doesn't rely on a billionaire multinational coal company coming in with this very controversial project that has a lot of detractors".
5. Trump says he'll act on guns
The Florida school shooting event has gone off script. Usually by this time the country is moving on in the sad recognition that legislators will talk plenty, and pray, but do nothing. Students in particular, but families and others are starting what looks like a protest movement which may endure until there is change.
So All eyes are on Donald Trump as President promises solution in wake of Florida shooting, but Trump's suggestion of arming teachers in wake of Florida shooting 'nuts', Kim Beazley says.
The latest is that not one but Four sheriff's deputies hid during Florida school shooting.
6. Barnaby Joyce saga
I'll say a bit more tonight, but meanwhile please feel free to continue commenting on the existing thread. Meanwhile there is the important question of why Barnaby needed a tea towel in filming associated with the Fairfax interview that was meant to normalise the whole situation, when there were no dishes to be seen.
Open ThreadsSaturday salon
Previous PostShipping industry in troubled watersNext PostBoosting Transport Capacity by Managing Demand
183 thoughts on "Saturday salon 24/2"
Just on item 1., the Black Death part was fascinating. The ownership of large estates and mansions didn't change, but with very scarce (agricultural) labour, the value of any large estate fell dramatically. The estate couldn't produce much income; profis fell; wages rose because fewer labourers were around.
The symbiotic nature of the contributions of:
* labour power
* fixed capital assets (pastures, cattle, sheep, poultry, mills)
was never clearer.
What profiteth a man to own a mill if he cannot find a miller and labourers to harvest the grain and grind it?
(These days, much of the value in a milk bar, say, is in the "goodwill" = the established customer base. In those days, much of the value of a large estate resided in the local labour force, many of whom were tenants of the landowner. A glaring lack of freedom for the labourer in that set up, eh?)
Ah, but they were good times.
Ambient Manure Odour,
Tiny Cottage in The Village
Much Sweatingham
nr Lower Hernia
Apropos of nothing in particular I saw a great definition today:
"Libertarianism is Anarchy for rich people".
Way back in the 'eighties, when Thatcher and Reagan were terribly, terribly fashionable among the rich and naïve, nobody thought it possible that their enforced inequality would fatally undermine free enterprise and hasten the collapse of Western civilization. Then the end of the Communism blinded the rich and naïve to the possibility that their dream world was in any danger at all.
Now in early 2018, when bill for the true costs of their enforced inequality demands to be paid, they still imagine their delusions can continue without any penalties at all.
I do like schadenfreude, especially when it is served up in large helpings. 🙂
Ambi, zoot and Graham, three great comments.
The cornerstones of inequality are Corporatisation and Globalisation. We have sleep walked into allowing ourselves to be maneuvered into believing that this is good for us. The notion that endless choice of low price goods is a best outcome is completely false.
Think about the line being pushed by the large corporations right now that somehow everything will collapse if they are not given lower taxes. This is absolutely false, and totally confronting when it comes from the likes of the CEO of BHP (a business that grew out of local production and employment to move to minimum local employment and maximum global profits), an expert in resource theft and tax evasion through political lobbying and transfer pricing.
The fact is that so much money has been stolen from the peoples of western nations that the pool of money sloshing around through tax havens becomes the financial fuel that drives up property prices and feed the endless flood of money available for credit cards.
The most important thing to not happen is the corporate taxation cut. The secret agenda here is to fiscally pinch the government with this corporate handout, and then to argue to increase the GST and remove the fresh food exemptions.
The GST is totally regressive and the final vehicle to totally minimise the taxation of those with more money than they need at the expense of the broad population. ie maximum inequality.
Wake up and see the con.
Any good business person will tell you that their aim is to make a profit within the circumstances and situation of the economy. As long as everyone is equally disadvantaged by the policies of the day, it is a level playing field. Where we are being duped is with the global corporate taxation Dutch Auction underway which is completely manipulated by the major corporations through duped and stupid politicians. Our very own sycophantic one of those is out of the country at present being told what he must do to fall in line with the corporate global agenda.
TurnBull's corporate tax cut must not be allowed to happen.
You've heard me, over time, talk about the plan to use energy from solar installations across the top of Africa to feed the energy needs of Europe.
It turns out that this was an initiative of the Club of Rome incorporated in the form of the Desertec Foundation. (I hadn't known that part of the plan).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
But this is an example of the positive power of corporate energy being used for the common good….ultimately being demolished by religiously driven social discord (greed for the power to manipulate peoples lives).
What a mess.
Meanwhile in the Socialist Paradise of Venezuela, for almost 90% Venezuelans, inequality is a thing of the past. It's leading the World in weight loss too !
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-food/venezuelans-report-big-weight-losses-in-2017-as-hunger-hits-idUSKCN1G52HA
Animal rights activists are ecstatic that the cruelty of incarcerating animals in zoos is being eradicated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/08/17/venezuelas-starving-people-are-now-eating-the-zoo-animals-the-parisians-had-the-german-excuse/#7ba7ff1ad2cc
I just wish the sensible progressive leading lights had gotten their way in letting an expert on " peace and social justice " visit Australia.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/chavez-be-invited-australia
Why oh why dont the greedy Capitalists and multinational parasites just leave like they did there, we'd be a socialist paradise too ?
Oh yes, the Jumpy "don't look there, look over there…Venezuela" hand waving exercise.
One way to see that the entire corporate taxation argument is a con is to look at the Coalition from a consistency perspective.
Remember Tony Abbott who killed off one Australia's biggest employers, the automotive industry, because they periodically came to the government for handouts? Well here we have, just one Coalition leader later, an attempt to systematic give lavish handouts to all corporations on top of all of the other special interest handouts. And these handouts will be funded by cuts to social welfare, health and education budgets initially, then a huge increase in the GST.
What is going on Coalition, handouts are not good one day but absolutely essential the next??
TurnBull's tax cuts are a con, make no mistake.
Do the calculation, how many times your income is the average CEO salary of $4,750,000 pa? Keep an eye on that figure. If TurnBull is allowed to force through corporate tax cuts, that figure will increase by 30% in a small number of years.
BilB
You do know that a tax cut is totally different to a subsidy right ?
How can this be intelligently discussed if people think that not taking your money is the same as giving you money ?
They're generally the same people that call a tax hike a budget saving.
It's impossible to talk economics with folk that think that way.
I was against car industry subsidies but would have considered a tax break for them, there is no inconsistency there.
Considering that your opening shot on tax cuts was to talk about the abolition of capitalism and the nationalisation of resources I know that the equivalence between letting someone not pay a tax that they should and giving them a hand out while they still pay that tax is completely lost on you.
The difference is that a subsidy is optional and industry specific, while an economy wide tax cut is continuous, permanent and being applied to all business is way more fiscally damaging.
Your policy choices, Jumpy, would have our streets lined with homeless people and crime would be through the roof. The American option totally sucks as Brian identifies.
It is not a choice between the common good and the individual good, it is a blend and a balance of the two that makes for a healthy and harmonious society.
Well Jumpy's convinced me.
If we don't reduce the tax paid by rent seekers, many of whom already pay no tax, we'll be in the same economic boat as Venezuela (shudder).
Such a well argued, finely nuanced and detailed demonstration of non-binary thinking. I applaud you sir!
My recent comment was to highlight the effects of centrally planned, price fixing, socialist policies that the greens ( among others ) praised and want to bring here. Its a stupidity wolf in social justice clothing.
Firstly, Governments create no capital. If they give one sector ( obviously uncompetitive and unprofitable, hence the need ) capital they take it from competitive profitable sectors. Thats economically regressive. Second, no tax rate permanent. Thirdly, given your weak grasp of economics 101, i'm not inclined to agree with you on whats fiscally damaging. I mean, how could anyone ? Fourthly, when has a subsidy ever been knocked back, never. Governments shouldn't be allowed to offer them.
Ill take the streets and crime of the US of A over socialist paradise Venezuela every day of the week. ( just avoid all Democrat Cities, thats where gun crime is highest )
If individual rights are maintained and enhanced, common good sorts itself out.
But in all honesty if you can't admit tax reductions are different to subsidies ( even a PNG highlander knows the difference between taking less of his pigs and giving him someone else's pigs )and you were wrong headed in your 9:48 comment in conflating the two then its a waste of time us discussing a subject thats either over your head or you refuse to chat in good faith.
And zoots got nuthin, as usual, so ill not bother with that.
Adani are not saying quits yet. They should. World coal consumption is declining, although India is increasing its demand. https://www.iea.org/coal2017/
But India has also banned imported coal which unless Modi deems Carmichael coal "Indian" that leaves Adani with a lot of poor quality coal to flog off to a declining world market.
In November Adani must service a debt on Abbot Point coal port. It is not clear what the status is right now. Adani is saying that it is in hand, but this recent AFR article seems to cast doubt on that. http://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/adani-warned-to-refinance-its-australian-port-or-face-rating-cut-20180109-h0fjl7
I think Adani still needs Carmichael on its books as an asset to keep the bankers settled.
I am hoping that Labor will just come out and say no to Adani.
""…… has pledged to nationalise strategic industries and speed up the construction of a new type of economy that puts people's needs and environmental sustainability before corporate profit. "The introduction of free health care and education, justice for indigenous people, tens of thousands of cooperatives and community control of local affairs — to name just some of the gains of this peaceful and democratic process led by ……""
Who says it comp…
A) Di Natalie
B) Bernie Sanders
C) Justin Trudeau
D) Jeremy Corbin
E) Chavez
F) All of the above.
( hint: Fit's flatantly Fobvious fitch fanswer fis forrect. )
BilB @ 7:54. I agree on the cornerstones you cite but would add the presence of neoliberal government. It provides and maintains the playing fields.
That said, your truth gives me the vapours. (Notice I use the proper spelling of 'vapours, but the US spell checker wants mo to use vapors. Another symptom of subtle globalisation).
Gosh J, You're Jumpying all over the place with your arguments.
If you wanted to talk about a properly run well regulated economy there are so many more examples Such as Sweden and Germany. I can see that you are a glass half empty kind of guy so naturally you picked a failing economy rife with corruption.
Secondly to your firstly, of course governments both create and utilise capital. In the past when electricity pricing was stable this capital enterprise was predominately owned and operated by government. However now that it substantially private with less regulation pricing has skyrocketed.
Yes no tax is permanent and indeed if TurnBull manages to install a tax cut for business Labour will remove it after the next election. On what is fiscally damaging look at the interactive below, and you can decide who will have to deliver the extra funds to cover the loss.
As to the common good…..where 1 percent own most of the assets the concept of the "common good" is already lost.
As to equivalence you are right you just don't understand and there is no point discussing these matters with you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/federal-budget-2017/2017-05-09/federal-budget-2017-infographic-data-sliced-diced/8492204#revenue/breakdown/2018/non-taxation-receipts
Hola Senor Jumpi
How you like it move to Australia from terrible Venezuela?
Just a quick question.
BilB at 7.54am said "the GST is totally regressive".
What is your view on regressive taxes??
Hint: a tax that is not "regressive" is progressive, or neutral.
Some of us hate regressive taxes.
And zoots got nuthin, as usual,
Well yeah, you're right, but that's only because I'm agreeing with you. You are 100% correct in stating there are but two choices in structuring a polity – USA and Venezuela. To (mis)quote the sainted Margaret Thatcher, There Are No Alternatives!
There's a story going round that St Margaret abolished "free milk for school children" when she served as Education Minister, before her elevation to Downing Street.
Hence the catch cry: "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher!"
She sure was ahead of her time!!
All taxes are regressive in that they discourage the activity they're imposed on, therefore the activity is reduce from what it could have been.
To discourage an activity, tax it.
To the encourage an activity, subsidies it at others expense.
Some are worse than others.
A 90% tax rate was never payed, who would ?
You understand taxing less is not subsidising right?
Please explain it to BilB for us.
Also that he is in the Global 1% and ask how he can fix that.
I can't get a simple answer from him.
In fact a 95% marginal tax rate was imposed in Great Britain, and people paid it (until they became tax exiles)
[ref: "Taxman" track one side one of Revolver, Beatles LP released in 1966.]
Sorry, Mr J
'Regressive' is a technical term.
You know how folk say "I pay 26% in tax".
Well, have a look at income tax.
In Australia, as your income goes up, not only does the tax go up, but also the percentage rises.
So someone on $80,000 p.a. pays a higher percentage income tax, than someone on $38,000 for example.
That's a 'progressive' tax.
1. A poll tax is regressive.
If every person pays $200, then clearly the higher their income, the lower percentage of that income the fixed charge will be.
2. GST is regressive also.
It would seem to me this general principle applies to any fees or charges, not just taxes. Would you agree?
For instance, the late lamented Abbott Government intended to reduce people's attendance at medical facilities by charging a co-payment. And I am told people quite often avoid toll roads if there is a vaguely useful alternative available (can't speak from experience, there are no toll roads in WA).
Perhaps we can broaden the discussion to include Adam Smith's thoughts on the inflationary effect of profits?
"The Beatles" was a popular musical group from England, becoming famous worldwide around 1964 and visiting Australia a bit later, and the USA etc.
In Taxman they sing
"1 for you, 19 for me"
As zoot instructs, that's a
19/20 X 100 = 95% tax rate.
It's fairly clear from the lyrics that the songwriter disdains the high marginal tax rate. Could this be the same individual who sang "Power to the People"?
I think the FBI had better investigate!
No toll roads in WA?
Heavens to Betsy, however do you people get around? Jinkas and drays? Shanks's Pony?
John Lenin:
If you go carryin' pictures of Ay-ayn Rand,
You ain't gonna get people to shake your hand!
Oh, I was talking about the realised function of the tax not the intended target.
Now we get to the optimum point on the Laffer curve, I'm thinking the headline rate of 90%, if enforced, is too high.
Zoot s example of capital flight is surprisingly relevant.
But truely, a tax cut is not a subsidy as BilB and ALP/ Greens keep saying, we're clear on that right ?
Please tell me you get that.
One thing I don't understand, perhaps someone could help me, how with alleged wage stagnation can we have alleged rampant evil bracket creep ?
One of those allegations must be wrong, right ?
Haven't heard much said about bracket creep recently.
Thinking about 90% tax rate for the " rich"
$500,000.00 profit is deemed rich.
Hypothetical I work my arse of 7 days a week and employ 10 people with families to achieve that remarkable result.
My annual income is $50 K.
Fuck that for a joke !
Jumpy, you do know that the money you pay to your employees is an expense don't you? Most people consider profit to be what's left over after expenses have been paid.
Now if tou'd written you had a turnover of $500,000 …
you'd
Definitely. Who made the allegation?
And while I'm here, "tax exile" isn't actually a "flight of capital".
Just mentioning, there is a difference between paying 95% tax and a marginal rate of 95%. I assume you would have had to be filthy rich to pay 95% marginal rate. Or at least more than enough for a comfortable life style.
I think we should tax at 90% anything above perhaps around $2 million.
No, Jumpy is right, I think both Morrison and TurnBull were talking about bracket creep on the middle class to justify TurnBull's tax cuts.
But the bracket creep there is in that their incomes (the top 10% with incomes above $102,000 per year) have actually been increasing where average wages have not, hence these people are experiencing bracket creep.
But Jumpy, as to the 90% tax rate, that is the tax on income earned above a certain figure, perhaps above a million dollars. All of the income earned below that figure is at a different rate of perhaps 55% down to perhaps half a million dollars, and so on right down to the first $18,200 ( in Australia's case) being tax free (other than the 10% GST paid on all expenditure).
Australia's top marginal tax rate is 45% not the 90% you are sweating over.
So for example the average Australian CEO take home pay is $2,544,300.60 before his accountant massages back up to something higher.
https://www.icalculator.info/australia/salary_illustration/4750000.html
I came upon this couple's boating (yacht) experiences in the Kimberlies. Some amazing scenery and some really cool aboriginal rock paintings.
https://youtu.be/elxBqrWquEA
Bracket creep for wage earners is an income tax matter, not directly related to reductions in company tax…
unless by "bracket creep" they were meaning the plight of successful businesses whose rising profits were leading them to pay higher taxes.
No creep involved there?
Company tax is a flat (percentage) I think.
Neutral.
I wish now to re-visit marginal tax rate
*total tax rate*.
I will use the 2017/2018 Australian income tax rates, but ignore the Medicare levy and other allowances, etc.
Just the raw, unadorned rates.
But I will simplify some of the figures somewhat, to make the arithmetic simpler. Any reader may use a spreadsheet and the correct figures, or the ATO Simple Tax Calculator (online), to correct these rough estimates….
Let us begin.
Incomes $0 to $20,000 tax = $0
{actually $0 to $18,200 but bear with me}
Incomes $20,001 to $40,000; pay tax at the rate of 20% on income above $20,000
{actually 19c in the dollar, and up to $37,000; but bear with me}
Incomes from $40,001 to $90,000; pay $4,000 plus 33% of any income above $40,000
{actually $87,000 and 32.5%}
Incomes between $90,001 and $180,000; pay $20,500 plus 37 cents in every dollar over $80,000
{actually $87,001 but the 37 cents is correct}
Incomes above $180,00; as above plus 45 cents in every dollar above $180,000.
{the 45c is correct}
OK, now Mr Inky tries out this scheme. Here is a list of incomes // each one is followed by its tax. Then in [square brackets] the total tax as a percentage of income appears.
$20,000 // $0 [0.0%]
$40,000 // $4,000 [10.0%]
$60,000 // $10,600 [17.7%]
$100,000 // $24,200 [24.2%]
Clearly the total tax rate, in [brackets], as Brian and other have noted, is always below the marginal rate; these rates appear in bold above in the outline.
The "tax-free threshold", $18,200, is generous and designed to assist the (income) poor. That first $18,200 remains tax free no matter how high your income is.
The person earning $160,00 is getting close to the highest marginal rate ("highest tax bracket") but pays only 29%. She pays "37 cents in every extra dollar", true. But she has paid much less than 37 cents on a whole swag of dollars.
My comment went to Brian's ,
The big shift came with the reconstruction effort after WW II when education, health and infrastructure were funded by rationally high taxes, up to 90% for the rich, even in the USA.
HERE are the headline bracket rates in the US for just Federal income tax.
And HERE is a good summary of effective tax payed, Piketty data and all.
A good exert,
How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account all taxes levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at income taxes specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in income taxes during the 1950s.[4]
Brian (Re: Adani)
On 19 Jan, Tim Buckley and Simon Nicholas at IEEFA posted this article. It included this statement:
IF ADANI HAS ONE LAST ROLL OF THE DICE, it will likely involve coal rail-freight company Aurizon on a rail link from mine to port.
Since then Aurizon has withdrawn their application to the NAIF for a rail line linking the Galilee Basin to a coal port.
Unless Adani can pull a financial rabbit out of the hat, and soon, Adani Carmichael mine is dead.
I think we are a bit stuck on tax rates and taxes paid. What
Walter Scheidel and Branko Milanovic were talking about in the linked piece was income inequality and wealth inequality.
Lol, yes, a bit stuck. The reason why is what interests me most. Boil it down to basics and it's quite simple.
I've just been looking into the BBC review of the issue of gender pay gap there.
Turns out that 90 women got a pay rise due the exhaustive revenue into pay equality ( same work done, same pay ) Good to see.
98 men also got a pay rise for the same reason.
But back to the OP, I'd rather discuss the US 2nd Amendment, why anyone would abrogate there personal safety to Nanny after what happen to those school kids and teachers in Florida !
Brian the take away information on wealth inequality from the above comments is in the fact check of Joe Hockey's claim that 50% of taxation was paid by 10% of taxpayers. Hockey's intention was to claim that the country is being carried by the "hard working" 10%. However as is usually the case these self serving low emps expose the degree of the inequality in this country.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229
So what is that all important fact??
The entry level income to the top 10% of income earners is…
…………..$102,000…………
What that means is that 90% of Australia's population earns way less than $102,000, on the one hand, and on the other there are a largish number of people in this country who earn a staggering amount greater than $102,000.
Wealth inequality is easily visualised with this graph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20100517_Australian_House_Price_Index_1986_-_2009.pdf
..the missing part is the participation information and of course the affordability trends
https://www.domain.com.au/news/australian-housing-policy-needs-to-shift-away-from-investors-to-cater-to-renters-say-experts-20160720-gq9dal/
But as the Youtube I linked in another thread of a small fishing village in Indonesia demonstrated, a good quality of life does not necessarily require cash flow. The problem with that image in this country is that every skerrick of land in Australia is owned and a squatting subsistence living is not legal in Australia.
The CGRPT concept is a means to partially bridge the gap between property affluence and a good quality of life for the lower end of the 90%. More coming on that as the concept develops.
why anyone would abrogate there personal safety to Nanny after what happen to those school kids and teachers in Florida
Why? We haven't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur.
That's 22 years of proven service by Nanny. Meanwhile, the second amendment has been responsible for thousands of deaths each year.
Game , set and match to Nanny.
Just to compare apples with apples Australia has had 1 mass shooting (4 or more deaths, not including the perpetrator) in 22 years and the US has had 271 in the 11 years from 2006 to 2017 (notwithstanding John Wayne's valiant efforts as a good guy with a gun).
Jumpy, Scott Stevens, the ABC religion and ethics man, an American, was asked by his brother, "What are you doing to protect your family?" implying he should buy a gun.
Scott's answer was that he was taking his family to Australia.
Hockey fact check status: correct.
Forget the sheep, Australia is riding on the top 10%s back.
The bottom 90% aren't forking out the welfare payments.
Thank you Top 10%, I hope to help you out one day.
Blessed be the Top 10% for the money you provide to the poor that we 90% can't.
He could just go to a deep Repblican County in a deep Republican State with a Republican Police Chief, Republican Mayor and Republican Senator, its way safer there.
Oh, and no US mass shooter has ever been an NRA member so surround himself with them.
That's what the empirical evidence proves anyway, not trying to tell anyone what to do.
Howard's gun Laws made no difference to the trend of gun deaths in Australia.
Last question for the night, is Scott Stephens on a 457 ?
Surely the National broadcaster can find a qualified Religion and ethics man domestically.
They made a huge difference to the number of mass shootings.
The empirical evidence shows those school kids and teachers in Florida would have been much safer if they'd been at an Australian school.
Those inequality facts make a very good case for doubling the minimum wage to, lets say around $35 per hour. That will have the effect of lifting the tax burden from the 10% and make our society far more equitable. A minimum wage person will be able to buy a house up to $400,000 and still be able eat properly.
That would be fair and in every one's interests. You'd agree with that Jumpy?
Of course not BilB, minimum wage of $35/h, that's crazy !!
Start a business and pay that.
Use a business that pays that plus on costs for an entry level unskilled worker and see the bill.
No wonder there's a trail of bankruptcies in your career with that thinking, good grief!!
As one student pointed out, kids who aren't old enough to buy a beer can walk in and buy a military-style assault weapon.
Just crazy.
Jumpy, you've no doubt heard of the Harvestor Case of 1907:
H.B. Higgins declared that "fair and reasonable" wages for an unskilled male worker required a living wage that was sufficient for "a human being in a civilised community" to support a wife and three children in "frugal comfort", while a skilled worker should receive an additional margin for their skills, regardless of the employer's capacity to pay.
We've gone backwards since then.
Jumpy:
Inequality is a normal part of the human condition; perhaps even a beneficial part since striving to emulate those who have more can lead to the greater good for all.
But – there is a very deep chasm between that normal and natural inequality, on one hand, and the irrational and destructive plundering of all-and-sundry by 21st Century robber-barons, on the other.
Rather than being focused on figures, you should take a good hard look at what happens to all the loot that is accumulated. You won't find much wisdom and vision among the super-wealthy. Any dumb-bunny can blow huge fortunes on trinkets, luxury, self-indulgence., gambling and downright silly investment decisions.
Don't bother to drag out that old fairy-story that all the money so squandered eventually oozes back down into the rest of the economy – it doesn't – that money is caught in eddies and just keeps going round and round in tight little backwaters of hangers-on. Hell, even potlatch made more sense than what we have to put up with today.
Worse yet, the unjust and inefficient accumulation of wealth in 2018 stifles talent and yet advances village-idiots whose parents are overloaded with money. The education system should ensure that boofheads do not advance way beyond their capabilities, but it doesn't, or rather, it can't. It is useless to hope that the rough-and-tumble of business will prevent absolute nong-nongs from surviving and prospering – that's because so many irrational social factors, ones that favour the filthy rich, make a mockery of the divine market and its holy impartial forces.
So long as we tolerate being robbed by latter-day aristocrats, real talent cannot rise. Some people have already shrugged of this tolerance; they are people with get-up-and-go. They got up and they went. Right out of Australia. Right away from this pampering of the super-rich to the detriment of the rest of us…
Rational forms of inequality are fine. What is not fine at all is the unnatural inequality we have permitted to infest us.
So, Jumpy, your'e saying that you cannot be an employer unless you are paying $18 an hour? Lets look at what that means to the cost of building a house. You would have maybe 6 guys on site continuously for 6 weeks, yes? So at $35 per hour times 40 times 6 weeks comes to around $50,400. Well that is not enough, so there has to be another factor. Oh yes, the boss. So lets pay him $200 per hour times 40×6 equals $48,000. Still not enough as I know that in the past a house was 50% materials and 50% labour, What am I missing here Jumpy? What figures do you use to cost out a job.
Hint: https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Industry=Construction/Hourly_Rate
I'll come back to this later.
Well said GB
GM Re Adani: Mr Adani is one of India's top ten wealthiest, and has a good relationship with Modi. And there are other interests served by the Galilee Basin being opened up by the rail line – Clive Palmer, Gina Reinhardt and other would-be miners. And Labor, State and Federal still seem undecided. So far they are doing way less than saying"No".
I think that it's a bit too early to sign the Carmichael death certificate whilst there are still rabbits lurking in the background.
What would be nice is that if Adani does surrender, the various approvals the mine has been granted, lapse.
Yes, hear, hear GB!
meanwhile, across the little Tasman dutch, the NZ National Party (currently in Opposition) has elected a Maori man as its new leader: Simon Bridges, a "proud Westie" [West Auckland].
His Deputy Leader will be Paula Bennett, who is also Maori.
Haere mai.
Jumpy at 8.36pm last night:
No wonder there's a trail of bankruptcies….
said unkindly.
Are you now against bankruptcies???
?Que?
The Donald is proud of his bankruptcies. They demonstrate how smart he is: able to walk away from a business leaving unpaid debts, broken contracts, and a world of woe. The cleverest man in the Borough. The Deal Maker. America needs more genius in Washington, etc. etc.
And our PM has praised the role of bankruptcy, in encouraging risk-taking entrepreneurship.
Which side are you on, J?
Dour, conservative, no-risk, Presbyterian hard work and penny-pinching? Or the exhilaration of innovation, risk and genius??
For the record, Jumpy, I've never been a bankrupt. On the contrary I' ve survived a series of business partners who have done their best to make me one, the worst of whom turned out to be a full on psychopath. Hence my distaste for lo emps of most kinds.
Apologies for a surfeit of Italianate lettering.
Geoff Henderson (Re: FEBRUARY 27, 2018 AT 7:48 AM):
GM Re Adani: Mr Adani is one of India's top ten wealthiest, and has a good relationship with Modi. And there are other interests served by the Galilee Basin being opened up by the rail line – Clive Palmer, Gina Reinhardt and other would-be miners.
If the Galilee Basin coal mines are such a good deal, why are the banks unwilling/declining to stump-up the cash? Or why doesn't Mr Adani put his own money into Carmichael? Or Clive Palmer and Gina Reinhardt put their own money into their ventures?
From this article headlined Australia's Newcastle port faces the coal conundrum, dated Feb 13, it includes this:
Director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis Australasia (IEEFA), Tim Buckley gives seaborne thermal coal 40 years. "The only question is – am I giving it 10 or 20 years too long?" he asked.
GM I suspect the answer is that they would rather lose other peoples money.
They probably sense, like many great scholars, that Carmichael and the Basin pose unacceptable economic, social and environmental risks.
But you know, bad ideas are prosecuted every day by politicians, business and people notwithstanding even expert advice. I won't feel at ease with Adani 's Inc. until I see a symbolic wooden stake through its heart, and that has not yet happened.
BilB, this is a rough idea of house construction time, albeit a bit longer than I'm used to. I suspect it's not best case scenario to not get client too optimistic.
Some parts of the process are 90% labour/10% materials like painting and tiling ( the client purchases tiles seperate from the tiler's bill )
You forget oncosts for employers like Super, Workcover, vehicles, tools, licence fees, other insurances like public liability ( $ 20 million coverage ) portable long service fee, council fees, public holidays/sick days/ accrued leave factored in, safety inductions rar, rar, rar….
I'm in the legit construction game, not the back yard cashier game.
Profit margins are less than Super if, and a big IF, things go smoothly with self motivated employees. That vanishes fast with hiccups or a lazy employee or a client that thinks like your good self.
I think you mean well but most clients aren't willing to pay $35/h + oncosts + small profit for $ 10/h of productivity which an entry level/minimum wage employee produces.
Oops, link,
https://www.gradyhomes.com.au/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-house/
Jumpy: If the min wage jumps to $35 hr you don't go bankrupt, local construction industries don't become less competitive and everyone's prices will go up a bit unless they can grow their markets and do things a bit smarter.
Geoff H (Re: FEBRUARY 27, 2018 AT 3:25 PM):
Taxpayers' money, if you can wangle-it!
On ABC's 7:30 programme last night, Leigh Sales interviewed Geoff Cousins, click link here. As a lead-in to the interview, there's an excerpt of Mark Butler in the Australian Parliament on Monday (from time interval 00:52) making an interesting statement. From the 7:30 transcript:
MARK BUTLER, SHADOW MINISTER CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY (YESTERDAY): The industry itself has been clear that any thermal coal mined from the Galilee to chase a declining sea borne market would simply displace coal and jobs, in existing coal regions like the Hunter Valley.
Now that's an interesting development.
Further to my comment of February 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm, I discovered this handy site which is sadly no longer updated (hence the 2015 figures).
According to empirical evidence, those living under the protection of the second amendment are roughly ten times more likely to die due to firearms than us poor sheeple living under the stern gaze of Nanny. When will we wake up!!
Hmm, zoot, you may not have seen on the media you visit but Obama Commissioned the CDC to look onto lives saved in the defensive use of firearms.
He didn't like the findings so the left media buried it.
It found the lives saved far outnumbered lives lost.
I'll leave it up to you to source the results, if you bother to.
The primary findings from the CDC that is, not a twisted interpretation.
I'm not optimistic you will.
zoot, m'boy
sounds like we-all has a darn sight better chance of
wakin' up at all!!
Oh deah,
Looks like Jumpy and I's sufferin' from
postatus simultanius.
Jes' sayin'
Hmm, Jumpy you may not have seen on the media you visit, but the report Obama commissioned was Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, a review of literature which was not tasked with looking into "lives saved in the defensive use of firearms".
None of it contradicts the fact that under the NRA the rate of death by firearms is ten times higher than under Nanny.
Whether the firearm was used defensively or not has no effect on that fact.
The Washington Post has an explanation of the faulty logic underlying your claim.
On Adani, the RN Drive interview with Tony Bourke was instructive.
He says as shadow environment minister, Labor can't make a hypothetical judgement from opposition. It has to be real, with real and current evidence.
He also says they wouldn't normally change an approval made by a previous government. Plus he said that Labor will likely change environmental law, but prospectively.
I think in real terms the Adani thing will be resolved before Labor gets anywhere near the treasury benches.
To add to the above, Labor is clearly in something of a transition in relation to its attitude to coal mining. Mark Butler seems to be working on his colleagues.
And Bourke emphasised that there were still outstanding issues in relation to the environmental approval, specifically on the matter of the impact on groundwater, where Adani was obliged to provide additional information and assurances.
Zoot.
Yes, there is no doubt the murder rate by gun is higher in the US than Australia.
If you look at overall Intentional death rate ( including suicide ) per 100,000, Australian and the US are quite safe. Australia at 10.7 and the US at 16.8 ( Finland at 19 )
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate
It not rational, I would have thought, that being murdered ( or suiciding ) by a gun is worse than any other way. But I'm not gunphobic.
I think Australia has an advantage in that we're not surrounded by Countries that are far more violent and a high illegal intake from them as the US does ( see list )
Perhaps the Wall will see Americas rate drop substantially, and intercity gangs could be addressed by Dem Mayors too, that'd help.
Jumpy, I'm not talking about the murder rate, or the suicide rate, or whatever else you throw up to try and obfuscate the simple, easily understood, empirical fact that citizens of the USA, land of the free and home of the NRA, are ten times more likely to die due to firearms than those of us in the craven, lily livered Nanny state Australia.
But back to the OP, I'd rather discuss the US 2nd Amendment, why anyone would abrogate there personal safety to Nanny after what happen to those school kids and teachers in Florida!
Here's what at least some of those school kids think.
(Of course there may be others preparing to ensure their personal safety by cleaning their AR-15s. Your task Mr J, should you choose to accept it, is to find them.)
On gun policies, the President seems to be wandering all over the place, but mainly focussing on mental illness and cowardice.
In shootings of kin, I'm sure that sudden rages can lead to shooting deaths. Regardless of mental illness or the cowardice of any bystanders. Then there is the "tragic accident" where a 2 year old plays with a loaded gun; or someone out shopping happens to discharge a firearm and kill a stranger… no suicide that, but most likely the firearm was carried "purely for defensive purposes". If the guns weren't there, those accidents couldn't occur.
We have accidental shootings by fully licensed shooter/hunters over here too, luckily rarely.
By the way, it's still early days, but the National Hand Grenade Association could do with a bit more vocal support, guys. Their HGs are only ever used defensively.
mainly focussing on mental illness and cowardice.
How appropriate for that mental giant, Cadet Bonespurs.
The tragedy at Stoneman Douglas HS in Parklands County Florida will go down as one of the worst cases of malfeasance and ineptitude,by Government of all levels, in US history.
The FBI were alerted of this lunatics wishes to be a school shooter on at least 2 occasions.
Under Florida its illegal for him to have a weapon on that alone.
The ( elected Democrat ) Sheriffs office were called to his address 39 fucking times in the last 5 years.
At least one but probaby 4 armed, vested deputies hid while the loon shot away untroubled. The First has been sacked for cowardice, he should be jailed.
These are the shitbags your asking folk to entrust their safety?! Hand in ya guns folks, the " authorities " can protect you better than you can.
There are a multitude of laws and procedural practices ignored by departments top to bottom.
He would never have a gun if Nanny did her job.
Read and weep for the victims, and his sorry messed up arse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting
I'd like to ask the students had they ever tried to befriend and show kindness to Cruz, he had a rough trot. Do they think as individuals that they could have done something. There's no doubt they had more chance than Trump ( whom they all blame for doing nothing according to CNN ) to prevent this.
Hand in ya guns folks, the " authorities " can protect you better than you can.
As demonstrated in Australia – YES!
Jumpy, thank you for your forensic analysis of the shooting in Florida.
In your opinion, are the same factors responsible for all the other school shootings in just 2018 – Oxon Hill High School (05/02/18), Sal Castro Middle School (01/02/2018), Marshall County High School (23/01/2018), NET Charter High School New Orleans (22/01/2018), Italy High School Texas (22/01/2018), and Wake Forest University (09/01/2018)?
By my count since 2011, 148 people have died in 134 shooting incidents in US schools. In the same period there has been one shooting incident in an Australian school (Modbury High School) and no deaths at all.
US data from here.
Warning: national/ethnic stereotyping follows.
Although Americans and Australians both speak English, there are a lot of differences in values and norms. Two significant differences are in attitudes to weapons and in methods of dealing with others who get in the way.
Firearms, in Australia, are generally regarded as military equipment or necessary tools-of-trade in some rural industries or recreational instruments. Despite vigorous efforts by gun-nuts, the foreign NRA and firearms merchants, gun worship and obsession has never taken off in Australia (and apart from a few born-losers, probably never will). For instance, the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia is still just a normal organization in the community, one that encourages a normal and responsible attitude to firearms; it has more in common with motoring or fishing organizations that with the NRA. if SSAA were ever allowed to operate in in the USA, it would branded as a liberal-leftie bunch in league with Satan himself. Many, perhaps most, Australians couldn't give a damn about guns. Interesting items but why the blazes would you want to spend any money on them or have them hanging around the house?
Despite the deliberately skewed history about how Western culture took over Australia, almost all of the murder and deprivation was organized by a handful utterly ruthless rich and powerful figures, and all of the pre-1942 racism here was to promote their own property interests. In marked contrast, America had a terrible history of continual frontier wars and of treaties that were invariably broken. Add to that their pre-revolutionary convict system and their dreadful history of African slavery in you have very fertile ground for the growth of that simplistic attitude to anyone who might get in your way: you either buy him or kill him. That attitude is completely alien to our own way of thinking, thank goodness..
A lot of the discussion about firearms in the hands of the public overlooks these aspects.
zoot,
With that stark difference in deaths, it cannot be solely due to the difference in the respective populations of the two nations in question.
There must be other factors.
Hmmmm, what could they be?
Mental illnesses of various types occur in many societies. Are there proportionally more homicidally-inclined mentally tormented individuals In the US?
Or could it be that, when they finally snap, they can more easily grab a mass-murdering weapon, over there, than in some other countries?
Agree Ambigulous.
Apart from a pig-shooter working in very thick scrub (the ONLY possible exception I can think of) there is no exception whatsoever for allowing any semi-automatic firearms or large-capacity magazines anywhere outside the armed forces. None.
For goodness sake, Jumpy, your flogging a shot dead horse.
You apparently didn't see the part where Trump tried to put the blame for the shooting on Obama (didn't take).
Reading some of the material on Cruz he sounds like he might be an ASD (autism spectrum disorder). This condition range is very broad but there are a number of common traits (I believe). One thing that is said of ASD's is that they can best be helped before the age of five.
As for your NRA buddies, and social inclusion, this is one of their latest ads
https://youtu.be/XtGOQFf9VCE
To put that into context read the following. I came across this while I was looking for a personality profile for Wayne LaPierre. I think that it is pretty clear for the advertisement and a quote from one of his recent speeches.
http://theweek.com/articles/709259/why-nra-turned-from-fear-hate
And another thing Mr J at 8.30pm on 1st.
You advocate stronger action by Sheriff's office, FBI etc.
Over here and over there, making a threat to kill is a criminal act. So stringent policing is necessary. Reported threats should be investigated – and quite possibly were, if there were 39 call outs to that home.
But police and FBI and NSA and Sheriffs always have to prioritise, so if you want more thorough policing, then US taxpayers will be up for a large extra wages bill as thousands of extra officers are trained and signed up.
Interesting article Bilb. The quote from Wayne LaPierre bears a strong resemblance to the thoughts expressed by our esteemed colleague J.
I also believe this thread is the sort of thing which causes J to complain the hive mind gangs up on him.
we just disagree with him
Buzzy Ambee
Mr A, if it means a few extra phone calls or email, yeah OK.
In this case the school didn't call police about any of Cruzs threats or behaviour due to some lovey dovey policy about protecting students from the Justice system.
The local Sheriff never bother to flag Cruz to the NICS despite dozens of visits and direct threats of this nature. They never emailed the FBI.
The FBI was warned twice and never contacted their field office or the NICS.
There are plenty of laws on the books that could have, if not prevented, massively reduced the chance of this happening.
To suggest more laws to be bungled or outright ignore may make some feel all warm and fuzzy is a waste of time.
Just so people are aware, an AR-15 fires a .223 round ( 5.6 mm ) just like granddads old 22, which is on of the smallest rounds you can get. By comparison the most popular handgun in America is a Smith & Wesson 9mm.
Both are semiautomatic.
AR stands for ArmaLite ( not assault rifle as some think ), a Company founded in Hollywood, California 1950.
Hand guns account for the vast majority of gun murders in the US.
Therefore the disproportionate fear of " military style " rifles is irrational.
Jumpy the Australian army once carried the Armalite gun. Must have been a defence gun, not an assault weapon.
We stopped using it when it was deemed to breach one or more of the rules of "fair" war craft. I know I know, there is an oxymoron in there…
J 4.14
Yes, massively reduce the chances of such an event…. that is all we can hope for.
Now as a cold-hearted (scientific) statistician, you can estimate the probability of such an event by observing, in practice, how often such events occur. Say over five or ten years. Twenty if you will.
Why is the probability, established by the track record, so much higher in the US?
I don't believe it is simply a matter of shoddy law enforcement, or lack of liaison between several relevant authorities. Even though that may be salient in this recent massacre.
Jumpy, The AR-15 has double the muzzle velocity of regular guns and is designed to kill at a distance of 1 kilometre, ie far too far away for a person to know what they are shooting at. This weapon demolishes internal organs. The doctors treating the dying said that the were no organs to repair, they were just a mess.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html
Welcome to the Gish gallop. As practiced by Mr J esq.
Yet another statistic.
A quick look on Wikis and Australian Army websites confirms Geoff H's info, Mr J.
Colt M16 assault rifle, otherwise 'Armalite'. Not considered a long weapon (conventional rifle, e.g. for sniper use).
See Bien Hoa, Nui Dat….. of course the Australian Army was there in a purely defensive role. Never out on patrol, looking for "Viet Cong" or North Vietnamese units. Just sat at the base all day, hoping not to be attacked. Entirely defensive, as Geoff H pointed out.
Bullshit BilB, an AR-15 little .223 effective range is about 550 meters. And what the hell does it matter in a building where the target is under 50 meters away
And bullshit zoot, what have I said that is a falsehood or misleading? You haven't even tried to refute anything I've said.
And Mr A, " military style " guns deaths are a poofteenth of the total, somewhere about 2%, knives kill more. Be more afraid of the knives.
Gish gallop.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/gish-gallop
In the immortal words of Indigo Montoya, zoot, " You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
BilB and zoot,
I remember when the media you link to were having a good old giggle about furniture killing the same amount of people as terroristism, remember that ? " Have some perspective " they chided.
They're the same ones making you wee your pants about " military style rifles " that aren't even close to knives or blunt objects in mode.
Time to ask yourselves if the information sources you trust are shepherding or informing perhaps.
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it's unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
A much more accurate definition of the Gish gallop from RationalWiki.
You haven't even tried to refute anything I've said.
You have yet to refute the empirical evidence that the death rate from firearms in the USA is ten times that in Australia. (Your original comment questioned the abilities of Nanny to protect us from death by firearms – refute away mon frere).
I agreed that narrow mode of intentional death was far higher, have a Mummy look.
Do you agree that the Parkland shooting was a monumental failure of law enforcement?
And take your time, I'm off to bed, wouldn't want to be wrongly accused of Gish galloping again by not reasonably allowing you the time to compose an argument.
My recollection of the armalite was that it had a tumbling, high energy bullet that did enormous damage to a victim. A shot in the arm would kill I seem to recall.
Could you put that in English please?
Do you contend that the 271 mass shootings in the USA between 2006 and 2017 were also monumental failures of law enforcement?
J, 8.01
What, sir, is a poofteenth?
JD I recall that being said at the time. If struck on the arm, it would tear it off, leading to death by shock, blood loss or both.
Grisly stuff. I saw that surgeon speaking of the A-15 wounds. Talk was that an exit hole (from a bullet just slightly larger than a .22) would be the size of an orange. The shock of the slug just passing near an artery would destroy the artery.
There is stuff out on YouTube about the electromagneticly fired projectile that streaks along at Mach 7. It carries no explosive but its enormous kinetic energy devastates any target. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_5CGtLBNvo
Jumpy, use your head. You're referring to point hit range. There is point range, area range and maximum range. The AR-15 is lethal at 1000 metres, not accurate at that but lethal, and a maximum range of 3600 metres. And that is the point even at 500 metres in a suburban location no shooter can know what he is shooting at, what the nature and intentions of a target are beyond even 50 metres, so the power of the AR-15 has no place in the community.
But hey, I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding these things, Jumpy.
Here's a fun fact.
The Australian Regular Army in South Viet-Nam DID carry out very active patrolling; that was one of the reasons it was so disproportionately successful.
The reason Australia adopted the M-16 (AR-15) assault rifle was sheer marketing. I suspect many of the myths about that weapon (repeated here) originated in the marketing department backrooms of the Armalite Corporation. It was an inferior weapon (for Australian needs) to the Self-Loading Rifle (also called the SLR, the FN or the FAL) which fired the heavier, larger and longer-range 7.62mm NATO cartridge, whose bullet was not so easily deflected by light vegetation and it was effective against unarmoured vehicles. The biggest problem with the SLR was that the Korsakoff Syndrome afflicted military hierarchy in Canberra were downright hostile to modifying the SLR so as to make it more effective:
lighter, quieter magazines – a better return spring – replacing the noisy metal dust-cover – replacing the delicate sights with robust CETME/G3 type – modifying the gas plug so it didn't catch on everything – etc., etc. By Jove, these brilliant officers scored a mighty victory over innovation and improvement.
A similar thing happened with the machine gun. We bought the useless American M-60 General Purpose Machine Gun with its magic "Cone Of Fire" instead of going the British way with the adaption of the superb Bren Light Machine Gun to 7.62 mm NATO ammunition for troops on foot AND a belt-fed machine gun, capable of sustained fire, for fixed positions, vehicles and helicopters. Horses for courses. By the way, the "too accurate" Bren could be adapted to produce a spray-pack "Cone Of Fire" with a simple adjustable device on its bipod mounting or an additional training lesson for its operator – easy!
Anyway, what the hell are AR-15, SKS, AK-47 and similar assault rifles doing out in the general community?
Hey, Zoot, thanks for that fun fact. Maybe they're on to something.
And maybe the Yanks should resurrect the House Un-American Activities Committee – with the NRA as the star witnesses.
Just to let folks know, I should finish new Salon tonight. I got stuck on Cash's crash, where there seems to be a story behind the story. It'll have to be a separate post. Part of the annoyance is that we have to spend time on this garbage.
Also yesterday I did something I've never done before.
I was doing a trimming job along the side of a rectangular swimming pool, where there was about a foot-wide strip to walk on between the pool and the hedge, but with four different levels, so step ups and downs as it were.
Well I finished what I needed to do, but on retracing my steps fell into the pool. All well and good to go for a dip with my boots on. However, there was a small consideration that I was carrying a split-shaft whipper-snipper/trimmer and with what I had on my person about $1500 worth of gear ended up in the pool.
The only thing that so far has revived is the remote to unlock my ute, for which I'm grateful. Otherwise I enjoyed the dip!
A likely story indeed. I admit to falling into a pool a number of times over the years, plus, rivers, streams and dams. But never with a whipper-snipper in hand.
Don't try to start it though, in-compressible water will ruin the guts of your engine if water got in and it still starts.
You are lucky with the car key. A replacement for some cars can literally run to thousands. My wife's 2010 Mazda 3 replacement list cost was $650. Third party cost was $200.
some cars only allow a limited number of copies. After that you have to reconfigure the car security system and then it gets really spendy.
Brian a likely story indeed. I admit to falling into a pool a number of times over the years, plus, rivers, streams and dams. Fell over in the shower once I was told. But never with a whipper-snipper in hand.
Oh the follies of life, Brian. We get so good as adults not falling, so when we do it comes as a real shock.
It seems that the Scots have pre empted the CGRPT concept by some years though in a slightly different form. There are several other interesting elements in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2013/nov/05/housing-permanently-affordable-scotland
Ok, it seems I'm a bit thick so someone please explain, if AR15s are these cheap, mega effective killing machines that, if banned, would have us all sleep easier at night why are they the preferred weapon only 248 times out of 11,961 ( 2014 ) ?
And that's if we count ALL rifles as AR-15s, which there not, because I'm generous.
And could someone please concede the Parkland County shooting had a massive failure Law Enforcement that could have prevented it.
( please, I'm loosing faith that I can have an honest chat here, about anything )
Jumpy, anyone hit with a projectile from an AR-15 has a near zero chance of survival, against a very good chance with a regular hand gun. Being hit by any bullet, contrary to Die Hard movies, effectively disables a person so to render them ineffective as an aggressor. So a hand gun fully achieves the function of self defence, the primary claim of the NRA, and the constitution. Therefore anything more powerful than that is "overkill". Even rifles are morally unsupportable as they have the primary aim of killing from a long distance away, and this cannot be seen as self defence, rather it is an offensive weapon, and offence is not "protected" by the constitution (as I read it).
The fact is that self defence is only valid in the face of an offensive act by another person. Self defence does not entitle a person to kill bystanders in the process of defending oneself, therefore the nature of a self defence weapon is limited to that suitable for short range close engagement. If an aggressor is using high powered weapons from a great distance then this becomes a matter for properly equipped and trained police and or military.
In conclusion the sale of high powered offensive weapons is not supportable at community level.
So no answer and no answer.
I ask again.
If that is your response, Jumpy, then you answered your own question. Yes you are a bit thick,….and that is OK.
You're entitled to your own version of reality.
Clouding reality emotion does as Yoda would say.
Your evasion is noted, again.
Everyone can see it.
You…will…remove…all…thoughts…of…weapons…from…your…mind…and…go…to…the…pub…for…a…glass…of…milk…while…you…rethink…your…life..!
(spoken in calm slow tone with a ritualistic movement of the palm down hand)
How about answering 3 soft questions.
1) Could the law enforcement establishment prevented the Stoneman Douglas School shootings?
2) Why are AR- 15s not chosen as the preferred weapon for murder ?
3) Is taking less of a Company's income the same as giving them money ?
1 last question, how can we, as a society, move on to the hard questions if folk refuse to confront the soft ones ?
I'll throw in a 4th,
4) Are Trumps tariffs on aluminium and steel stupid ?
The recent school shooting DID involve a failure of policing, Mr J.
But it involved other factors; some of those other factors, such as gun ownership, seem to me not only relevant, but very interesting because I wish my family and friends to have as low a risk as possible of a pointless, random death.
Try these for size, cobber:
Death sucks, Mr J.
Being shot dead by a stranger sucks, Mr J.
Being shot in crossfire on a suburban or city street sucks, Mr J.
Being shot by a cop or a soldier while unarmed sucks, Mr J.
Being shot illegally sucks, Mr J.
Dying in a hunting incident sucks, Mr J.
A three year old killing its mother by playing with her handgun sucks, Mr J.
Domestic violence sucks, Mr J.
Domestic violence using a handgun sucks, Mr J.
Armalites in civilian hands suck, Mr J.
Being able to smuggle guns into a hotel room high above a concert venue sucks, Mr J.
Massacres at schools suck, Mr J.
Kidnapping school girls at gunpoint in Africa sucks, Mr J.
Death is pretty damn final, Mr J.
Al Qaeda proclaims: "We love death as you love life!"
The only good thing to come out of WW1 was the Christmas Day Ceasefire.
Gun-worship is as dangerous to others as drink-driving and domestic violence.
Piracy at sea using machine guns or whatever those Somali dudes use….. sucks.
No-one is evading your questions; some are disagreeing with you, Mr J.
It sounds to me as if you have a very close knowledge of the weapons issued to Australian Army soldiers in the Viet Nam task force.
I'm glad you made it back.
When I wrote recently that Aussie soldiers over there "never went out on patrol" I omitted the <sarc and </sarc tags.
No doubt you have had to deal with 'armchair generals' and 'stay-at-home military experts' before this.
Cheers, Graham.
Well said Ambi.
It all sucks.
Jumpy,
1. This is the same question as can all nuclear reactors be made totally safe? Yes they can but enough evidence to the contrary. Hind sight is 20/20.
2. This question is incomplete. The correct question is " ….for mass murder?" And the answer is it probably is but there are so many other to chose from, it would depend on what is locally available and at what cost.
3. Where the money is tax not collected, yes it is the same as giving the company a grant of money.
4. Trump is a cheap crook who should be in jail as soon as possible. Watch this before you respond…
https://youtu.be/YexnrlGhNEY
Considering the minimal amount of thought that went into Trumps' decision on steel and aluminium, and the manner in which it was delivered, it is a decision 100% worthy of Nicholas Maduro, and for all of the same reasons.
If one wants to build one's economy, that is not the way to go about it.
To recap that Q and A
Q 1) Could the law enforcement establishment prevented the Stoneman Douglas School shootings?
A 1. This is the same question as can all nuclear reactors be made totally safe? Yes they can but enough evidence to the contrary. Hind sight is 20/20.
2. This question is incomplete. The correct question is " ….for mass murder?" And the answer is it probably is but there are so many other to chose from, it would depend on what is locally available and at what cost.I
Q 3) Is taking less of a Company's income the same as giving them money ?
A 3. Where the money is tax not collected, yes it is the same as giving the company a grant of money.
Q 4) Are Trumps tariffs on aluminium and steel stupid ?
BilB had better psychoanalysis himself if he regards that as honest discourse.
FWIW I wouldn't let BilB aquire a firearms licence.
From the comments policy:
Climate plus is a left-leaning site. Commenters with other ideological views are welcome, but should comment with respect and evidence. They should not expect to dominate discussion threads.
Jumpy, you draw conclusions on the basis of zero evaluation or evidence. Now, I could walk you through the thinking behind my answers to your poorly framed questions, but that would take all night, a commitment I will make, however, when you deliver your report on the Rachel Maddow evaluation of Trumps corrupt (alleged) involvement with Kazakhstan.
Don't forget to burp after you've guzzled down your milk.
Does that policy give indemnity to left leaning commenters being disrespectful and without evidence?
Seems so.
Are you left leaning now, Jumpy.
You know that is your problem, you want total freedom with minimal government one day, and then a police state the next.
I understand how disappointing this is for you, and I sympathise, just let me suggest that you don't swallow your pride all in one go.
Racial Madcow has been a laughing stock before and since the Trump tax return live Extravaganza!!
Now answer the questions honestly or be damned in the eyes of honest folk, your choice.
You can redeem yourself by just being honest and to the subject.
Try the questions again, with honesty.
Good night all, even you BilB.
When you sober up, perhaps have an honest go at my questions.
If you are sober, please seek a clinical psychologist then give it a red hot crack.
They should not expect to dominate discussion threads.
Sorry, I forgot to emphasise that sentence. Mea culpa.
OK, the kids have gone to bed.
The Tasmanian election is not looking good for Labour.
More evidence – research by the RAND Corporation finds policies promoted by the NRA appear to increase crime.
Good item found there zoot.
I believe though that any rational thinking person could have drafted a similar result from good common sense and been 70% correct on the substance without any research.
The little 3 year old who shot her mother while out shopping couldn't have done that if her mother didn't have a concealed weapon. The mother by the way was a nuclear scientist working on the vitreous storage of nuclear waste. What a waste, of life.
I'm sure that Jumpy would say here, if he were not tucked up in bed (shhhh), that the three year old would have been equally likely to stab her mother to death with a concealed knife.
Jump you are stepping off the decency path when you speak like that. Further, it severely diminishes your cred and standing here. A little gesture of remorse is warranted I think.
L-U-C-K-Y !!! Please stick around; the world has too many dills-&-dropkicks as it is and we do need to counter-balance them. Also hope the trimmer can be repaired.
Shall wait until you post about the latest buffoonery from the House Of Tomfoolery before saying anything about Mrs. M. Cash.
BilB:
Thanks for the link to that article on affordable housing in Scotland. Clever and effective. Trouble is that here, the main efforts are put into (1). Social control though crippling debt bondage. (2). Propping up the bloated and grossly inefficient building industry. (3). Further enriching filthy rich property speculators racketeers who can then use their pelf to buy whatever regulations and policies their hearts desire.
Jumpy and Ambigulous:
Calm down. You both make interesting points.
The most intimidating weapons I ever saw were the well-maintained single barrel shotguns held by highly-trained, relaxed and observant Sikh security guards sitting on chairs outside gold shops in old Hong Kong. Robbery was not an option.
Dithering, freezing or failing to act, by security guards or police or soldiers, in a life-threatening situation is a lot more common than Hollywood would have us believe. Only rarely, such as in that massive terrorist attack in Mumbai (Bombay) a few years ago, does the news media even bother to mention failure to act by security personnel; because it spoils a perfectly good story; it's not what the public wants to hear.
Trump's strident condemnation of the failure to act by individuals at that high school tragedy was probably ordered by the NRA – he's a good obedient boy – however, the real world and human nature are a little more complex than that. When it comes moral cowardice, I can think of a few bods with "distinguished military careers" who were truly "Heroes in War but Cowards in Peace". Balancing that is the spur-of-the-moment bravery shown by some ordinary people in floods, bushfires, vehicle smashes and, yes, in in high school massacres too.
That link is paywalled for me.
Your first piece of " evidence ", if the story truely reflected the study, was rubbish.
It didn't occur to the authors that an influx of highly trained members of The Freedom, Justice and Firearm Custodian Union ( NRA ) into a City could make criminals reduced their activities for a bit.
Getting back to Parkland, the FBI were alerted to someone posting " I'm going to be a professional school shooter.'" on YouTube under the username nikolas cruz. The FBI were unable to ascertain the posters identity.
I'm providing actual facts not " seems to " or " could suggest "
Thanks Graham Bell
Your advice to calm down is well warranted and very handy.
My only excuse for 5.34pm yesterday is that I was trying to answer Mr J in terms he might understand.
BTW, I don't accept Mr J's repeated scolding that emotion must never enter political thinking or debate. In my experience, it often does, and not always to the detriment of the polity.
For example, the community reaction to the Port Arthur event led politicians to take actions which I think, on balance, have been beneficial. Those decisions were made in a calm and deliberate fashion after rational debate: not spur-of-the-moment reactions.
Another instance: Australians' emotional reactions to the Santa Cruz Cemetery incident, and then the Dili rampage by various militias backed by the TNI, must surely have laid down the political atmosphere in which Australian and other troops were sent to Timor Leste? That was a swifter action, in an apparent emergency. Emotion – for some of us, decades of sympathy for a nascent nation occupied by a neighbouring State – surely played a role there?
Independent Timor Leste has not been a bed of roses, but on balance I would say the INTERFET action was justified.
On economics, many lower paid or moderately well off folk have a loathing for wealthy individuals who pay no income tax; or for corporations playing tax avoidance capers. Emotional?
"Yep, you betcha you will!!"
The Suppository of All Wisdom
Here endeth my sermon,
New Salon now up.
Yes, Graham, please wait for new Cash post. It will have to be tonight.
I've been knocked off balance metaphorically as well as actually. Took me three hours to get a new phone yesterday. The old one was only in the drink for seconds, but I'm told that once the chlorinated water is in there it will fail, even though it may revive for a while.
Then learning how to overcome what new obstacles the designers have put in the way of simple souls like me, who just want something that does simple things well.
Sorry to hear of your fall, Brian.
The damage to your equipment sounds a bit too extensive for comfort.
Yes Jumpy, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Mr A, I said emotion clouds judgment.
Everyone has emotions but when makeing policy facts should prevail over emotion.
The gun debate is a prime example.
What other issue can you think of where so many people take side with untrained, inexperienced folk speaking from emotion over well trained, lifelong experienced folk useing facts evidence and data ?
Next time there's a aeroplane tragedy I'll go with the pilots union over crying folk that haven't flown in their life when it comes to policy making.
Jumpy, there is no law of nature that says that reason should always triumph over emotion.
So if you had the chance of saving one from a burning building, your mother, or a scientist working on a cure for cancer, you would automatically choose the scientist?
I'm not going to look up the research for you, but we've been here before. People on the right politically become even more entrenched in their views if they are more educated and have more scientific information available.
People on the left are more likely to change their views to accord with new information.
FWIW I think emotions are never turned off and when you make a final judgement, or think you have enough information to make a judgement, both emotion and reason are involved.
Ambi, things are looking up a bit. I was wearing a set of Bose noise dampening headphones, worth $550 new, but probably near the end of their life. Today after leaving them out in the sun they came good.
Ditto with a little Sony radio, worth about $110 and not replaceable as such.
The car remote came good, but I'd like to add to what was said upthread.
I'd recently lost the car keys on a job where I work every week. I know they are in the garden there somewhere, but couldn't find them. Had to get a new on cut from the backup, which cost me $120. Then I had no remote, but the keys in the garden started setting of the car alarm – a beeping horn that was only satisfied by turning the ignition on.
My mechanic reprogrammed a new remote which changed the car settings as part of a service. It only cost $80. Don't know how he did it.
Probably because it's a 2006 Ford. I'd heard stories about others paying outrageous amounts.
People on the right politically become even more entrenched in their views if they are more educated and have more scientific information available.
So people on the right have their positions vindicated by science and education. People on the left move further left because of media.
Got it, seems correct from my observations.
Jumpy, for "scientific information" you've substituted "media".
What the right do is effectively rationalisation, usually because they feel threatened, and start from a position that people are by nature bad unless held in line by beneficial authority.
I know your position is different. It starts with a strong feeling that we are separate individuals and should take individual responsibility for ourselves.
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
This is generally attributed to John Keynes, but it may have been Paul Samuelson. Both were noteworthy economists.
Does that help or hinder?
Just on the policy issue of car remotes, one of ours started playing up. Wouldn't work first thing in the morning. If I put it in a trouser pocket, sometimes it started working 15 minutes later. (Not much use if I wanted to drive immediately.) Perhaps it was a tiny electrical contact problem?? The device warms up, something metallic expands and makes contact??… *
Went to the authorised service dealer, to have it tested. They said they couldn't fix it. Replacement would cost $595.00 AUD.
A friend suggested I take it to a local electrician business.
When I told them why I was there, they handed me an A4 info sheet about car remotes!! (Such was their experience of the patterns of customers turning up.)
A few minutes later, an electrician ignored the warning never to open the device, with my permission, bent a little gizmo and fixed it. Cost: approx $8 for a new battery.
Please Note: I do not advocate such a course of action. It will cost Hyundai someone dearly. It is a reprehensible thing to do. My remorse is endless.
* hypothesis is consistent with the successful repair method
You never said scientific information, just information, that's media.
For posterity, I'm ok with you editing your comment and deleting mine.
And the right believe that all men naturally have the capacity to be bad, big difference.
[Jumpy, for posterity, I didn't change anything at all – Brian]
It's like debating a Mormon.
I wouldn't know, never had the pleasure as far as can tell.
Please feel free to regale your experiences with debating Mormons since, by your comment, you have.
I personally would like to know what I have in common with Mormons debating style.
Taking a bit of a stab in the dark here, Jumpy young feller-me-lad, but here are some clues:
1. Mormons hold certain religious beliefs.
2. Their religion is apparently based on a book, provided to an American 19th century dude by an Angel, who gave said dude – you're not going to believe this bit – a pair of really special spectacles, which translated the words from an angel language into English!
3. Not only that, but as the blessed dude copied out the sacred words, new sentences appeared, right on cue.
4. Pretty special, eh?
5. The Angel was quite insistent that the dude had to convince followers of the importance of polygamy amongst the faithful.
6. Because of the way Heaven is going to be populated by Mormons and their families, it's vital that Mormons enhance the work of the Paradise Guards, by putting major efforts into genealogical research. Some non-Mormon families have learnt family-history details through Mormon efforts.
7. Mormon is spelt with an M and another m. It is not "Moron".
8. Moronism is a different set of beliefs, not originating in the USA.
Any of this seem familiar Mr Jumpy?
What an experience.
Ambigulous:
I'm still angry that the Port Arthur massacre could have happened at all. The ones who downgraded our excellent and responsible firearms control system some years before were never punished. Also dodging punishment were the loathsome wool producers who were too precious to take market prices, that built up an immense stockpile of unsold wool-bales, then they put themselves into a countertrade situation that allowed the Chinese to get top quality wool in exchange for junk, junk that included all the Type 56 Chicom assault rifles (SKS) that were let loose, dirt-cheap, throughout Australia. As for heroic Howard's marvellous response to that tragedy – he moved at the speed of ice-cold molasses: what could have been done rationally and fairly within 96 hours ended up as botched job that took months and months. Grrrr 🙁
Mass murders in Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Mass muder didn't stop because of Howard, guns or otherwise.
They're not less dead.
Nobody claimed it stopped.
Haven't we been talking about reducing the likelihood?
You wrote earlier that no-one can be certain of preventing all massacres of unarmed children or adults, didn't you?
Well, we have (but then we tend not to see things in simple binaries).
Hey zoot.
Over here in this imperfect, slowly evolving democracy, we have this addiction to amelioration. Slow improvement. Never aiming for perfection.
We outlaw murder, but sometimes it still happens. We condemn domestic violence, yet it doesn't cease forthwith.
We try to lower the road toll, recognising we can't prevent all car crashes.
It's a terrible, terrible situation. But over here, the population comprises human beings, with all our limitations, foolishnesses and rash impulses.
But generation by generation, we try to make it a bit better for everyone.
Collectivist idiots that we are!!
Graham Bell, 9.05pm on the 4th.
I can accept your judgement that PM Howard's response to Port Arthur was too slow. You appear to have a high level of technical expertise on guns, much more than than the average voter or Google user.
As a nation, we will long remember Port Arthur, IMO.
And rightly so.
Is it too charitable to say Howard's response was "deliberate "? After all he required State consensus, a deal of money and legal pathways. Contrast the on-going responses in the US, and the apparent resistance to even changes that have no implications for the second amendment.
If Howard's way was slow and went a little to far (for say, farmers) I would still prefer our dealing to any other.
Jumpy, your comment:
Jumpy. I could do what you said, but I didn't. For posterity, I changed nothing.
I can also delete your entitlement to comment at all, so I suggest you don't make shit up which is insulting my integrity. Just a friendly tip.
Jumpy, I've added a comment to your comment, just so people reading for the first time get the truth immediately.
I'm glad we're still on friendly terms, it makes it possible to clear this up.
It seem both of us now feel our integrity has been insulted.
So, I'll just give my account as I see it and you do whatever you feel is just.
The chain of comments in full in the branch on thread, relevant bits bolded,
Then me,
Then you,
I did in no way substitute " scientific information " for "Media".
I substituted unspecified "new information " for " media "
I treated the seperate sentences on Left and Right exactly as you wrote them.
Then after that it occurred to me you may have meant to specify " information " as "scientific " in the sentence about the Left,you may simply rushed and forgot, we all do it.
So, for the sake of future readers throughout history, I said I'm cool for you to edit your comment to state your real thoughts. I wouldn't be dirty about that at all.
Also to remove my comments to it as they're redundant after that clarification.
Two things are irrefutable, I didn't change anything you wrote other than " new information " to " media " which is understandable because media is the source of most of our new information.
And I don't " make shit up " to insult anyone's integrity or for any other reason.
I hope after reviewing this it can be put into the past as a misunderstanding rather than malice on either of our parts.
OK Jumpy, that's a long but plausible explanation, so lets leave it there.
I want to assure you I wasn't angry at all, just trying to speak plainly.
Also be certain that with my typing skills an this stupid f*****g iPad it took a lot of effort, but very important.
Our integrity is our most valuable possession.
Oh Jumpy,
Is your iPad getting in on that hot, sweaty Canberra game now?
In the olden days we would have thrown a bucket of cold water over it, but I'm told that's apt to wreck apps.
My iPad remains celibate.
Do you remember how Bob Hawke used to carry his around in a shoe box?
No,I must have been non interested in politics when that was a thing. I would admit to being a late bloomer.
Without wishing to fan the embers, I think this is worth mentioning: Regulate Weapons Like We Do in the Military, Says an Army Officer.
And purely for reference, here's the report which Jumpy decried as lacking "actual facts": Gun Policy in America.
Ok, I give up, what we're Rand Corps findings?
Could it be that had the bureaucrats done there job enforcing the current laws regarding background checks the Florida School shooter and the Texas Church shooter would have been denied firearms at point of sale ?
Or a finding of the percentage of Police that are crap at Protecting and Serving ?
Second thoughts, forget it, your never gunna admit bureaucrats had any blame. Easier to blame the Firearm Owners Union members that don't mass shoot people.
( Others – fine, I fed it, sue me 🙂 )
Perhaps what some of us want, Mr J, are efforts to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings, whether in schools or shopping malls or tourist places (without Googling, I can think of a mall in Sydney, another in Munich; tourism places such as Port Arthur, pyramids in Egypt, a concert venue in Paris).
Hell's bells, there are incidents all over the world. Unnecessary deaths and horrific injuries.
Various police forces and governments have recognised that some preventative actions are warranted. Why would you object to policies designed to prevent or reduce mass shootings? Whose likely effects are to reduce their occurrence but of course never succeeding in totally stopping them occurring.??
Have a look at the Australian reception to Mr Howard's gun laws, by target shooting clubs, farmers, pig and deer shooters, etc. Compare and contrast those reactions, to attitudes and policies of the NRA. Read the article linked by zoot, about US military weapons being kept under lock and key……
I think the point is, not that some humans have human failings, but that given our recognition of those failings and our inability to predict in every case temper tantrums and homicidal brain snaps, we should ensure that those troubling events lead as infrequently as possible to murder(s).
On my 8.42am March 8, International Minority Day
Confession: I have allowed emotion and self-interest to cloud my thinking. Mea culpa
I belong to that tiny, elite minority of Aussies who regularly visit shopping malls, and (less frequently) visit tourist places. So you will see I was arguing that precious taxpayer dollars should be used to protect my own selfish little a**.
It would be much fairer if minority persons such as me organised and paid for our own, private militia and bodyguards, to protect us when out venturing into shopping malls, or swanning about on touristical jaunts.
I can see that now.
It makes perfect sense.
Apologies once again.
BTW I believe today is International Wome's Day. It started with me by Trevor Chappell being replaced by Lisa Pelligrini on the local ABC Overnights shift.
Women's Day!
That was the minority I couldn't remember the name of. Practically invisible most of the time.
OK guys, be pleasant today and on the Feast of St Valentine. It's only 2 days out of 365.


text:
What does At The Hundredth Meridian mean?
The Tragically Hip: At The Hundredth Meridian Meaning
At The Hundredth Meridian Lyrics
Me debunk an American myth?
And take my life in my hands?
Where the Great Plains begin at the hundredth meridian
At the hundredth meridian where the Great Plains begin
Driving down a corduroy road,
Weeds standing shoulder high
Ferris wheel is...
Bella_M
Jun 3rd 2019 report
I always interpreted this song to be about the violation of sacred First Nations gravesites and of their rights as human beings in general in the name of colonialism. "If I die of vanity, promise me to bury me someplace I don't want to be " and " dig me up and transport me unceremoniously" referring to the unearthing ancient remains from their proper burial location to somewhere else, determined by people who did not know them, and do not understand, acknowledge, or follow their culture, religion, or customs. The Raven figured prominently in the beliefs of First Nations people, and I see the line about one carrying a "muddy old skull" being another reference to the desecration of ancient burial grounds. The "whistling its' approval" would be white settlers and the rest of society, happy to see buildings erected, roads paved, etc. atop sacred land. "Whispers of disease" - well, the majority of First Nations peoples were annihilated by diseases brought from Europe. "Acts of enormity" - massacres, War, theft, residential schools, what atrocities were not committed against First Nations.
I haven't found this interpretation anywhere else on the internet, which isn't to say it isn't there, but I haven't seen it if it is. I haven't heard it or read it anywhere else either. Maybe everybody will think I'm crazy but I really think I'm right.
Aug 20th 2016 report
Located near Neepawa Manitoba the 100th meridian
Mar 9th 2016 report
The 100th meridian west is considered the dividing line between Eastern and Western Canada, "Where the Great Plains begin."
The Canadian prairies (comprised of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta to the Rocky mountains) have a culture that's distinct from other areas, and there is a definite divide between East and West. The song has a feel of flat, expansive land ("hard, huge, and haunted") that holds memories of Western legends like the buffalo. The opening like ("debunk an American myth") points out that this is legend, not fact, and the prairies have changed over time.
There is also a book called "Beyond the 100th Meridian," about an American explorer, so there could be references to that.
More The Tragically Hip song meanings »
The Tragically Hip Fans Also Like:
Beatles song meanings
Emerson Lake & Palmer song meanings
The Neighbourhood song meanings
Tom Cochrane song meanings
U2 song meanings
Email me when new interpretations are posted for At The Hundredth Meridian
The Tragically Hip Song Meanings
Blow at High Dough
Nautical Disaster
New Orleans Is Sinking
Locked In The Trunk Of A Car
Grace, Too
Little Bones
Ahead By A Century
It's A Good Life If You Don't Weaken
Courage (for Hugh Maclennan)
The Darkest One
Fifty-mission Cap
Long Time Running
Wheat Kings

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: is there a SQL Prompt like plugin for VS 2008 I like to use the SQL Tools in VS but I would like to have some intellisense for SQL, with sql manager I can get the Redgate SQL prompt but I would like to stay in VS, any Ideas?
Edit:
is there anything other then Redgate SQL prompt? that dose error checking like the way R# or dev express?

A: Red-Gate SQL Prompt (at least more recent versions, I believe 3.x and up) also works inside Visual Studio. I don't think you need another extra tool, really.
See the Red-Gate SQL Prompt feature page
It says clearly:

Integrates with SSMS, SSMS Express, Query Analyzer and Visual Studio

Marc

A: With Red Gate SQL Prompt you also will stay in VS and this product supports now just VS 2008.
SQL Prompt web page
If you don't like it I can propose you to try  SQL Assist or SQL Complete. I use this tool and as for me it's really reliable one.

A: Apart from tools mentioned above there is a pretty neat tool from ApexSQL called "Complete". I think this article can explain further http://blog.apexsql.com/ssms-intellisense-add-in-and-ssms-intellisense/
And the tool itself

A: Yes, SQL Prompt 3.x and 4.x beta for sure work with Visual Studio 2005/2008
You can download the 4.x beta to play with, and visit their forum if you have any question/problem. Red Gate people are very nice and helpful
http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewforum.php?f=98

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange