<< VIRGINIA MAT STRATEGY ~ MAIN ~ MICROPHONE AVOIDED >>
MAN DEBATES DEBATE
Peter Garrett last April, supporting a uranium debate:
There should be also be a debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, the former rock singer and head of the Australian Conservation Foundation said, though he remained unconvinced it was a safe alternative …
Peter Garrett last June, opposing a uranium debate:
Federal Labor MPs have shouted down New South Wales Premier Bob Carr’s call for debate on the merits of nuclear power at the ALP’s state conference in Sydney ...
While Mr Carr suggested it was time for a debate on the merits or otherwise of nuclear power as an alternative to coal-fired power, Mr Garrett says it is an option not worth considering.
And Peter Garrett today, again supporting a uranium debate:
“I think we should have a debate about nuclear policy, including our uranium policy,” he said.
“My position’s always been the same.”
And that position is limpet-like adherance to whatever ALP policy is currently in place:
Mr Garrett said he would not quit the ALP if it overturned its policy opposing new uranium mines.
“Of course I’m going to stay in the Labor party,” he said.
Of course he is. The ALP rewards flexible thinkers.
For the benefit of non Australian readers, here is a summary of the Labor Party’s “Three Mines” Uranium Policy. The Australian Labor Party SUPPORTS the mining of uranium in Australia, and its export, as long as it is only mined in three locations in Australia. Those locations can mine & export as much uranium as they like, but it must only come from three locations at any one time.
Sheer genius. This is Labor’s way or reconciling the anti uranium moonbat fanatics in the party (like Garrett), with those in the party that like to have at least a chance of getting elected every so often (Mark Latham excepted).
There is little more pleasurable in the Left Vs right conflict than proposing nuclear energy as a solution to
global warmingclimate change crisis / catastrophe / disaster / end of mankind yada yada yada & then hearing the tortured logic in reply as to why we should do anything BUT nuclear energy.Of course their usual comeback is that we should use wind & solar energy, but now they can’t use that, as wind turbines have been shown to be lethal to the poor, endangered orange bellied parrot. And the manufacture of solar panels require much sand mining, shown to destroy coastal ecosystems (wicked miners).
Save the parrot! Save the coastline! Go nuclear!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 01:54 AM • permalinkSCD
That is, has a statistical possibility of perhaps killing one orange bellied parrot per annum.
And this kills the project!
Bloody idiots. if they want to save the freaking parrot, auction an export licence for orange bellied parrots bred in captivity, and breed the bloody things for a profitable export trade. That would give the critters considerable economic value, meaning that people would invest in the research to keep ‘em breeding. A % could then be returned to the wild, to maintain wild stocks (which would be genetic insurance for the industry) and the environment they live in (same thing).
The problem with ‘one-head-size-fits-all-arseholes idiots’ like Garret (his head is shaved for easier insertion) & the greenies is that they are not conservationist-minded at all, but blame-game playing, shrill, pig-ignorant preservationists.
It is like their opposition to feral game hunting in State forests in NSW. They ignore the incalculable damage the ferals (foxes, cats, goats, pigs, rabbits, hares) do to the natives - becuase they think guns are icky and the wearing of furs immoral.
I’m a hunter, and over the last 30 years I have seen all the small marsupials vanish in NSW. You used to see Potoroos and bandicoots nightly when spotlighting. (I have never one taken a shot at a native animal exceptwhen a landowner’s price for hunting his property is properly licensed culling of a certain number of roos: I simply do not like killing natives at all).They are ALL gone now over most of their old range. Cats and foxes have exterminated them, becuase their numbers have grown. Why? becuase greenies think the fur trade is icky, and that guns are bad. So they feel nice about themselves, while the outcome of their actions is the loss of most of our small marsupials.
The only real wilderness is between a greenies ears.
MarkL
CanberraMarkL
Agree with your post on the felly greenies. We had a native quoll on a mining lease at Boddington in WA. It went from being found in bugger all numbers (and the reason the mine nearly didnt go ahead) to being quite numerous because of intensive baiting of ferals in the area.I have been on other minesites where uni edducated enviros think nothing of mobs of feral goats, cats and camels around the leases. They only want to use “nice” and expensive methods which would be achived by one man and a .223 in a week.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 04 08 at 02:57 AM • permalinkGood call StopContinentalDrift…the three mines policy of the ALP is the daftest policy held by a major party in Australian history.
Posted by Quentin George on 2006 04 08 at 03:01 AM • permalinkYeah, I agree with you MarkL - I just can’t help giving the Fed Envt Dept full points for using the bloody parrot to great effect against the Greenies. Sorry for the developers though.
Mind you, its not the first time theis particular parrot has featured in the headlines. Some time ago - 20 years? - the Tasmanian National Parks & Wildlife mob were in some part of the Tasmanian wilderness, either counting parrots or doing un-natural acts on potaroos or something. Their campfire got out of control, started a small brush fire that went straight through the Orange Bellied Parrot’s (ground) nesting area.
I think they barbequed about 15% of the known population.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 03:05 AM • permalinkOr they could all get together and have a mass debate.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 04 08 at 03:06 AM • permalinkadams fatwah
off topic:
Phillip Adams in The Weekend Australian Magazine today (Sat, p42) elaborates on the ‘fatwah’ declared against him by the Australian RC establishment.“Despite recent letters from angry RCs denying the story, it’s perfectly true that one Sunday morning a few decades ago I copped a Catholic fatwah. Hundreds of priests read an epistle from their pulpits declaring it a sin to read any newspaper that published Phillip Adams - or to listen to any radio station that broadcast the bugger. I was flattered and amused - the joke escalating when, just a few weeks later, the very priest who’d been called upon to write the indictment had to hand me a lovely crystal vase - for producing his church’s Film of the Year. As I recall, The Getting of Wisdom…” Sorry, no link. The Australian’s online archives are both clumsy and money-grabbing.
He writes that his sin back then was to have researched and written that a ‘remarkable percentage’ of Kings Cross prostitutes had been convent-educated.
Google reveals that the Getting of Wisdom film was in 1977. (Clue No 1).Amateur detectives should follow up by buying the 1978 DVD of the film which includes a 50 minute interview with Adams and his co-filmmakers, to see if he mentions this stunning fatwah incident.
Note also this from his original claim:“Long before the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, Australian Catholics were officially informed, from every pulpit in the country, that it was a sin to read any newspaper that published Phillip Adams or to listen to any radio station that broadcast him. “
Another of Phil’s versions was:
“One Sunday in the mid-’70s, the Vatican declared a fatwa on me. Priests in pulpits across Australia told their congregations that it was a sin to read any newspaper that published my columns – or to listen to any radio station that broadcast me. “Somehow we have slid from a fatwah ordered by Pope Paul VI to a national fatwah, to ‘hundreds of priests’.
His latest version hints that the ‘fatwah’ may have been Victorian-centred.
Please note: no puns on ‘fatwah’ and ‘fat’, as in Phil’s girth. I too am very fat and would view such insults as neo-fattist.on topic
I was doing a river tour at Pemberton in WA’s south-west and the guide said there were 2m feral cats in WA alone, who generally killed prey twice a day, and assuming a lot of the prey are native species, it rather adds up. Apparently feral cats are v. hard to get rid of as they don’t take carrion baits. And he said they are exceptionally fast at mutating from domestic size to king-size feral mini-lion size./i
That’s “Beds are Burning”, Texas Bob (although, you are right. In our youth the bed probably was spinning). It’s about the white “invasion” of Australia and how the invaders (that’s us - or at least me) owe it to the the Aborigines for just about everything.
No thanks.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 04:56 AM • permalinkBugger. That didn’t work. Somebody help! The italics have escaped again!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 04:57 AM • permalinkWhen someone fixes the italics, can you tell us how it’s done?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 06:12 AM • permalinkMust be a bug with the blog’s ExpressionEngine using pMcode ... if it goes bold or italics, just put an end bold or end italics in the next comment.
While I’ve got your attention, can someone send me Midnight Oils Wedding Cake Island composition. I love it, but have never been able to buy it or download it. BTW, I’m amused that I’ve linked to a site with this song’s lyrics.
21 22 & 25. The italics are still rampant on my screen. Does this mean that everybody has to leave a comment with an end italics? I am new to all this but I have been reading this blog long enough to know that the consequences for screwing up can be dire. I have nightmares about waxed black helicopters and time machines and I have never had the courage to place a tag. Ah well, you can’t live forever. Here is my end italics tag (closes eyes and plugs ears with fingers)
Bloody italics. It is a pain in the bum when they ecape. I have the minionettes chasing the ones still on the loose.
Quolls are a beautiful little creature, but they don’t have much of a chance against a fox.
SCD, what species of .223? it is not a calibre I’ve used. ABout to get a beautiful Winnie .222 from my cousin. It might be 20 years old but he’s only put 300 rounds thru it. The foxes and cats will have to watch out - it is extremely accurate starting just where the little .22’s I normally use fade out. The .222 is about the max calibre I can safely use on the small properties I tend to hunt on.MarkL
CanberraMarkL
This is similar to what i had in mind. A fair bit more punch than a .22. Much better for goats but probably still a bit small for camels.
http://www.lesbaer.com/ar223.html
An American link because Im a bit too lazy too google that long to find an Aussie one.
Not bad for roo shooters either I understand its a reasonably popular caliber with some of the profesionals.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 04 08 at 07:14 AM • permalinkItalics should be fixed now.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 04 08 at 08:35 AM • permalinkHi Andrea! What’s your position on shooting quolls & potaroos?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 04 08 at 08:48 AM • permalinkPeter Garrett last April, supporting a uranium debate
Peter Garrett last June, opposing a uranium debate
And Peter Garrett today, again supporting a uranium debate
Don’t know about y’all…but here in the States, we call that Bi-Polarism at best, Borderline Personality Disorder, somewhere in the middle, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, mid-range, and just plain fucking nuts, Schizophrenia.
Stevo
Thats what I meant by being slack. There are much better rifles for the job with that caliber than a M16, but the caliber can knock down most ferals without any hassle.
I have shot a rabbit with a .303 once, I felt impressed but slightly dirty afterwards though. (after the red mist went away)Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 04 08 at 10:02 AM • permalinkDamn you, El Cid! I was going to comment on Peter Garret being a John Effing Kerry wannabe. Grumble grumble grumble…..
thefrollickingmole, re #36—LOL! Yeah, .303 is certainly overkill for small game, while .223 is very effective against small game.
And, in either case, a man (or woman) with a rifle is a very effective means of clearing out ferals in short order. And that is mostly certainly supportive of the environment, regardless of what the warm and fuzzy greenies might think.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 08 at 11:14 AM • permalinkThe Real JeffS — A .416 Barret is great for squirrel stew. Ya gotta be quick with the bowl, tho.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 08 at 12:30 PM • permalinkAnd, in either case, a man (or woman) with a rifle is a very effective means of clearing out ferals in short order.
Has this been tested at Byron Bay?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 04 08 at 12:32 PM • permalinkHmmmmm! richard, I’d think a .416 Barret would be essential in Byron Bay…...
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 08 at 01:05 PM • permalinkA cousin of mine has a .228 octagonal barrel, lever-action from the late 1800s. Sucker shoots a really flat trajectory for about 200 yds. You can kill a groundhog (they destroy the levees at home) with open iron sights at better than 150 yds (if you’re that good a shot, of course). It chambers a really big (military round looking with shoulders) round that packs a real wallop. It’s really interesting to have to elevate so little to hit a target so far away.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 04 08 at 01:14 PM • permalinkCould be that Garrett just has a short memory (Mustapha)
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 04 10 at 12:08 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
From a lefty, “we need to have a debate” translates as “shut the f*** up and listen to me.”