Begin the cull

Last updated on August 8th, 2017 at 10:27 am

Michael Duffy on religious matters:

You can’t be a good priest if you lie with prostitutes, and you can’t be a good Marxist if you exploit workers. And you shouldn’t be taken seriously as a global warming prophet unless your actions reflect your words.

Speaking of which, Australian of the Year Tim Flannery takes a guess at Australia’s optimal sustainable population:

Well, my personal estimate is that’s probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million.

That’s between 14 and eight million fewer people than currently inhabit Australia. Flannery has two children; will he allow them to live?

Posted by Tim B. on 01/28/2007 at 11:58 AM
    1. Maybe Tim F. and that professor from Texas with all of the grandkids can start a new organisation—the White Green Hypocrites.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2007 01 28 at 12:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, we can’t expect him to have any idea what he’s talking about without a government grant, can we?

      Posted by Ash_ on 2007 01 28 at 12:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. The non-religious view of global warming is this: we know the world has warmed slightly over the past century, but we don’t know how much of this was caused by humans and how much by the natural variations in temperature that occur frequently. We have no idea if the warming will continue or, if it does, whether this will be good or bad.

      And until we do know, I’m going to drive as much as I like, keep my house warm in winter and cool in summer, and spend my money on better things than stupid, feel-good “carbon offset” scams.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 01 28 at 12:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. But you can be a good Democratic Congressman and be all of the above…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 28 at 12:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T, but Behold the mighty power of Wronwright! He merely indicated that Tim hadn’t posted in a while, and now – Hey Presto! – 13 new posts!

      Posted by paco on 2007 01 28 at 12:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. #3 RebeccaH, the smart people are setting up schemes to remove the money from people too dumb to deserve it. Would you like to join me in creating a “carbon offset” scam? The only problem is that we may have to pretend that we actually believe in it.

      Posted by Ash_ on 2007 01 28 at 12:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. So what exactly is it in Flannery’s scientific background that qualifies him to make “personal estimate[s]” on the sustainable population of Australia? He’s a biologist, and has made some discoveries about Kangaroos. That’s great. But it proves no expertize in ecology. As far as anyone knows, he pulled that personal estimate completely out of thin air.

      Posted by Nathan on 2007 01 28 at 12:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Idiot. Australia needs more people, not less. 50 million is a good start.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2007 01 28 at 01:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. he pulled that personal estimate completely out of thin air.

      I’m completely sure he did. Penny to a pound it’s an arbitrary figure.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2007 01 28 at 01:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. By my reckoning Tim F will be able to maintain his credibility if he chops both of his kids off at the knees.

      Sort of what he plans for Australia anyway. So let the charity begin at home.

      Posted by gubbaboy on 2007 01 28 at 01:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #9 My guess is that he pulled it out from somewhere else other than ‘thin air’, James.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2007 01 28 at 01:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. So, ok, Tim Flannery, let’s play the “Sophie’s Choice” game…

      Posted by ushie on 2007 01 28 at 01:17 PM • permalink

 

    1. #6: Would you like to join me in creating a “carbon offset” scam?

      Ash, Ash, Ash . . . you’re way behind the curve, buddy. Perfectly Authentic Carbon Offset certificates – featuring rotogravure engravings of buxom women in scanty classical attire frollicking in front of a factory with a cork in the smokestack, printed on high-quality parchment – have been in circulation for months.

      Posted by paco on 2007 01 28 at 01:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. #8 James: I couldn’t agree more. The world would be a better place with 50, or even 100 million Australians. And you have all that empty space in the middle of your country where you haven’t even tried.

      Posted by Brentbo on 2007 01 28 at 01:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Teacher: Flannery! Flannery!!! Flannery!!!!
      (hurls chalk – direct hit on head resting on desk)

      Flannery: Huh? Wha??

      Teacher: Wake up, Flannery. If you don’t wake up, you can’t keep up . Do you understand, Flannery?

      Flannery: Yes, Miss

      Teacher: Flannery. We were just discussing the population of Australia. At what point did you doze off?

      Flannery: Aaarhh – six million, Miss?. Seven million? Eight? I know, Miss!! Three. It’s three. Right? Right, Miss? Hey Miss! Where ya goin’? Miiiiss? Come back here. I’ll tell my mummy! I will! Miiiiss? Nine? Ten? Miiiiss? Waaaaaaa.

      Posted by SandiM on 2007 01 28 at 01:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. You can be a good environmental prophet if you lie with prostitutes.  I don’t see the problem.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2007 01 28 at 01:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. #14 Brentbo

      You mean that patch of desert?

      Posted by m on 2007 01 28 at 01:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim, I think you are being a bit unfair to Mr. Flannery.  He says in the interview that he does not see any problem with the fertility rates of current Australians, what troubles him is uncontrolled immigration:

      “Q: How would we control our population?

      Flannery: Well, the main and easiest thing to control really is immigration levels because that is what’s contributing to the major population growth at the moment. We’re below replacement level as far as births go, but we do have a very large number of baby boomers having children which is causing a temporary increase in numbers. But really, in the long term, it’s going to be immigration which will cause the big change.

      Q: Your strong stand on population has earned you the criticism of being a racist. How do you respond to that?

      Flannery: All I can say is that I think there’s a place for immigration and always will be in Australia’s population policy. I don’t care in the least where anyone comes from – it’s just total numbers that really worry me. My concern as a scientist is simply to ensure that we have a sustainable future in Australia.”

      Do you really disagree with that, Tim?

      Posted by Gandalin on 2007 01 28 at 02:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #16 – to be a “good environmental” anything you have to be a prostitute.

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 01 28 at 02:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. but we do have a very large number of baby boomers having children

      Say again? A large number of baby boomers having children???

      As I understand it, “baby boomers” were born immediately post WW2. That places them in their late 50s-early 60s today. And they are having children? They are producing such a number of children as to cause over-population? Yeah, right.

      Posted by SandiM on 2007 01 28 at 02:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18 – as Tim points out, Flannery’s ideal number is already below the current population.  It has nothing to do with immigration, but with the number already living here vs. the number he wants to see living here.

      Here’s a hint:  immigration does not work backwards.  You won’t reduce the population by restricting immigrants, you have to actively get rid of people.  Ship them out or kill them off.  Which one does Flannery want?

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 01 28 at 02:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. A MODEST PROPOSAL

      “Do you really disagree with that, Tim?”

      I don’t know about Tim, but, IMO, the world has way too many socialists, global warming or no global warming, and getting rid of them would be a service to humanity…even if it triggers an ice age.

      Let the purges begin!

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 28 at 02:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18, Flannery:

      I don’t care in the least where anyone comes from – it’s just total numbers that really worry me.

      #21, Steve:

      Ship them out or kill them off.  Which one does Flannery want?

      Both, is my guess.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 28 at 02:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Re-heated ‘over-population’ hand-wringing.

      Does this idiot have any idea that some of the most densely-populated places on the planet—Hong Kong, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, etc.—are also among the wealthiest and most desireble places to live?

      Posted by cosmo on 2007 01 28 at 02:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. #21, #22, #23,

      Read Mr. Flannery’s interview again.

      He does not advocate a purge, a send-off, or a cull.

      And he does not think that Australia needs to reach his estimated ideal population tomorrow.

      The current fertility rate of Australians is slightly below replacement.

      If immigration is controlled, the population of Australia will gradually achieve the ideal level.

      It would be almost as easy to argue with his view of the ideal number, as it is to rant and rave against things he has not said and does not advocate.

      Posted by Gandalin on 2007 01 28 at 03:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. “…Hong Kong, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, etc.—are also among the wealthiest and most desireble places to live?”

      It’s all a matter of taste, but I wouldn’t want to live in either one of those places.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 01 28 at 03:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. #13 Paco, I apologise most profusely. You see, I don’t know about these things when it takes me at least six months to check my email. May I offer you these rice crispie treats as a token of goodwill?

      Posted by Ash_ on 2007 01 28 at 03:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. Paul Erhlich’s long-discredited and utterly laughable The Population Bomb is still gospel to the Leftist True Believer.

      Amazing.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 28 at 03:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sustainable shrinking. How stupid do you have to be to think Flanneromics would work?

      Posted by Crispytoast on 2007 01 28 at 04:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. #6 & 13, Ash, so sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner.  I would have been delighted to start up a carbon offset scam scheme plan with you, but I see Paco—- the Wal-Mart of timblair.net—- has jumped in ahead of me. Dang.  Better luck to me next time.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 01 28 at 04:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. #28 – Indeed, what tripe – and it scared a lot of people like AGW does now.

      Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 01 28 at 04:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. He does not advocate a purge, a send-off, or a cull.

      The ONLY ways to reduce population in a given area is to either “remove” them, or by having a birth rate lower than the death rate.

      Since Flannery has two children of his own (which is the typical population limit objective), one can assume that Flannery is *not* in favor of a negative population growth approach.

      Therefore, he appears to favor a cull or deportation as a means to reduce the Australian population.

      Alternatively, Flannery is a hypocritical wanker who is clueless about this subject, and is merely playing to the audience in order to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

      Take your pick, Gandalin.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 28 at 04:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. #32 The_Real_JeffS

      Or third, Flummery will encourage his progeny to do the John Pilger / Germaine Greer thing and emmigrate to Pommyland and disparage their home country from afar.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 28 at 05:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. *emigrate*

      Twitchy fingers make teh goof…

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 28 at 05:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ah, there’s the rub for the socialists. Really they are Platonists. That is, they agree with the Platonic concept of Philosipher King, with, off course, themselves in the staring role.

      These socialists Platonistas know how avery one else should behave and what they should do for their own good; not for them, though.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 28 at 05:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. #3 Well said RebeccaH.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 28 at 05:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think Mr Flannery needs a new calculator…
      The Netherlands are 200 times smaller than Australia, with only a few million fewer people.
      And it’s “sustainable”, whatever they mean with this word.

      Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2007 01 28 at 05:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gandalin

      I think your’s is a reasonable assessment of Flannery’s comments.

      On what data has he used to estimate ideal population, is what I want to know.

      Posted by armageddon on 2007 01 28 at 05:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #35 philosopher – dang, phonetics strikes again.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 28 at 05:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hizb ut-Tahrir was declaring war on Australia?

      Those who attended this dumb dumb rant, do you think any of them received some form of Aussie pension?

      I’m sure I saw one on sickness benefits!

      Declare war on Australia? Bugger off to those who attended and go back to Indonesia!!!

      I’d prefer to declare war on Coles new world!

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 28 at 05:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #18, #25 I think the point has been made at #32 and less agreesively, at #38.

      But a cull, of course, is not Flannery’s plan, as he has not thought it through properly.  His views on how to reduce the population, of course, would not work until everyone already here died off.  With advances in med tech and an increasingly conservative (in a self preservations sense) our life expectancy will increase to that of the Japanese.  It would take a very long time.

      And that ignores what others in the world will be doing. Population pressures elsewhere may mean in the long run we have no choice but to take on extra population.  I believe it is better to do it now so that we can control how that population increase is managed.  Personally I am an advocate of a doubling at least of our current population to give us a decent domestic market for product.

      Posted by entropy on 2007 01 28 at 05:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. But a cull, of course, is not Flannery’s plan, as he has not thought it through properly.

      In all honesty, entropy, I doubt that Flannery plans on some sort of Australian “Final Solution” as well.  My main beef with the man is that he has clearly not thought about what he says to any great degree.  This was clear with his earlier global warming crap, as it is with population growth.

      The man considers himself a scientist, but will not re-examine his premises if shown there might be an error.  That’s why I consider him to be a hypocritical wanker who is clueless on this subject.  Flannery is merely playing to the audience in order to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 28 at 06:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. (wronwright smiles, sits back in his emu leather chair, feeling smug, empowered.  His chesslike plan to goad Tim into posting more comments succeeded, as was anticipated.  He now moves on to Top Secret Operation #2: the recovery of WMD from Andrea’s armory.)

      This time you in for a reckoning my dear.

      (wronwright opens yet another full proof invention from ACME PACO Products, the 7th this year.

      This one better work.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 28 at 06:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmmm.

      As a practicing Animist I can certainly declare that a Animist Priest very much can hire a prostitute and still be a good Animist Priest.

      I suppose that’s an attraction of Animism.  Once you acknowledge that you’re basically worshiping nature spirits pretty much nothing is off-limits.

      Posted by memomachine on 2007 01 28 at 06:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm.

      @ wronwright

      full proof invention

      Do you mean “fool proof” as in can’t mess it up?  Or is it really “full proof” as in waaayyy too much alcohol content?

      Or considering what kind of mischief both you and paco get into, is the answer to that question an unqualified “yes”?

      Posted by memomachine on 2007 01 28 at 06:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. #43: Not to worry, Wron. Detective Paco is on it.

      Posted by paco on 2007 01 28 at 06:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. You can’t be a good priest if you lie with prostitutes

      Of course not. A good priest tells the truth, what he believes to be the truth, whomsoever he is talking with.

      Posted by triticale on 2007 01 28 at 06:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. Notwithstanding that Flannery isn’t qualified to pontificate on this matter, the error made by those who are qualified is still important. They often assume that we’ll be trying to support an ever increasing population with current technology. That really is a grim picture. But they forget that humanities greatest asset is great humans. A true, world changing genius—Archimedes, Newton, Einstein—might be one in a (now I pluck my own number out of thin air) billion. It behooves us, then, to have more billions.

      As long as we don’t hamstring ourselves, there’s a pretty good chance handle whatever nature throws at us.

      Posted by Nathan on 2007 01 28 at 07:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #7

      As far as anyone knows, he pulled that personal estimate completely out of thin air.

      That’s not where he pulled it out from.

      Posted by kae on 2007 01 28 at 07:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. Al Gore has four kids.  Clinton just had one, but we know the reason for that.  I’m not sure if Antony “Ant” Lowenstein has any kids or not, but looking at his portrait on his web site, I suspect it’s none.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 01 28 at 07:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. I have 2,000sqm of mature trees on my property, so I’v started up the Magoo carbon offset scheme. For a small fee of $10,000 per tree, anyone can purchase carbon credits from me that will allow them to run their SUVs, fill their swimming pools, operate air con, fly around the world, etc with easy conscience. Early bird discount available for all applicants before 31 January.

      Posted by mr magoo on 2007 01 28 at 07:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. 16 – I’m going to lie with prostitutes in the hope that it will make me a good environmental prophet. And if it doesn’t, well, I’ll just lie with them some more.
      I could be gone for quite some time…

      Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 01 28 at 07:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve been giving this over-population thing a thought or two (okay, just one very short flash of a notion), and I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem can be solved if all those people who believe that human beings are an evil blight on the earth, commit mass suicide.  There may not be enough of them to actually lower the population by any significant degree, but at least we would on longer have to listen to them whine about it.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 01 28 at 08:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. Duffy is repeating what has been said here and elsewhere countless times. The climate change doomsayers are no different to their Marxist predecessors. The burden of the belief must be borne by the people and not the leaders. So many examples, from Keating to Stalin, from Mao to Castro.

      And today in Paris, 500 weather experts have jetted in for a week of wine, women and song, and, as an afterthought, a UN report on climate change on Friday,before jetting out again. Fun Monday to Thursday, doom on Friday, home on Saturday.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 01 28 at 08:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. That is, they agree with the Platonic concept of Philosipher King, with, off course, themselves in the staring role.

      That explains Nancy Pelosi’s eyes, doesn’t it?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 28 at 08:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe Flummery’s concerned about non-eco-friendly illegal alien workers?

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 28 at 08:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. #56
      Warning: some expletives.

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 28 at 08:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. Maybe its just an offhand comment, not worth the spit to moisten your throat and speak.

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2007 01 28 at 09:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. #17 – What’s wrong with irrigating and turning desert into productive land?

      Dam rivers in the North and North West of the country and pump the water back down to the middle.  If you don’t get enough water then build a couple of nuclear powered desalination plants.

      Stick a couple of big cities out there.  Again nuclear powered.  Flood Lake Eyre and you’ve got some brilliant water side real-estate.

      etc. etc.

      Posted by rickw on 2007 01 28 at 09:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. I suppose that’s an attraction of Animism.  Once you acknowledge that you’re basically worshiping nature spirits pretty much nothing is off-limits.

      I prefer Animationism. Granted, people look at you strange when you mention it’s the Feast of Bugs Bunny, but at least you’re protected from anvils.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 01 28 at 09:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. Michael Duffy remains (to the horror of the Left) terrifyingly sensible.

      Posted by Apparatchik on 2007 01 28 at 09:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #46 paco –

      Not to worry, Wron. Detective Paco is on it.

      Well I sure as hell hope so.  I’ve paid $35k to that private eye and I’ve gotten jack for my money.  Well, except it’s not exactly my money.  But The Campaign to Elect Hillary hasn’t gotten its money’s worth.

      Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 28 at 09:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. I find I’m often chastised for not taking global warming seriously enough by people who in their own lives produce far more carbon dioxide than I do.

      People like this, perhaps, Mr. Duffy?

      For all the grave talk about the dangers of climate change at the four-day meeting of corporate and political leaders, petrol-guzzling limousines and SUVs remained the transport mode of choice for the vast majority of participants.

      For the really “serious money,” the road was left behind altogether in favour of a helicopter entry and departure to the small ski resort high in the Swiss Alps.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2007 01 28 at 09:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, I never, I didn’t know the Jewish women wore wigs.. Islam covers up by scarves the Jewish women by wigs, Christians by ?? Scarves..

      Within Orthodoxy, it is considered a breach of modesty for a married woman to have uncovered hair while in the presence of men other than her husband. Customs differ as to how much hair can be showing beneaththe head covering, or if a wig is better/worse than a hat of some sort.

      This looks like the Bondi Jewish women. They all have fake hair do’s like the Islamic women… I never!!

      Do the Jews in australia look at Uncovered meat the same way as Sheik dumb dumb?

      http://www.seaforesthair.com/en/index.asp

      Posted by 1.618 on 2007 01 28 at 10:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #64

      1.618, whilst I appreciate the debilitating nature of your condition often results in posts that are less than coherent, I suggest you stick to “punctuation art” rather than engage in any serious (or even humorous) comment on Orthodox Jewish custom and lifestyle—especially insofar as it relates to the world outside the eruv.

      If you are serious about learning something about practices which no Orthodox Jew would ever consider FOR A SINGLE INSTANT imposing on anyone else, I recommend you google “mikvah” and “niddah”.

      Odd? Archaic? Even bizarre? Maybe, but leave ‘em alone and, trust me, they’ll leave you alone.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 01 28 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. #42 TRJ, I agree completely, although your views of the Australian of the year could be shortened a little bit along the lines of :
      “Flannery is a bullshit artist”

      Posted by entropy on 2007 01 28 at 10:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Shouldn’t it be “lay with prostitutes”?

      Lie with prostitutes sounds like you’re both fibbing to the coppers…

      Posted by mojo on 2007 01 28 at 10:51 PM • permalink

 

    1. #41, I believe you are being disingenuous.  The birthrate is “slightly” below replacement level.  Let’s have a number, and there’s your upper limit for immigration.

      Now maybe Flannery is not actually calling for a cull or mass die off or deportation.  Maybe he, like many Malthusians, hasn’t a damned clue as to the implications of his thinking (as opposed to other, overtly bloodthirsty ones who have wet dreams about mass extermination).  But he (and you) can’t have it both ways – healthy immigration, the present birthrate, and a drop in population.  And if he plans to achieve this magic number (no doubt arrived at via the highly scientific rectal extraction method) soley through reduction in immigration, then he does absolutely nothing for the global problem, since the people who can’t come to Oz and crowd it will stay wherever the hell they are and crowd it there.

      So I guess a better question for this magical thinking sooper-smart scientist is, “What’s the total global population you consider sustainable?”

      My money is that it’s going to be considerably less than the present.  Based on past numbers from the Malthusians.  Better start sending lots and lots of condoms and abortionaists to Africa and Southeast Asia.

      Or, like many other environmental utopians, he can fantasize about killer plagues.  Perhaps he thinks he’s too decent a person to wish that, but his partners in eco-fantasy are not.

      Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 01 28 at 11:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Flannery is a bullshit artist”

      BUAWHAHAHAHAHA!

      Succinctness is not my cup o’ tea, entropy.  Thanks for the excellent executive summary!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 01 28 at 11:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. #62

      Well, there’s your problem right there…  Those hard-bioled detective types aren’t supposed to get paid for anything, ever.  It’s always some hard-luck knockout dame who wanders into the office with a problem, and ends up face-down in an alley somewhere with a knife in the back, or some slicked-up hustler who either manages to skip town before paying, or ends up having to be tossed in the slammer for the crime in question in the first place.  Apparently the whole field of private investigation is just one of those character building things.  There’s nothing like being hounded by a few dozen bill collectors and loan sharks to motivate a guy.

      Posted by Vexorg on 2007 01 28 at 11:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Slightly O/T, but more apt thread than previous discussion:

      Iemma says no to recycled water

      No colonic irrigation for NSW just yet.

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 28 at 11:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmm.

      @ Rob Crawford

      I prefer Animationism. Granted, people look at you strange when you mention it’s the Feast of Bugs Bunny, but at least you’re protected from anvils.

      Your muslim neighbors must consider Porky Pig day a real hoot.  🙂

      Posted by memomachine on 2007 01 29 at 12:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. If you have been reading your Steyn like you should, you know that the unrestrained leftism which ruined Russia and Eastern Europe (not to mention Detroit and New Orleans) also destroys the will to procreate.  I actually think the Left abandoned industrial scale culling as a tactic for their elitist ends after Cambodia, because Chomsky was the only guy they could get to say he liked it.  Don’t get me wrong, the occasional Rwanda still gives em a woody, and their Islamist pals chip in with a few premature killings.  But for population control, Ehrlich’s disciples now prefer the slower but more nuanced strategy of getting people elected (like Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid), the mere sight of whom literally removes the will to live.  Even at the expense of prolonged stress to Mother Gaia.

      Posted by Vanguard of the Commentariat on 2007 01 29 at 12:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. The following people were responsible for installing Flannery as Australian of the Year.

      The Chairwoman is beyond a joke. What would qualify her for this onerous task is anybody’s guess! I thought poor Lisa was too busy P&O cruisin’ for a bruisin’ with David Williamson – you know, mixing with aspirational plebs on the good ship SS Take Your Chances.

      CHAIR

      Ms Lisa Curry Kenny MBE OAM
      Managing Director
      Curry Kenny Group

      DEPUTY CHAIR

      Ms Shelley Reys
      Managing Director
      Arrilla -Indigenous Consultants and Services

      DIRECTORS

      Dr James Bradfield Moody
      Director, Divisional Business Strategy
      CSIRO Division of Land and Water

      Dr Antonio (Tony) Cocchiaro AM
      Medical Practitioner
      Midwest Health

      Mr Ian Elliot
      Company Director and Consultant

      Mr William (Bill) Lenehan
      Company Director

      Mr Duncan Lewis AO DSC CSC
      Deputy Secretary
      Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

      Mr Quang Luu AO
      Head SBS Radio

      Mr Andrew Metcalfe
      Secretary
      Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

      Mr Fergus Ryan
      Australian Foundation Investment Company

      Professor Margaret Seares AO
      Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor
      University of Western Australia

      Dr Bruce Walker
      Chief Executive Officer
      Centre of Appropriate Technology Inc.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2007 01 29 at 01:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. Does the Australian of the Year get a year’s suppply of Uncle Toby’s muesli bars?

      Posted by mr magoo on 2007 01 29 at 01:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. #55 richard mcenroe

      That is, they agree with the Platonic concept of Philosipher King, with, off course, themselves in the staring role.

      That explains Nancy Pelosi’s eyes, doesn’t it?

      Hmmm, could be. Kinda like Sumerian statuary, eh? I always thought it was just plastic surgery gone bad.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 01 29 at 02:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #74
      Some vested interests there: SBS leave ABC for dead as industry arm-twisters BTW …

      I recall the ‘dead head’ flack Curry copped as a mere sports show host …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 01 29 at 02:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #74- much as I expected, a lineup of dribbling ideologues, shameless self-congratulators and assorted non-achieving pinheads, all legends in their own lunchtimes; Curry-Kenny was a bit of a surprise, as compared to the rest she’s a brilliant independent thinker and tireless achiever, despite the fact that she’s thicker than Michael Moore’s arterial sclerosis, and her sole claim to fame is beating some physically challenged Kiwis and Poms in a swimming style no-one uses. Oh and being a “Super Mum”, which apparently involves leaving a retinue of nannies, wetnurses and laundry-navvies to look after your quite possibly developmentally challenged rug monkey while you toddle down the bank to cash cheques from Rupert Murdoch.

      Posted by Habib on 2007 01 29 at 02:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. FLANNERY: <b>Well, my personal estimate is that’s probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million.<b> But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don’t know the answer to that question. We’ve never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don’t think I’m going to be greatly wrong. <b>The answer may be 20 million, but it’s certainly not going to be 200 million.<b>

      What sort of scientist predicts a possible spread between 30% and 100% of the current population? It’s the same as asking how long it should take to drive 100km and Flannery replying “Between 18 and 36 minutes…maybe as long as an hour. Certainly not 10 hours.”

      Sure, it’s an answer but it isn’t science.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 01 29 at 04:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Forgive the bad tags.

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 01 29 at 04:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Here in the West (of Oz) all that stops coastal development north of Perth is lack of water. Build a canal from the Kimberley down the coast and you could sell 10 million prime beachfront lots – 1 acre each.

      Say 3 people per lot, accomodates the extra 30 million nicely and the government could probably abolish all taxes for a few years on the proceeds.

      Posted by phil_b on 2007 01 29 at 05:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #81 Oooh, I Like that idea, I like it a lot.  Just think, all those rich NIMBy’s currently living in Byron Bay would move over to the west coast to recite their chakras as the sun sets into the sea, living in a clean, less fecund and dirty environment.

      Of course, you Western Australians would end up classified as the ‘left coast’, but you can’t have everything.

      Posted by entropy on 2007 01 29 at 05:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. Dear Mr Flannery

      I am thinking of planting some basil in the backyard.  It goes well with home made pizza you know.  Do you think I could sell some carbon off-sets to someone for each basil plant that I grow?  What do you think they would be worth?

      When I make a pizza and put half the leaves on a plant on top of a pizza, do I have to pay my money back?  How do you rescind carbon credits? What happens if caterpillars eat them – am I allowed to dose them with DDT to save the precious carbon credits?  Or do I need to take out crop insurance and include a carbon pay-back option?  Will Lloyds of London insure my basil?  Maybe you can setup a stapled carbon credit security, with stapled vouchers that I can redeem whenever I cook a pizza.

      On the other hand, cooking a pizza means heating up Gaia, so should I plant more basil each time I cook a pizza?  How many basil plants equal the cooking of one pizza?  Or should I diversify into oregano?

      If I get the munchies and eat lots of pizzas, and I run out of space in the backyard for planting basil, can I kill the next door neighbour and start planting in his yard?  If his decomposing body gives off greenhouse gases, and he weighs 72kgs, how many basil plants should I put in to compensate for him?  Would simply covering his shallow grave with tarragon be sufficient?

      How much stamp duty is charged when a carbon credit is traded?  Will the Auditor-General increase the land tax valuation of my block if it is suddenly covered in valuable carbon credit offsets?

      Basil is only good for one season, so what happens when it dies at the start of winter?  Should I pull the greenhouse out of storage and plant more in it, or will global warming mean I can throw my greenhouse out?  If so, when can I throw it out – this year or 2050?  Its cluttering up the garage and I’d like to know.

      Yours sincerely,

      Mr Creosote

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 01 29 at 05:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, there is one name in bonmot’s list (#74) that I am very surprised to see, and that is Duncan Lewis, decorated Army officer with the rank of Major General and a former CO of the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS).

      Has a reputation for being pretty direct and hardnosed officer, and defifitely not one to worship at the Church of Gaia and the Holy Green Fable Spinners.

      I suppose if he objected to the election of the bullshit artist Flannery as AOY, there are more than enough lefty ratbags on that committee to cancel out his vote.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 01 29 at 06:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #74 – explains a lot, thanks!
      #84 – being ex services helps a lot, but does not entirely inoculate against late onset moonbatry. There’s also that other syndrome to consider – the one where the hostage starts to identify with the captor?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2007 01 29 at 06:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Melbourne has just had its coldest Australia Day for 7 years. Apparently it didn’t top 19 across the weekend.

      Lucky for us that Uncle Al wasn’t about otherwise there’d be glaciers steaming in from Bendigo about now.

      Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 01 29 at 07:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. #71

      Eggy my old egg, time to go QUIET on this secret VRWC plan, mmkay?

      Think: if recycled sewage forms part of the drinking water, and 98% of Australians are happy little infidel pork-munchers, the muslims are rooted.

      ‘Here young Abdul, slurp on this essence of pork cycled thru the bowels of 46,000 infidels. Delivered straight to your tap. BTW, the Mosque is soaked in it, and so is the Madrassa. Your clobber is washed in it and you would be too if you ever washed.’

      Three days later Abdul dies of thirst. Win-win!

      MarkL
      Minionmeister to the VRWC

      Posted by MarkL on 2007 01 29 at 07:37 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.