Old Koreelah

I see at RAAus gatherings a sea of grey and bald heads. I can't see anyone on this site who would be against us oldies who helped build the nation, Teckair. Regards, Don

The Inuit had a fairly simple solution. When things got tight, the elderly would go for a long walk on an iceflow, rather than take food from the little kids.

Things are far from rosy in our society, but I hope we're a long way from that solution. Who begrudges our elderly and infirm their piddling little pension?

... and now someone telling us socialism works.

GG has a point "...cut welfare back sharply to those that are not disabled or feeble and at the same time free up regulations that stifle small / single business operators so that folk can have a go." ...but it's not that simple. We have plenty of welfare-dependent people (far fewer than some countries) but most lack the skills employers want. We need to get them into work, but also build those skills. Until governments are willing to spend the money to fix our education and training systems, we will always have kids falling thru the cracks. Our performance here is abysmal compared to scandinavian countries. They are the role-models we should be following, not the USA.

And there's too many asleep in the back row.

I have the solution to all our crime problems. A bloke on the radio today was describing his work in rehabilitating criminals and preventing recidivism. His programmes involve a lot of self expression with music, art and drama.

He claims no artist or musician is a criminal. I can think of a few exceptions, but I have some faith in the broad sweep of his theory. Soothing the savage beast makes us all safer.

A huge proportion of America's young males, particularly blacks, are doing time, and I doubt many of them are the better for it. Australia needs a better approach. Preventing someone getting into crime is sure cheaper than locking him up. Governments penny pinch on education and training, but can always find money for more razor wire.

Nope, think about it. As Darwin said it makes absolute sense that the majority of fossils found should be transitionary types, that is one species gradually changing into another different species. The main point is that the only observable changes or mutations have involved loss of genetic information, not addition. Neither is there to date any observable mechanism in any creature where this genetic information could be added without external manipulation....

I have some difficulty with your logic, GG. By their very nature, transitional species would be few in number, being descended from a single mutant individual. To be as numerous as you say Darwin predicted, they would have to be suddenly successful and multiply. In reality, I suggest that it would take many mutations among the transitional species until they had become sufficiently successful to become numerous.

I assume we agree on the need to ensure scientists are truly open-minded and rational. You may be aware of this bloke. He says much worth considering; if some of his ideas are subjected to serious research, it may be a turning point in science.

I thought it was a HUMZEE, but I could be wrong... They are so wide (they fit TANK TRACKS) that you can't pass a cigarette from driver to passenger. Life is having a vehicle that expresses your personality. or maybe that you have arrived somewhere, or perhaps impresses the neighbours.. The admen work on all that. Nev

Do you really want GG to explain why climate science is junk?

...But what has never been observed is the central part of his hypothesis which is species change or what today we would say is the addition of genetic information. Darwin said for his idea to be verified would mean that the vast majority of fossils found would be of the transitional type. To date with millions of fossils found not a single...

Even Darwin should have recognised that transitional types would not be plentiful; only a tiny percentage of the very sucessful and numerous end up being fossilised. Of those, only a tiny proportion ever get dug up by our species.

I agree with you GG that many scientists today are probably not as objective as was Darwin, but they are operating in a different world. He was independently wealthy. Most scientists today are beholden to large universities, corporations or government bodies. Many who have spoken out of turn (including early climate scientists) have paid a price for their scientific integrity.

Climate change is "junk science"? Perhaps you can explain to us how the vast majority of highly-qualified scientist have got it wrong.

...Those that refuse to accept Islam are the vilest of creatures and must be killed (Koran 2:193, 8:39 etc). According to the Koran the only way for a Moslem to be assured they are definitely going to paradise is to kill or be killed in holy war and those Moslems that refuse to fight in jihad are damned (2:216, 3:157 etc).

If this is true, then it should be part of the conversation. A properly informed electorate is pretty important.

I just have to share this. I'm listening to an interview with a very interesting (and brave) author about his research into the origins of Islam.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/booksandartsdaily/4560962

Islam has much wisdom to offer, but Moslems should accept that it is not a perfect religion, should not be forced on anyone, nor should anyone die or kill in its name. Perhaps asking too much.

?..we would get rid of States only over the dead bodies of the people who want to retain those independent powers.

That's right, they weren't her Government until they were voted in.

Oh silly me I see you think they are required to forsee all the events for the term of government, even before they control finance, and give us a list of what they're going to do.

Please stick to the story and answer the question at hand, Turbs.

Methusala posted the Question - did anyone hear talk of selling off Medibank or Australia Post before the election?

You said:

Yes they did, it was in the Governor General's speech at the Opening of the 44th Parliament

Then you said:

Oh silly me I see you think they are required to forsee all the events for the term of government, even before they control finance, and give us a list of what they're going to do.

You then missed the point of FT's clever minke whales poster and said:

So Greg Hunt has killed the whales?

Do you want us to send a couple of FA18's out and fry the ship?

This is all about broken election promises, for which Julia Gillard was vilified by the LNP. Should they be judged by the same standard?

Most of your posts are reasoned and undoubtedly based on good research. These were not.

Crikey Win. Amazing numbers. They have an epidemic on their hands. Not a good role model for us.

One bit of advice derived from police training re carrying a weapon for self defence: if you carry a weapon be prepared to use it before your attacker takes it from you and uses it against you. How many of us have the skills and fitness to do that and be able to live with the consequences?

Here's a different slant on immigration:

In recent conversation with a Vietnam vet, I asked if he and his mates had ever been back to the battlefield.

He described how former Vietcong are often marginalised in their own country, even beggars on the street.

They befriended one former enemy and brought him to Australia. I'd love the ABC to do an Australian Story about that.

We all want to be able to defend our homes and loved ones, but some of the defective humans perpetrating these outrages are beyond reason. I doubt they'd think about consequences before they act. The new ice epidemic has spawned violence against even the ambos trying to help.

Perhaps some sharia law applied to drug dealers would be an effective deterrent... After all, some of the bikies selling drugs are moslems.

?..anyone silly enough to think the Government will protect them is stupid.

Old Koreelah, while I agree with almost everything you say, I cannot agree with that. Australia has one set of laws which apply to the entire population. In a secular tolerant society there is absolutely no room for any other laws, whether or not they apply only to people who belong to that faith or culture.

This should be an absolute for 99% of the population, regardless of anyone's stance on refugees and asylum seekers, so there should be no problem with any government to resist pressure for sharia law or any other. Being an optimist of course.

 

For whoever it was that said atheists don't bag muslims as much as christians, can I for one just say I find their beliefs just as silly as any other religion. (Slightly sillier actually, bacon tastes GOOD.) Happy?

I hope you are proven right, Marty. A few years back an Imam suggested that if traditional Aboriginal Law can be accommodated in this country, then so should Sharia. Concerned people from France and The Netherlands have warned Australia about the "tipping point" when (from memory) over 5% of the population is Islamic. Past that figure they say changes are inevitable and irreversible. Our political system has often been hijacked by tiny minorites who get the balance of power in the Senate. It would only take a few thousand moslems settling in Tasmania to elect a Senator or two.

Perhaps my concerns are without foundation. So far so good. We might find out when another generation of disaffected moslem youths grow up hating so much that our culture stands for. Will we be able to turn it around then?

No worries, Phil. Many of us have strong views and I was quite reticent to present mine. I hope I haven't upset anyone; in fact most responses have been pretty considered and polite.

Ian started a great thread recently where we all started actually talking about aeroplanes again. Time to do that again.

All the best for 2014.

Originally meant as a joke and not to cause intense and serious debate Pud - just ended up that way. Perhaps time the mods moved the relevant debate to off topic?

You

None of this is funny. It is all about prejudice and intolerance and taking an extremist minority as the accepted norm. WAKE UP. Why is it that we are considered a racist country by many other nations and people around the world. We seem to be obsessed with so called Asylum seekers. Did Italy become a different country when for 6 months they got over 10000 refugees a week fleeing the Lybian revolution. What religion were these? Italy never even considered offshore processing. I could go on but I fear that the entrenched opinions of some will never change.

• We would need a strong, charismatic leader capable of convincing the nation to accept enormous change. Kevin had some of those qualities, but if even he couldn't hold it together during relatively unchallenging times, what hope in a national metamorphosis?

• We are running out of resources to accommodate people in the style we are accustomed to. We would need to convince most people to live in block of flats with no backyards, recycle water and waste and use public transport. Good luck with that one.

• We would have to accept religious enclaves and very likely some features of Sharia law.

• Australia has gained much from immigration. There are aspects of Islamic cultures which Australia might benefit from - as long as we could pick which bits to to embrace and which to reject. I doubt that is likely to happen.

• The "prejudice and intolerance" of which you speak is not confined to older Australians, but deeply ingrained in many of the cultures coming to live here. That may be the biggest problem.

I have reluctantly come to agree with much of what you say, MM.

What do we do to avoid permanent ethnic enclaves which resist integration?

Do we set immigration quotas for each ethnic group? Insist on a written commitment to respect current Australian laws and values? (Unlikely to work, because most problems seem to come from second generation youths, who we can't deport-they are citizens.)

Should we rigorously control what is preached in religious centres? (Don't forget there are some pretty loopy Christian extremists; should they be watched as closely as Moslems are?) We have been lucky so far, and I believe that our authorities get a lot of quiet cooperation from the Islamic community, the vast majority of whom want a peaceful life.

We love to bag our politicians, but I'm glad not to be in the hot seat on this one.

You are right, Yenn. Democracy is the least worst form of government. When the UN was established there were moves for it to run a sort of world police force. The USA quickly quashed that idea. We could have had a real "man from UNCLE"!

With our world awash with refugees, perhaps the most efficient way to spend our defence dollar is to avoid wars.

Dictatorship may be undemocratic, but after Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria it seem the only way to hold some countries together.

Pete I agree with your outrage about the violent and destructive behaviour of a minority of detainees, which is an affront to most peaceful, tax-paying Australians.

However we must realise the incredible frustration these people must feel.

If I had borrowed all my extended family's savings and blown it on a risky sea voyage (the only option left) then spent months or years behind razor wire with nothing to do except watch all my hopes of a new life melting away…I too might get a bit upset.

This is the most vexed issue facing Australia and other rich countries. On the one hand we proudly flaunt our easy-going lifestyle, yet we fear the influx of people who want to share it. We can't have it both ways. We try to be fair and help the desperate, yet we fear that by doing so we could be swamped by the rush. What we see now is only the start, which is presumably why our country is so unwelcoming of the desperate. The tiny trickle of refugees trying to get to Australia is nothing compared to the numbers currently flooding into Europe and other safe havens.

But wait- it'll get far, far worse. Wars have been a main driver of asylum seekers, but climate change is starting to have an effect. Australians are among the worst polluters, per capita, of greenhouse gases. The world community will expect us to do more than most to accommodate people displaced by climate change. Two thousand years ago great migrations of people overran the Roman Empire. The numbers of people likely to be displaced by global warming is in the hundreds of millions. We need to get our act together and rapidly change our wasteful ways. A huge investment in renewables could be the stimulus the global economy needs. (Our only other hope is for a series of major volcanic eruptions to inject ash into the upper atmosphere and cause global cooling to counteract human pollution.)

Who are we going to believe? The facts as presented so clearly by Horsefeathers, or radio shock jocks, some of whom are proven liars?

Three decades ago Australia absorbed heaps of refugees from a country we helped bugger up. That didn't cause us too much pain, but the current situation may be different. We tolerate or even welcome large influxes of people who are like us, but resist other cultures less likely (or with no desire) to integrate into our way of life. This is totally understandable.

What should we do? Perhaps a more honest national discussion is overdue.

?.., more scientists than ever have succumbed to the 'close our minds to other theories' trap.

When I was young, nearly all fairy tales started with "Once Upon A Time ........".

With all due respects, M61A1, that clip was an interesting animation but sounded very little different from the 'Once Upon A Time' stories . There was no evidence given for any of the assertions throughout the clip.

The biblical stories I was raised on were also a little short on evidence...