Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is one of the no sides more compelling arguments.

Its a consideration for all office holders, but more so if you're the Liberal/National party that see's a reasonable chance of holding power someday.

Historically this side of politics interests have disagreed more often with indigenous nations interests.

To disagree and ignore the Voice councils recommendations could leech political capital, and a resulting media storm could use up all the 'air in the room', so to speak. Undermining that executives ability to carry out their agenda.

In short it can be an easy political wedge for opposition partys, or other interested persons to hit the government of the day with.

If I could augment your argument a little...

The number itself isn't unreasonable. Its the disparity and 'quality of life' differences that yeilds, that i think are the key issues. Such as personal agency in life choices.

The worst parts of poverty are often about the choice constraints imposed.

Your not going to get rid of cronyism and corruption by the carrot alone though. I see that as a red herring to ease the passage of pay rises like these.

Because its so simple to up sticks and find another job. You sound like a free-market neo-liberal. That is a bad thing, because in this comment you've demonstrated a thoughtlessness to the myriad obstacles that can be in an individuals way to seamlessly transition into other employment, like the comment suggests they can/should.

Please don't get me wrong, in some instances what your advocating would be the best decision. But you and I have no idea of the context of the pay dispute OG is talking about, so a less 'accusatory' tone is probably a wiser stance to take.

https://dfes.wa.gov.au/ Good idea!

Ancienne vin, oui, si vous plait!!

1.1 There are reasons given for what the blades are doing sitting on the Kidners lot. It is communicated very clearly that there is value seen in those particular blades.

While spent renewable technologies is an interesting subject of increasing importance, it is not what the focus of this article needs to be. But it might make a fun follow up piece. Especially following up with CSIRO on how their recycling project is going.

1.2 The point of the article also wasn't about the Chalumbin windfarm near the rainforrest. That is information brought into the article to illustrate 'Nick Cater's' (the articles alleged antagonist), and other actors alleged bad faith actions in this incident. And their wider campaigns against renewables. As per below,

"..true aim of the video is to spread anti-renewables sentiment, more broadly, anti-wind energy sentiment, specifically, and anti-Chalumbin wind farm sentiment most specifically of all."

1.3 So, the trespass and lie about the reasons for those blades storage on Kidners lot are what the article is actually focused on conveying. This is why in media you are supposed to give subjects of an article a 'right of reply', which it seems Cater might have neglected.

The point of the article was to expose the bad faith controversy that has yet again played out through reactionary disinformation channels. But, as usual, the story is serving it's purpose to entertain and anger the hard of thinking who watch/read those outlets.

2. I disagree with your point here,

"but that's just not a fair reflection of the facts. The author really makes no attempt to actually address any of the legitimate concerns"

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the article describes these owners reasons for having them. And it seems they are being kept because of the concerns about renewables waste.

“We see future value in the blades in a circular economy. These blades were destined for landfill, but we took possession of them and were stockpiled onsite as we have been working on ideas for reuse of them.

“Eight of these blades have been rehomed – two of them for trials for recycling options to CSIRO just last year, and the others for training purpose to repair them in-situ in NSW and VIC, so they don’t have to be removed for repair or be replaced if damaged, as other blades removed just get buried.”

Also refer to paragraph 17 of the article, the writer very clearly addresses legitimate concerns with Chalumbin.

"Legitimate concerns about the project’s proximity to the adjacent Wet Tropics World Heritage Area last year saw it whittled back to less than half its original size, with 114 of the 200 turbines initially proposed cut from the plan to avoid sensitive ecological and cultural heritage sites."

But, i will readily agree putting paragraph 17 between paragraphs 16 and 18, which are focused on the climate change denier side of the argument, is a jarring switch. If i was the writer, i would have put a version of paragraph 17 above paragraph 16, to more clearly define legitimate actors to bad faith actors.

Ah, the classic bloatware, because they can!

Fair enough. Cheers for explainer :)

Why is Knox anti-consumer? I just saw it as their security partner?

I would like to drive around in one of these please.. in the front or back, i dont mind!

It's called a tent. You can even carry some of them on your back.

Yeah, if it was simply environmental, then maybe there could be some sort of offset scheme introduced. However unlikely it would be to actually make it to 1:1.

But adding the extra, and unnecessary, road danger, yeah.. old mates weekend can go stick it.

I have never heard of it being a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament'.

If this was the plan for the Voice, then all we would really be doing is adding a representative with less sway in the parliament than an Independent, think Kate Chaney, Helen Haines. They can get things done, but their resources are limited. A 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' wouldn't have the bandwidth for the amount of projects they'd be expected to take on, on day one.

To be clear, per the constitional proposal, i think a 'non-voting indigenous representative in parliament' could fit the constitutional requirement, as it doesn't impose any organisational structure requirements on the Voice. The constitutional language, (aka what us plebs are voting on), is kept vague deliberately to allow change over time, but hard to abolish altogether. Thats how i've come to understand it.

So, I heard Shortens been using his speaking time, in parliament, to read into hansard 'impacted persons/victims' testimonies. So there is a permanent record of the disruptions to their lives.

Its a pretty champion move. Because it means future pollies will have a harder time minimising these events for political purposes.