Jerry_Atrick

Yes.. after all, I may well be a nitwit:

Of course most of them realise it is their intention... It's just they are still taken by the trickle down effect, and at the end of the day, if it gives them a gurantee of food ont he table now as opposed to a banquet later, they will always take the food food on the table now.

Give us the facts or sources that disprove what was claimed. At least Marty quoted a source. Ontario Power Generation operates all of Ontario's nuclear power stations, and guess what.. it is state owned (they used to be a client of mine). But, just to make it easy for you, here is the evidence from the financial accountability office of Ontario: https://www.fao-on.org/web/default/files/publications/FA1907 Electricity Sector Review/Ontario's Energy and Electricity Subsidy Programs-EN.pdf And to make it even easier for you: BTW, I think this is not limited to nuclear, but as it is the most expensive, you can bet it gets the most - I haven't read the full report. Are you telling me the Canadian Government is doing this just because they don't like the LNP? If Aus was to go nuclear, I could pick up some lucrative work.. I stand to benefit from it personally.. I guess it does come down to values, though.

OK.. You know I am going to pick this apart... It is not anything poersonal, so please don't take it that way, but That is a very clear statement that this omnipotent god is here, today (otherwsie, the wording would be there was.. but then if it was a was, then there were limits to this "god's" power). What evidence do you have to support this contention? If this god made the earth, then who would have made other forms of life on earth? Are you saying god made the earth and just Abrahamic people? And nothing else? If so, then it doesn't reinforce the bible, because isn't it in the bible that it is written that all the earth's creatures are a product of god, and than man shall have command over them: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" Romans 11:36 "Everything comes from God; everything exists by his power; and everything is intended for his glory" You can probably see, I am now starting to get sceptical. But let's keep going. I am guessing you are referring to Charles Dawrin in terms of his theory of evolution. Firstly, the wording should give you a hint. At the time, he developed a theory - he did not devise evolution, nor did he say it was the gospel (if you'll pardon the pun) truth. He came out and labelled it what it was - a theory. Like most science, it starts with an observation, then a theory is developed. Where possible, experiments are created to test the theory, and then at some stage, it is submitted to peer review. Sometimes what is theorised and then accepted as true is then later rebuked through further observation. An amatuer scientist? I suggest you read a bit about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. Interestingly he wasn't an amatuer - he was working at universities as a researcher/scientist.. that makes him a pro. Beginning his theries in 1838 is hardly a time where no major scientific instruments existed. Yes, they were a long way off today, but they were a lot further ahead of, dare I say, biblical times, when there was what appears to be a deference to the mathematics of the time. Naturally, however, as time passed, more technological advances have been made, for example carbon dating, and yet, his theory of evolution survives today.. The atomic theory has undergone far more refinment and of course, so has physics. And, they did understand germs and bacteria.. just not how to deal with it. In 1683, Leeuwenhoek wrote to the Royal Society in London about the small individual cells he found in teeth scrapings. He described some of the cells as spinning and others moving rapidly through water. This is accepted as the earliest observation of bacteria. But, even if bacteria and vuiruses were not yet discovered, how does that render a different type of science invalid? And interestingly, you beleive it is a total fallacy, but what proof do you havge of thatm except for a 2000 year old text that has little scientific or other evidence? I am not sure the science is based on "primordal ooze". I think primordal ooze has served its purpose long ago. The But how is it simply not true? What's your evidence other than a gut feeling? Whereas, the theory has undergone continual peer scrutiny, and is still largely accepted by people who are keen to get a nobel proze for finding something else that it could be based on? I believe Charnia was one of the first lifeforms to be identified on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia The development of mamals as the dominant species on the land is through to have been the result of a prehistoric squirrel or similar who fed off seeds and therefore didn't starve like the rest of the land animals, and that quite possibly, that is where we all emanate from today.. Wonder how many ribs he or she or they had: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/07/jurassic-squirrel-mammals-evolution-earth You have not proffered (well as of yet) any evidence that is contrary nor anything to support your belief. Therein lies the rub.,. what makes your view more correct than the many other religions that don't support your view? And if there is an omipetent god, why doesn't that god control things on earth or anywhere else thay god decided to play? Yeah, he's not obliged to, and it is an easy cop out to say so, but how do you explain away the evidence of evolutionary biology without just saying you don't believe it? And, what evidence do you have that this god was a) alone in it all; b) omnipitent; and c) was even around? What you have is a theory, just liek Darwin's.. But I don't see the evidence nor the scientific expertise nor the scientific instruments used to validate the theory. At least Darwin had some evidence. The laws of nature and physicis seem to not quite agree with the handbook left by this so-called god. Actually, they do have a theory. The brain may generate brain oscillations that are involved in memory retrieval just before death, which could be the cause of people remembering things for a short time after they die. These oscillations could be similar to the ones reported in near-death experiences. The brain has been measured to be active after death, and while it can't be proven it does actually etch memory in the brain of actual things, it can explain why there are feelings of warmth, why they see a glow, etc. It can be argued that some people are observed to be clinically dead before they actually are. There are many potential explanations. It's easy to looky up referneces, What do you mean we don't know what lies beyond the grave? Do we not eventually decompose? Ahh.. what about the "spirit"? What is the "spirit"? Our consciousness? Well, given the physcial evidence, it goes with us. Some of us are lucky to have it in tact until we die. Others, not so.. ever seen dimential sufferes, permanent vegetative state, and similar issues.. These are awful conditions, but a state of consciousness, or "spirit" in ther terms most of us think? Or maybe the spirit is just being alive.. When the chemcial reactions decay to the point that this can no longer be done, er, we go.. BTW, many people say when coming back from the dead, that it was dark and they couldn't see. Again, just because we don't know if there is something beyond is not an argument for there being something beyond.. The physical evidence shows what happens - the biblical evidence - not so much. So, one person writes a book and this is real? Haven't you thought he may have just wanted to make money? Tell me how many scientists/doctors who are free from childhood conditioning of religion believe it versus those who don't... then we may have some evidence to look at. Seriously? Who has made you an offer of an afterlife simply for believing in a biblical story? And what is the reward? How many virgins? 76? Because that is the reward at least one Abrhamic relgion believes they are up for? Same god, apparently? Anyway, weren't the Jews the chosen ones.. you'll have to get in line.. 😉 Seriously, though, you're welcome to your beliefs, but the deingration of science and scientists because it doesn't fit your belief, it is hard to say that you don't have aproblem with people who don't believe. As an ahtiest, I don't believe. I made that decision myself after looking at what was around, what religion coudl be used for, and how it didn't add up to me. My kids went to a christian school and often would question why does the RE class say one ting and the science class say another. I never imposed a religious belief on my childnren, nor imposed athiesm, agnostical stuff or anything else. One of my kids is a diest, and the other - to be honest, I am not sure. I can understand why people do believe .. and I don't have a problem with it.. I believe stuff that is not all grounded in science, too.. I am even open to there being a person or being that started this all off, if someone can provide evidence. And of course, if our universe is so complex it required some intelligent life form to kick it all off, then presumably that intelligent life form was too intelligent to be created out of quantum physcial forces and some matter, so what created the creator of our creator? And what created the creator of the creator of our creator? I know it won't change your mind, and I neither want to nor expect to.. but don't try and tell me that just because you believe it a) it is true and b) science doesn't know what it is talking about.. There is a prominent evolutionary biologist who says on the evidence, it is extrememly unlikely there is or was a god.. but it hasn't been entirely disproved either. Is it Richard Dawkins? Will have to look it up.

I flew them once from London to Prague... Never again would I after that flight.

No, I didn't... But I picked points in the YT vid.. and there were also some celebs who have traction in the US middle classes.. And, of course, Musk has his fandoms as well. The reality is humanity seems to be going off the rails a bit and as disaffected people are seeking their "fair share", they will turn to nutters... They did it in the 30s.. and they will do it again. Let's nopt forget, there are billionaires now who are only too happy to show their stripes. I am coming off Amazon thanks to Bezos stopping the ashington Post, which he owns, from printing their endorsement (and I would have come off, even if he stopped an endorsement for Trump - editorial independence is right up there for me).

This election is really hard to call. The polls apparently are showing them neck and neck. Harris has "natural" disadvantages in the US: a) a womnan and b) of colour. While in the progressive states, she will probably romp it home, in reality, most of the USA are still a little more "traditional" in their values. She also has the burden of having been the VP under Biden, which although seem to have steered the ship relatively calmly through choppy waters, is an administration that is seen in the US as a realtively weak one. Where Trump has really capitalised is that the USA is ferociously patriotic - often times the line between partiotism and nationalism is blurred. Trump's America first will resonate with a lot of voters purely out of patriotism - a more measured approach by the Democrats is seen as not putting America's interests first. And, the yanks are up for a fight (as long as it is on someone elses land, preferably using someone elses forces).. So a belligerent leader who is ready to talk tough to his foreign counterparts has a certain appeal to the Americans. His tough talk and action got more NATO members contributing 2% GDP to defence; notably Canada is still not there yet. Now, according to an FT article, they are going to play hard ball with countruies that the USA has a trading deficit with. Yes, economists warn protectionism will result in costs increasing at home. But what pollies and economists don't often realise is that the majority of the population earn well under average earnings and they, especially today, most are struggling with the cost of living. If they can't afford something today, it matters not that it becomes more expensive. And as more and more of the mioddle class with families struggle, they become more and more disillusioned with the whole thing. If you look at Brexit as an example, the pollies and economists that were remainers were all about "why would you be crazy enough to vote to be worse off?" Well, if you're unable to afford the basics, then who cares - so and so is offering a way out - trying something new (ironically by going back tot he good old days) over the same ol' same ol'. Voilla! You have your votes. In Brexit, affluent areas vvoted to remain, while the vast majority of areas to vote leave were not affluent (generally speaking). If you look at the US elections, affluent areas will vote Democrats while the others will look for putting America first. On that basis, it will be hard for Harris to take the gong. But, Trump and the more nutter types may well just sway enough people to say, "Nah.. I'll wait for someone a little less unhinged."

Nuckear done properly, even with SMRs is not terribly economic in these times.. The problem with central power generation is that it concentrates economic resources of a major denpendecy of the economy into the hands of the few. 20 or so years ago, yes, operating nuclear plants would ave been better.. There are undoubtedly brown paper bags, or the equivalent, changing hands somewhere...

I tend to agree with it. This seems to be the reason that people in Europe are voting hard right. It really is getting worrying.

I only buy second hand phones these days, and the mid-range rather than premiums, which still pack a fair punch in terms of tech power, seem to be the best calue. £159 for a 5G Samsung A52 that was about £500 when new.. everything works, 256G of memory.. Only downside is, it is lilac!

Basically, lead a life opposite the way I have and you will give yourself the best chance of a long and healthy one ;-)... But that would be a boring one

Yes, even with Kamala, the deomcrats, as usual, have an uphill battle.. and like most progressive parties these days, rely on the screwups of the conservatives. This is a really difficult wone to predict. Given, despite Trumps worse failings this time around compared to 2016, Harris, can't even build a lead, let along extend one. This does point to a bit of a drubbing. However, I think maybe the polling is more accurate as people are probably more polarised and therefore more energised to tell the pollsters the truth of which way they are voting (or mot). Also, this is a contest between a former, but not sitting president, and effectively a new presidential candidate, that is currently in office of the VP. So DT actually probably has the advantage there.

For the record, when I said if Cruisafulli (thanks, Peter) can ru n the government as good as his speech, there was a touch of sarcasm. Talk is cheap, as they say. However, I have not seen too much of Crisafulli - well, to be honest, I hadn't seen any of him during the campaign, so one was thinking maybe the benefit of the doubt. Here are a some take-aways from the election night of the LNP policy: They, like many political parties are very careful to construct their wording to allow them to weasel their way out of things. That is more of a reflection on us than them, but they were heavily implying early in the evening they will not support nuclear and at the end of the evening they were clear to say it is not on their agenda.. i.e. they are ambivalent to it. Now we have Littleproud expecting the QLD government to work with the federal government in introducing nuclear power should the coalition get into power (pardon the pun) at the next election. Their "adult crime, adult time" centrepiece policy is a somewhat populist policy. West's scam of the week shows how youth offending has come down over the last 10 years, however, that by itself does not tell the whole story. For example, is it petty crime that has dropped markedly while seriouc crime has risen, giving on overall drop in the "crime rate" but the negative impact actually increasing? There are things in the policy snippets I say that sound progressive - early intervention, better intervention and reforming during their detention, and support once released so give them a better chance ot going on the straight and narrow. But there is some question about it. Say a kid commits murder at 12 years of age, and is heltp to the same level of culpability as an adult and is sentenced for 15 years. He will receive 5 years of intervention, and reforming, and assume it is working... But, at 18, he is turfed into an adult prison.. where let's face it, he is likely to learn some seriously bad habits. Would that not potentially undo all of the good stuff that was done? Seems counterintuitive to me. But also, what does it say about what we should be doing with our adult prison population to reduce recidivism and ultimately benefit socieety? I think it is actually a good start, but needs some tweaking, but the adult crime, adult time to me is populist and was actually a fear campaign (which they accused Labor of). But, policy has to start somewhere, I suppose. The then shadow trreasurer in the ABC election night panel did give me cause for concern. But so did the Labor bloke (Cameron someoneorother, who looks like he will be the next leader going to the next election). There was too much ducking and weaving by the LNP fella on the panel; When will they realise their electorate want straight answers to the question - even if the answer in nuanced - have the nuance relating to the answer. He may have well answered most of the questions with,. "Do you know, the sky is blue during the day".. to many questions. I am not sure QLD is in that bad a state of play... compared to the rest of the country. It was claimed QLD has borne the brint of the cost of living crisis (i.e. the worst performer), but, there are structural issues for that. So, obviously, the Courier Mail and their sister publications has a lot to do with it. The other take away is the Greens probably had the worst result of the election, and I understand why - at least from a federal influence. They seem to have become the part of protest in the minds of the electorate, and while we like a bit of protest, we don't like holding things up beyind making your point. I can't speak too much of the QLD branch, but federally, I bet the rue the day they let Thorpe into the party. The young fella who's name escapes me, was seen as a bit of a rebel with a cause on the housing policy, but even he is now being seen as a rablle rouser.. and that probably describes how a lot of the electorate see them. OK, I only get snippets, but even my support (of which I would have happily voted for them in the last federal election), is waning a bit. The ABC ran a piece on their news feed that the QLD branch is blaming Labor for pursuing Green's seats. Well, that is politics and one has to find ways to negate these attacks: Sometimes it's OK to say we didn't resonate with the electorate and we have to do better. Indeed, however, (as I have said before), it is weird that the most important election in the world does not allow those materially impacted by it to participate in it (hardly call Russia or China's mandates an election of the masses, anyway). For us, or what we can impact, the next 6 months is going to be interesting.

I think that can be said of most electorates in the world.

It's an interesting phenomena. In the previous national election here, when Boris was elected, there was some late breaking news that showed his true colours. I remarked to a bloke in the office who was a clear conservative supported, educated, etc.. and his response was, "well, we all know what Boris is like, so its sort of expected as we don't mind". My response was is that the sort of person you want making decisions about your finances - someone who thinks with their d!&k. He stopped and thought for sa second or two and gace a gallic shrug and walked off. It's sort fo a confirmation bias. Boris was helped by Labour putting up Jerremy Corbyn, who is a little too extreme for most people's likings.

Thans, Peter

Well, QLD has a new government. I always watch election night which is so much easier here because it is 2:15 Saturday afternoon when it has wrapped up. It was a bit of a good one, too.. It was a cliffhanger for a lot of the night. When Miles gave his speech, it was certainly not in the bag, thought it was getting there for Crusafilli. However, on reflection, he may well have wished he hadn't quite made that speech. This was the first time I saw Crusafilli in action, and if he is as good running the state as his specchwriter is of writing speeches and he is of delivering them, then at least whatever is done will sound good. I thought while Miles was a little less than gracious, Crusafilli was very humble and gracious in victory, even wishing the best the the opposition MPs who lost their seats. I was wondering if he may even have a federal shot in him... This election ddoes not bode well for Albo. Yes - the ALP are always batting off the back foot with the media bias they are up against. However, if the QLD results have been in some way influenced by federal politics, then Mackay and I think it was Bundaberg, which were very safe Labor seats, flipped. Next 6 months are going to be very interesting.

Yes.. pre polling votes coming in and Labor are pretty well out of the race. But this is not much different to the Labor federal win.. what should have been a romp was just getting over the line. It is not clear if the LNP will get a majority, but it is looking increasingly likely. But it won't be a rout that it probably should have been

Watching the ABC, the thought is the federal performance of the Greens.. Too early to call but it is looking like the LNP are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Can't find the other Albo thread, so will use this instead. I now understand why Labor seem paralysed when the select a shippy leader: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/albanese-holds-so-much-power-over-his-mps-they-re-scared-to-rein-him-in-20241023-p5kklb.html I don't begrudge the bloke for buying a nice house on the coast, even during the cost of living and property crisis (unusually, it is both hard to buy and rent at the time). I bet my bottom dollar other pollies on both sides have purchased themselves a nice pad or added to their rental portfolios. However, his handling of what should be a non-story is a litany of faux pars that just shows how a) inept as a leader he really is as he can't read the room and b) seems as genuinely out of touch as any pollie I have seen. I honestly wonder if he is on the spectrum For my money, Chalmers, or even Marles would be a better option.. Doofus is a sell out to me.. Pliberseck seems to have been weakened, and I can only guess this is a result of internal politics.

Time flies

Maybe they could take cardboard cutouts of Scomo with moneybags and place one in front of the Pentagon and one in front of Whitehall Gardens to commemorate AUKUS?

I see that the oath or affirmation is a requirement under the Australian constitution, and it is prescribed in the Schedule to the constitution. Of course, making a statement publicly for whatever political or publicity gain she is hoping for does not constitute a legal admission, and she would have to make the statement under, ironically, an oath or affirmation. If she does admit it legally, then the opposition’s call for her disqualification would be valid. There is nothing in the constitution that requires the oath or affirmation to be held throughout the course of their tenure, at least per parliament between elections. I would imagine that the allegiance would have to be honestly held at the time of making the oath. But, remember, allegiance means loyalty or commitment. That does not mean support. For example, it could be argued that her expression of "you are not my king" is a representation to the King that, in her view, Australia is over the monarchy, and in her loyalty of serving the king, she is letting him know the truth... Of course, if she was just expressing her opinion then it could also reasonably be inferred as disloyalty or non-commitment, however, what if she reasonably and honestly believed this was also the opinion of the majority if Australians? She is, admittedly in a dramatic and disrespectful manner, simply stating to the King that the subjects are restless and want change. That does not mean one is disloyal nor non-committed. And if you think I am stretching it, then what about Malcolm Turnbull (not that he is an MP anymore) or any pro-republican MP? They clearly do not want the monarchy but it is not disloyal or non-committed to the monarch or their heirs. They are simply saying they think public opinion and the, in their eyes, anachronistic head of state of an independent country has reached its expiry date, and in good faith and wishing them a pleasant future, it is time to move on. If the plan is to keep a republic in the Commonwealth as active members, then is that not showing loyalty and commitment to the monarch? Otherwise, with the exception that Thorpe is a gregarious, attention seeking loud mouth, any prop-republic MP is also disavowing their allegiance, and should they also not be forced to exit stage left (or right, as applicable)?