Jumpingmanjim posted:

SCOTT MORRISON, TREASURER: The Prime Minister made it pretty clear today also that we have no appetite for states to be able to increase taxes.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

So he was only pretending to be retarded?

LibertyCat posted:

I'm guessing The Black thing is due to my comment about ~5% of the US population being responsible for around half of all US murders. It shows there is something very sick in the American system as these numbers are incredible. If 5% of all cars resulted in half of all deaths we'd have massive inquiries into seeing what the hell is wrong and how do we fix it. We wouldn't, say, introduce safety regulations that don't help much but penalize ALL cars because it's politically easy.

LibertyCat posted:

The word "Civilization" does not mean "culture" or "people located in a particular group".

Merriam-Webster posted:

a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained
b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place

LibertyCat posted:

Perhaps you should update wikipedia, although it has a vast number of citations that disagree.

Oxford Dictionary posted:

1.2 The society, culture, and way of life of a particular area:

Cambridge Dictionary posted:

​human ​society with ​its well ​developed ​social ​organizations, or the ​culture and way of ​life of a ​society or ​country at a ​particular ​period in ​time

Collins Dictionary posted:

the total culture and way of life of a particular people, nation, region, or period

LibertyCat posted:

Wiki has a ton of citations from Anthropology textbooks, but please feel free to update the page with your references.

Wikitionary posted:

An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development.

LibertyCat posted:

Pretty sure Aboriginal tribes don't qualify. Social/political/technical development seems to have stagnated for a few thousand years.

and Cartoon, the answer is to fix that poo poo by disciplining the offenders.

Simple English Wikipedia posted:

The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Maya civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.

LibertyCat posted:

OK quoting from Simple aka "Wikipeda for Retards" is getting desperate.

LibertyCat posted:

It's not that they don't know, it's that they don't do so as frequently as men. Several peer-review studies have given that as an explanation for wage disparity. I didn't think it was a controversial statement.

MaliciousOnion posted:

Sure, neo-nazis might be irredeemable morons, but violence against them does nothing to further the left's position. Also i find violence in general morally wrong.

Laserface posted:

Im the feminist smashing gender roles by holding a loving bake sale.

Higsian posted:

Real criticism of the bake sale: it should have been based on comparison to median income or the poverty line. Or Newstart.

open24hours posted:

Quality writing at the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/he-says-hes-progressive-but-is-he-really-a-brogressive

quote:

Has a secret Twitter account that he uses to @ opinion writers and columnists who irritate him.

LibertyCat posted:

I was listening to a "please give blood" plea on the radio this morning, and a thought occurred to me - why not (as long as it is medically ok) make Centrelink conditional on being a blood donor?

You could set up donation centers inside Centrelink offices and make it part of the regular appointment. If you're unemployed you're not exactly short of time like most workers. The Red Cross would save money on advertisements and mobile vans. It could save a heap of lives with no real downside.

open24hours posted:

I don't remember anyone complaining about 'ethics' when people suggested vaccinating your kids should be mandatory.

quote:

In all jurisdictions, the majority of respondents said they would like people who are assessed as refugees to be resettled in Australia.

LibertyCat posted:

LibertyCat posted:

Do you think everyone deserves to make good money for being educated, even if that education is 17th Century French Underwater Basket Weaving with a minor in My Little Pony: A Feminist Genderqueer Perspective

LibertyCat posted:

No, ideally people should get paid roughly in proportion to how much society values their skills,

LibertyCat posted:

Heh. TBH you are pretty close to the mark.

In turn, how many of you are on Centrelink?

LibertyCat posted:

I'm all for individuals having the freedom to form unions. I'm against them having the strength to say "if you don't fire all the non-union employees we'll cripple your business" as this interferes with the freedom of people to Not form Unions.

LibertyCat posted:

As fun as this is I have stuff to do atm. See you tomorrow thread.

Seagull posted:

unfortunate, albo could've been a really solid disappointment

Anidav posted:

A new authoritarianism has descended. There now seems to be a list of official beliefs we are allowed to hold and no others; decided for us by the new establishment that has taken hold in government and the media, especially but not only in Fairfax, the ABC and SBS where there is now a uniformly censorious tone that colours everything. The very idea that you might hold a different opinion from the approved one is, to use the word that is now creeping into our discourse, ‘unacceptable’ and if you dare express it, what you get in reply is not a counter argument but a demand for an apology, the more humiliating and grovelling the better. You will also be forced to resign from whatever post you occupy. And behind the threats and intimidation lurks the spectre of the thought police to enforce the approved view of what is acceptable and what is not. The advocate of unapproved views these days is simply bludgeoned into submission. It is unacceptable that you might have a different opinion from the establishment on climate change, same-sex marriage, adoption by same sex couples, illegal refugees, abortion, the republic, the family, the sexual agenda in schools, foreign aid, religious freedom, government spending, freedom of speech, Israel, Islam and any proposal for changing the constitution.

As views other than the official ones are unacceptable, what is also unacceptable is that you should be allowed to express them. Indeed, you run a terrible risk these days, not that you will have to defend your case on its merits, but that you will be branded as a social leper, shunned, stopped from holding a public meeting or setting foot inside a university, blacklisted, abused and ridiculed simply because you hold a personal view different from the official one that has been sanctified by the new establishment. Were Voltaire alive he would find it easier to say: ‘I disagree with everything you say and will fight to the death to stop you saying it.’ The new authoritarianism has found a very fertile field in the denigration of Tony Abbott which has now reached an hysterical crescendo. He represents a separate strain of opinion from the mush that passes for policy in the Liberal party today and consequently must be stopped and silenced, not by logic, but by ridicule and abuse. He was probably doomed from the start by putting forward the uncomfortable truth in the 2014 budget that the country was living beyond its means and that surgery was needed before we went bankrupt. Given that the new establishment depends on government spending and handouts, it was inevitable that the budget would be unacceptable and Abbott with it. But by that time, it was known Abbott also had a real commitment to socially conservative positions that bind the society together, contributing to its stability. So he was doubly cursed and totally unacceptable. As the Age put it (before the staff went on strike and Fairfax shares went up), Abbott could not be allowed to stay in office and had to be ‘checked’. Eventually this led to his removal, but now, he has to be silenced, his legacy degraded and, if that does not work, forced to leave the parliament altogether. The most egregious example of this practice is the recent attempt by the PM to belittle his predecessor’s achievement in stopping the boats bringing illegal migrants into this country.

Turnbull’s argument is that the boats were stopped, not under Abbott, but Howard. For Turnbull, the crazy excesses of Rudd/Gillard that allowed people smugglers back into business and Tony Abbott’s successful response just did not happen. This is little better than the whiting-out of any inconvenient facts by Turnbull that might diminish his own wondrous lustre. Worse, you would think that Turnbull would have at least an ounce of feeling that here was a policy of which Abbott was justly proud and would allow him this one tick of approval. But no, the zeitgeist is that Abbott and all his works are bad and Turnbull has to deliver the cruellest cut of all. Abbott’s supporters, guilty of the unacceptable sin of loyalty, are now condemned and abused as malcontents, subversives and troglodytes; forget about the arguments, just abuse the advocate. I hope they speak out more, because they contribute to the robust debate of ideas, whether you like their opinions or not. Then we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Party itself promoting the line that Abbott should not stand again for election, campaign in the election, speak at conferences or even write articles. You would think that any political party with a former leader who had brought it back from disintegration and got it into government would show gratitude, welcome his experience and invite him to contribute to the debate. Instead, we see a party, now with no sense of tradition or respect, full of midgets who sold their souls for the exalted post of assistant minister or parliamentary secretary, and wailing like a Greek chorus, trying to destroy him. No-one seems prepared to say it, but such an attitude is mean, ungenerous and, above all, foolish, for it cuts the party off from the conservative point of view that Abbott represents and many people want to see promoted. Worse still, it shows how the new authoritarianism is eating away at the free exchange of ideas that used to be one of the Liberal party’s – and the country’s – great strengths.

Kommando posted:

I studied STEM, there's no work.
ask any scientist in Australia how their job prospects are and you will be replied to with bitterness and regret. Most move countries or careers.

bigis posted:

This thread sometimes holy poo poo.

auspol.txt

Anidav posted:

Absolutely and here's why!

Bankers Association chief Steve Munchenberg has refused to rule out a mining tax-style ad campaign to fight Labor's proposed royal commission into the banking and finance sector.
The head of the nation's banking lobbying cautioned the lobby group is not "actively considering" an ad campaign at this time, ahead of an expected July 2 double dissolution election, but said it remained on the table as one of a range of options under consideration.

And marketing consultant Toby Ralph, who has worked on 50 election campaigns across 3 continents including for the former Howard government, said he had "no doubt the banks can run a campaign that will turn the political opportunism of a royal commission into an electoral nightmare for Labor".
In 2010, the mining industry spent about $22 million on a six week ad campaign opposing Labor's proposed Resources Super Profits Tax.
The campaign effectively blew up Kevin Rudd's prime ministership and he was dumped by the ALP for Julia Gillard, who rapidly made peace with the big miners.

Labor proposed a two year, $53 million inquiry last Friday after a series of scandals at the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Bank and National Australia Bank, and allegations from corporate regulator ASIC that the ANZ and Westpac rigged the bank bill swap rate.
Mr Munchenberg told Fairfax Media that Labor had not made the case for a banking royal commission and that the ABA had "not ruled out" an ad campaign.
"We are not currently looking at such a thing [an advertising campaign] but we are actively considering an appropriate response from the industry. Our main focus at this stage is to highlight the fact of why we think a royal commission would not achieve anything beyond what is already being done," he said.

Mr Ralph said a campaign "would cost banks $20 million or so, being around one 10th of what they'd spend on responses to a commission".
While banks made easy targets, Mr Ralph said voters disliked politicians too.
"What makes campaigns of this nature successful is impact at the ballot box. I'd demonstrate the core truths, rather than simply claiming them, then run a marginal seat campaign talking about how a commission will increase mortgages, arguing that a vote for Labor is a green light for increased home loan rates. That would cost them seats."

Monash University economics professor Rodney Maddock has estimated the cost of the royal commission could run to $250 million - including as much as $50 million for each for the major banks.
Meanwhile, former Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin accused Labor of playing a "dangerous game" with a fundamental pillar of the Australian economy.

" When the global financial system is under pressure, you don't want to be having a review based purely on politics. Banks are a key pillar of the economy and this is a dangerous game to play," he said.
Both sides of politics traded blows over the inquiry on Tuesday, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten arguing ASIC did a good job but pointing out it had been hit by a $120 million, four year funding cut in Tony Abbott's first budget in 2014.
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said a royal commission would - as well as examining the financial sector - probe the power and ability of sector regulators, including ASIC and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
"Is Mr Turnbull really suggesting the right way of determining the resourcing and ability of ASIC is to have ASIC conduct an inquiry into themselves? That is what a royal commission is for."

Treasurer Scott Morrison, whose office released a fact sheet arguing ASIC had equivalent powers to a royal commission, questioned Labor push for the probe when it had ignored the findings of the royal commission into trade unions.
"It [ASIC] actually has more powers than a royal commission, because it can go ahead and prosecute ... it can act on its own motion, it can take referrals from ministers, it can compel witnesses," he said.
The federal government, which is under pressure from its own backbench for so rapidly ruling out the inquiry, has indicated ASIC could receive a funding boost in the May budget.
The government fact sheet pointed out both ASIC and a royal commission had coercive investigative powers, that penalties existed for failing to give evidence or concealing documents and that in both cases statements made under compulsion were not admissible in civil and criminal proceedings.

But Labor released a separate analysis from the independent parliamentary library that showed ASIC faced time constraints on its investigations, that ASIC's investigations occurred in private whereas royal commissions were typically conducted in the full gaze of public scrutiny and that when summoning witnesses an ASIC officer needed "reasonable grounds" for the summons whereas a royal commission generally faced no statutory prerequisites.

LibertyCat posted:

I am not kidding when I say I was more moved during the events of the Mass Effect series than I ever was by the works of Beethoven or Leonardo da Vinci.

hooman posted:

Chris Berg with his most recent entry into the "dumbest thing said this century" competition:

"Tax havens perform an important function by putting downwards pressure on domestic tax rates. They are the global economy's escape valve - preventing sclerotic Western welfare states from pushing taxes up and up."

Citation needed Mr. Berg.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/berg-are-the-panama-papers-really-such-a-scandal/7316618

Seagull posted:

Milky Moor posted:

Who wants to buy me that terrible Skywarriors book by that Liberal MP?

It's for art.

Cartoon posted:

Which is why it is fascinating, if you have the opportunity to study academics at work, to compare the way the average science faculty and the typical arts faculty are governed. The science faculties tend to have a thin veneer of proper and merit based process but in reality are a cartel of the people who are most acceptable to the hierarchy all hell bent on pursuing the 'one true vision' of who ever is leading the research. This is the nature of specialisation. The arts faculties suffer from the same pressures but nobody alludes to this being due and proper. The emperors clothes are known and given the proper consideration. So it is that a Phd student in the Arts may routinely submit work that directly affronts the Arts faculty hierarchy and still expect to be given marks based on the merit of their actual work while a Phd student in the Science would suddenly not be able to find a supervisor.

Pickled Tink posted:

And how is that any different to the current system?

LibertyCat posted:

I am not kidding when I say I was more moved during the events of the Mass Effect series than I ever was by the works of Beethoven or Leonardo da Vinci.

Anidav posted:

Economic Inequality Complaints Are Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice