Auspol August: The Greens Echo Chamber

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: The Greens Echo Chamber

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

If you're not registered they can't do anything about you not voting. Like voting, you should probably do the census anyway.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2016 00:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 13:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

EvilElmo posted:

"You don't get rid of everyone's livelihood overnight with no warning. Not everyone in the industry is a villain - Shorten on Greyhound ban."

Something something live export.

# ¿ Aug 2, 2016 02:46

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

It's been way too long since the last round of leadership speculation anyway.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 00:46

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

The catacombs of Ipswitch.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2016 01:17

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/our-olympic-team-is-a-terrible-waste-of-money-20160803-gqjx18

With the opening of the Rio Olympics only a matter of days away, the question of how much countries should spend on the Games is again being asked. This is especially as wealthy, developed countries continue to spend staggering sums on their Olympic teams.

Britain spent A$374 million on its team for the London Olympics. It is spending even more for 2016 to ensure that it wins just as many gold medals. The British now spend four times more on Olympic competitors than on sport for schoolchildren.

Australia is another example of this massive state subsidisation of elite sportspeople. It may only have a third of Britain's population, but the Australian government spent a mind-boggling $264 million on its London team. The seven gold medals it won in the 2012 Games was its worst result since the 1988 Olympics.

Each gold medal cost Australian taxpayers $37 million. In the hope of lifting its gold-medal count, Australia is spending even more for Rio. It does this in spite of deep government cuts to education and health.

State subsidisation of Olympic teams is hotly debated. In each country, the relevant national Olympic committee claims it's absolutely necessary to secure the "obvious" benefits of gold medals.

But others argue just as strongly that such benefits are illusory; for them this subsidisation is unethical in the age of budget austerity. It wastes scarce public income that would be better spent on doctors and physical education teachers.

What's needed is some analysis of the actual benefits that Olympic gold medals bring.

The ancient Greeks competed in Olympic Games for 1000 years. They had clear views about the benefits of victory. By studying their views, we get insights into what gold medals might do for us.

The Greeks would have been horrified at our subsidisation of Olympic teams. They did not waste public income on getting athletes to the Games.

Individuals were ready for the Olympics because their families had paid for the private classes of an athletics teacher. Olympians paid their own way to Olympia and their own expenses during the Games.

Yet the Greeks valued Olympic victory more highly than we do. Each polis (city-state) gave its Olympic victors free meals and free front-row tickets at sports events � for life.

These were the highest honours the Greeks could give. They were otherwise only given to victorious generals. That they were given to Olympians shows that the Greeks believed such victors significantly benefited their city-states.

What made an Olympic victory so politically valuable was publicity. The Olympics were the biggest public event in ancient Greece; the Olympic stadium seated 45,000.

The result was that whatever took place at the Games became known to the entire Greek world, as ambassadors, athletes and spectators returned home and reported what they had seen.

Because so many Greeks attended the Games, it was possible for the whole Greek world to learn of the sporting victory that a polis had gained through one of its competitors.

Such a sporting victory gave city-states of otherwise no importance rare international prominence. To those that were regional powers, it gave uncontested proof of the standing they claimed in relation to their rivals.

The only other way that a polis had to raise its international ranking was to defeat a rival polis in battle. But the outcome of a battle was always uncertain and could cost the lives of thousands.

Thus, a Greek city-state judged a citizen who had been victorious at the Olympics worthy of the highest public honours because he had raised its standing without the need for his fellow citizens to die on the battlefield.

We continue to view Olympians as our representatives and to be part of an international system of competing states. So an important lesson from the ancient Olympics is that international sporting success improves a state's standing.

The ancient Olympics provide some justification for the state subsidisation of our Olympic teams. But we must not push these parallels too far.

For good or for ill, we are not ancient Greeks. International competition is no longer confined to sport and war. New bodies, such as the G20, OECD and the United Nations, also rank states in terms of education and health.

In this new world order, we will only hold our ranking if we invest just as much in doctors and physical education teachers.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 01:30

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 02:04

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I dunno if Leyonhjelm would after they reneged on the shotgun deal.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 06:51

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

What happens if the guy actually is ineligible?

# ¿ Aug 4, 2016 09:26

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Weren't same sort of people were bending over backwards to explain why Charlie Hebdo was actually racist at the time? I don't remember it getting a lot of support from the crowd Leak is mocking in his second cartoon.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 01:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I don't agree with him though? I think the comparison is conflating obvious racism (Leak) with something more complex (CH).

# ¿ Aug 5, 2016 01:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Bring in CIRs while you're at it.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 01:38

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Isn't the whole reason these groups get started in the first place that people feel like they're being persecuted?

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 04:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Recoome posted:

I honestly thought it revolved more around some kind of moral panic about Islam, rather than being persecuted (at least until now). My opinion is that the ultranationalist groups have only introduced the persecution part into the discourse this year, seeing as they've only had like one somewhat successful rally in Perth.

I always assumed the reason they're panicked is because they think Muslims are getting all the advantages at their expense, and it's only a matter of time until they take over completely.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 05:20

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

If there's one thing fascists love it's accurate data. ABS will probably survive long after the health and education departments have been shut down.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2016 07:50

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Abusing refugees was always the plan. Sends a strong message to people smugglers.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2016 05:19

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Starshark posted:

Before I say anything, are you serious or being sarcastic? Can't tell.

The government has access to all the advice they need to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Any argument that it was unpredictable or unexpected strains credibility.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2016 06:13

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Capt.Whorebags posted:

I think one of the news pieces indicated that the eCensus was delivered on IBM's cloud service but with restrictions that it could only be on iron that was physically located in Australia.

Should have just got everyone to email in a CSV. To clever for their own good.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 01:02

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I can't imagine you'll find many women wanting to work in trades if site culture stays the way it does. It's not as bad on smaller jobs, but anything bigger than a small block of flats seems to be a magnet for macho fuckwits.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 01:24

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-11/uber-to-be-legalised-in-queensland/7719078

Shouldn't Uber be paying for this rather than the government?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 03:48

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Doctor Spaceman posted:

No more than windfarms should pay for coalminers who lose their jobs.

If you want to argue that they shouldn't be compensated at all then ok, but if they are going to be shouldn't those who are benefiting from the change be the ones paying for it?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 05:17

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Because their business model is basically just showing up and acting like the rules don't apply to them?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 05:29

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I don't see why not. It could be a temporary thing until the $100m is raised. I mean the money has to come from somewhere so someone is being taxed for it, might as well be Uber.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 05:35

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

starkebn posted:

If you open up a cake shop next to a bakery do you expect to have to pay the bakery for their lost business?

Or what about a Baker's Delight opening up next to you friendly local small business bakery?

This would be a valid comparison if Uber had to comply with the same regulations as the taxi industry. In your example it would be like a Baker's Delight that ignores labour laws, pours their old oil down the drain, doesn't have insurance, uses rigged scales, etc.

[e:fb]

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:17

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Perhaps it is, but it's not going to happen is it?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:25

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Recoome posted:

lmao taxi companies are just salty because they are losing business because they have been consistently poo poo for a very long time

That's really not what the argument is about. You'd have a hard time finding someone without an investment in the taxi industry that opposes reform. The question is what type of reform is desirable.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:29

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Hopefully they'd be prevented from continuing to operate in addition to the fine.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:31

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

BBJoey posted:

neither is making them pay for disrupting the taxi industry hope this helps

What is the actual point that you're trying to make here?

SA are apparently charging, or at least trying to charge, a levy on Uber rides to fund their compensation scheme.
http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/06/03/doubts-over-taxi-levy-as-uber-flouts-sa-laws/

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:38

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

BBJoey posted:

you yourself said uber's entire business model is ignoring regulations and now you expect them to play along with a government levy? uber will do whatever the gently caress they want because they know no government is going to put their foot down.

e: lomarf, the article itself says uber is in no uncertain terms not going to pay the levy. the solution to 'this company is not playing by the rules' is not 'make a new rule that makes them pay for the people they put out of business' but enforcing the rules you already have in place

Well, what is the solution? In an ideal world what would you like to see happen?

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:53

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

If it works. I'm not sure I'm convinced a nationalised taxi industry would deliver better or cheaper services though.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 06:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Frogmanv2 posted:

Why not? Remove the need for a profit, and prices should come down. Increase the ability of central management of a standard level of service.

Right, it's more that I don't trust them not to gently caress it up in some monumental way.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 07:06

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

At least if a private company does it there's a chance they'll go broke.

The way things are at the moment it'd probably be contracted out to a private operator and we'd get the worst of both worlds.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2016 07:17

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Seems like it's probably the fairest way. Guess they could have had a lottery.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2016 07:48

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

The Parliament House website has a decent discussion of its history.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief09

# ¿ Aug 13, 2016 01:17

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Those LD boys are at it again

quote:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...2dffac9345ff4f5

Libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a formal complaint before the Human Rights Commission under race hate laws for being publicly abused as an �angry white male�.

Although Senator Leyonhjelm admitted he was �not personally offended� by the slur, contained in a column by Fairfax Media�s Mark Kenny.

However, he was determined to demonstrate the absurdity of the Racial Discrimination Act which prohibits speech that is �reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate� on the basis of �race, colour or national or ethnic origin�.

The case is understood to be the first complaint of its kind for the HRC under section 18C of the Act, which makes it unlawful to commit an act that would reasonably offend or insult someone �because of their race, colour, �or national or �ethnic origin.

The article attacked the Liberal Democrat parliamentarian, who favours abolishing the law, as a �boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block�, �infantile reasoning� and �angry-white-male certitude�.

In a statement today, Senator Leyonhjelm said: �I was not personally offended by the comments � that�s my choice.

�However, under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, this does not matter. Under the Act, Mr Kenny�s article is unlawful because his article was reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people on the basis of their colour.�

The controversial law includes exemptions for anything said or done �reasonably and in good faith� in art, science, academia or in the public interest, or any fair comment that is a genuine belief held by the author.

Senator Leyonhjelm said the comments were �reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend or insult some white males�.

�Assuming the adjudicators at the Human Rights Commission are guided by the law and not racists, I anticipate the complaint should succeed. Of course, if I succeed in having section 18C repealed, Mr Kenny will be free to insult me as much as he likes.�

The revelation of the senator�s move comes as a Liberal senator says removal of the words �insult� and �offend� from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has broad appeal across the community � from human rights lawyer Julian Burnside to former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Senator Dean Smith spoke yesterday after delegates at the West Australian Liberal Party state conference voted in favour of removing the words from the act.

At the conference on Saturday, federal Liberal frontbencher Ken Wyatt argued strongly against the original motion to repeal section 18C altogether.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 00:56

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I wish they'd install some here. The signs on correct toilet use don't seem to be solving the poo poo on the seat problem.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 03:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Wouldn't it just lead to a bigger war later on anyway?

# ¿ Aug 16, 2016 03:19

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

How can you even tell the difference?

# ¿ Aug 16, 2016 03:27

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I too love proxy wars and wish there were more of them.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2016 04:31

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I've heard they do that in prison, but I'd have thought even remote aboriginal communities would have access to something that would actually make drinkable alcohol. Like a bag of sugar or a bottle of cordial.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2016 04:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 13:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

About as valuable as Mensa.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2016 05:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol August: The Greens Echo Chamber

«‹›2 »