Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

No. You don't understand. That is the back door. We can't have that.

The fine art is in shutting all the doors then everything becomes illegal.

 

[bomma_man]

we're the Mississippi of the english-speaking world when it comes to gay marriage

 

[bobnowhere]

we're the Mississippi of the english-speaking world when it comes to gay marriage

Pretty much.

One benefit of marriage for all, no Glenn Lazarus in a mankini. We don't need to see that.

I does make me laugh, the wide range of views from PUP, ex or not. Lambie is pretty much the Hanson of Tasmania, Wang doesn't appear to have an opinion on anything at all, Palmer just tends to hold the opposite opinion of the the Coalition and The Brick is oddly progressive. Nice vetting of candidates PUP.

 

[bomma_man]

Pretty much.

One benefit of marriage for all, no Glenn Lazarus in a mankini. We don't need to see that.

I does make me laugh, the wide range of views from PUP, ex or not. Lambie is pretty much the Hanson of Tasmania, Wang doesn't appear to have an opinion on anything at all, Palmer just tends to hold the opposite opinion of the the Coalition and The Brick is oddly progressive. Nice vetting of candidates PUP.

that's one hell of an opening paragraph.

i'm not sure if this says more about me or about the coalition, but honestly I even find myself agreeing with Lambie more than the government. her form of bogan populism is xenophobic and militaristic but at least it doesn't demonise the poor.

 

[wonzo]

its dead jim

 

[Arksy]

we're the Mississippi of the english-speaking world when it comes to gay marriage

Nope because Mississippi allows it now. We're the Only English speaking Western Country that doesn't. (pending the Irish yes)

 

[Elaugaufein]

Nope because Mississippi allows it now. We're the Only English speaking Western Country that doesn't. (pending the Irish yes)

There are still a few (12) American states that don't pending the Supreme Court decision which is probably late next month (US politics are going to be interesting to watch for a while after that, whichever way it goes).

I'm pretty sure Mississippi (along with Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas) still ban it pending that case (its technically on some other of appeal I think but the outcome of the Supreme Court decision will render that moot , one way or another) though the bans technically been overturned already (is just stayed pending appeal).

 

[Elaugaufein]

its dead jim

That was a close one, the ALP almost put forth a principled policy decision. Who knows how badly that could have ended ?!

 

[Jintor]

There are still a few (12) American states that don't pending the Supreme Court decision which is probably late next month (US politics are going to be interesting to watch for a while after that, whichever way it goes).

Do you think the political undecideds are largely leaving towards Gay marriage support in such a way that any Republican who has to speak to his core will inevitably alienate the undecideds?

 

[Yagharek]

That was a close one, the ALP almost put forth a principled policy decision. Who knows how badly that could have ended ?!

They've formed a focus group to answer that very question!

 

[Elaugaufein]

Do you think the political undecideds are largely leaving towards Gay marriage support in such a way that any Republican who has to speak to his core will inevitably alienate the undecideds?

My read of American politics is that there voting system means that the (actual) Undecideds don't really matter (because they basically don't vote).

You do have to account for a reasonable block of corporate / economic Republicans too embarrassed to be associated with the lunatics to call themselves Republicans in public ( some "libertarians" / "undecideds") who none the less reliably vote straight ticket Republican. There is a risk you can lose that block if you go to far crazy but it seems to be pretty hard (Ron Paul "libertarian" hero , has one of the most conservative voting histories on record during his congressional period).

The deciding factor lately seems to be if the Democrats can motivate their base to vote enough to overcome the various obstacles in their way (gerrymandering , "voter ID laws" and that Democratic voting blocks are a lot more likely to be stuck working during polling hours ) which is why Democrats can have consistent presidential victories but can't reliably control either house. Republicans by contrast are really good at motivating their base already (there's an argument to be made that they've been too good at it and its working against them now).

Upholding the ban on SSM and Hillary taking a stand for SSM may well motivate the Democrats to the left of her to actually get out and vote despite them finding her generally distasteful. It may also take a chunk of steam out of the Republican base.

By contrast striking it down will motivate the Republican base but the section its most likely to motivate already turn up and reliably vote Republican. I'd basically be putting money on the Corporate Republicans praying it gets struck down, because it puts them in a slightly better position.

 

[Arksy]

Sorry, yeah, it was Alabama that overturned the ban and then stayed it pending the Supreme Court case. The fact of the matter remains, you can get married as a gay person in some parts of America. We're the only (Anglo-democracy) country that doesn't allow it at all. There is no excuse anymore, especially not after conservative governments around the world have been implementing it.

 

[Jintor]

by the way i didn't comment on labor folding again to the government but fuck them up the arse. they're not a real opposition party, the pricks

 

[Yagharek]

Ironically the only actually opposing parties are the greens and a handful of independents of varying degrees of intellect and honesty. Certainly not the party that holds the title of opposition.

 

[bomma_man]

My read of American politics is that there voting system means that the (actual) Undecideds don't really matter (because they basically don't vote).

You do have to account for a reasonable block of corporate / economic Republicans too embarrassed to be associated with the lunatics to call themselves Republicans in public ( some "libertarians" / "undecideds") who none the less reliably vote straight ticket Republican. There is a risk you can lose that block if you go to far crazy but it seems to be pretty hard (Ron Paul "libertarian" hero , has one of the most conservative voting histories on record during his congressional period).

The deciding factor lately seems to be if the Democrats can motivate their base to vote enough to overcome the various obstacles in their way (gerrymandering , "voter ID laws" and that Democratic voting blocks are a lot more likely to be stuck working during polling hours ) which is why Democrats can have consistent presidential victories but can't reliably control either house. Republicans by contrast are really good at motivating their base already (there's an argument to be made that they've been too good at it and its working against them now).

Upholding the ban on SSM and Hillary taking a stand for SSM may well motivate the Democrats to the left of her to actually get out and vote despite them finding her generally distasteful. It may also take a chunk of steam out of the Republican base.

By contrast striking it down will motivate the Republican base but the section its most likely to motivate already turn up and reliably vote Republican. I'd basically be putting money on the Corporate Republicans praying it gets struck down, because it puts them in a slightly better position.

Predicting republican politics is a fools erand but I think most of them would probably want the Supreme Court to overturn the bans just so the issue is put to bed and they don't have to make a stand on it either way. Although I guess it's not like Roe v Wade ended the abortion debate.

 

[Yagharek]

Predicting republican policy is easy. Just see what the scientific advice is and then watch them do the opposite.

 

[Arksy]

Yet, republicans have historically always been higher in research funding/STEM fields than democrats. They're a weird lot.

 

[Yagharek]

Yet, republicans have historically always been higher in research funding/STEM fields than democrats. They're a weird lot.

Engineering being the E is always a large component of US industry as it underpins military, mineral exploration and energy development industries. That probably skews a lot in favour of republicans

How it compares in the last twenty years when the party went clinically insane would be worthwhile versus historical funding preferences.

 

[Dryk]

Ironically the only actually opposing parties are the greens and a handful of independents of varying degrees of intellect and honesty. Certainly not the party that holds the title of opposition.

I prefer it when the opposition sticks to their convictions instead of blindly opposing things. But the Labor party's convictions are often complete dog shit.

 

[Arksy]

Engineering being the E is always a large component of US industry as it underpins military, mineral exploration and energy development industries. That probably skews a lot in favour of republicans

How it compares in the last twenty years when the party went clinically insane would be worthwhile versus historical funding preferences.

The government under Bush saw a marked increase in science funding in all fields except for stem cell research, and now I have no idea what it's like right now though.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Their Science Committee is stacked with Tea Partiers. They've been cutting funding reasonably significantly but its usually by seriously cutting ideological stuff (climate science, renewables, etc) and then increasing other areas but not as much as the cuts total.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I prefer it when the opposition sticks to their convictions instead of blindly opposing things. But the Labor party's convictions are often complete dog shit.

That's pretty much it. Labors lack of opposition doesn't come from sticking to their convictions , it comes because they really don't have a lot of convictions. The late 80s and early 90s hollowed out pretty much all the English speaking Center Left parties since social justice etc really wasn't particularly compatible with embrace of free market neoliberal economics which left them in a pretty awkward spot (and the results of that have left them in a position where they lack the power to go far backwards even if they wanted too).

 

[Shaneus]

So, Abbott's about to announce a new minister for anti-terrorism or some shit. Still don't have a minister for science, so at least they have their priorities straight.

 

[bobnowhere]

So, Abbott's about to announce a new minister for anti-terrorism or some shit. Still don't have a minister for science, so at least they have their priorities straight.

They added Minister for Science and Research to Ian MacFarlane's titles when the reshuffle happened about Christmas time.

Maybe Keenan should have become the Minister for Death Cults and Baddies.

 

[Dryk]

What could possibly go wrong!?

In information submitted to the federal government, BP says equipment to cap leaking oil wells is based in Singapore, more than 4,800km away, while a containment response system would have to be transported from Houston in the US, more than 14,000km away.

The shipping and installation of the equipment from Singapore to Australia would take 32 days, while the response system would take 25 days to arrive from Houston, the document shows. In the event of a disaster, a second rig would be positioned to drill a “relief” well, which would take 157 days, BP says.

BP, which plans to drill a series of exploratory wells in the Great Australian Bight marine park from next year, says it would take 35 days to cap a leaking well in a “worst credible case scenario”.

However, government officials told a BP representative this scenario was “optimistic” due to the deep water and rough seas faced by any recovery team tackling an oil spill, according to minutes taken from a phone briefing.

The government officials also stated they “normally expect more detail around response measures, for example equipment availability”.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...contain-south-australia-oil-spill?CMP=soc_567

Related:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/22/8645811/deepwater-horizon-dolphin-deaths-lesions-linked

The researchers looked at 46 dolphins that washed up between 2010 and 2012, finding lung and adrenal lesions as well as an increased likelihood that they had of bacterial pneumonia. In 70 percent of the dolphins with pneumonia, "the condition either caused or contributed significantly to death," the researchers write. Close to 1,400 dolphins or whales have been stranded in total, the vasty majority of which — 94 percent — were found dead.

About one-fifth of all examined dolphins had pneumonia or adrenal issues, more than 10 times as many as a normal population is expected to see. The effects are all said to be consistent with what other mammals experience when exposed to oil.

 

[Arksy]

N.B: If a petro company says 35 days at worst possible scenario, the real answer is actually two years.

 

[bobnowhere]

Reminds me of where the Australian Navy's joint deep sea rescue vehicle is based: Glascow. Would have been real useful had the HMAS Farncombe sinking turned out just slightly worse.

 

[Arksy]

The last time something went horribly wrong they created a mud volcano that will continue spewing an insane volume of mud into the middle of a (now former) residential area for the next thirty years or so.

 

[wonzo]

Senator David Leyonhjelm wants government to monitor wind turbine noise

It seems the only thing colourful crossbench senator David Leyonhjelm hates more than red tape is wind farming.

Despite typically being a fierce opponent of new government regulation, the Liberal Democrat is calling on the government to set up a new regulator to monitor noise levels near wind turbines.

He claims a Senate inquiry he set up has uncovered "credible evidence" that some people are suffering health concerns caused by low frequency noise and vibrations known as infrasound.

Australia's peak medical agency this year concluded there is no direct or consistent evidence that wind farms damage human health, after conducting a year-long study into so-called "wind turbine syndrome".

cant wait for hockey to scrounge up a couple million for this shit

 

[Dryk]

...

The Liberal Democratic Party believes there will be far less misery if society is simply encouraged to adapt to a changing climate, allowing market responses to proceed and providing support to any people or countries that are genuinely adversely affected.

 

[Jintor]

boiling frog syndrome

 

[Elaugaufein]

Perfectly Informed Rational Individuals Idiocy too. The market response will be to maximize its profits and *gently fondle* everything else unless you can bring together a large enough coalition of forces that screwing everything else results in reduced profit (not fricking likely considering that most government enforced legal punishments amount to little more than a slap on the wrist for multinationals).

 

[danm999]

Huh, gun to my head I'd have thought the LDP would be vanilla denialists, rather than this weird "yeah sure it's bad but what's the worst that could happen, we must protect the markets" middle ground.

And now I'm down the rabbit hole reading stuff on their actual site.

The high value placed on the natural environment and on minimising the impact of humans is largely a consequence of society's prosperity. In less prosperous nations and times, particularly when survival was more uncertain, concerns such as the biodiversity of wetlands and the majesty of rainforests rarely received serious consideration.

It's weird when your argument boils down to "we didn't worry about this in the Middle Ages/they don't worry about this in the Sudan".

We recognise that societies in which government is smaller rather than bigger have produced better environmental quality and a better and fairer outcome for all members of society, including the poor.

Indeed. Everybody see Snowpiercer?

 

[Elaugaufein]

So in their history does the Gidled Age and Great Depression just not exist or is it "reinterpreted"?

 

[Jintor]

has anyone let them know yet that letting the market decide basically just means rich people run shit

 

[Arksy]

Well if you take a straw man meaning to what 'small government' is actually supposed to mean, then sure.

 

[Elaugaufein]

In fairness the DLP version of small government is pretty much the straw man meaning. Which I'll admit isn't without its upsides regarding things like free speech, free association and surveilance states.

Which is still better than the wtf? version of unfettered markets and theocratic social controls of say Ted Cruz (small enough to fit into your uterus).

 

[Jintor]

today's issue of 'real or sbs comedy'

"Why does the PM’s unfair Budget slash the household budget of 10,000 families in the electorate of Page?"

"I will tell the member who asked the question what’s unfair. Starting the boats and putting the people smugglers back into business, that is unfair. And I will tell you what’s fair. Stopping the boats and saving all those lives at sea."

Spoiler

-------- real

 

[Arksy]

In fairness the DLP version of small government is pretty much the straw man meaning. Which I'll admit isn't without its upsides regarding things like free speech, free association and surveilance states.

Which is still better than the wtf? version of unfettered markets and theocratic social controls of say Ted Cruz (small enough to fit into your uterus).

That's true. I'm definitely starting to think that classical liberalism is having a crisis of identity and philosophy right now. To be fair this isn't just a problem with the right but we have lost our roots and we're talking about shit that we feel is intrinsically the right policy (I mean intrinsic in a subjective sense) but have no clue as to why and therefore get this really bizarre sense of dissonance when we get to questions that we should actually agree with the left on.

Edit: sigh. I'll respond in a way that doesn't melt everyone's eyes when I get home. (For structure that is, I always expect my content to make lefties want to gauge their eyes out out...but thaT's a different story)

 

[Bernbaum]

Old people are the worst. I blame them for everything.

 

[Yagharek]

The last time something went horribly wrong they created a mud volcano that will continue spewing an insane volume of mud into the middle of a (now former) residential area for the next thirty years or so.

That's assuming some massive scale subsidence doesn't occur first.

 

[Yagharek]

Well if you take a straw man meaning to what 'small government' is actually supposed to mean, then sure.

It means rule by big business.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Huh, gun to my head I'd have thought the LDP would be vanilla denialists, rather than this weird "yeah sure it's bad but what's the worst that could happen, we must protect the markets" middle ground.

And now I'm down the rabbit hole reading stuff on their actual site.

It's weird when your argument boils down to "we didn't worry about this in the Middle Ages/they don't worry about this in the Sudan".

Indeed. Everybody see Snowpiercer?

Man this ticks every box. I love it when those who advocate small government except for things they personally don't like or take moral exception to project that rationale onto everyone else. People only care about the environment because of the fuzzy feel goods, because back when man's ability to both influence the environment and understand the consequences was decidedly more limited, no-one cared about it.

That's true. I'm definitely starting to think that classical liberalism is having a crisis of identity and philosophy right now. To be fair this isn't just a problem with the right but we have lost our roots and we're talking about shit that we feel is intrinsically the right policy (I mean intrinsic in a subjective sense) but have no clue as to why and therefore get this really bizarre sense of dissonance when we get to questions that we should actually agree with the left on.

Edit: sigh. I'll respond in a way that doesn't melt everyone's eyes when I get home. (For structure that is, I always expect my content to make lefties want to gauge their eyes out out...but thaT's a different story)

If you want my cursory opinion a big problem is that there is an unnecessary and often unthinking conflation of classical liberal philosophy with classical liberal economics. For example, Bentham advocated full employment via monetary expansion, but also pioneered utility maximisation, and now hundreds of years later we have economics based on the latter that denies that the former could ever be necessary, as general equilibrium (absent any short term frictions) will always ensure that those who "voluntarily" offer their labour in exchange for payment can find work.

Wikipedia has a very nifty quote which says that mainstream economics is rooted to the "rationality-individualism-equilibrium nexus" whereas heterodox economics broadens to the "institutions-history-social structure nexus". For all its prominence, most economics in politics is very superficial. If you don't know where or how an idea originated then you can't accurately explain, critique, defend or apply it. This applies as much to a Green saying that economic growth will kill us all as it does to a "liberal" assuming that government intervention will make things worse because government is the devil of the gaps.

If you were just talking about parties though, well I reckon that's because just as the left is so afraid of its own shadow that it concedes to neoliberalism at almost every chance it gets, the right is so afraid of the left's shadow that it jumps to support toxic populism and vested interests at almost every chance it gets. Commies have a lot to answer for.

 

[wonzo]

certainly explains combet's spray at the green when launching his book a while back. scum

 

[Arksy]

It means rule by big business.

As it currently stands, yes it kind of does.

 

[Elaugaufein]

certainly explains combet's spray at the green when launching his book a while back. scum

Have to admit this regulatory capture thing is a kind of persuasive argument about the ineffectiveness of government regulation. Not that I think its absence would make things better,

 

[Omikron]

errr. Hockey pays rent to his wife claiming that as an expense from the government.

I don't even.

 

[Jintor]

errr. Hockey pays rent to his wife claiming that as an expense from the government.

I don't even.

i'll go get the rort signs

 

[manipulate]

errr. Hockey pays rent to his wife claiming that as an expense from the government.

I don't even.

holy shit what? for real?

 

[Arksy]

errr. Hockey pays rent to his wife claiming that as an expense from the government.

I don't even.

That's pretty fucking terrible. Worth getting the sack.