Jump to content

JohnB

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2757
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JohnB

  1. I wanted to be "Eccentric", but I don't have enough money. So people just think I'm mad.
  2. Firstly, let's make a couple of things clear. I have not been talking about the ows thing in general. I have been talking about 2 specific things. 1. Concerning the committees. These are in Sydney, Australia. They have no bearing whatsoever on the ows movement worldwide. My point being that the original co-ordinating group (maybe 20 people?) decided that they needed all those committees for Sydney, not anywhere else, but for 1 city. Got that? How many people worldwide are involved is quite beside the point, this refers to 1 city only. They were expecting 700 odd protestors in Sydney and decided they needed 25 committees to co-ordinate them all. This to me shows an apalling lack of organisational ability. 2. Tactics. There are certain psychological tactics that you use to achieve different goals. For example, to gee up a crowd or a footbal team the tactic is roughly the same; "Are we going to let them win?" "NO", "Can we beat them?" "YES", etc, etc, "Now go out there and WIN". Different groups, but the methodology is the same. Asking the yes/no questions will motivate a team or a group of protestors to action. Yes, you are leading them, but toward the defined goal of action on a specific point. It's used to get the adrenaline pumping and the group ramped up for action. The affirmation technique is totally different. It is used to get people conditioned to repeat the words of the leader as truth. You use it (using the "Me Too" factor) to make it appear that more people actually agree with what you are saying than really do, and that they agree with you 100%. (If they didn't, then they wouldn't be repeating your words, would they?) This technique ensures that when interviewed by the media, people will parrot what the leader has been saying. In the case of general protests it's a short term conditioning, but you only need it for the 6 PM soundbites. It is brainwashing at a very basic level and doesn't last long but it can be "improved" on with longer exposure. Some sort of "Sit in" with your own agents going around and talking to people is a great reinforcer. It is the tactic you use to create a cult or similar. This isn't to say that the ows movement is a cult, I doubt that it is. However I find it very worrying that the organisers of the movement are using this particular tactic, as its sole purpose is to produce "Groupthink" and a mindless acceptance of the leaders position. That is indoctrination and not Democracy. The thing to be understood is that it doesn't matter what is said, it's how it's said that is important for that betrays the techniques, and the techniques betray the purpose. The best example I can think of here is the technique used to increase membership in an organisation and to gee up the members at meetings. So let's compare a Revivalist/Fundamentalist chuch and Amway. It goes like this; 1. Organise your meeting. This brings the disaffected plebs to you without much worry. You immediately know that they are unhappy about something (spirituality or money) because they wouldn't be there otherwise. A nice, pretty much locked in audience with your agents spread throughout the group. 2. Open by welcoming them and telling them their answers are "here". (Appreciative murmours from the agents.) 3. Make them think about how crappy their life is. Make them feel sad and hopeless. 4. Tell them there is hope. Begin the hard sell. 5. Call up "witnesses". "I was a drunk before I found God"/ "I was broke before I found Amway". 1 or 2 will do the trick here. (I haven't said that the witnesses are telling the truth, have I?" 6. Promise future rewards. Go to heaven/ Attend conference in Bali/ End your financial problems/ Whatever. 7. Bring up main "Witness" who has totally turned their life around and is no longer bothered by the worries that brought your audience to the meeting. 8. Tell them they can have this too. 9. Break up for coffee/tea with your agents freely circulating and "witnessing" themselves. 10. Sign them up. Now if I go to a meeting and see this technique being used my BS detector goes off immediately and I think ""scam". Because this is the technique you use to rope people in to your group. Which brings me back to my main point. It's not the protests per se that concerns me, it's the tactics being used at the protests that are a worry. Just as a magician recognises magical techniques so too does a salesman recognise selling techniques (and yes, I'm a salesman). Which is as good a place as any to answer this from Toasty; Expert? No. Experienced, quite. In my many and varied occupations over the years I have met and trained under some "interesting" people. Unlike the practitioners of your Ponzi schemes, my instructors are still free. I must say right here that I never participated in scams, my sense of ethics wouldn't allow it, however I did make a study of how to set up and run them. How to set up the scam, how to get the suckers in, what to say and how to say it. A complete course in how to get 150 middle class and up suckers into a room and walk out with $200k at the end of the night. I learned how to sucker "astute" businessmen and exactly why the more highly educated are easier to con than a mum and dad. (Less work too, mums and dads have less disposable income) I learned what appeals to make to which groups and how to make those appeals. Even how those techniques can be applied to create a cult. The best defence is to be able to recognise and identify techniques that can be used to influence you. If you doubt this, then go buy a book on sales techniques and read it cover to cover. Then go around a couple of car yards looking at cars. You'll sometimes find that you know exactly what the salesman will say next (or a variation thereof) and you'll know why he is saying it. Knowledge is strength. On to specifics and remember I'm talking from the Australian perspective. I'm not (except for the bit about techniques) commenting on the American protests. Phi; I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact. You can get 700 boofheads to protest "Saturday" if you needed to. 700 in one city is not a major protest by any account. Support may be in the thousands across the nation, but that is still a very tiny percentage. It's an odds on bet that more people voted for the "Australian Sex Party" at the last election. Nor is there anything wrong with anticipating growth, provided it is tempered with realism. I anticipate growth in my company, does that mean it's sensible to lease an office block in the city for when I get bigger? To create so many committees in the hope that your protest will "encourage tens of thousands" strikes me as classic "delusions of grandeur". I often find that protest organisers, schooled in Leninist/Marxist theory as they are seem to believe that their protest is the one that will spark the "Greak Workers Uprising" that Lenin promised 100 years ago. Ego 100% - Interest in Nation 0%. We have the right to protest and all the rest too. I don't think the protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules, nor do I think it's wrong per se. But I do think that doing it this way is pointless and is nothing more than letting off hot air. History shows us that there are only two ways of radically changing a system of government, either from within the prevailing structure or with a gun. Nothing else has ever worked so why think it will this time? That just isn't logical to me. It's been my experience that protestors are, in general, gutless cowards who try to use the group to bully others, so they won't pick up a gun because they might get hurt, really, really hurt. (Again a difference in our systems, but I can guarantee you that for all the screams of "Police Brutality" every aussie protestor knows that the law will come down on any cop that takes it too far. The law protects them from harm.) The other method, of change from within requires patience and no ego. You don't get the ego boost of "I'm doing my bit to change the system" and your face on the 6 O'Clock news. You have to work hard and quietly, but you will achieve your goals. That the low profile approach has so little appeal to the general protest organiser tells me that their ego and desire to be "visible" is more important to them than to actually achieve change. Meanwhile, of course, while they are throwing their tantrums the professional lobbyists who are working wihin the system will continue to get their own way. Put it another way. Didn't both our nations have far larger protests about Iraq? How well has that worked out? If the various govs didn't take any notice then, what delusion makes some people think they will listen this time? See the start of my post for this. The bottom line is that th tactics I'm seeing used are never used for the benefit of the crowd, they are tactics to ensure the power of the leader. I'm stating this as a concern and a warning. I think the valid concerns of the majority of protestors will be hijacked for other purposes. To use the football analogy. You want the companies penalised 10 yards, just be careful that someone doesn't use the impetus to change the referee while you aren't looking. Toasty; I didn't jump to a conclusion, I asked a question. There is a difference. I do realise the current fad is to be inclusive, but it's such a waste of time at times. If I want advice on organisations I will take it first from those with proven skills in the area and secondly from those without proven skills (but may have good ideas). Why would I waste my time listening to someone who has proven they have no skills in the area? It's about being practical rather than idealistic. "Freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, democracy" do you design bridges that way? Do social workers advise on the structure of the bridge? Of course not. So why don't we listen to them? Do you get child rearing advice from the person with a couple of kids or from the person with 6 kids, all of whom have been removed and are now wards of the State? Ignoring "Octomoms" opinions on the US rail network would seem "like a rather ignorant position that does not correlate with such concepts as: freedom of speech, fair/transparent debate, and democracy", wouldn't it? Why do you listen to your professors and not the guy that flunked out? Surely his opinion is just as "worthy" as the professors? Or isn't it, due to his proven lack of skills? Now do you see my point? See the beginning of my post. How many people are involved worldwide is immaterial to the point. This was about the city of Sydney, Australia only. Almost a strawman. Anti-democratic, oh please...... Yes it was a broad point, but even then you seem to have missed it. The difference here is that "taking advice" doesn't mean doing what you are told. A reasonable person gets advice from people in the field and makes up their own mind rather than just blindly following orders. But by all means go and get your medical advice from your plumber in the interests of "democracy" and let us know how that turns out. Similarly please don't confuse "ends" with "means". Far more than the aussie ones (we aren't in as bad a state) the American protestors have a series of extemely valid points. The grievances are very real. In that context I could certainly listen to them as to what the problem is and what the desired outcome should be. (The "ends") However that doesn't mean that I have to listen to them on how it should be accomplished. (The "means") I'm referring specifically to means here and not ends. See the above about "tactics". I didn't address what they were protesting about because I have no quibble with it, as I said the protestors have very valid points. I was only addressing the tactics. If that doesn't suit you, well....tough luck. You're trying to make out that I think the protestors are wrong and are trying to argue this point. But I don't think that they are wrong. I simply think that the tactics being used on them are worrisome and that in the end the protests will be ineffective anyway. Totally different things. Remember the differences in our two systems. It isn't hard to do down here, it might be much harder in the US, I don't know. My comments on this were from the Australian perspective and concerned Australian and not American political parties. Also, please don't try to so simplify things that meanings get distorted. If the lobbyists control Congress it's only because the people let them, so in that repect yes, the people didn't work hard enough to keep control of their government. You have to ask the basic question: "How did it come to this?" The answer is simple, people didn't care. They let it go on while they grumbled occasionally, they let the two parties distract them with the Red/Blue circus to the extent that the best political commentator you have is a bloody comedian. Then when it hit the GFC, they realised that they had lost control and now they want "somebody" to do "something" about it. The problem came about because they didn't do anything concrete and will continue until they do. Furthermore do not make assumptions as to what I know or have watched, you will get a nasty surprise. Actually I am a member of a political party down here and am working for change from within. (Along with others) Yes, they are out protesting, just like they did over Iraq. Have the allied troops withdrawn and I somehow missed it? Of course, how silly of me...The protests were sooooo effective that allied troops never went there. Yes, the protests were so effective, weren't they? How the hell do you think I know what the Aussie organisers are wanting and what they are or are not willing to do? Because I've bloody talked to them, that's why. I've tried. But they don't want to do the hard yards, they want the soundbites and the noise and the publicity. Every organisation has them, the "Gloryhounds", the ones who step up for the accolades and the media but who view the hard, long slog as almost beneath them and only fit for the plebs. Try it this way. If protests have rarely worked in the past as a political tool for great change, why continue trying? Why keep using the same old failed methods? There has to be a reason for doing the same, failed thing over and over again, what is it? Because the change isn't important, the act of protesting itself is what is important. or The real change they want isn't the one they are protesting about. Think about it. Edit: About the whole "getting involved" thing. From my POV, a protestor is not really more involved than the person who goes and casts his vote every 4 years. If protesting is "being involved", then so is the voter. The way I see it, being involved means more than just casting a vote or protesting, it means actually getting out there and getting involved. Going to the meetings, pushing the agenda and yes, lobbying people to back your policy change ideas. To me the protestor saying "I want change" or whatever is as meaningless as the person that says "I've voted, I'm involved in the running of my country." Being involved in a Democracy isn't a once every 4 years thing, it's not a hobby that you do every couple of months for a day of protest. It's more than that, it's wanting your government to be the best it can be and be willing to take the time and spend the nights arguing for your values, convincing others that the changes you want are good and right. Convincing people by fact and argument, not by yelling loudly and annoying them, but getting them onside. That's Democracy, but it's hard work, you've got to want it bad.
  3. So people with such bad organisational skills that they think they need 25 committees and working groups to co-ordinate 70 people are the ones you will listen to for advice on how to run a country? If there were 10,000 protestors, they might have justification, but they don't. They only had 700 pledging to turn up anyway, does it take 25 committees to co-ordinate 700? Nope. The protests are supposedly about the organisational structure of the society and only the insane would listen to people with proven poor organisational skills on this topic. Do you take financial advice from the person who's never had a job or from soneone knowledgeable in the field? To me it's the same thing. As to the slogans. The thing here is that it's not slogans. Slogans are, as you say, a standard part of protesting and politics in general. I have no quibble with this. However the repetition of the "Leaders" comments are not slogans, they are a form of affirmation, a totally different thing. People are far easier to influence in a group, you can make them say and do things that they would never do if you tried it on a one to one basis. The use of affirmations is to increase the feeling of "inclusiveness", a person is included in the group because they are repeating the leaders words and is set apart from those who don't. In this particular case, by the frequent use of the words "Democracy" and "Consultation" the crowd member is made to feel that they are "special" because they are part of the group that believes in democracy and consultation. Note that this also gives the crowd member the impression that those who don't repeat the leaders words obviously don't believe in democracy and consultation. Such affirmations also use provocateurs in one way ot another. You either place them in the audience, about 1/3 of the way in around the edges, or you can put them up on stage as a group, or both. This makes the average crowd person think that there are far more people who agree with the speaker than there actually are. It uses "Me Tooism". People like to feel included in a group and since this is what the group is doing, they'll play along. The thing is not to make the crowd think, but to feel. You make them feel "special" or "different" in some way. The public use of affirmations is unusual enough to make those in the crowd feel that they are part of something "new" and "special". By repeating word for word what the leader is saying you are affirming in your own mind that you agree with what the leader is saying. (If you didn't agree, you wouldn't be repeating it, would you?) This makes you feel that the leader is right. Of course, therefore, anybody who disagrees with the leader is automatically wrong and you won't side with them. Environmental groups work the same way. You've got the "cause", "Saving the Planet". What could be a more worthy or higher ideal than that? So the participants are made to feel "special" firstly because they see a problem that threatens the Earth when others don't and secondly because they are "doing something about it". Note that framing the situation in this way forces those opposing into two groups. They by neccessity are either 1) Unenlightened and will see the danger if you explain it to them or 2) Evil because they see the problem and want it to happen. Also, because people like to feel superior in some way to others, which is the basis of most discrimination, the campaigner feels "smarter" or "Enlightened" compared to the average joe because the campaigner with his superior outlook can see what others can't. Therefore he must be more intelligent or insightful, mustn't he? Which is great because that means that the opposition are automatically classed as less intelligent. Do I need to go on, or have you got the picture? Please remember I didn't say it was a cult, I said it was the same tactics used to create one, a subtle but important difference. You use these tactics because they are effective in controlling a crowd. Politics, religion or ideology don't come into it, if you want to control a crowd and get them to agree with the leader and his/her plans, these are the tactics you use. They get people onside and lessen the chances of objections. Slogans are a method of getting your point across in the minimum number of words, affirmations are a method of influencing and controlling a crowd. What I've seen on the youtube vids are affirmations, not slogans. Phi, if 70 or 700 is your idea of a "major protest", then I can't explain it. As I said above, if it was 10,000 then they might have a point, but they were only expecting 700 at most. So I'm calling it severe overkill on the working groups. It's that simple. Part of my attitude towards protestors in general comes from the differences in our political systems. The current protests can be pretty well summed up by "What Do We Want ? " "EVERYONE ELSES STUFF !!" "When Do We want it ?" " NOW !!" "What are We willing to do to earn it ?" ..............(the sound of crickets chirping) Down here the candidates that represent the various parties at election time are voted on by the branches within the electorates. Most branches have about 20 members. If you really want change, then put your people in the branches get your own candidate in the polls. By gaining control of the branches you also gain control of the State and Federal Conferences and get the policies you want to become party policy. It's actually not that hard, but it requires work and effort rather than screaming slogans. Our system gives everyone a fair chance to "Put up or shut up" and since after 30 years of mindless drivel and complaining protests, "rent a rabble" have yet to "Put up", then it's way past time for them to "Shut up". Start a new party, or infiltrate and gain control of an established one, neither are particularly difficult to do, and get what you want enacted. But it will require effort and work and it's so much easier to bleat from the cheap seats. People should get involved and join and guide the political parties, if they don't then someone else will. (Which is what has happened) And now the protestors are sitting down whining about how much they don't like it. Don't like something? Fine! Then get off your arse and actually do something about it rather than bitching and moaning 'cause I'm not listening. Bluntly, if it's your cause and you aren't going to do anything, why should I?
  4. I love threads that go so far past insanity that they start approaching sane from the other side. *Curls up on floor chuckling and muttering "Pier Reviewed".*
  5. Does the movement expect to be taken seriously when they behave like that? For the love of Thor, something like 70 protestors turned up and they have 25 working groups and committees. That's just a joke. And if you don't understand the mindless repetition of "Brainwashing 101", then I doubt that I can enlighten you. These are the tactics used to create a cult. No more, no less.
  6. Well, it's spread down here, but at least ours know how to get organised. The "Occupy sydney" group have these committees and working groups; Info Desk working group Facilitation working group Logistics working group First Aid & Medical working group Media working group Promotion working group ("It is possible this working group could eventually merge with the Media & Communications working group") Direct Action working group Food working group ("Should not be relied on as your sole source of food") Internet working group Social Networking working group Community Outreach working group Organising committee Police Liaison committee Indigenous Liaison committee ("Occupy Sydney recognises that this camp will take place on the land of the Cardigal people of the Eora nation") Grievance committee Kids & Parents committee Legal committee Arts & Culture committee Peoples Cinema Occupy Sydney Press Occupy Together Info Hub Sustainability committee ("To assess the environmental impacts of Occupy Sydney") Comfort committee Peoples Library Yep, just your average sponteneous grass roots campaign. Oh yes, and ours want the dismantling of the capitalist system so that we can all live in ecologically sustainable communes. Edit to add; I must add I must add that I think that I think after careful thought after careful thought and democratic agreement and democratic agreement that your protestors that your protestors are mindless drones. are mindless drones.
  7. Well, it did help that these ads were running at the time. It's not so great in nightclubs, but in Saloon bars in hotels, wine bars etc, it still works fine. Give it a bit of thought as to what it says about individuality and self confidence, both of which are highly thought of by women. Besides, "One big glass keeps me going all night". BTW, a "B&S" or "Batchelor and Spinster" Ball is a generic name for a dance. Most often found in country towns but also in the cities for fun. All I can say is that those who think a nighclub is a "meat market" have never been to a B&S Ball.
  8. That is an impressive list. But how did "They" get away with it for so long? Because the various State and Federal govs let them, and listened to the lobbyists and passed laws to let it happen. And how did the governments come to be so pliable? Because the people couldn't get off their arse long enough to take an interest in what was happening and hold their representatives to account at election time. It would be interesting to know how many of the OWS protesters actually voted in the last few elections. Voting isn't a "right" in a representative democracy, it's a "responsibility". Many have avoided that responsibility and are now complaining that things didn't turn out the way they wanted. No sh*t Sherlock. If you won't have your say in the direction your nation is going, then why be surprised that other people do it by default? I cite Alvin Greene winning the Democrat Primaries last year as proof of this incredible disinterest. Frankly I find it amusing that so many people who couldn't drag themselves away from their TV sets fro 2 hours every 4 years can now find days of time to protest. They don't understand that they have no right to protest, they lost that right when they abrogated the responsibility of voting. Don't worry though, you aren't alone. Many down here didn't take the time to consider properly either, that's why we have a Parliment controlled my Stalinist Green extremists.
  9. Yes, it was. As others have said, there is nothing wrong with the occasional drink, but you have to keep it to that. One drink, occasionally. There is a whole world of alcoholic flavour out there and I wouldn't discourage anybody from enjoying it. But rather than getting wasted, cultivating a palate for finer drops is much better. I started my long and happy relationship with single malt scotches when I was 17 and still love them, along with top shelf Cuban rums and $200 a bottle tequilas. I have maybe one drink every 6 weeks or so and can sit back and really enjoy the flavour and aroma of the drink. Good booze is like good coffee, if you drink it all the time you lose the sense of just how good it is. Other reasons for going for the good stuff is that you can sit on a glass all night and still be sociable. Chicks like it because you are showing class and they know you won't finish up puking on their new shoes. You can go out with friends and not drink because the bar "Doesn't have your brand". (Great excuse that one.) It marks you as an individual rather than just another in a pack of drunken yobs. You'll spend a hell of a lot less on booze than everybody else. The list goes on.......... For extreme individuality points. When old enough to go to nightclubs.....order a tall, cold glass of milk.
  10. What an evil thought. I like it.
  11. JohnB

    Socialism

    Did you actually read past the first line? I spent paragraphs explaining why your thoughts were misguided or wouldn't work. That is "teaching you the truth". It might not be the predigested pap that most schools seem to prefer as teaching, but that's how it is in the real world. Adults are expected to think about things and concepts rather than be spoonfed. Oh, and realising that you lack education in an area is the first step towards gaining knowledge in that area. You can't teach anything to somebody who already thinks that they know it all. No surprise there. Judicious use of both the carrot and the stick give the best results. Maybe this is why I said; Or did you miss that bit? I never said that you couldn't think. My overall impression was that you had a lack of practical experience that had led you to erroneous conclusions about how businesses are actually run and the costs involved. That's why I took the time to go point by point. If you disagree, then argue against my points. If I wasn't clear, then ask for clarification, I'll happily explain or expand. But don't sit back and bleat that I'm not "teaching" you in the way that you want, that's just irritating.
  12. Agreed. The reverse is also true. Since we use draglines and the like and therefore don't have the same problems, we don't see the need for change to be as immediate as you might. Don't get me wrong we still blast, but I wonder if our coal seams are thicker and can be worked more easily than yours. Either way, you govs really seem to be falling down on the job. I think that if our mines were run as badly and messily as yours are, I'd be just as passionate about ending it as you are.
  13. I don't mean just bad, I mean so bad that it almost approaches genius from the other side. The obvious candidate is the classic "Plan 9 from Outer Space". However I just got through watching "Horror of the Blood Monsters" and this makes Ed Wood look like Cecil B De Milne. With rediculous fake vampire fangs at the start which don't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the movie, cardboard sets, poor scripting and a futuristic sex scene that I'm still trying to work out why it's in the movie at all, this is a complete clusterf*ck. The piece of fishing line from the nose of the spaceship was just a bonus. A great WTF? moment when the spacemen realise that they are on a primitive planet (courtesy of clips from old black and white movies) with dinosaurs and cave men. So they tell the unarmed female crewmember "You stay here" while they head off to investigate, taking all the weapons with them and leaving her alone. Even Japanese King Kong and Godzilla movies leave it for dead. So of course I enjoyed the movie immensely. That's my worst ever, what's yours? And why?
  14. You're 16. What the hell were you doing drinking until you passed out? Here's a couple of tips from an older (and maybe wiser) head. 1. If you need to drink to have fun, then you don't know how to have fun. 2. If you need booze or drugs to make your friends look interesting, then you need new friends.
  15. Can you make I-131 that way too? And the others? We have one tiny reactor at Lucas Heights that does nothing but do a bit of research and produce the nations medicinal radioisotopes. The Greens want it shut down whether or not there are viable alternatives. Your article was from 2008, they've been bitching since the 70s about Lucas Heights. I appreciate your point that this is "non reactor" creation of radioisotopes, but they want OPAL shut now and "promote the development" of alternatives later. People will die from those policies, possibly including me so I'm not too well disposed towards the Greens ATM. For these fools radiation=nuclear=big no no and must not be allowed in any way. These are the same twits who are against sterilizing food with ionising radiation and who believe that "1.genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to natural and agricultural ecosystems." They claim to want more testing and data but when their hooligan friends from Greenpeace break into a contained area and trash a CSIRO experiment designed to test GM seeds and get the data, the Greenpeace louts are some sort of hero to them. Make no mistake on this swansont. Greenpeace trashed a $2 million scientific experiment with the full support of the Greens. Do you really think that you can talk sense to those with such an anti science ideology? Edit. Phi, we won't get a tea party, it's just not our style. The problem is that our moderate left has left it's traditional base, the working man. They still have their ties with the unions but control is now with the PC brigade. The vast majority of their pollies have never held a "real" job in the eyes of the voters. They went from school to Uni, from Uni to the party or a pollies office and from there to a safe seat ticket. The average working joe simply can't identify with them any more and they are getting creamed in the State elections. I think this is very bad. Under our system the two sides in Parliment are called the "Government" and the "Opposition", but the correct term for the opposition is "Alternative Government". If the ALP numbers get too low, then they can't put themselves up as a credible alternative and this will effect the political balance for many years. They'll have to build their numbers back up over 3 or 4 election cycles to be credible because nobody will vote them in and have a government of first timers to run a State or the nation. We have a State election next year. Of the 89 seats the ALP currently hold 51. Unless the numbers change, and there is no reason right now to think they will, by late next year the ALP will hold 19 at most. It has taken the Lib/Nats nearly 20 years to recover from when they were in the same position and the ALP won't be much faster if any. While a moderate righty myself, I simply don't like to see such an imbalance for an extended period. It's just not healthy.
  16. Thanks mate. I totally agree with your points. The problem as I see it is that we can't get an even baseline figure to start from. If we had that, we could then add in the extras and get a good picture of the long term costings. There is a lot of money on both sides in this and neither are really out to tell the truth, just the truth as they see it. Something I do find interesting is this mountain top mining that America seems to do. Frankly I'm sort of scratching my head on that one. Our mines are all open cut, bloody great holes in the ground, we don't have coal on mountain tops. The other thing is that this is where we build the power stations. If you use Google Earth, go to Queensland and search for "Tarong", one of our big generators. The open cut coal mine is about a mile or so south of the generators. This to me is a sensible arrangement. The coal comes out of the ground, onto the conveyor and into the furnaces. This is standard for us, you can see the same thing at the Bayswater Plant in Muswellbrook New South Wales. If there is a big coal mine and some water nearby for steam, then there is usually a large generator station there. We also don't seem to have the slurry problem that you do. I don't know if this is due to different techniques or whether the coal itself is different. Looking at the mountaintop mines in West Virginia, they strike me as rather small and wasteful, a bit too much following the elevation lines and not enough digging. Most of the ones I looked at aren't as big as the mine for Tarong power station. What I mean by wasteful is this. If you're going to have say 144 square miles of mine, then make a big mine 12 miles by 12 miles, don't have 30 mines dotted over the counrtyside of 4 square miles each. In the long run one big mine does a lot less damage to an area than 30 small ones. This is actually one of my worries with wind and solar, they take up so much space. This will improve with time, but ATM you need a lot of wind towers just for a piddly 500 MW output. I suppose that I'd rather keep using coal etc while spending good money on improving wind generators and then change over rather than changing now to the little things we have available. Reforestation of the mined areas in West Virginia isn't too bad but could be better. The mines need to smooth the drop offs a bit more to give a more natural contour.To illustrate the difference we have a big open cut uranium mine at Jabiru in the Northern Territory, easy to find on Google Earth. Some 60 miles to the north east was the open cut Nabarlek mine, now closed down. See if you can find it. A bit easier to find is the old sand mining area in northern New South Wales about 3 miles north of Byron Bay. I know that it's there because I saw the rutile operation as a kid, but go down to Belongil Beach and you wouldn't know. There's a panoramio pic of the beach on GE, very hard to believe that the area was once a giant sand mine. Your govs really need to put more pressure on the mine companies to rehabilitate the land much better than they do. There is nothing wrong with mining per se, but the companies really have to clean up the mess when they are finished.
  17. Phi, this is something that almost brings me to tears. Everybody knows that the Russians were first with Sputnik and the Americans second with Vanguard. Very few realise that this little nation in the South were the third in space, not the Brits, or the French or the Chinese, but Australia. We've had a fully functional and easily expandable launch facility since the 50s and all we've done is sit around and scratch our balls. Some 20 years ago the idea was put forward for a spaceport in Queensland. Being on the tropic it offers great advantages to other nations. A launch from here would be some 30% more efficient for the russians for a start. We are a high tech nation with a stable political climate and heaps of room and we thought that getting a slice of the space action (how many hundreds of billions of dollars per year are launches worth?) would be a great idea. The Greens screamed blue, bloody murder at the idea, every environmentalist was against it and it got stopped. The same people are against space based solar arrays on the grounds that the downlink, which is usually described as a tight beam microwave transmission might be used as a weapon. These people know nothing about technology and care even less. They are anti west and anti development. The deputy leader of the Greens was once a member of the Australian Communist Party, when the excesses of the soviets became too much for even the ACP to bear and they broke with Moscow, this woman and others broke from the ACP to form the Australian Socialist Party to reaffirm their allegience to Moscow. With the fall of the soviet union in 1990 she joined the Greens. The ASP used to hold rallies in support of the Kymer Rouge and Pol Pot. Never once has this person admitted in word or deed that her hard line Stalinist beliefs were in any way misguided or wrong. This is the mentality of person that we are dealing with. Prior to the last election they hadn't shown their true colours and when called "Watermelons" this was spun as "right wing fanaticism" that should be ignored and so they garnered enough votes to gain the balance of power. Since then many have seen what they really are and after the next election the Green Movement in Australia will be relegated to the wastelands. Unfortunately they can do a lot of damage before that time comes. But what can you do with people who on the one hand oppose any new dams for drinking water for a growing population and at the same time believe we should "16.prepare contingency plans for possible large scale humanitarian migration as a result of climate change." I especially like this one; "16.promote the development of non-reactor technologies for the production of radioisotopes for medical and scientific purposes." A non nuclear method of creating radioactive isotopes? This I have just got to see. They say they believe in free press and free speech, yet questions like "How are you going to fund your programs?" are deemed hostile and worthy of an enquiry into the media with a possible view to licencing journalists and newspapers. A licence that can be revoked by a government authority at any time if the "content" is deemed "unsuitable". I think that says it all about what they really believe. However, we will survive this. The left and especially the green left are being smashed at every poll, given another 18 months or so and there won't be a left leaning government in the nation. I expect it to be at least 10 years before the left recovers down here. If the moderate left, the ALP, dumps the chardonnay socialist set and starts listening to it's traditional voter base rather than the party hacks and sociologists then they will come back much faster which I believe is a good thing.
  18. I would tend to agree. I think in terms of the energy needs of the civilisation and "Industry" is a subset of that. I look from the perspective that if 20 Terawatts are needed to run the society, then the society will be richer and more robust if the power costs 5 cents per watt rather than 15 cents per watt. Our civilisation requires large amounts of energy to function and every cent taken out of circulation to pay for power is a cent less that can be used for other things. This is possibly a poor analogy, but in extremis power costs can be like subsistance agriculture. If power costs too much, you finish up with the entire economy devoted to providing enough money to provide enough power to keep the system running and there is nothing left. I simply want power generation to cost the least amount of GDP possible, like agriculture. (BTW, my comment was meant as very tongue in cheek, sorry if it didn't come across that way.) Now if you could help me out with this link you gave; I read this as saying that wind is competitive provided there are subsidies or it is used in places where monetary costs aren't the major factor. This doesn't sound too competitive to me. Fair enough, the final price will always depend on resource availability and financing structure so that would be true of all power generation. I have a problem with this. Wind is competitive assuming a capacity factor of 30-40% but is anybody getting that figure in reality? Using the Wiki figures, the Burton Wind Farm runs at 25%. I'll grant the Danish Horns Rev 2 farm comes in at 46.5% but that is that absolute worlds best performance. According to this 2005 report on British wind farms; So the 30-40% sounds quite conservative but is in reality an extremely optimistic assumption with little in the way of factual evidence to back it up. What matters for the costing of wind power is not the capacity factor you might get, but the capacity factor you will get. This is an interesting figure. "Availability" in wind power parlance simply means that the generator works and is not undergoing maintainence or repair. It is "available" to provide power if the wind is blowing however this does not mean that if you throw the switch you will actually get any power out of the thing. In a similar fashion a hydro dam that never turns on it's turbines is said to have an "Availability" of 100%. The big difference is that if I turn on a hydro turbine, the water will flow and the turbine will turn and power will be generated, this is not true of a wind farm. So availability is a buzz word that means nothing and has no connection to reality at all. The energy is "available" in much the same sense as all those wrecks in the aircraft boneyards are "available" to the Air Force. This says to me that they are only counting the actual cost of the wind turbine and not the cost of installation or grid link up. I could be wrong on this, but that's how it reads to me. This sounds really good until you look up the Betz limit and find that the maximum theoretical limit for wind power is about 59%. So they are assuming 65%-75% of that 59%. This means that they are assuming an actual efficiency of between 38% and 44.25% yet a really good wind turbine maxs out at 35%. The figures don't make sense. There's a good run down here. So let's compare what is said to what is really said; Original; What is really said; The thing is that I'm not arguing against wind power. I really don't give two hoots where the power comes from but the requirement of our civilisation is that it must be cheap. I have no idea how many reports and webpages I've read on this and I've pretty much given up in disgust. Each group is minimising the costs and subsidies for their preferred option and maximising those factors for their opposition. An actual balanced comparison is rarer than hens teeth as everybody has a dog in the fight one way or another. Personally I'd love to see a straight comparison on a 500 MW plant. Compare Solar, Wind, Coal and Nuclear. How much to build it, what are the running costs, the maintainence costs etc and run it out for a 40 year period. Stuff subsidies and tax credits, just a simple "What will it cost to build and run a 500MW plant in each of these types over the next 40 years." Once these basics are covered, then start adding in efficiencies etc, but get a baseline comparison first.
  19. What's the bet that this is the only post we will ever see from "esanchez"? Mooey, you are far, far too polite.
  20. I'd just like to point out to non australian readers that the energy debate down here is politically scewed. Two of our major parties flatly refuse to consider the nuclear option as part of our energy future, no way, no how, never. Thus we are in the insane position that the party with the balance of power in Parliment wants us to stop using coal and oil and replace our electricity generators with something else. As I said nukes are off the table, they support "clean" hydro power power but demand that no new dams be built, they support clean solar power but demand an end to sand mining for the silicon to make the panels and they like clean wind power unless it effects bird migration, clutters the landscape, is in or near State forests and National Parks or encourages China to continue ecologically unsound manufacturing practices. Wave and tidal power pose obvious threats to dugongs, fish and dolphins and are also not favoured. This is the political reality that forms the background to all Australian energy debates. The next election cannot come soon enough.
  21. Thanks for the clarification swansont and iNow. It was just something I've wondered about. iNow, I think that there are several problems with that report. If the expansion of the rail network in the 1800s should count as a subsidy for coal, then surely the existence of the rail and road networks should count as subsidies for solar and wind. Similarly if the DoD spending on jet engine development counts as a subsidy for gas turbine generation then it should also count as a subsidy for wind as well, those big blades weren't designed in a vacuum, they built upon previous research into aerodynamics. For that matter, and if the net is going to cast that wide, then all research into materials, magnets and generators should count as subsidies for the wind poeple as well. swansont brought up the idea of similar stage of development. I think this is a bit hairy. The Danes started wind powered electricity generation in 1908. In the 1930s the Jacobs Wind company produced 30,000 generating units in the US. The first Megawatt sized turbine was hooked to the grid in 1941 in the US. Given the long pedigree it's hard to argue that wind is a "new" or "emerging" technology. In 70 years we've gone from 1 MW to 5 MW turbines and the wind system still needs rediculously large subsidies to survive. We went from the Wright Flyer to Apollo in less time than that. The argument seems to be that with more subsidies and money wind will be viable in 40 years or so. Given the 70 years since the first MW turbine, a reasonable person has to ask if it will ever be baseload viable regardless of how much money is thrown at it. And iNow, Your personal fears are not logical reasons for others to act.
  22. JohnB

    Socialism

    I've finally got he chance to come back to this. Incendia, I know that you have never held a managerial position, but have you ever actually had a job? You seem to have no idea as to how a business works at all. Firstly "all profits" do not go "straight to the manager". A better description is that after wages, taxes, building expenses, superannuation, loan repayments and any other sundry disbursements whatever is left goes to the owner, which is then taxed. While profit sharing on a pro rata or performance basis does increase the incentive to perform, an automatic eligability does not. Automatic eligability encourages people to do the minimum possible while still being eligable for their cut. Secondly the characteristics of a good manager are many, ability to motive, ability to set and achieve goals, ability to make decisions, etc. "Ability to make friends and be popular" isn't on the list. Managers need to do their job properly so that the business survives, if decisions are made with an eye to the next election then hard decisions will be avoided (or at best delayed) and the business will fail. I've continually found that those who advocate for election of managers are historically clueless about the actual duties and function of a manager. This shows you know very little about actual business. The owner might indeed "hog any profits made", but he or she is also the one who came up with the idea and was willing to take out a second mortgage on his home to give it a whirl. He or she has often risked everything to set up the business, it is therefore fair that they reap the benefits commensurate with the risks they have taken. Or are you saying that those who risk nothing are entitled to the same share as those who risk everything? First point, and this is very important. The only people who use the word "incentivise" are wankers without any business acumen at all but who want to appear knowledgable and people who work for such wankers. Credibility amoung managers and business people drops several points when this word is used. Governments, social activists, Uni students and faculty and HR people use it, actual managers and business people out to have their operation succeed do not. For incentives, see above. The boss is not more likely to be a good boss, he is more likely to be a popular one. This means that he is less likely to put on pressure when it is needed and the company will fail to meet deadlines and business trade will be lost. Obviously if this happens too often then the business will fail. Second point. Your Democracy in the workplace argument is just plain silly. Will you extend it to the family as well? If not, why not? Why shouldn't a 6 year old have a say in the family finances and spending? The simple fact is that the 6 year old cannot comprehend the intricasies of the family budget and unfortunately this is also true of some adults re business. People are not all the same, some can understand why business decisions are made and others cannot. Those who cannot shouldn't have a say in how the business is run. No it does not. A lazy person in a capitalist sytem gets the sack which provides a vital difference in motivation. This is rubbish. A slave based economy is only reasonably efficient in a labour based economy. In any economy requiring skills slave labour and poor treatment are counter productive. Trat people as machine to be disposed of and watch the business fail. While warm bodies can be replaced skill sets cannot, the replacement person has to be trained properly and meshed into the team. This takes about 3 months, closer to 4 if you count the interview and selection process. Constant turnover of staff lowers productivity at all levels. For each replacement person there is lower productivity while they learn the skills for the job, their supervisor is less productive while they spend excess time with the new recruit training and meshing them with the team and the manager is less productive while overseeing the mess. The most efficient business model is one where there is low turnover of staff and if your staff are looked after, well paid with good conditions, the turnover will be low. This is especially true in times of low unemployment because every manager and hirer knows that that last 1% or so are the dregs. They are not just unemployed but are bloody near unemployable and are simply not worth the time or trouble to hire. You are far better off poaching from another company than hiring one of the dregs. Incendia, I suggest you aquaint yourself with the realities of business and then you can comment in a more reasoned and correct fashion. For the record, I happen to have my own business. I could have continued as a wage earner but my wife and I decided to risk it and try. We're risking our entire future on the success of this venture and since we are taking all the risk exactly why, in your view, should we not get all the profits? (This is after paying fair wages to any employees of course) I have run multi million dollar projects that had millions and sometimes billions of dollars worth of International trade riding on them and have overseen crews from 6 to hundreds. I have a reputation as a serious hard a*se who is fine to work for "so long as you do your job", fail in that and I'll "rip your head off and sh*t down your neck". (Other peoples words, not mine. The bloke that told me thought it was hilarious and we both had a hard time keeping our amusement from the crew involved ) But my projects were always delivered on time, finished, correct to the last detail and under budget. As a Project Manager I was not paid to be nice or to be popular, I was paid to get the job done. This is a fact of management that you do not seem to understand.
  23. I cannot help but compare the attitude of CERN. "Here is our data, etc. Please examine it and see what might be wrong" with the immortal words from climate science "Why should I show you my data? You only want to find something wrong with it." And people wonder why there are sceptics....
  24. If confirmed this would be an amazing discovery. Aside from general "It would upset relativity" may I request one of our physics expert put together a piece outlining the possible implications? I'm sure those of us without the relevent knowledge would be intensely interested.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.