Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Stikman last won the day on July 16

Stikman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,754 Excellent

About Stikman

  • Rank
    Transitions Legend!
  • Birthday 06/01/1975

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Perth, WA

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,040 profile views
  1. No matter what we do it will never be enough (and too much for many.) I think people set their position on these things and then seek evidence to back it up far too often. Are we doing our fair share? Take a look here. From 1990 to 2013 we reduced our Co2e (normalised greenhouse gasses in terms of CO2 equivalent) per head of population by 11%. In the same time the global average has INCREASED by 11%. In absolute terms we've decreased by 3 tonnes per person, similar to most developed countries (and we beat NZ!) Australia is a unique country. Well spread out population centres of, at best, only moderate density bring massive challenges in all areas for a start. Canada is perhaps the only reasonable example of a similar nation and they have, surprise surprise, almost identical carbon footprint to us by GDP or population. At the end of the day, China is basically double the emissions of the next biggest emitter. China, the U.S., India and Russia contribute almost 55% of total global emissions. Reducing us to nothing has less effect than China dropping by 5% (and they will grow due to increasing urbanisation.) My view, based on the facts as best I can ascertain them is that we're doing okay. As good as most and better than some, even with the constraints we have. No we're not the best and yes we can do more but at what cost and for what real benefit?
  2. I guess you didn't read the last sentence. I made no comment on whether I think we should or not. For the little that it's worth (i.e. nothing) I don't value a sense of self-righteousness high enough to pay a significant cost for it. In spite of what some might like to suggest we're not doing nothing and we are doing better than many. Feeling better won't make the earth any less screwed. Not that it will be anyway, we'll just disappear and it'll reach equilibrium again. We're a tiny speck on the the geological timescale.
  3. No doubt I'm just a hard-right, climate-change-denying fascist but I don't even see the point in having the argument. IF the climate in Australia is getting hotter due to greenhouse emissions and IF we reduce our emissions in line with or even ahead of the global leaders it will STILL have a negligible effect on the rate of climate change UNLESS we can use our moral high ground to persuade other nations to do likewise. Now, and I am happy to be corrected on this, if proselytising from such a position was in any way effective against local interests why isn't Australia already following the examples set by the Nordic countries, Germany, the U.K. and other gold-ranking nations? And why isn't the U.S., Russia, Canada and all the rest? If Australia chooses to do more then good on us but it won't make more than the tiniest difference to the climate in the short, medium or long-term. China has 23 times the total emissions we do, the US 12 times, India 5 x and even Canada is 25% higher and they're a reasonably comparable country. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything or shouldn't care but it does mean we're kidding ourselves if we think we make a meaningful difference.
  4. We used to have Mandurah half as well and the May half numbers are way down. I don't think Karri Valley gets the attendance it once did either. Long course in WA isn't that rosy right now just because December is okay.
  5. Attempted Ukrainian puppeteer. Try to keep up.
  6. It's a public denial that they are on the wrong track as far as the voting public are concerned for the benefit of their "true believers". It allows them to continue on the same path. Yes, nobody liked Bill very much but nobody really liked ScoMo or anyone else on the other side significantly better. It's not like they were up against Hawke level charisma. One of their conclusions that the party "lacked a culture and structure that encouraged dialogue and challenge" is rather amusing as it's one of the things that is fundamental to Labor. Nobody has a free voice for fear of being kicked out. Sure, sometimes the Libs/Nats/LNP look more than a bit disjointed but is that worse than blindly following something you don't believe in?
  7. You accept that the law is what it is and work to change the law in a measured, strategic manner. You don't just make it known that you're not happy and expect others to hear that and change it. The US civil rights movement is the perfect example. Rather than tackling everything they stopped wasting resources on (very valid) cases that might or might not succeed but wouldn't change the law and instead picked particular instances that they almost certainly would win constitutionally (this is important as the constitution is near impossible to override) and put everything into them. At the time many black organisations turned on them because they felt they were going soft or selling out. They also took a piecemeal approach, rather than trying for wholesale change each time. People forget history too easily.
  8. It was only when they did and set about using the law to change the law that they succeeded. It's not the sexy story but it's the truth.
  9. I guess that depends on your access to the alternatives.
  10. The Jim Crow Laws were by modern-day (let's say post 1960 just to draw an arbitrary line) standards abhorrent and unjustifiable. They should never have existed but without them the United States would probably have been torn apart and hundreds of thousands of mostly black citizens would have been killed in the civil unrest. Even 80 years later when segregation finally ended legally there were huge issues, can you imagine what would've happened in the deep south fifty years before? It was bad enough as it is. The end of segregation was not a revolution, it was an evolution. It was not through protest or social activism that any of this happened. It was organised, calculated and targeted legal fights that did the job. The activist organisations such as the NAACP let people face gaol rather than defend them until the right case and conditions came up. Rosa Parks wasn't the only or even first to resist segregation on buses in Alabama, she was just the case they thought they could win. Life, and certainly politics, isn't black and white (if you'll pardon the pun.) Don't forget that the Democrats were the party of slavery and introduced these laws too. Communists created the gulags of the USSR. The Nazi party was far-right. Totalitarianism is the domain of all sides at the extremes and that's what we should be afraid of. Restricting social or political activity on the grounds that it doesn't agree with your beliefs is a step in that direction, whether it be banning protests, compelling certain speech (or silence) or restricting access.
  11. I never get the wealth issue with politicians. Frankly if someone doesn't have the nous to make good coin why the hell would you want them in charge of a country? How they made it is importanter but being penniless is a fairly poor sign of competence.
  12. I'm not so sure about that. I thought they were valuable public service announcements.
  13. People should always be able to decide for themselves. Obama's announcement Trump There are certainly some similarities, particularly in early wording, but the tone is quite different.
  14. The only disappointment they expressed was in their president boasting like a teenage bully who'd just won a schoolyard victory. I'm not sure anyone would have been surprised, it's very much his style and appeals to a great deal of his base no doubt. Whether it's consistent with quality leadership or good strategically is another matter.
  15. 🎣🎣🎣🎣 Nah, you missed it by over half an hour. Another positive split though. Chapeau! I'm still not prepared to eat salad though.
  • Create New...