Comments on: Roundup

By: Chief Wiggam

Chief Wiggam — Thu, 31 May 2007 13:17:33 +0000

Despite historically unparalleled levels of prosperity in Australia during the past 11 years of conservative governance, it looks like the Australian Labor Party has a good chance of booting out the conservatives.

_Many Australians will vote for the opposition Australian Labor Party (ALP) in this year’s election, according to a poll by Roy Morgan International. 51 per cent of respondents would support the ALP, while 35.5 per cent would back the governing Coalition of Liberals and Nationals.

The ALP has a lot of pent-up frustration over its marginalized position in Australian politics. Their victory could usher in an era of moonbattery that would be unprecedented outside of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. My position? No blood for blubber.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 30 May 2007 23:08:24 +0000

a517D: Well, yes—but we are by no means talking of the extinction of whales. As for disruption of ecosystems, the mass overfishing of the seas and oceans of the world over the past decade is a far greater issue than whaling will ever be. And from an ecosystem perspective, part of the Japanese justification is that whales eat fish by the tens of thousands, and limiting their population is the better option.

By: a517dogg

a517dogg — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:47:28 +0000

“What do the whales have to do with NZ’s or Oz’s national interest?”

Generally you don’t want ecosystems to get too out of wack, because we don’t really know what would happen. The extinction of whales would upset the ecosystem that fishermen depend on. While its obviously stupid to threaten the use of military force in something like this, the stupidity of the means doesn’t mean the goal is a bad one.

By: snow

snow — Wed, 30 May 2007 07:59:56 +0000

Let us hope that this party and others like it never get into power, they sound like a joke. They are so ridiculously clueless about the responsibilities of governing a country, I would be very worried about what other foolishness they promote. No doubt they are solidly behind the idea of bigger government, more taxes, more government intervention, even when it is of minimal concern to the national interests of the country.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 30 May 2007 07:07:59 +0000

And does the Aussie Labor Party realize that such military action would in effect require an act of war? Has there ever in history been military action by humans against humans to protect the lives of animals?

Also, I didn’t link this in the post, but here is the story of the Aussie Labor party threatening military action to protect whales if it was in power.

By: snow

snow — Wed, 30 May 2007 06:26:41 +0000

Yes, I was actually being sarcastic, Curzon, as so many on the left keep screaming about negotiation whenever there’s a possibility of the use of the military. You are spot on about national interest. What do the whales have to do with NZ’s or Oz’s national interest? And why should soldiers be sent in to ‘battle’ for such things that have no bearing on the national interests of either country? Many on the left seem willing to commit troops for situations having no ‘national interest’ and yet are dead set against those that do.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 30 May 2007 05:19:47 +0000

Forget negotiation, I’d settle for “national interest.”

By: snow

snow — Wed, 30 May 2007 02:25:04 +0000

Trust a labor party to talk of using military force to stop the whaling trade. What, kill humans to save the whales? Whatever happened to the idea of negotiation rather than unilateral military action?