less cars : roll on $2 per litre

On 2006-08-17, Donga (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Bleve wrote:
Those that hurt the most are the ones who have
made choices based on shortterm benefits rather than using their
brains. Then, they will whinge, and *we* will have to bail them out.

What, like the ones who live in the outer suburbs, work in the trades
with a ticket if they are lucky, travel across town where there's no
public transport? Which choices are you suggesting they should have
made?

Not living in a place where there's no public transport?

Yes, it's more expensive closer to the city. Get a smaller house;
it'll cost the same. They probably don't use that backyard anyway
(and we are back to almost where this thread started, probably a sign
that this should be my last followup to this thread).


They could have voted for a government that had sustainability in
mind, 25 years ago when it was first becoming apparent that we were in
for some serious difficulties in 30-50 years (remember those David
Suzuki videos we were shown in primary school 15 years ago?)

Little Johnny is already *giving* new car buyers $1000 if the car runs
LPG. Thanks Johnny, that's *really* how I want my taxes spent, and how
long will the LPG last anyway? Don't worry about long term structural
changes to make the crunch less in the long run, hell no ... give a
grand to those that can afford new cars already! *tops* Maybe they'll
be able to negative gear it and then it'll be even *worse* when it all
comes tumbling down.

Now I bet you've got the easy solutions.

The obvious ones would be to use the same money to fund projects that
would put off the crunch instead of bringing it closer. How many
billions would this project cost, again? Instead, little Howard
complains of the cost that industry is going to have to bear when they
are forced to carry some of the cost of the damage they are causing to
society.

--
TimC
White dwarf seeks red giant star for binary relationship

TimC Wrote:


I think that the fact that parents are pulling their kids out of the
state system in droves sends a very clear message to the
government.

Not the current government. They are _trying_ to have everything
privatised. They see it as a good thing to neglect the public system,
and have everyone willingly shift over to private. When they hear
you, they will not hear the words saying "improve the public system,
we'll move our children back there and everyone will benefit", they
hear the words "People are *happy* with the private system! w00!
less capital outlay!!".You say government like it is some evil enterprise.

It is all governments but, most especially the state (NSW at least) who
have slashed (in real dollars) education spending (in all sectors).

Is this bad? Well, that is probably one thing we can agree on.

As a teacher, I can tell you that many of the parents at my public
school seem to think that their kids are others' responsibilty - in
terms of edcation, discipline and finances.


Very sad.


--
scotty72

On 2006-08-17, scotty72 wrote:
Do you also advocate that all in society must use public transport, even
if they want to add to the value of that service by putting their own
hard earned.

I believe that the public transport system should be significantly
improved, and that people should use it where practical. In Melbourne at
least, it takes me a good two (or more) hours on trains to get to my
sister's place, versus half an hour in the car, for example; some days,
that's a realistic option; other days, it's not.

Everyone who says that private schools should receive no money and then
drives a private car (which is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer in the
form of roads etc - no petrol taxes don't nearly cover it) is a dam
hyppocrite.

Only when there is a practical alternative to a private car. There often
isn't. I don't consider buses to be a reasonable, realistic form of
public transport over long distances (defined as more than about 10-15
minutes).

If a parent wants to say, I will take the govt funding that EVERY (see
how fair and equal that is) child should get and then I'll give my kid
a leg up by sacrificing the holiday, the luxury car etc (we drive
hyundais, not BMWs), then why should some leftie say that I shouldn't
do that.

What I'd like to see is figures on how much it costs - *total* - to
educate a child in a top-notch private school, versus a mid-tier private
school, versus a public school. A bit of digging reveals that the
gubmint doesn't fund private schools to the same level as it funds
public schools; the key question is whether the funds received from the
parents (a) is less than the shortfall; (b) is equal to the shortfall;
or (c) is greater than the shortfall.

If the totals are roughly the same, I'd like to know just what the hell
is going on in the public schools that's soaking up all the money.
Ultimately, the goal I'd like to see achieved is a dramatic improvement
in the quality - and variety - of education available in the public
school system. Everything else is just thoughts on how this might be
achieved - and I'll willingly grant that funding isn't the whole of the
story.

You had the kids, don't expect the tax payer to foot the entire bill.

I don't. But the point remains: education is not a cost; it's an
investment.

As I said: this is getting off topic. If you want to take it up with me
further, email me (my address is in the headers; if that doesn't help
you because you're on cycleforums, read my sig below, and put
"carousel.its.monash.edu.au" after the @.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

In aus.bicycle on 16 Aug 2006 21:54:40 -0700
wrote:

I would like to point out that we don't have selectives in WA.
Maybe it offends our sense of egalitarianism?

No, but there were "special" schools which had focuses on certain
things. And some kids went to those despite not being in the
catchment area. I went to one (I was in the catchment area).


I went to a state highschool where I received a completely
crap and shallow eduction and got very good marks because
I had the right combination of skills and talents to thrive in
that system. Especially exam technique - at the time
university entrance was assessed 100% on a single set
of exams at the end of year 12. Mind you, I would probably
have done pretty well anywhere, and lots of kids (most?) never
achieved anywhere near their potential under this regime.

I went to a state school and got a very good education. The exam
system is an interesting problem, I dunno those who get coursework
marks do any better at Uni, do they?


Zebee

On 2006-08-17, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
As others have pointed out, some parents care more for their kids than
others. I choose the best education I can afford - others choose 2
packs of fags a day and 3 schooners. Who should society frown upon.

And rarely do people chose to be in poverty because they are unskilled
and the current working conditions favour employing young kids for not
engouh instead of old folk for a slightly higher not enough.

You had the kids, don't expect the tax payer to foot the entire bill.

Eh? I'm not saying that. I'm saying every child should have the same
opportunity, and those who can afford to pay, should. The rest,
should recieve subsidies, because it is a basic human right to expect
an education that will allow a child to escape any poverty inflicted
upon them earlier in life.

Every kid should get the same funding - regardless of which school -
that is equality.

No, that's about the as equal as a flat taxation system. We have a
progressive tax system in Australia, because some people deem that a
more acceptable situation than "true equality". To be truly
egalitarian, you have to redistribute some of the spoils of the richer
(who earned their riches partly by exploiting the poorer) back to the
poorer.

Before you say some parents can't afford them, if they smoke, drink,
gamble or otherwise **** against the wall thousands of $$$ - then they
are not poor - they are neglectful of their kids - and DUMB.

**** me.

Yes, everyone who is poor, is poor because they smoke, drink, gamble
or otherwise **** against the wall thousands of $$$ of course! Thanks
very much for clarifying where my family's non-money all disappeared
to. I also really appreciate you calling my mum dumb just because of
the generation she was born into.

I am glad that there was a workable public school system when I was a
kid, because it meant that I could learn something and contribute to
society no matter how poor and unskilled my mum was (she's only out of
poverty now because of the gentleman she met later in life).

I might even be able to contribute back to society at some point in
time. I expect to pay my first taxes next month, and I won't be
seeking all means possible to go through tax minimisation loopholes.
Without an education that was given equally to everyone whether they
had money or not, I would be nothing in society. I'd be just another
drain, for so long as Johnny allowed me to live. Then I'd be on the
streets for however long I lasted. That'd be really great for
society, wouldn't it?

--
TimC
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. --unknown

TimC wrote:
They could have voted for a government that had sustainability in
mind, 25 years ago when it was first becoming apparent that we were in
for some serious difficulties in 30-50 years (remember those David
Suzuki videos we were shown in primary school 15 years ago?)

Education is a state responsibility. Most of the states have
been under Labor rule for a good while now. Which party do
you think we should have voted for?

Tamyka Bell wrote:
dave wrote:

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

In aus.bicycle on 14 Aug 2006 20:44:56 -0700
Donga wrote:


Thanks ya *******. I have three kids who are involved in a lot of
activities. It simply can't be done without driving. This petrol hike


do they all have to go in the same vehicle? A 250cc scooter and a
helmet each....

Zebee

On that front I found out. (From a guzzi owner who shall remain
nameless) that vmoto is an oz company. And their new retro 125 scooter
arrives now. And one of their over scooters with remote starting and
other goodies costs just under 3 K and released in sectember last year
was supposedly the best selling scooter in Oz.

Now its interesting that a couple of people at work are talking about
these. I promised one staff member that I would take him in on the Kat
and test ride one of em for him. While my own feeling is that the
things are lethal all the evidence seems to be against me. But the
people talking about the things are the big mercedes owners at work who
would never own a pushbike or a motorbike. And that is a major major
culture change.

NOw if we can just get em to recognise that they are on two wheels

Dave


I didn't realise the vmoto was oz. I didn't like the way the monza
handled though... probably a good thing I didn't know vmoto was oz, or I
would've been tempted to buy it despite preferring another scooter.

T

Well, its Oz for certain values of Oz. Chinese built. chinese designed
and chinese supplied. But an Oz company.

WHich is more ok than it sounds. And it sounds very non ok. I did an
assingment last year in which we essentailly engineered a product and
got quotes to assemble it in china. Amazing quotes we got. But
otherwise yeah?...

How did it handle? Am I going to notice a difference from the Kat when
I test ride it for him?

Dave

TimC wrote:

Not living in a place where there's no public transport?

Yes, it's more expensive closer to the city. Get a smaller house;
it'll cost the same. They probably don't use that backyard anyway

But, but, I like my five acres, and the tranquility, and...

They could have voted for a government that had sustainability in
mind, 25 years ago when it was first becoming apparent that we were in
for some serious difficulties in 30-50 years (remember those David
Suzuki videos we were shown in primary school 15 years ago?)

I don't think they had David Suzuki videos when I was in primary school.
They did'nt even have TV. :-)

Theo
Left primary school in 1955.

On 2006-08-17, (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
TimC wrote:
They could have voted for a government that had sustainability in
mind, 25 years ago when it was first becoming apparent that we were in
for some serious difficulties in 30-50 years (remember those David
Suzuki videos we were shown in primary school 15 years ago?)

Education is a state responsibility. Most of the states have
been under Labor rule for a good while now. Which party do
you think we should have voted for?

One of the minor parties. For far too long people have been treating
the whole deal as Labor vs Liberal and then complaining that neither
party gives them a good deal, when there are plenty of alternatives.

I don't think Labor are going to score too highly at all next federal
election (maybe not; would you rather vote for malice or just plain
incompetance? It's a hard choice, actually), and I can barely wait
for that.

--
TimC
I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere. --unknown

Donga wrote:
Bleve wrote:
You don't get it, do you? Whether we like it or not, it's happening.
Petrol *is* going to be much *much* more expensive. A lot of things
are going to change.

Well, I get some of it, i.e. it's going to happen. I just don't get how
you could want it to happen sooner.

Because cars are deadly things. That's why. It's pretty simple. The
road toll is a disaster. Not to mention the polution, social isolation
etc etc ...

Those that hurt the most are the ones who have
made choices based on shortterm benefits rather than using their
brains. Then, they will whinge, and *we* will have to bail them out.

What, like the ones who live in the outer suburbs, work in the trades
with a ticket if they are lucky, travel across town where there's no
public transport? Which choices are you suggesting they should have
made?

Suggesting to the government of the time that public transport be
built, for a start, rather than a new freeway? There's lots of noise
about freeways here (Vic), but precious little from the same people
about having a new train line built, and every time it crops up, a
party campaigned against a railway line to the airport and beyond to
the housing estates in Keilor etc?! how very ... green ... of them to
care more for the short term property values of their houses than
something of benefit to us all ...). They want a new freeway to
Cranbourne! But .. no-one even thinks about reopening the railway
line. These people will be the first with their hands out when petrol
hits $10/l, but it won't be for trains, it will be to get some subsidy
for their damn cars.

Little Johnny is already *giving* new car buyers $1000 if the car runs
LPG. Thanks Johnny, that's *really* how I want my taxes spent, and how
long will the LPG last anyway? Don't worry about long term structural
changes to make the crunch less in the long run, hell no ... give a
grand to those that can afford new cars already! *tops* Maybe they'll
be able to negative gear it and then it'll be even *worse* when it all
comes tumbling down.

Now I bet you've got the easy solutions.

No, there is no easy solution. It's going to hurt, but it would be
nice if rather that prop up the petrolium juggernaut for another 5
years, we looked (we as in the whole society, government etc) long term
solutions rather than bandaids that merely delay (and make worse) the
inevitable. It's really *not* like this is news. At least little
Johnny had the courage (albeit briefly, and as soon as it got hot, he
ran away to the safety of a redneck-friendly immigration issue to hide
behind) to look at nuclear energy as a possible way to generate power.

I'm very sorry that you're having to make sacrifices to do stuff for
your kids (just like my oldies did to send me to a posher school), but
that's *your* problem and I'm already contributing to their schooling,
healthcare, tertiary education etc from my taxes (which I don't resent
at all), I *really* don't want to pay for an unsustainable taxi service
though, and to prop up unsustainable industries so your lucky kids can
have choir lessons in upper cumbuckta west when you live in airport
east and it's too far for them to move themselves.

And anyone whining about having to look after 3 kids and it not being
fair, kids aren't compulsory, it's not like the stalk dropped them off
and lo! 3 kids to look after! amazing! That's a choice you make too
.....