ClickClickClank’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  As someone who lives there...

  I'd make the following points;

  1. While not as far along with bicycle infrastructure as some European cities, Melbourne is definitely more bicycle friendly than most. I think this is mainly due to cycling having the best dollar:impact ratio when trying to tackle problems such as pollution, congestion, public health etc etc. The 'Copenhagen' style bike lanes (parked cars and concrete divider between bike lane and traffic) are especially awesome.

  2. The trams are great, but the public transport system as a whole sucks. When it was government owned we had conductors - now that it's privatised we have a lousy machine based ticketing system so easy to evade the companies were forced to hire 'ticket inspectors' to rough up snotty kids. Do they consider bringing back the conductors? Nope. Instead the government labours them with ANOTHER crappy ticketing system that has suffered ridiculous delays and insane budget blowouts.

  3. The laneways and 'hidden treasures' stuff is actually pretty accurate. Take a wrong turn down a laneway and there's usually a bar or cafe at the end of it.

  4. The video doesn't mention our problems with the homeless, the mentally ill, the current proposed '2am lockout' for bars and pubs because stupid people can't control themselves in public, the housing crisis, the overall transport nightmare that the state of Victoria faces as our population balloons. In other words, we're just as buggered as most cities.

  Still, it can be a great place.On A modern city can be remade posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Whatever whatever...

  1. People do not want to live in a world devoid of entertainment.

  2. Where there is a demand for entertainment, there will be entertainers. Some will be well known.

  3. These celebrities can choose to ride a bike, or drive a hummer. I know what I'd sooner they do, and I know the example I'd sooner they set for others.

  By saying 'it's all or nothing', you are essentially saying that anybody in a position to publicly support the environment should either a) become an environmentalist, or b) cease to exist. The truth is, if the only people in the public eye who gave a crap about the environment were environmentalists and scientists, it'd be much easier for us to relabel that group 'boring wackos' and simply ignore them.

  It's the community mentality we have. People tend to treat their favourite celebrities as if they are members of their local community. You feel you know them. It's like if Bob - the nice old guy down the street - told you that he was going to install solar hot water. You might have thought solar hot water was a waste of time, but because you know Bob, and you know he's not a one-agenda nutjob, your first thought would probably be 'maybe there's something in this solar stuff after all'.

  Celebrity is a powerful tool, and if it's going to used (and it will), I'd sooner it was used to push the important issues.On A candidate I can really get behind posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Actually...

  ...the Shorter Oxford is two volumes, each as big as the New Oxford American. The 'Shorter' comes from it being the shorter version of the complete OED, which is 23 volumes, and the most comprehensive (and expensive) dictionary there is.

  God knows what's in it - I've never come across a word of regular English not in the Shorter OED.On Green terms color new dictionary volume posted 2 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  have to agree with Caniscandida and Jason...

  ...your argument assumes a lot (I don't any modern examples or references), is lazy in its attempts to persuade ('daft' indeed), and is at least partially countered (with a dose of rationality seemingly absent from your own text) in Singer's book.

  It is one thing to defend the 'buy local' ethos. It is another entirely to suggest that buying goods from impoverished nations produced under Fair Trade or SA8000 certification is tantamount to propping up a military regime.

  And just to be clear, Singer talks about Fair Trade Certified goods, not just any crops. The lengths to which the certification goes to ensure the protection of the producers are extensive.

  Also, seasonality affects not only crops grown in the US. Without money, or crops to trade, how does the producer whose land does not support tomatoes or grain for 3 months of the year hope to survive? To say 'they can grow everything for themselves' sounds a bit too much like 'let them eat cake' for my liking.

  Whatever you think of it, we live in a global free-market economy. To suggest that a country and its people can participate in that economy when we are busy shoring up all the funds makes no kind of sense.

  I think Singer's rationale could best be summed up in the following order of enviro/ethical preference;

  1. Local Organic Seasonal
     
  2. Imported Fair Trade Organic Seasonal (pref non-air freight)
     
  3. Local Organic
     
  4. Non-air freight Imported Organic
     
  5. Local
     
  6. Non-air freight Imported
     
  7. Imported

  The primary purpose of the 'eat local' philosophy is to preserve the environment and support local produce. I do not think that buying out of season produce from Fair Trade certified growers in third world countries need necessarily be viewed as counter to either of those goals.On Is it really a savior for smallholder farmers in the global south? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses