andy jennings

This is a book with a vast scope, and a brave book. It is very easy to read, and despite yourself you will learn things. I was blown away by some of the scientific content. I'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but the relationship between continents moving and the organisms that live on them just boggled my mind. He takes aim at Richard Dawkins. The narrow interpretation of evolution as simple genetic survival of the fittest is perhaps the primary target. The case is made very well, and again, I learned things. It's also interesting that the subtitle "an argument for hope" is aimed squarely at the pessimistic literature. One point he could have made is that pessimism is the ultimate abdication of responsibility. If it's all going to hell in a handbasket then what the heck, I'll just go to the pub. The idea of discounting the future. No future, no problem - no worries. Clive Hamilton ("Requiem for a Species") is never mentioned or discussed. Int...

OMG immigration is down: what are the long term consequences? I'm glad that I visited Norway. It is a seriously rich country. But Australia is heading towards being as rich as Norway. Nobody talks about a "big Norway". They would just look at you as if you had lost your mind. But Norway is a good international citizen, and makes many positive contributions to the future of the planet. Is it a bad thing to be a rich country? No. But it quite confronting to compare Australia with Norway as an international participant. More Australians won't help the environment. Australians are the worst environmental vandals on the planet, by a fair margin. But if this was done in a sustainable way? Sure. But you are not going to give the worst offenders another chance. Some Australian economic activity relies on immigration. Yes. It does. But it was very clear at the last election that the country as a whole has had enough of simply taking more people without providing decent infrast...

There seems little doubt that Dr Haneef is an unwitting bystander in the terror activities of his friends and relatives. If there is any compelling evidence to the contrary, then we have a right to see this evidence. His associates are at best the "Z team" of terror. So far as I (and it seems, the CIA) can see, the A teams continue virtually unhindered. In the end, a war against determined suicide attackers cannot be won through military means. The war against Japan was won because the government decided not to continue the sacrifice, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our current enemies have more resolve. How to win? Only, in the end, by persuading the participants that their cause is futile. That those who would become suicide bombers choose our ideas, our direction, over religious fanaticism. Let's consider the treatment of Dr Haneef, and David Hicks. What messages do these send to potential recruits for Al Qaeda? That the West is populated by hypocrites that mouth democra...