Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Nihil's Journal
Nihil's Journal
March 8, 2016

"Yes we can" != "Yes we will"

There will be progress - hopefully lots of it - in both conservation/efficiency and
replacement of fossil fuel with renewable (electric) energy but it will take a couple
of major catastrophic events followed by brutal & unwelcome changes before
enough people actually get the message of how *necessary* and *urgent* this
transition really is.

Even then, there will always be the rich ("I will do it wastefully because I can&quot
and the ignorant ("Don't wanna 'cos Freedumb!&quot around to prevent 100% ever
being reached.

March 4, 2016

Unfortunately, you are right.

Unlike the Med, the Channel is pretty easy to cross and that will be what
happens (it already does to a certain extent but that is kept pretty quiet).

Of course, when that happens there will be a serious backlash against anyone
attempting to get in - no "wet foot dry foot" law for the UK - and that could
easily spread to friction/antagonism to "suspected illegal immigrants" who are
already in the country ... not a good thing at all as it will lead to a seriously
polarised community - anyone not speaking English (especially if non-white)
will become a target.

I don't want to live in a Fortress Britain run by fascists ("V for Vendetta",
"Children of Men" and such like) any more than I want the current situation
to get any worse by opening the doors any wider.

The only thing that is keeping the migrant camps in France is the money that
the UK is paying France and that is only acceptable because we are in the EU.

March 3, 2016

"... and the people who have no place to go"? Bullshit.

There is a purpose-built camp next to the main site and the option to
go to other accomodation centres elsewhere in France.

The main site is not being dismantled, only the ad-hoc "extension" to it:
> The French government initially announced its plan to dismantle the southern
> part of the camp — closer to the highway — in early February.
> Migrants in that section would attempt to jump on trucks crossing through
> the Chunnel, despite barbed wire set up to protect the road.

Note how even the "activists" in that area (who conveniently write in
English so that tossers like USAToday can understand) admit the problem:

Population: 3455
Elderly: 13
Men: 2841
Families: 145

(Edited as can't get the image to show but it's the fourth in the page

If it were 145 families, that would be one thing - protect them & help them.
145 families plus any unaccompanied women? Sure - the women are in most danger.

145 families plus ~2700 single men? Fuck off.

Between the dipshit Brit who said
> "We should open borders and let everybody in the United Kingdom"

and the Afghan who said
> "I will just keep trying to reach England”

... it's hard to keep sympathy for the minority who are real refugees in the
face of the violence, abuse & general behaviour of the majority who are not.

March 1, 2016

Strikingly similar to the effect of Climate Change on humans ...

As a species, we are transfixed by the spectacle, by the weirdness and the
"WTF? Haven't seen that before?" nature of events and get so engrossed in
merely watching that we don't pay attention to the danger.

In that video, one rabbit was smart and went to ground on seeing the stoat.
The other was doing the equivalent of sitting on the couch, eating popcorn
and watching the entertainment right up to that "Oh F*ck" moment.

March 1, 2016

K&R. That headline alone needs to be recognised far & wide.

> Nature: "Current models of climate economics assume that lives in the future
> are less important than lives today, a value judgement that is rarely scrutinized
> and difficult to defend..."

Personally, I'd take it further still (yet still be accurate):

"Current models of climate economics assume that lives in the future
are less important than short term profits today."

Thanks for posting that article.

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: England
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 13,508
Latest Discussions»Nihil's Journal