Friday, December 13, 2024

At last it's time to nuke the country ... but please don't forget the hole in the bucket man nuking Syria ...

 

Will the reptiles ever give the pond a chance to segue to a cartoon like this?




Nah, for that you need the Graudian view on the Murdoch family drama: mogul's death could imitate art, or The Conversation's Rupert Murdoch loses his legal battle, leaving future of media empire in the balance ... as the old rogue visits that fire-bombed synagogue to help maintain the reptiles' current jihad ...

But there are other rewards for herpetology students this day.

At last the nuke the country to save the planet costings shoe has (partially) dropped, with the mutton Dutton not wanting his pet reptiles feeling like they were missing out early on a Friday morn ...




Before embarking on the journey, the pond couldn't help but chide the reptiles about that story at the bottom of the clipping. 

Being named "Person of the Year" isn't supposed to be an "accolade". According to most definitions, an accolade is an award or privilege granted as a special honour or as an acknowledgement of merit.

Time hastily clarified the meaning of a Time cover honour, especially its 1938 Man of the Year cover (back when only men deserved it) because of an ongoing Adolf problem, which began early ...




The sociopath featured inn any number of Time covers, and in view of later events, it all began to feel a tad awkward, and so Time issued a clarification, per Reuters, Fact Check: Time Magazine’s 1938 'Man of the Year' choice not a Hitler endorsement.

 A Time article in the Dec. 13, 2021, issue states that “The Person of the Year” title, which was “The Man of the Year” until 1999, goes to a person who most affected the news, and lives of people for good or ill, and citing Hitler as an example, notes that the person need not be a hero.

Not that the tangerine tyrant would mind the comparison. Comparing him to Adolf can get you a long way ... just ask JD.

Of course there was a matter of Luce's own embarrassing taste, as outlined in this reader's letter:

...As was demonstrated in W. A. Swanberg's 1972 biography of the mogul, throughout the 1930s, Luce openly favored European fascism, which in 1934 he adjudged a "moral force." Luce consistently viewed Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini as bulwarks against Communism, and routinely referred to the Spanish Republicans battling Franco as "Reds." In 1938, moreover, Luce actually visited the German Reich and, in an unpublished report on his travels, glowed with pleasure at the Nazi r gime. He was enraptured by the notion that "in Germany there is no `soak the rich' ideology," for indeed, he continued, "the extraordinary thing about Hitler is that he has suspended the class war." Having seen the many busy theaters and the motorbikes in the German streets at the time, Luce would conclude that the German people "did not seem to be slaves. Their chains are not visible." It was only in 1939 that Luce began to change his mind on the Führer's militarist policies.

Sorry reptiles, language matters ... just ask George ...




And with that done, it was time to nuke the lizard Oz, with simpleton Simon (here no conflict of interest, no conflict of interest here) given the heavy water coolant carrier duties ...

The pond couldn't resist, took the bait like a rat infatuated with anticoagulants ...

First up came the "straight" summary, about as straight as a crooked man walking a crooked mile with a crooked sixpence ...

Liberals’ power pitch: modelling shows nuclear option would save $264bn, Peter Dutton on Friday will release the costings of the Coalition’s energy plan he intends to take to the next election, which show a total cost over the next 25 years of $331 billion.

First up came a snap, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will release his energy costings on Friday. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin, which induced despair in the pond. Is there no way to make the man look remotely attractive or appealing in some way?




Just look at that grimace, which reminded the pond of the look the pond gave when reading the lizard Oz ...

Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan will cost $264bn less to reach net zero by 2050 than Labor’s ­renewables-only policy, according to independent modelling showing wind and solar will still dominate the grid under the Coalition’s model but at a significant ­reduction in cost to consumers and taxpayers.
The Liberal leader on Friday will release the costings of the ­Coalition’s energy plan that he ­intends to take to the next election, which show a total cost over the next 25 years of $331bn, compared to the $600bn model that Labor is pursuing.
The plan assumes that the first nuclear power plant to replace ­retiring coal would be operational by 2036 and would likely be slated for the NSW grid, which only two weeks ago was plunged into emergency conditions due to a temporary shortfall of supply.
Modelling shows the plan to roll out nuclear as a firming source of baseload power to secure renewables generation would be 44 per cent cheaper than Labor’s renewables-only transition.

With that opening thrust, the reptiles quickly searched for reinforcements and found it in a cross-promotion featuring a Cooking of the books and the climate science denying dog botherer:

GNE Advisory Helen Cook says nuclear energy implementation into Australia would require “enhancing” the existing framework. The Coalition promises to move ahead with seven domestic nuclear power plants. Ms Cook told Sky News host Chris Kenny that Australia has an advantage with its nuclear “starting point” being ahead of other countries around the world.




No doubt this will only be the beginning of the reptiles' wild-eyed enthusiasm, and hagiographical scribbling, the selling of the unicorn vision, but the pond wanted to be there at the beginning ...

The modelling report, the second in a series of energy modelling conducted by independent economic outfit Frontier Economics and commissioned by the ­Coalition, assumes nuclear would contribute 38 per cent of energy generation by 2050.
But 53 per cent would still be provided by renewables, which ­assumes a doubling of current ­capacity. The remainder would be a mix of gas and storage.
The Coalition has identified seven sites across Australia where it intends to replace retiring coal-fired generators with either multiples of small modular reactors (SMRs) or large scale nuclear plants.
Under its plan, nuclear would provide 14 gigawatts of power to the grid by 2050.
The release of the Coalition’s costings on its nuclear plan, expected on Friday morning, follows a revised CSIRO report earlier this week which suggested the cost of nuclear would be significantly greater than renewables.

Say what? Still living the SMR dream? Still undecided about what style of plant? 

Wouldn't that make any costings a tad moot? Never mind, here's a snap of Satan's helper ... Energy Minister Chris Bowen. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman




Then it was back to the dreaming ...and the assumptions

The Albanese government has sought to consistently demonise the notion of nuclear power as an option for the Australian energy mix, initially arguing that it posed safety and environmental risk.
It has since shifted its argument to one of cost and delays to rollout, claiming it would be more costly than renewables.
The modelling assumes the first SMR would be operational by 2035 but if a large scale reactor was first, the start date would be 2037.
It also assumes the industry view of the retirement of coal generation rather than the Energy Market Operator’s more rapid closure scenario, which energy ministers now concede would have to be extended due to the emerging energy shortage crisis.
The first report by Frontier Economics released two weeks ago costed Labor’s renewables plan at $624bn, with significant costs for transmission.
The second report, which used nuclear as an input into its modelling, found $264bn in savings compared to Labor’s plan.

An SMR operational by 2035, and if not a big 'un by 2037? 

We've been down that road many times, and the back ordered SMR for the pond's backyard isn't expected to arrive by any Xmas in the next decade ... so it was time to call for reinforcements, with more Cooking needed to soften the ingredients ...

GNE Advisory Principal Helen Cook says nuclear energy has become a “huge political issue” in Australia. “I’m not necessarily convinced that that reflects what the majority of Australians actually thinks about nuclear energy,” Ms Cook told Sky News Australia. “You have the majority of Australians self-declaring that they would like more issues on this topic.”




Simpleton Simon did his best to skew the "news" ...

Energy Minister Chris Bowen attempted to discredit the Frontier Economics report before it was revealed that his own department had used the same firm for energy modelling over the past year. Frontier Economics conducted the modelling for the Coalition at no cost.
The modelling assumptions have not been disputed by the government as they are based on the Energy Market Operator’s own assumptions for the renewable ­energy transition.
However, since the release of the first report, it has revised down its estimates of the Labor plan from $624bn to $595bn.
This still equates to a $264bn difference between it and the ­Coalition’s nuclear plus renewables plan at a cost of $331bn.
“Australians will be better off under our plan,” Mr Dutton said.
“We will avoid hidden costs, ­reduce unnecessary infrastructure expenses, and lead to lower energy prices. Labor’s chaotic plan ­burdens Australians with a system that costs five times more than they were promised.
“The Coalition’s plan ensures Australians are not overburdened by unnecessary expenses or reckless policies. Nuclear energy is at the heart of our plan, providing the ‘always-on’ power needed to back up renewables and stabilise the grid.”
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said the Coalition commissioned modelling offered a cheaper, cleaner, and more consistent alternative.

Thanks Ted, but when cooking the books, the reptiles like to turn to an expert Cook ...

The debate between nuclear and renewable energy is heating up as the 2025 federal election looms. The CSIRO has released its costings showing that nuclear could be twice as expensive as green energy. Sky News Australia was joined by GNE Advisory Principal Helen Cook to discuss nuclear energy.




It was a case of a "teach the controversy" moment, best conducted by dangling tall tales of massive savings ... 

Come on Ted, you can do it ...

“The Coalition’s energy plan will save Australians up to $263bn compared to Labor’s renewables-only approach — a 44 per cent saving for taxpayers and businesses,” he said.
“Labor’s energy plan comes at five times the cost Australians were initially promised. This ­excessive burden is already being felt by families and businesses, with energy bills rising by up to 52 per cent and more than 25,000 businesses forced to close their doors in part due to ­skyrocketing energy costs. In ­contrast, the Coalition’s approach integrates zero-emissions nuclear energy alongside renewables and gas, delivering a total system cost significantly lower than Labor’s.
“This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient ­economy.
“Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ experiment is costing Australians five times more than originally promised, driving energy prices higher and small businesses to the brink.”
The Coalition won’t reveal which site would be the first off the rank and would be conducting feasibility studies on all sites if and when elected.
But it is likely that it would be planned for the earlier coal plant sites where generation was most critical to the national electricity market.
The modelling did not include Western Australia, which is also earmarked for a nuclear option under the Coalition plan.
However, the economics are assumed to be the same as that for the NEM.
A CSIRO report released ahead of the Coalition policy release said that building a nuclear power plant in Australia would likely cost twice as much as ­renewable energy, even accounting for the much longer life span of reactors.
Mr Dutton claimed the ­assumptions used in the CSIRO’s methodology were flawed and he accused Mr Bowen of interference.
Mr Bowen has criticised the Coalition nuclear plan on the basis of cost and timely delivery, having stepped back from Labor’s original claims about safety and environmental concerns.

Splendid stuff, and then simplistic Simon offered a more personal take, in From fantasy to reality: How Peter Dutton will make his nuclear plans come true and challenge Labor, The climate war is no longer a dispute between the left and the right. It is now an economic war. An ideological contest over how to get to where most people now accept is desirable.

Speaking of fantasies, the reptiles managed to produce one with a meaningless snap ...Dutton’s nuclear plan has been given economic credibility in the Frontier Economics report. The international experience gives weight to its efficacy. Picture: Getty Images




It reminded the pond of that scene in Godard's Les Carabiniers, where one of the carabiniers is promised endless riches, be able to take whatever he wanted and return home rich and a hero ... with the promises accompanied by many snaps, including a joking reference to a Renoir film ...

...Not just the land and the livestock, but also houses, palaces, town, cars, cinemas, supermarkets, stations, aerodromes, swimming pools, casinos, boulevard theaters, bouquets of flowers, Arc de Thriomphes, cigar factories, printing shops, cigarette lighters, aeroplanes, worldly women, trains full of merchandise, pens, jewelry, Alfa Romeos, Hawaiian guitars, beautiful landscapes, elephants, locomotives, underground stations, Rolls-Royces, Maseratis, women who take their clothes off, incredibly cheap nuclear power plants, working bloody cheap SMRs, bloody big nuke plants to spread around the countryside...

Sorry, maybe those last few weren't in the film, but they were certainly in the lizard Oz ...

Peter Dutton will today seek to turn a nuclear fantasy into an economic an energy reality.
On the numbers, the Albanese government will now find this ­difficult to contest.
Labor has failed in its attempt to dispute the modelling that found its renewables-only plan would cost more than $600bn.
In fact, it offered no contest. So let’s assume it’s correct.
Ipso facto, it can hardly now argue against the same modelling that has found that a nuclear-firmed renewables future as proposed by the Coalition will cost about half that.
There is also the climate cusp. Under Dutton’s modelling, the Coalition’s fossil fuel trajectory in the end is lower than Labor’s.
Who would have thought?
What is now abundantly clear is that Australians need to understand the cost of what is trying to be achieved here.
In a cost-of-living crisis, this debate takes on a new hue. The numbers are staggering, whatever option is being presented.
Dutton is offering a transition option that will save taxpayers $10bn a year.
But is it deliverable?
And this is now the novel debate that is emerging in the new climate wars.
Both sides have abandoned the primary purpose, rhetorically speaking.
It is no longer a dispute between the left and the right over climate change.
It is now an economic war. An ideological contest over how to get to where most people now ­accept is desirable.

Not convinced? 

Time to Cook the story yet again with the climate science denying dog botherer, until it's well baked ...

Sky News host Chris Kenny discusses the “nonsense” nuclear scare campaigns run by Labor which the public are not convinced by. “When it comes to the nuclear debate, the green left are running out of arguments, Labor the Greens the Teals, they are all the same,” Mr Kenny said. Mr Kenny criticised the green left's arguments against nuclear energy, highlighting the escalating costs of renewable energy plans supported by Labor and the Greens, which could reach $1 trillion.




$1 trillion? Why that makes a working SMR by 2035 seem like the ideal solution, or perhaps an ideal unicorn ...

The 2050 ambition in itself was always a farcical notion. It misses the point of the debate upon which it was founded. But there are now real political risks, as well as energy market risks, on both sides of the political equation, with both having succumbed to a political trigger point in the Australian context.
Australia is now a country that has failed to transition from one of its economic strengths, cheap energy, to a nation encumbered by its now high cost of doing business.
What was once an advantage has now become an economic drag.
Dutton’s nuclear plan has been given economic credibility in the Frontier Economics report. The international experience gives weight to its efficacy.
But the political contest in Australia is one without precedent.
Times have changed. And how Labor responds is now critical to its own electability.
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen continues to be a weak chink in Labor’s amour in this debate.

Then it was back to Cooking the books ...

GNE Advisory Principal Helen Cook says Australia is in an “excellent position” regarding nuclear energy. “Australia has been a nuclear nation since the 1950s and we’re a very good nuclear community member,” Ms Cook told Sky News Australia. “As compared to other countries that are starting nuclear energy programs, Australia is actually in an excellent position when it comes to its legal and regulatory framework.”




Time for a final thrust. Time to destroy renewables forever, time for all the reptile climate science denying ratbags to accept the science?

Labor’s plan has been discredited. Not only because of its ambition but because of its failure to deliver.
Reduced to a fundamental argument, this is now a contest not over climate targets but a debate about a rewriting of a dubious Australian compact over a civil nuclear industry.
This is a worthy debate. But it also completely misses the point of the original argument and ambition about what is trying to be achieved.
Labor’s dogmatic approach and its obsession with targets now risks undermining its global assignment. It has underestimated the domestic objections to the impositions.
The guarantee of energy security and pricing must be central to an electoral acceptance of change.
Labor has failed to make the case that its policy prescription is deliverable on either front.
For Dutton, the risk is the believability that it can deliver a nuclear option. It’s not necessarily a case of opposition to the idea, it scepticism about its deliverability.
Dutton will present a credible and contestable alternative to Labor’s plan. This will become a central theme of the election debate.
The question is whether either side is truly addressing the central thesis of the problem they are purporting to resolve.

That's the best the reptiles have got?

Dutton will present a credible and contestable alternative to Labor’s plan. This will become a central theme of the election debate.

Working SMRs scattered around the land by 2035? That's it? The same old unicorn? Who will tell them they're dreaming?

Forget it Jake, it's reptile tinsel town, and it was time to sort out the Middle East with the hole in the bucket man ... top of the world ma, early in the morn ...




It meant that the pond missed out on The Mocker farewelling Barry, as anonymous scribblers are wont to do, and the pearl clutcher clutching pearls about Canberra, not to mention Madden's maddened howl of pain at the suffering of the lizard Oz at the hands of digital platforms (the joke there is the talk of "quality journalism", as if that was a feature at the lizard Oz) ... but how could the pond ignore our Henry, giving one of his best lectures in Fears Syria is the next Mid-East humanitarian nightmare, If the Syrian tragedy has a lesson, it is this: in the Arab Middle East, with its deep hatreds, long memories and searing fractures, only sheer power counts.

Will the pond ever read this line from the hole in the bucket man? ...in the Zionist Middle East, with its deep hatreds, long memories and searing fractures, only sheer power counts.

Let's bomb the shit out of something and somebody to prove the point, and if that happens to be chemical ways and a really bad way to dispose of same safely, what the hell Archy, toujours gai ...

Naturally our Henry's rant began with a way to evoke FUD, A fighter stands outside Ummayad mosque at the old city of Damascus.




Then it was on with a whole heap of FUD ...

No one mourns the wicked, says the song. But, while the end of Bashar al-Assad’s blood-soaked rule is undoubtedly welcome, his overthrow is not likely to solve Syria’s crippling problems.
That Syria’s descent into a murderous civil war was partly triggered by economic factors is clear. Far-reaching land reforms in 1958 and 1962-63 created a vast number of small to very small farms, which accounted for 60 per cent of all agricultural holdings but only 23 per cent of cultivated land. That structure was always precarious; what destroyed it was a trebling in Syria’s population.
With inheritance laws subdividing those holdings as more and more sons survived into adulthood, the marginal farms, which accounted for the bulk of agricultural employment, became completely unviable. Steadily worsening water shortages, culminating in a disastrous drought from 2005 to 2010, then delivered the final blow, precipitating a flight to the cities, particularly from the Sunni areas, that left many rural villages without young men.
But Syria’s heavily regulated, corruption-ridden economy could scarcely absorb the inflow, so more than half of those young men became unemployed, eking out tenuous livelihoods in illegally built complexes on the urban fringes.

The lecture was interrupted by a snap, People gather to celebrate in Umayyad Square on December 11, 2024 in Damascus, Syria.




Forget the celebrations, the hole in the bucket man was full of gloom ...

None of that would have provoked the civil war had the rural collapse, and the subsequent rise in poverty, not aggravated deep-seated ethnic and religious conflicts. Exactly like Lebanon and Iraq, the country that gained independence in 1946 was a state without a nation. Nor were there any broadly shared goals or ideas that could shape a unifying national identity.
The extent of the differences became obvious in 1954, when a Sunni-dominated government enacted centralising laws that sparked a Druze revolt. The revolt was quickly suppressed but the inability to define a workable balance between the conflicting groups fuelled six military coups in rapid succession.
It was only in 1966, when the Baath (Resurrection) party seized power, and then in 1970, with the so-called Corrective Revolution, which vested undivided power in Hafez al-Assad, that a degree of stability prevailed. The Baath had secured just 15 per cent of the vote in 1963, the last more or less free election; but, at least initially, it managed to coalesce a viable, if never broad, base of support.
At the heart of that support was the army, whose officer corps, like the Baath, was dominated by Alawites, who replaced the Sunnis decimated in the military purges that followed the coups and countercoups of the previous decade. Complementing that core was a tidal wave of Baathist patronage as sweeping nationalisations in 1964-65 and a 20-fold increase in the size of the public service – enacted in the name of “the scientific Arab way to socialism” – politicised employment decisions.
There is, however, no doubt that the Sunnis, who derived few benefits from that patronage, were left behind, at a time when Islamic fundamentalism was gaining lavish funding from the newly wealthy petro-monarchies. Although a shadowy battle between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood had raged for some years, the Hama revolt in 1982 proved the key turning point.
Suppressed in a sea of blood, the revolt of Hama’s Sunnis induced Assad to rely even more heavily on a pervasive security apparatus manned by Alawites and controlled by members of his family: of the 12 key officers who ran the military-security complex between 1970 and 1997, seven were linked to Assad by blood or marriage.
That pattern persisted when Bashar al-Assad acceded to the presidency in 2000. By then, however, the transition from “Arab socialism” to an especially degenerate form of crony capitalism had made the cracks in the regime’s foundations ever more glaring.

No doubt some might have been expecting a brief mention of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, and the role that the British played in dismantling "Greater Syria", featuring the godawful mess once called Palestine, together with the French effort to set Lebanon and Syria on the right path, but remember the main mission is to sow FUD so that further interventions can flow, like Vlad the Sociopath on an Afghanistan war path ... or the US and Israel, gaily bombing on a daily basis, just to fill the vacuum with the sounds of noise and fury ...

The top commander of the US-backed and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces warns a resurgent ISIS is starting to take advantage of the fall of former Syria President Bashar al-Assad. Sky News UK’s Alex Rossi says because of the “chaotic” situation in Syria and no single group having control, there has been a “power vacuum”. “The Syrian Democratic Forces are now fighting, clashing in many areas, with Turkish-backed groups.”




Let's face it, they're all terrible ...

To begin with, because the Sunni birthrate was much higher than that of the ethnic and religious minorities, the minorities’ share of the Syrian population was a third lower than in 1980, narrowing the regime’s power base, heightening its paranoia and increasing its dependence on outside support (which eventually came from Iran and Russia).
At the same time, the growing concentration of young, unemployed Sunni men in the major towns created an immensely receptive audience for radical imams, who – repeating the Al-Jazeera sermons of Hamas’s spiritual leader, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawi – denounced the Alawites as “even more defiled than the Jews”.
It is therefore no accident that it was a broadcast by al-Qaradawi, calling, on March 25, 2011, for an uprising to root out the unbelievers, that transformed highly localised demonstrations into a national civil war.
Retracing that civil war’s history would take too long. What matters is that each of its many protagonists sought to create a safe base for its constituency by ruthless ethnic cleansing.
The regime readily accepted – when it did not force – the displacement of some eight million people, mainly Sunnis, out of its area of control. That not only removed potential adversaries; it also allowed the regime, through a special law passed in mid-2018, to expropriate the displaced, reselling their assets (at bargain basement prices) to its Alawite, Christian and Druze supporters. That those minorities, which effected much of the regime’s dirty work, feel threatened by the victims’ return is readily understandable.
Nor was the ethnic cleansing any less brutal in the areas controlled by the regime’s Islamist opponents. In Turkish-controlled Afrin, for example, where Kurds previously comprised 90 per cent of the population, there are virtually no Kurds left, as Turkey’s military has replicated the “demolish and expel” strategy it implemented in Turkish-occupied Cyprus. To make things worse, it has, in what were relatively secular regions, enforced conformity to Islamic precepts to an extent unthinkable in Turkey itself.

Speaking of the terrible, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham chief Ahmed al-Sharaa




Is there any hope, any at all? 

Well yes, it's important for Israel to bomb the shit out of Syria, while they're down and out, just to make sure they're even more down and out ...

Equally, in Idlib, which is governed by HTS (the Movement for the Liberation of the Levant), Christians, who were treated as dhimmis, have fled, as have any surviving Alawite, Ismaili and Yazidi “heretics”. Ahmed al-Sharaa, who heads HTS, presents himself as a technocratic nation-builder; the reality is that he never abandoned his jihadi outlook, reined in the Islamist fanaticism of HTS’s followers or relaxed the sharia-inspired prohibitions that dominate Idlib’s daily life.
Far from being a model of modernity, Idlib under Sharaa (who has reverted from Abou Mohammed al-Jolani to his original name) closely resembles Gaza under Hamas – an authoritarian, Islamist enclave that survives by diverting humanitarian assistance to fund HTS’s operations. There is every reason to fear Sharaa will try to take Syria down that road, provoking (in a repeat of the Iraqi scenario) a renewed conflict with the former regime’s supporters, as well as with the US-backed Kurds.
To describe the current situation as combustible is consequently an understatement. And it is an understatement too to say that Israel’s precautionary measures, which include strengthening its grip on the Golan Heights, are eminently rational.
Of course, that won’t stop the UN, and Australia with it, condemning the Israeli moves, while staying mum about Turkey’s expansion of its so-called “self-protection zone” in Syria and its indiscriminate bombing of Kurdish villages. But if the Syrian tragedy has a lesson, it is this: in the Arab Middle East, with its deep hatreds, long memories and searing fractures, only sheer power counts. To believe anything else is just a childish fantasy.

Sure enough ...

UN chief decries Israel’s ‘extensive violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’
UN chief Antonio Guterres is said to be deeply concerned by “the recent and extensive violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”, according to his spokesperson Stephane Dujarric.
“The secretary-general is particularly concerned over the hundreds of Israeli air strikes on several locations in Syria, stressing the need the urgent need to de-escalate violence on all fronts throughout the country,” Dujarric told reporters.
Israel has launched hundreds of air strikes on Syrian sites since the fall of al-Assad, continuing a campaign it began while the toppled leader was in power.
It has also moved its forces into a demilitarised area in Syrian territory beyond the Golan Heights Israel has occupied for decades.

Meanwhile, is there a middle east country Israel hasn't bombed in the past few years?

Sa’ar confirms Israel hit chemical weapons sites and long-range rockets in Syria, Foreign minister says action taken to prevent strategic weapons systems from falling into hands of extremists




Is bombing the shit out of chemical weapons the safest and wisest way of disposing of them? 

Apparently ... or perhaps not ...Chemical weapons watchdog warns against strikes on Syria’s stockpiles




Is there any level to which defenders of Israel won't descend in search of a good cigar? Apparently not ...





18 comments:

  1. The Lizard Oz is quick off the mark with a glowing (poor choice of words, I know….) endorsement of the Opposition’s nuclear proposals and a nice summary of the so-called costing and benefits. How surprisement. You’d almost think they had them well in advance……..

    ReplyDelete
  2. A deeply disappointing effort from Our Henry. It’s not just his failure to mention the fall of the Ottomans; surely Syria’s history provided him with the perfect opportunity to involve the Roman Empire, the Byzantines and the entire history of the Ottoman Empire! Instead of some nice quotes from the Classics we get another feeble attempt to fill the gaping hole left by the Bromancer’s absence . Yet again the cry goes out - Bro, won’t you please come home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeedy do, never has the bromancer been missed by so many, yearning for his abundant serves of so little ... and the failure to invoke the classics is unforgivable ...

      Delete
  3. DP says; "Just look at that grimace, which reminded the pond of the look the pond gave when reading the lizard Oz ..."

    Lets have some empathy here for a man with PTSD.

    https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/peter-dutton-reveals-ptsd-after-cop-career-and-death-of-baby-deidre-kennedy/news-story/5812f0c7d957afd15af8684f43cc2dca

    Poor Pete, but has he has therapy or is he a damaged man (possibly with undiagnosed toxic masculinity or lacking in empathy)?

    Should he be diagnosing himself to Annabel Crabbe and then not taking responsibility for his disorder and the poor decision making that is one of the characteristic behaviours that people suffering from this disorder display?

    Should Annabelle have suggested he get some help when he revealed this shocking truth about himself?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again and again and again: Simpleton Simon : "[The Climate war...] is now an economic war. An ideological contest over how to get to where most people accept is desirable."

    Only "now" is it an "economic war"? It's been an "economic war" (yes, as well as a sanity versus wingnut war) all along with the riches of many 'self-made' billionaires at stake. And people really do consider it "desirable", now ? It's quite possibly a major survivability necessity, so yes, I guess that does make it "desirable", doesn't it.

    But hey, Dutton has an "independent Modelling" - now, pray tell, just exactly what is "independent" about Frontier Economics ? And do any of them have even a beginner's basic comprehension of nuclear energy starting 'from scratch' and what the real impacts might be ?

    However, this is intriguing: "Frontier Economics conducted the modelling for the Coalition at no cost." Really ? Expecting absolutely no reward at all ? But then, after all "Energy Minister Chris Bowen attempted to discredit the Frontier Economics report before it was revealed that his own department had used the same firm for energy modelling over the past year." At no cost, presumably.

    But anyway: "/i>Frontier Economics ... commissioned by the ­Coalition, assumes nuclear would contribute 38 per cent of energy generation by 2050." Well I'm no energy modeller, but that sounds like either a huge number of SMRs, or a smaller number of huge standard nuclears.

    And why has nobody mentioned the water - the one 'natural resource' that Australia is generally most short of.

    Never mind: "Mr Dutton claimed the ­assumptions used in the CSIRO’s methodology were flawed..." What, even though the very same Frontier Economics did the modelling for both Government and Coalition ?

    Oh, and in that Getty Images picture, note all the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Image is of Pickering, about 40km NE of Toronto.

      https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ontario-extends-Pickering-operations
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickering_Nuclear_Generating_Station

      Lifetime 40 years not 100. Cheaper to build a new one than to refurbish a highly radio-active core.
      Avoid the rush, get your potassium iodide pills now.

      Delete
  5. "No doubt some might have been expecting a brief mention of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire...". Oh come now, we really can't expect Holely Henry to espouse any truth that paints the Ottomans, British and French in realistic colours, can we ?

    Why that would be noting some serious faults and failings in Judeo-Christian Civilisation, wouldn't it ? And we really must not confuse people so. Just don't mention millennia of 'European' conflict and such massive achievements as World Wars I and II.

    Just think: if it had not been for WWII we might still not have nuclear weapons buildups.

    PS: I thought that Jews were Alawites.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, just a wee bit of diversion: a description of today's USA. How similar is Australia (especially the bit about telephone support)?

    https://jabberwocking.com/the-economy-really-is-great-so-whats-the-problem/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a bit more then:

      "Lifting a suppression order on identifying Anthony Lister as the defendant in a rape trial who was acquitted of two counts of rape in October, Judge John Pickering said he did not believe identifying the Sydney artist would result in media reporting that suggested 'men are getting off unfairly'. He said rather the weight tends to go 'the other way'.

      Pickering said there was 'vastly more media' claiming men were falsely and unfairly put on trial by 'overzealous prosecutors'.
      "

      Won't the Slappy just love that.

      Delete
  7. While Helen Cook appears to be one of the current ‘go to’ commenters’ for our Dog Bovverer on Sky, her actual submission to the Senate inquiry, in January 2023 is light on substance; occupying all of a page and a half. It is readily available at -

    https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Nuclearprohibitions/Submissions

    #16 is by Ms Helen Cook, and can be downloaded by ticking the circle.

    To save others here cluttering their hard drives, I offer a summary. Ms Cook lists the Hitachi SMR at Darlington in Ontario, Utah Power’s ‘NuScale’ SMR in Idaho, TerraPower’s demonstration SMR proposal for Kemmerer Wyoming, ‘UltraSafe’ demonstration ‘Micro Modular Reactor’ at Chalk River in Canada, and Rolls Royce ‘Generic Design Assessment’ for an SMR - as projects at various stages of design or construction, and faithfully and uncritically lists the projected completion/commissioning times offered by the proponents.

    She also notes that most of them have received truckloads of Government money, often just to start feasibility studies. But it was all ‘SMR’s’ for her in January of last year.

    Her submission does say ‘Considerable time and effort is needed to successfully bring the benefits of nuclear energy generation to a country for the first time.’ She does not offer a number for ‘time’ to do that for Australia, although there is a strong hint that her ‘GNE Advisory’ will be ever ready to assist in providing effort; for a fee, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well those 'design and construction' things are not, and never will be, SMRs, the simple but important point being that a Small Modular Reactor can't just be built from scratch, to be an SMR it has to be built by assembling pre-made and preferably mass-produced "modules" so that someone wanting a nuclear power unit just has to go and buy an assemblable kit of pre-made modules and then assembles them like assembling an IKEA item.

      That's the essence of "modular".

      Otherwise it's just a small-scale classically built nuclear power unit. And I'd be very interested to see what's used for cooling.

      Delete
    2. PS: you saw the bit about Krugman leaving the NYT didn't you.

      Delete
    3. GB - the ‘Fin’ for this day - well, the bits inside the now common ‘Hardly Normal’ outside wrapper - includes Krugman’s final column for The New York Times.

      For those who otherwise have to vault over a paywall - Paul Krugman observes that he started his columns for NYT in 2000. He recalls that as a time of optimism - at least, compared with the USA now. He remarks on widespread anger and resentment, noting that, unusually, much of those feelings now are being expressed by billionaires ‘who don’t feel sufficiently admired’.

      Piece of trivia - as Krugman discusses tech billionaires no longer being widely admired, he offers as evidence of disillusionment that ‘Australia has even banned social media use by children younger than 16’.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I read him frequently until the NYT went firewalled.

      Delete
  8. Danny Price, Frontier Economics, JQ "had to go to Frontier Economics to get the answers they wanted" ... "The end of economic rationalism …",
    nuff said .

    "Believing Barry O’Farrell could cost you “up to” 100 IQ points
    AUGUST 4, 2011
    JOHN QUIGGIN
    ...
    "Top billing has to go to that old favorite of shonky advertisers “up to”, as in a carbon price will ” force up electricity prices for NSW households by up to $498 a year.” The Commonwealth Treasury modelling, which I’ve checked, gives an average cost increase of $3.30 or about $170 a year.

    "Although the analysis is attributed to NSW Treasury, they apparently weren’t hackish enough for the government, which had to go to Frontier Economics to get the answers they wanted. I’m waiting to see the report, but in the meantime, my reactions to the press statement are over the fold

    Carbon scaremongering to make even dishonest advertisers blush
    smh 25 Aug 2011 · "The NSW Treasury report was based on work by a consulting firm, Frontier Economics, who say they used the same model as the Commonwealth"

    "The end of economic rationalism …" JULY 30, 2014 JOHN QUIGGIN

    "The Financial Review today runs a piece (paywalled) from Danny Price of Frontier Economics, combining absurd alarmism about the supposed cost of a carbon price (already refuted by experience) with advocacy of the nonsensical and dirigiste “Direct Action” policy".

    LibNat unicorns, always was, always will be.

    ReplyDelete


  9. It seems that the SMRs have improved, DP, so you won't have one in your backyard, but under!
    "The concept is simple yet groundbreaking: build a small nuclear reactor just 30 inches wide and lower it into a mile-deep drill shaft. This approach could sidestep the immense costs and safety concerns that have long plagued traditional nuclear power." https://wauchope.substack.com/p/smrs-underground-long-drop-nuclear
    I don't know what they can possibly mean by that second sentence.

    ReplyDelete


  10. An interesting view of what's happening in Trumpland: Drowning in the Undertow Reporting from Trump’s America
    'a new kind of civil war. States do not face one another on the battlefield; there is no rebel government. Instead, the battlefield is everywhere, and combatants have, in a sense, already seceded from the United States. That the secession occurred in their minds makes it no less real. They are armed, and they are backed, too, by power and money. They have successfully enthralled a major political party, and their allies are capturing courts and state legislatures. The other side is still catching up to the danger it’s in."

    ReplyDelete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.