NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann proves why her party can never be taken seriously to post this sort of potty humour surrounding the school climate strike.
Clearly she would be prime for the education portfolio with wit like that were the Greens ever to take office. Presumably profanity passes as creative writing in Cate’s world. Hopefully the kids used recycled cardboard and non-acrylic marker pens.
Here is an article written by a Year 12 student, Joanne Tran, who didn’t want to be a truant and strike for climate change. She makes valid points.
In the old days workers who didn’t join the picket lines were called ‘scabs’. Good on her for standing up against the herd. No doubt the activists will scream an adult helped write that piece. Even if that turned out to be so, doesn’t that perfectly describe the argument of why kids shouldn’t be used as political pawns to promote one’s agenda? Unless it’s one’s own.
It’s election time. NSW opposition leader Michael Daley said he supports the climate strike by school kids as a democratic right. Given the kids are being brainwashed with only one side of the debate, perhaps the teachers might show them these two front covers from Time and debate why the scientists were wrong and could they be making the very same mistakes again?
Yet why stop at letting kids take a day off school to protest climate change? Why not strike over the rebuild of the Allianz Stadium? Perhaps demonstrate over the West Connex motorway? How about screaming inside Woolworths over milk prices paid to farmers? Why not protest The price of electricity? Anemic wage growth? Housing prices? Negative gearing? Offshore detention? Immigration?
Using kids as political pawns is disgraceful on every level. Parents and teachers who back this type of activism need to be schooled themselves in common sense. So weak must the arguments be to have to let kids do the bidding for them.
Perhaps teachers should look in the mirror and come up with answers to the sustained slump in our global PISA rankings for English, maths and science first before organizing excursions to support ideologies that don’t have any relation to the curriculum.
The reality is when kids from other nations blitz them in the real world in later life, those participation trophies will do little to assuage their anxiety much less make their lives happier in a climate that won’t have turned out anyway like they were force fed.
Since when did the POTUS become an expert on air safety? What is the point of the FAA if the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue issues executive orders to ground planes the regulator has deemed airworthy?
The problem for the airlines is not so much the inconvenience of fleet reduction but the astronomical cost of storage. Planes are very brittle. It’s not like a car one puts on bricks in the garage when it won’t be used during the winter.
Planes require the fuel tanks to be full to prevent the risk of damage under the beating sun. The engines must be run everyday to prevent build up of foreign objects. The wheels must be rotated to prevent flat spotting the tyres. One plane sitting on a tarmac that an airline wants to return to service runs at $100,000/mth. Southwest has 31 and American 22. So between them $5m/mth will be wasted.
For Boeing, depending on how quickly this gets sorted, the supply chain which has lead times up to 9 months could create havoc with suppliers. With the 787 delays, things got so bad that some suppliers needed to be bailed out. It is unlikely to see a delay anywhere near the magnitude of the 787 but the disruption can have substantial side effects including lay offs.
Once again the planes are safe to fly without the AOA. It’s a 50 year old airframe with 1 billion hours under its belt. It’s a software issue. Adequate pilot training is all that is required to make it safe to fly.
Worst of all it’s a complete slap in the face for an organization with an exemplary record on air safety to be given a lesson by Trump. The FAA and NTSB take their roles incredibly seriously and the recommendations they have made after accidents has made flying today safer than ever. Bad call Mr President.
Business Insider has reported that the Boeing CEO Dennis Mullenberg pleaded with President Trump to prevent the MAX8 from being grounded. Here’s why the story is totally implausible:
1) the Boeing board would have Mullenberg’s head if he entertained the prospect of getting Trump to influence the regulator.
2) that would imply the FAA was susceptible to influence from outside forces. It is clearly not. No president would have the slightest say in the matter. As said in previous posts, the FAA has openly stated it is safe to fly without AOA activated.
3) Boeing has 4,800 outstanding orders for MAX8. Why would it run the risk of knowing it had a Ford Pinto to thrust some short term deliveries to pad its P&L while it knew more crashes were inevitable? Hardly a sensible marketing strategy. Boeing would panic more about losing 4,800 orders than delaying the delivery of 100 planes in coming months. Why run a greedy corporate narrative?
4) airlines can’t immediately switch to Airbus A320s as they’d join the end of the queue of the 4,000 outstanding orders. Moreover airlines can’t switch pilots from B737 to A320 on a whim. Airlines can’t wait 6 years for deliveries.
Boeing spokespeople said clearly it was a call to reassure safety. That’s a basic given. Why try to even make up a story about suggesting Trump and Mullenberg were involved in a conspiracy? More TDS. Shameless.
The RBA can barely manage interest rates so where does it get off babbling on about how climate change is going to maim the economy? Stay in your lane! Even worse the speech based its assertions on the prophecies of the IPCC and BOM, two of many organizations which have been caught red handed manipulating climate data. CM thought the science was settled? If so, what is the point of so many climate bodies fiddling the figures? Why can’t the RBA open its ‘assess all risk’ lens? Wouldn’t data malfeasance constitute a red flag in the RBA’s internal analysis? Clearly not.
While the RBA is there to manage risk, why doesn’t it try evidence based research? Perhaps try look at the debate on both sides of the argument rather than follow an ideology because it feels the need to virtue signal by joining the herd.
Well if the economy collapses under its watch they can blame a drought, a flood and a bushfire rather than poor stewardship of monetary policy. Maybe the RBA might look at the perilous financial state our main banks find themselves in. Maybe the bank managements being attacked in the Royal Commission can blame climate change for the sudden hot blooded mistakes they made.
UK PM Theresa May had her mildly watered down Brexit proposal scorched to the lower end of expectations at 391-242. The BBC wrote that the plan had “thrown Brexit into confusion” but it couldn’t be any clearer. Leave with No Deal. Any links to the EU contravenes the spirit of the referendum. The BoE has walked back it’s original scare stories of no deal economic catastrophe. What will postponing Brexit do with such a gap? If it were 317-316 one could understand but no motion that tinkers at the edges will be successful if the rift remains this wide.