text:
'Let them all come' is 'stop the boats' for unthinking progressives
A focus on outcomes rather than conspicuous compassion is required if the Left is to deal itself back into the asylum seeker debate.
Alternatively, you can email us or call us on (03) 8623 9900
Jul 29, 2013
A focus on outcomes rather than conspicuous compassion is required if the Left is to deal itself back into the asylum seeker debate.
Today it was former Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser's turn to offer a progressive solution to boat arrivals, citing his own handling of Indo-Chinese refugees in the 1970s. He called for a regional processing centre in Indonesia and a resettlement agreement with other major resettlement countries (which is basically the US and Canada), because as Fraser admits, the numbers of asylum seekers are greater than Australia can manage.
As a former conservative prime minister who has been through a refugee "crisis" and handled it with aplomb, both at the time and for the long-term benefit of Australia through a successful Australian-Vietnamese community, Fraser brings far more to this debate than most progressives, particularly given his international experience and credibility as a Cold War warrior who was and is also respected for his role in African issues.
Whether he meant it to be or not, his observation that Australia needs the assistance of the other big resettlement countries to deal with its current influx is an implicit rebuke to those who advocate "let them all come", a slogan repeatedly invoked by asylum seeker advocates in response to PM Kevin Rudd's PNG agreement.
"Let them all come" is a progressive version of "stop the boats", a slogan that substitutes emotion for thinking and personal morality for good policy, a phrase that elevates intentions above outcomes. To "let them all come" would be to encourage more asylum seekers to undertake boat trips to reach Australia, knowing they will be resettled here if their request for asylum is granted. The good intention of "let them all come" will lead to the outcome of more drownings.
For policymakers, more than for most of us, the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
The progressive response to this criticism is two-fold: either they accuse those claiming concern for drownings of feigning compassion and using it as a figleaf for racism, or they suggest we fly or sail asylum seekers from Indonesia to avoid drownings.
Most assuredly, many bigots prefer to express concern about drowning rather than openly express their dislike of asylum seekers. But that doesn't render the argument about trying to stop drownings automatically invalid, even if articulated by someone in bad faith. And assuming voters would accept a taxpayer-funded transit service from Indonesia to prevent asylum seekers trying to reach Australia by boat, what would be the numerical limit given all of them would need to be resettled? About 17,000 asylum seekers reached Australia by boat in 2012, more than Australia's humanitarian visa resettlement program until then-immigration minister Chris Bowen — in an action for which he was given zero credit by asylum seeker advocates and which the Coalition still proposes to reverse — increased it to 20,000.
"Ignoring this ongoing failure will condemn refugee advocates and progressives to a continuation of the status quo …"
There's also the problem of cost. Resettlement, done properly with the goal of ensuring refugees can have decent and productive lives in their new home, costs a lot of money. Significantly increasing resettlement numbers will cost billions. What taxes will have to be raised, or other spending cut, to fund this? And do we set up upper limit at all? 25,000? 30,000? 35,000?
Then there's an equity problem: assuming no significant fall in the push factors driving refugees to seek sanctuary elsewhere, "let them all come" advocates must either accept that most or all of our humanitarian intake would be made up of asylum seekers who can reach Indonesia or need to address the implicit unfairness of such a system: what happens to asylum seekers who lack the resources to reach Indonesia? "Let them all come" is an implicit statement to the latter that they will never be resettled in Australia, because we have prioritised those who can get to Indonesia.
It's not as clear and stark a statement as Kevin Rudd declaring no one arriving by boat will be resettled here, but the policy outcome will be the same: no one who can't reach Australia by boat will ever be resettled here.
Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with such an approach: Australia, as Fraser notes, can only do so much by itself; if every asylum seeker we resettle is a bona fide refugee, and nearly every maritime arrival certainly is, then privileging one group of asylum seekers — those who reach Indonesia — over others doesn't undermine the fact that Australia is generously welcoming a large number of refugees for permanent resettlement. And it is simply human nature, even among policymakers, to prioritise people closer to us than those further away: asylum seekers trapped in refugee camps in Africa or the Middle East or Pakistan are for most of us an abstract with no great immediacy as a humanitarian issue, whereas most of us get very worked up, one way or the other, if the same people try to reach Australia.
But those who say "let them all come" should be open about their assumptions and that their approach would have the outcome of ending the resettlement hopes of those who can't reach Indonesia.
But those who say "let them all come", and many refugee advocates (Julian Burnside very much excepted), do not seem interested in policy outcomes, preferring instead a display of conspicuous compassion. Indeed, this is the story of the broader Left on asylum seekers over the last decade-plus: a comprehensive failure to address policy outcomes, in preference for public displays of compassion and an alternative narrative in which most Australians are fundamentally racist (Richard Cooke expertly addresses the "Australians are racist" line) or that former PM John Howard invented the threat of asylum seekers (which fails to explain why it was the Keating government, in 1992, that established mandatory detention).
Ignoring this ongoing failure will condemn refugee advocates and progressives to a continuation of the status quo, in which policymakers get on with trying to find ways to stop people coming in boats, while refugee advocates futilely jeer from the sidelines.
Powered by Taboola
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
Brilliant article, Bernard. Thanks for articulating what the rest of the media simply has not.
Thank you for putting it so clearly.
I used to be a "let them all come", until it became increasingly apparent what the practical upshot of that policy was – more boats and more people drowning. No thanks.
Let's concentrate our efforts on resettling those too poor to afford plane tickets and boat rides who are already languishing in camps, patiently waiting their turn.
There are some who say 'let them all come'. There are also many who back some mix of solutions similar to Fraser's….including, I would have thought, the Greens, or something close to it. Also incumbent on those who support the PNG solution and the oppositions current position is what happens when there are simply redirected drownings? That is, boats than would have sought to come to Australia now head for other countries. Out of the view of our media, with similar tragic circumstances. As the Greens are currently the only significant organised political/parliamentary voice not sharing the major parties view, can we have a closer look at their policy in relation to this? Would it not explain why Fraser was supportive of their general policy approach?
Bernard I think that you are missing the main point. It's a strawman argument to claim that any more than a small number of those who oppose asylum seeker assessment and resettlement are advocating an effective open border policy.
The real issue is around how people who dare to arrive here without a visa and by boat are treated. Should these people be effectively incarcerated for life and further intentionally traumatised by our Government in order to provide a disincentive to possible new arrivals? Should over 2000 children be kept in indefinite lifetime detention without any examination of their asylum claim because they arrived here by boat with their parents who asked for asylum? I think that your understanding of what you call 'the left' is simplistic if this article is any example.
Fraser always misses the point that we lost a war in Vietnam, that the Indo-Chinese refugees Australia resettled were about 10% of the total and that over 800,000 were resettled in the USA.
Of course many were robbed and killed by Thai pirates, or picked up by merchant ships and dumped in Hong Kong.
But heck we can do it all over again, rubbish Malcolm.
ruawake, perhaps it's escaping your notice but we are losing the war in Afghanistan too, and that we contributed to the war that also started the displacement of Iraqi citizens
Spot on, Bernard.
There's another unresolved dilemma for this nation – how to include an honest statement about the First Australians in our foundation documents. Until we get that one near right, especially a frank treatment of frontier conflicts, we cannot treat "resettlement" of other peoples with the pragmatism called for by Malcolm Fraser.
As it happens, Mr Fraser's history with Western Victoria puts him in a good position to re-examine what Henry Reynolds is writing about in the book Forgotten War.
those who say "let them all come" should be open about their assumptions and that their approach would have the outcome of ending the resettlement hopes of those who can't reach Indonesia.
This is only true so long as the Australian Government links unexpected asylum arrivals to the formal quota. By de-linking them (as per Greens policy) this argument would be completely removed.
So actually protecting asylum seekers is to be denigrated as 'let them all come'. The real humanitarians are those who support camps because we must be cruel to be kind. Perhaps we should prevent deaths at sea by not burning arrival vessels and assisting our neighbors in imposing very substantial penalties on those who put people to sea in unseaworthy craft. Asylum seekers are going to come unless we inflict worse conditions on them than they are fleeing. Explain to me again why that is a noble cause.
The notion that "Australians are racist" on refugees – or more particularly Western Sydney electorates are – is now so accepted (in some media circles) that it has become conventional wisdom.
That the accusation so often comes from the progressive left, and more importantly, from people in electorates like mine where the Greens are the dominant force, is also telling. In the inner west of Sydney, it is rare now to see a non-anglo face. In Annandale, Balmain and Newtown, the only person anyone will see not exactly like them will be the waiter at a North African-French fusion restaurant. Or the driver of the taxi on the ride home. He'll be making around $9 an hour, if he's having a good night.
In Western Sydney, there are huge migrant and refugee communities. People speaking a language other than English at home are now the majority in many places like Rhodes, Harris Park and Fairfield. Yet these people are "racist"?
Bernard has hit the nail on the head. He can expect to be shouted at and denigrated – loudly. The whole refugee "debate" amongst progressives is actually about else entirely. Something that dare not speak its name.
People, there is hardly anyone saying 'let them all in'..I appreciate the focus on drownings in this article, that's an important issue to raise and legitimate, but no-one of any credible voice is saying 'let them all in' that I can see…frustrated expressions are not the same as consistently advocated policy positions…however useful they are in framing an argument. Its a bit like saying 'so, you want more regulation do you? Well how would you like to live in communist Russia??' Using a position advocated by almost no seriously organised groupo to typify the discussion is not helpful and distracts from the practical proposals that are being aired. This is why Julian Burnside presumably is happy to repeatedly appear at Greens functions…not saying Greens have 'the answer' but they do have something between 'let them all in' and 'lets have a bastard-fest to see who can be meanest to them'.
Keane's shoddy grasp of the issue shines through in his reliance on straw men and his indulgence in the laughable notion of push factors. This is the same old myth dressed up for a new segment of the population who are, understandable, showing fatigue on this issue, and want to buy into the myth that it's compassion that is getting people drowned, and that all this Fake Policy is somehow going to do them a service.
I realise it's very gratifying to be seen as a moderate wagging ones finger at those filthy progressives, taking a rational stand and all that. And it's clear that there's a lot of pressure to bend to this absurd, racist fantasy.
Keane has clearly chosen this as his issue with which to differentiate himself from other assumed progressives, but in doing so, he endorses a view not nearly as rational or pragmatic of realistic as it is described as.
On other issues, you see people taking similar action by, for instance, arguing that nuclear power is the 'pragmatic and realistic' solution to climate change, or thinking that debates over torture are matters of 'ethics vs outcome'.
In reality, nuclear power is not a viable solution to climate change, because the massive cost of decommissioning + regulation, combined with the huge amount of tantalum and other rare resources involved, make it far more expensive and risky than commonly claimed.
In reality, torture is not a useful or effective way to gain intelligence, and people miss that key point when they argue about wether it is 'moral' to use it.
And, in reality, the best and only even remotely genuine way to prevent those deaths at sea, is to ferry people here- this is also the only way to really damage the business model of people smugglers, either.
This sort of false pragmatism is common amongst people who are both more self conscious about their political identity than they claim, whilst also being less well informed than they believe. Keane is clearly no expert on this matter, making this a poor choice of subject with which to try and differentiate himself from the 'herd'.
morphy, Bernard is talking complete and utter garbage, he is slinging around the government propaganda and thinking he is very clever.
Everyone has the right to seek asylum and if they do it here we need to suck it up and stop being so bloody whiney.
Are you willing to throw DIAC an infinite budget? If so, then it is indeed possible to accept all comers.
Sam, apart from Bernard's strawman contention, very very few people are suggesting that we take all comers. Our obligation is to accurately assess the claims of those who do come and reject those who do not qualify. Nobody would see the present 'leaky boat entrepreneurs' as providing a satisfactory means of arrival. DIAC does have to be adequately resources as you point out, however as current border protection policies cost around a total of $9 billion a year I don't imagine that there is a lack of resources.
I think the "real" question is how many refugees die from a pre-emtive execution, if you shut down their pathway via boats? Leaving them backed up into the jaws of the dictators and killers.
Arguably those determined to reduce drownings to zero should equally be "open about their assumptions" regarding the rates of deaths from persecution where the boat pathway is foreclosed. I think the Jews who survived the 1930ies and their descendants might have a perspective on that.
Talk is that Syria is on a trend in fatalities comparable to Rwanda's genocide. Afghanistan after the exit of western allies may also be very big quoting Phil Glendinning of Edmund Rice Centre on Sydney radio last Friday prime time (about 8.45 am from memory) who is also President of the Refugee Council.
It seems to me you don't let them come – even at the risk of drowning – you are saying let them die out of sight in even greater numbers (?) Please show me the error of that logic, and if it valid, where is the morality in it?
I think refugee advocates know that for every hour and day they forestall the impatience and compassion fatigue of the public and the government, they have saved more lives – including by boat, and including allowing for those who drowned. In the face of that knowledge the moral criticism here is not very convincing.
Fran Kelly said as much on Insiders 8 days previous regarding the compelling push factors that make the risk of drowning a viable risk equation. I think a bit more respect for that knowing decision by refugees is also in order. They are willing to face death for freedom and that's not a bad character reference.
I'm inclined to agree with Professor Tournesol (#4). I like to think I'm a supporting member of 'the left' but also accept that all systems have their limitations and if pushed will break. Therefore the sentiment that "we can't take them all" seems plausible, but I don't understand why we need to persecute asylum seekers. Why are children and their families being indefinitely detained in a manner akin to the concentration camps of WWII? Please don't tell me it's just to make a point or because we can't 'fit' them in, what a disgusting notion.
Malcolm Fraser's suggestion is not bad and has merit, but only if it improves the quality of refugees live's and their long term 'processing' outcomes. This at the end of the day is the point, isn't it? "Stop the boats" so as to stop the senseless deaths/drownings… "Let them come" so as to stop the senseless inhumane detention (refugee camps included) of innocent, displaced peoples all over the world… Unfortunately I feel it would just become another political smoke screen, like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Yes, expanding resettlement in Australia would be expensive. But "border protection", Christmas Is, Nauru, Manus and now PNG as well as on shore detention facilities are already costing us billions which is largely hidden from public scrutiny. There are huge savings to be made there and it may well be cheaper to direct expenditure to resettlement processes here in Australia. The money we are currently spending on deterrence is clearly not having the desired and is just money down the drain.
The govt talks about smashing the people smugglers model. If I were a people smuggler I would think the way to smash the govts model is to increase the number of boat arrivals so as to completely overload the capacity of offshore detention facilities. When the facilities are full to capacity, what next?
I like money, but I value human life and dignity more.
Does that necessarily make me a naive loonie lefty?
I pay a lot of tax, and would like to see it used on helping the world's most desperate people, not denigrating them through indefinite incarceration.
Does that really make me an extremist?
Perhaps the best article I have read on this topic. Let's hope this sort of logic gets some traction.
Normally, I don't think compassion and politics make a good mix, but the Left to its credit is making advances in the argument by justifiably appealing to the electorate's sense of its own decency and even-handedness in the immigration debate. Conservatives then become the ones with the image problem, they are perceived as uncaring opportunists only interested in obtaining votes from unscrupulous and maybe, shock and horror, racist members of the Australian public.
The humanitarian arguments of the Left are merely a reaction to their correct perception, that surprise, surprise, Australia is in fact a racist country. And that is something we cannot gloss over in respect of our Asian neighbours so long as a lop-sided arguement in favour of conservative thinking about the issue continues.
What a bizarre article. Bernard seems to be trying to articulate the complexities involved in the refugee issue, while painting any opposition to the ALP and Coalition-proposed "solutions" as completely without nuance. The irony is a bit hard to swallow.
I was at the Sydney protest used above to illustrate this article, and I didn't hear anyone arguing to "let them all come". While there was indeed a lot of compassion, two speakers did in fact address alternate policy ideas, and most of those protesting, I'd bet money, completely agree with Julian Burnside's position. Why are we being portrayed as having no interest in policy outcomes where he is named by Bernard as very much the exception?
Article is spot on. The PNG solution ends up being the least unattractive solution and so should be supported in the absence of anything superior.
Sarah, Bernard's strawman article is exactly the sort of Murdoch/Fairfax journalism that lead me to subscribe to Crikey in the mistaken belief that I could escape it here.
'Professor Tournesol' @ 4, I think the headline is a comment about extreme statements detracting from an otherwise potentially reasonable position.
'Stop the boats' is a ridiculous proposition for any number of reasons, the two most obvious being (a) it's not possible and (b) it's sick and inhumane.
'Let them all come' is equally ridiculous even though it comes from the 'progressive' line of thought based on compassion and obligation. For this reason it detracts from the 'progressive' argument, probably not in the mind of a 'progressive', but it's certainly used as ammo against the compassionate position to make it look extreme and loopy.
I really like the article because it's well researched, well reasoned, very well written and an overall piece of good balanced commentary on the commentary rather than just another boring, polarised and predictable opinion piece on the topic itself.
Protecting the interests of boat arrivals has become something of a sacred cow to many activists and I wonder if it is the result of an oversupply of law graduates. The frustrations of working for some awful corporate law firm must grate on eloquent and talented lawyers who then seek purpose and meaning in the absolutist pursuit of refugee rights.
It all comes down to priorities unfortunately and most of us have the luxury of avoiding the burden of making decisions in a largely zero sum context.
So what is most important?
a. reducing the number of people at risk of being drowned in unsafe passage
b. making sure that the refugees we do take end up having a safe and fulfilled life
c. taking a share of refugees from the camps in the war/famine zones, rather than one's who have got to a safe place such as Indonesia but really want to come to Australia
Given the sheer scale of the problem, you can't say yes to them all. So go ahead and start choosing.
You done good, Bernard. I've not read this point of view expressed so clearly anywhere else before so for that, I say thanks.
Damien McBain #25, yes, if this were a loud message from 'the left' (whatever that is these days) then it would be worthy but if there is anyone actually suggesting that (and I doubt it) the volume is insignificant compared to the 'stop the boats' rhetoric. It's disingenuous for Bernard to focus on this insignificant message as 'another example of the decline of the left'.
Bravo! Bernard – couldn't have said it much better myself. The "let them all come" argument was NEVER realistic, and it is way past time that someone in the media said so.
Malcolm Fraser is right. We are fast reaching the stage where people arriving by boat are overwhelming our capacity to settle all of them. And as others have mentioned, to continue with this argument completely overrides our ability to take ANY known refugees via the humanitarian intake. Very, very unfair.
Aside from the drownings, which are horrendous, and the cost which is exorbitant, no one is looking 10 – 20 years down the track to make sure this huge influx of people from Moslem countries can be successfully integrated into Australian society. The experience of countries like France and Britain suggests that it could be a very big problem indeed! It beggars belief that refugee advocates have NO answers to the societal upheaval caused by introducing large numbers of people from different cultures, religions and educational levels. In fact, they either don't know, or don't care about what happens in the future. Not good enough!
I also have a problem with this "permanent" settlement idea. The Refugee Convention DOES NOT say that refugees must be given permanent asylum/citizenship. It says we must provide asylum UNTIL it is safe for them to return to their own country. Why is this small item never mentioned???? Didn't Australia do something like this during the Bosnian war? What is wrong with continuing that approach? As far as I can see, the only people who might object to this happening are probably "economic" refugees. And they don't qualify under the Convention anyway.
I say let them all come.
Drownings you say? I find it hard to credit that that moronic argument has actually been accepted by the public – and worse, by some supposedly intelligent commentators.
As Jeremy Sear has pointed out many times, if you want to stop the drownings, then:
1. Give people visas to get here if they want to claim asylum (and pass a security check, for those paranoid about 'terrorism')
2. Don't seize and burn boats used by people smugglers – that just encourages them to use the cheapest and least seaworthy craft they can lay their hands on
3. Cut out the people smuggling business by running commercial passenger ships from Australia to Indonesia specifically to transport asylum seekers.
There. Done. No more drownings.
Or we could rescue people instead of letting them drown.
By Bernards tosh the 6,000 Syrians a week who flee should stay home and die because it might be dangerous to get out of Syria.
Bernard has spent too long in the cold air of Canberra and has no idea what he is talking about.
But we are not protecting our borders. Christmas Island is one tiny island 2600 km from the mainland, the mainland itself if largely unprotected.
Excellent article Bernard, thank you.
Perhaps we have passed the point of refugees to Australia and front up to the fact that countries like Iran have been invaded by in excess of two million refugees. Ditto Jordan, Pakistan. The list is too long to continue. Not to mention the numbers of Syrians who will join the list. The real question is how the world is going to manage to cope with the whole refugee crisis? It can't.
LET THEM ALL COME=to Hell?
"Let them all come"?
I didn't know, and I don't believe that is the war cry of the Greens?
Anyhoo, why not take the business model away from those sleazebags people smuglers by providing more competition!! Surely the parliament agrees (they all say so) saving lives is the priority, and then by allowing these people to board decent boats provided by free market entrepreneurs would suit both right wing parties. bingo – problem solved?
It has been estimated that by 2020 France will be a Muslim country. Will Australia be far behind?
If we are taking the 'end justifies the means' argument then we would cause the greatest harm to the least number of people by just machine gunning a few boat loads of asylum seekers and widely distributing the images of dead babies being fed to sharks – a very effective deterrent that will 'stop the bats', possibly at the cost of tens or hundreds of lives instead of thousands with the present 'strategy'. This policy idea is a free 'gift' to Abbott.
Nicely hard headed. However the PNG bluff or whatever it turns out to be would look a bit better if more explicitly linked to a migration policy with scope for refugees to apply to and one or more refuge application centres closer to refugees' point of departure. It would be even better if all this was linked to an international effort to resettle refugees with genuine claims.
Fear and loathing about points and methods of arrival by small boat have constricted the debate for far too long.
Professor Tournesol
Please don't give any ideas to Abbott, especially ideas involving guns or tow-ropes or navy generals.
Both sides of this argument agree on something important: we want the drownings to stop.
Now do we do that by deterrence (e.g. locking up innocent, desperate people) – which appears as though it doesn't actually work anyway – or by creating safe pathways?
If your concern is really for the refugees themselves, then your answer will be to establish safe pathways. A humanitarian crisis requires a humanitarian solution.
The argument that PNG is a necessary evil would only work if there weren't other options. Thankfully, there are lots.
No, Australia will never be French.
someone asked me where the immigration office was today. i said i didn't know.
does that make me racist?
Each nation, society, generation & individual faces its own moral dilemmas. We have the post Tampa psychology to grapple with. Good luck, to those that will, attempting to change the course of SS Stop the Boats/End the Business Model.
The slogan is 'Let them come,' or 'Let the boats come,' which is used in opposition to 'Turn the boats back.' Bernard would know there are different schools of thought in the refugee movement, from those who remind us that Australia has obligations under international law to hear the claims of asylum seekers, to those who argue, quite thinkingly I might add, that nation-states and their borders are a capitalist construct. And yes, anything to do with human suffering has a moral element, and is not merely about 'policy outcomes.'
I do think there's room for discussion about how effectively the refugee movement argues its case, but Bernard Keane, being a cheerleader for Sandi Logan on Twitter, is probably a little too close to DIAC to see reason.
It has been estimated that by 2020 France will be a Muslim country. Will Australia be far behind?
Muslims currently represent ~3.2% of the French population and ~1.6% of the Australia population.
I reckon it might take more than 7 years for that percentage to increase twentyfold.
Since 2008-09, Australia has resettled more than 3000 Bhutanese – and while few would begrudge them the opportunity to enjoy a better life in Australia, no one could seriously describe them as the neediest refugees in the world: a recent study concluded that "relative to refugee camps in other countries, the Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal are of a reasonable quality, and relative to health and education systems in rural Nepal, they are of a high quality".
The main reason this resettlement has occurred is that the Americans, most likely looking for a non-Middle Eastern group to assist, opted to resettle Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and urged their allies to do likewise.
Second, offshore resettlement programs can be subtly biased in favour of those who know
how to work bureaucratic systems. Form 80 from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to be completed "neatly in English using block letters", states that "if you are applying for a refugee/humanitarian visa you must provide all addresses for the last 30 years (both month and year are required with no gaps)" – not so hard for a bureaucrat, but not so easy for a
non-literate widow.
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/die-somewhere-else-20130726-2qq3s.html#ixzz2aQRAN2RR
Bernard, why does this article not even *refer* to the Greens policy? It is an excellent example of a thoughtful, effective and progressive asylum seeker policy. Ignoring it is to paint all on the left as bleeding heart hippies.
Thomas Mc #16 – I totally agree with your last sentence. These people take a calculated risk, knowing full well that they are risking their lives – from the point they first leave their homeland to the final point of travelling on a dodgy boat on their way to Australia. It's a gutsy move that is never recognised by those 'full of compassion' and 'wanting only to do good'.
Life for them has gotten to the point where they are willing to face death for the opportunity of freedom.
What a lazy piece of journalism Bernard. You characteriser those interested in a non-punitive approach to asylum seekers arriving by boat as not being interested in policy outcomes, and the cruelty auction on display by the major parties as some sort of nuanced policy making which has the prevention of drownings at sea as its rationale. According to the Australian parliamentary website facts on refugees there is no orderly queue for asylum seekers to join. Only a very small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR and only one per cent of those recognised by the UNHCR as refugees who meet the resettlement criteria are subsequently resettled to another country. So the is virtually no hope for genuine refugees anywhere to be resettled if they rely on the UNHCR process, and 90+% of those who come by boat are genuine refugees. At the end of 2011 there were an estimated 15.2 million refugees (10.4 million under UNHCR mandate). It is pure and simply immoral to lock up these people who have committed no crime other than being born in countries torn by war and sectarian strife (much of it the result of western imperialism and colonialism but that's another story). The rationale is to break the people smugglers business model. The cruel and in humane treatment of desperate people is reduced to business modelling? Of course there should be processing of these people in Indonesia or Malaysia and our resettlement program increased. This is a far better way to spend our money then paying shoddy private security companies to set up deliberately inadequate facilities in impoverished pacific nations. And hey I live in Wentworthville fancy that!
Excellent article, thanks. The matters you've raised have been largely ignored. Another matter which needs discussion is that here, in the 21st Century, it is time for an international agreement that violation of human rights will not be tolerated anywhere on this one interdependent planet. We need a re-empowered UN who can provide a safe zone for any persecuted or 'at risk' citizens, and the cost of providing asylum for those who must flee their homes should be borne by the government which has failed to safeguard their rights. Progress and growth towards a peaceful world is not helped by fluffy picking up of the pieces and nursing the wounded while ignoring ongoing abuse. Taking only the most recently displaced and ignoring the 29million and growing number of people stuck in refugee camps, many of them for decades, is not compassion, it's unjust favouritism. Perhaps if we renamed the detention centres "refugee camp" and select our 'quota' for resettlement offers from all camps without favouritism, we could reclaim our immigration policy as something we set, not set by the brutal who have hijacked the futures of the citizens of their country they have forced to flee.
At last, someone at Crikey capable of rational thinking on this subject. How could the post-Marxist left have so degenerated into ideological slops that cannot tell the difference between humanistic compassion and being an unforgivably unciritical & indiscriminate suck?
Venise #35. That 'estimation' occurs only in one of Marine Le Pen's regular nightmares
Thanks Bernard. An excellent piece. Despite being a bleeding heart lefty-pinko, I have become increasingly uneasy with the "let them all come" line, despite the fact that's what my heart wants to do.
It makes a lot of sense to have a regional processing centre in Indonesia, but I do think we have to suck it up and take more refugees from there. It's the least we can do as a rich country.
By itself, the PNG solution is no solution at all but a heartless cop-out, Australia abrogating it's regional responsibilities.
However, while the left-wing "let them all come" might be compassionate and naive (because it could actually increase drownings), the current right-wing alternative is far, far worse. Let's not forget that.
A final comment to make is about Australia's latent racism. Of course we are a racist country. But every country is, especially Europeans, and including Asian countries too. It is part of the human condition and Australia is probably no worse than Italy or France or Indonesia. But to acknowledge it does not mean we have to give in to it. Rather we should admit our complicity and get on with making this country a better place.
"Resettlement, done properly with the goal of ensuring refugees can have decent and productive lives in their new home, costs a lot of money." but nowhere near what the inhumane incarceration costs. And they would quickly become tax payers, esp the so-called "economic migrants" as in the mantra of the usedCarr.
Top form again Bernard. Always challenging and thoughtful.
Yes AR. "Incarceration costs money" and when the investment is made, and they do 'become taxpayers' down the track. Although it is not, in my view, a primarily economic matter, and with the limited stats available to me from my work with refugees resettled in my local area since 2010, 3 of the 50 are now working and paying tax. The rest are in education(school, TAFE and Uni)or yet to reach school age, and some of those will pay tax eventually and some of them will contribute more than they have already received, and some of them will not get jobs or pay tax because they have disabilities or will be too old to be competitive in the labour market. All of them lived in refugee camps for 15 years and more before they were lucky to be given the opportunity for resettlement in Australia. The conditions in the refugee camps from which they came make the conditions in our 'detention centres' look like paradise.
It is not merely an economic issue. It is about a humane response to the world problem of 29 million refugees already, and the number growing daily. How many do you think Australia should or can take? Who should choose which ones? Australians, or the brutal regimes that create refugees, or is it just about the economics of who can get to Indonesia or Malaysia and buy a plane ticket or pay for passage on a boat?
The problem, the whole problem, needs to be addressed, not just whimperings over what coloured bandaid to put on it, and shallow self congratulation about our 'compassion' as we open our arms to the most recently displaced who are cashed up.
"The Outsiders" (ABC RN Sunday Extra); last weekend had quite a bit of discussion on how this … How the refugee issue illustrated the "complete failure of the Left". II found it confronting, but accurate.
Much of this long Crikey comment thread is of people saying "I am compassionate – all other Australians are horrible." If that's the Left, I'm now an "outsider" myself.
Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer has gone so far as to Support the practice "work at home",it is the nicest way to earn more and more money at home.$55h – $80h…how? part time or full time,I've been bringing in $82h… ,You can make $55h easily.Here is good example recomended by professionals…….. Dub50.com
Personally, with the GFC, I see the osmotic effect of economic refugees as screwing it up for the legitimate seekers of sanctuary, we're not a bottomless pit of affluence. This way they all get tarred with the same brush – clouded bad press, that someone's more than ready to exploit for the politics.
What a pity the UN international policing agency wasn't devoted to sorting out these wars that generate these mass migrations. Rather than have companies making a $bloody selling certain regimes ordnance to terrorise their own people, or those of other countries?
Or solving, or at least mitigating, these "natural disasters"?
Australia's government must provide the means by which refugees can reach Australia without needing to resort to 'people smugglers' and fishing vessels. I propose that the Australian government directly ferries asylum seekers by sea craft or aircraft to Aussie ports. I further propose that Australian government saves money by closing the myriad concentration camps in Australia, PNG and Nauru and replace them with open gated migrant residential centres.
Other commentators have noted that they aim to be seen as neutral, and my guess is that Mr Keane may be doing some realigning. That's fine.
I have two comments. First re the claim that refugee camps world-wide are full of people who want to migrate. Alas the overwhelming majority of them just want to go home. Even if they have to wait in camps for years/decades. Second re the claim that it is creditable if someone wants to stop boats to stop drownings. I'd buy that argument if the same people were vocal about preventing Aboriginal deaths in custody, or would stand on the China/Nepal border and tell Tibetan refugees they might get shot. But that appears not to interest them.
The truly bizarre aspect of the whole debate, is that Rudd's back-flip will not win him Western Sydney. The constituency that was always the target of border protection rhetoric is Rural Australia.
It seems that if you have a different point of view to everyone else here on Crikey, you have your comments removed. Since my argument was measured and contained some historical and current facts, I find that very democratic of you, Crikey, NOT.
I am rethinking my subscription.
Great article. The question I would like answered by the Greens, is if we are going to stop people risking their lives coming here in unseaworthy boats, then how many asylum seekers do they estimate, we would need to bring in by other means,to dissuade the use of these boats?
Lets bring in the refugees not on unsea-worthy fishing craft – but with Aussie aircraft and with Aussie Ships. We have 7.5 million square kilometres but just 23 million people.
For Those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to Share!
I have been associating with and talking with the champions of asylum seekers for years. However, unlike Bernard Keane, I have never heard anyone say "Let them all come" – or any words to that effect.
What they have been saying – and what the Greens are saying – is precisely what Malcolm Fraser is saying.
And as regards the cost of resettling 20,000 or so a year. Presumably it will be offset against saving the present 'sky's-the-limit' cost of being cruel to be kind and cruel to be cruel. And also offset, in the longer run, against the benefit of having all these new people in Australia – like the benefit we ultimately got from the post-war refugees and the Vietnamese refugees.
Peter Gibson #48, you very nearly had the beginnings of a policy there. You note there's "virtually no hope for genuine refugees anywhere to be resettled if they rely on the UNHCR process" because only 1% of refugees meet UNHCR resettlement criteria, yet 90+% of asylum seekers processed in Australia….
But then, instead of pausing to wonder if maybe the guaranteed resettlement is why people risk their lives to have their applications processed here and maybe we should revisit that approach, you took to a soapbox crying "cruel .. inhumane .. immoral" and offered no 'solution' except simply increasing the intake.
That's effectively "let them all come." You answered none of Bernard's questions about the qualifications, costs and limits of this plan. You merely jeered from the sidelines.
Well done. You just illustrated his point.
Bernard, anyone, tell me, who are these progressives who so feverishly,(according to Bernard) suggest "let them all come"?
Smart and yet compassionate journalism.
Thank you very much.
Bernard Keane brands critics of the current prevailing wisdom on refugees with the slogan "Let them all come".
His piece falls into the same trap of substituting "emotion for thinking and personal morality for good policy".
Many in this comment stream have thanked him for putting into words the anxiety they've felt. His article articulates and searches for logic, but the foundation of this position is based on fear and panic. Look deeper, Bernard. It's a view based on fear and panic.
He's worried : "The good intention of "let them all come" will lead to the outcome of more drownings". Fear makes you feel that way, as though another a layer of a 'White Australia'-like policy will be somehow heard by refugees planning their travel itinerary.
Yes, hundreds have died as 17,000 took the trip in leaky boats to Christmas Island. The pope took the opportunity during his visit to the Italian island outpost of Lampedusa to this month to criticise the global indifference to the estimated 20,000 asylum seekers who have drowned trying to reach Italy from Africa in the last 20 years.
It takes leadership to deliver such context. Sadly lacking here.
Bernard Keane is worried about cost: "Resettlement, done properly with the goal of ensuring refugees can have decent and productive lives in their new home, costs a lot of money. Significantly increasing resettlement numbers will cost billions."
Every man, woman and child now in a detention centre could have their own $50,000 p.a. social worker and we'd still be in front compared to the billions now being forked out by Australian tax-payers for detention camps in Manus and soon PNG. More expensive to 'let them all come'? You think?
Here's a suggestion: Let's not be logical against such emotion-based fear. Let's play the emotion card. Let's not call them refugees. How about 'post-war migrants'? Somehow reminiscent of Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese Australians who now pay taxes and help build a better nation.
Bernard is talking completely ignorant crap. Policy outcomes do not over ride human rights.
What sort of moronic wankers are you?
No Roni, the point is that asylum seekers are required by law to make claims in signatory nations, they are not entitled to have those claims approved and then ask for better while those who have had no claims assessed are entitled to apply here.
shepherdmarilyn, you have strong views born of compassion but everything you write reads like it's been spat from between your teeth with vitriol and hatred. This is the wrong way to go about winning hearts and recruiting people to your way of thinking.
@ Allen Reader – 'postwar migrants' would be good rebranding, but several of the wars are ongoing, we're losing, and really we're stuck in inability to admit that we've lost (in Iraq & Afghanistan). Maybe thats the real problem with these refugees, they remind us of our own neocolonial stupidity.
As a subset of "let them all come in", perhaps a better policy is founded on a substantial increase in the numbers being taken from source camps across northern Africa, the Middle East and Asia. So what number should be taken as refugees or otherwise on humanitarian grounds? Just increased by the current government from a paltry 13,500 to 20,000, this number needs to go up sharply for say ten years. To what?
Let me come back to that. A discrepancy in our refugee/humanitarian intake policy is that the Government subtracts from our commitment to take (now) 20,000 those that have come by boat. So those in the queues at source get pushed still further back. They do the right thing, and lose out.
So how many?
For discussion purposes, I propose that Australia's refugee/humanitarian intake be set at a nominal 100,000 per year for ten years. The economic pump priming can do wonders for Australia. Young families for the most part rapidly filling the diminishing 20-40 year olds building tax revenues to support Australia's ageing population.
My parents' families came to Australia as part of the Irish diaspora of the 1840s and 1850s. My new local pharmacist is a child of the Vietnamese diaspora of the mid 1970s through 1980s.
And the riches brought to our country post WW2 by people from Greece, Italy and central Europe, are almost incalculable.
From Fabia Claridge who doesn't have a Crikey Sub -Yes, Bernard we DO suggest that Australia fly or sail asylum seekers from Indonesia to avoid drownings and we make NO apologies for that. The figure of 20,000 or the reversed one of 13,000 are arbitrary, based on the philosophy that we are running a gated community for the wealthy down under. There are two problems with your arguments. The premise. And the figures. They each manipulate the other. First, the premise. Turn it around. Asylum seekers are an asset not a threat. We are so lucky to get them! Take a look in the mirror, Australia. This whole nonsense says more about us than it says about them. Second, the figures. Let's look at that first.
Here are some facts that you did not put into your article. There are 10 million refugees world wide. Last year Australia granted 13,757 humanitarian visas. This is less than 0.2% of the world's refugees. Australia's GDP ranks 12th highest in the world. Over 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees, assessed by a very stringent standard. And if you're talking asylum seekers. Still, only 3%of the total asylum seekers in the world come to Australia.
The money? It costs $25,000 per person p.a. To process a refugee in the community. The money is spent in the Australian community. It costs $145,000 per person p.a to detain a refugee in a remote offshore detention facility. All of that money goes to multi-national corporations like SERCO and G4 who take the money offshore. In total we are already spending $3billion p.a on deterrence. If we dropped the whole idea of deterrence that has not worked for the 20 years that it has been in place, we would save $2.5 billion p.a. That's every year!What could we do with that? Get rid of all HEX debts? Improve public housing, schools, universities and hospitals.? And into the bargain we would get great human resources to help do all this – meatworkers, engineers, nurses, doctors . . even some decent journalists, to name just a few of the bargains we would scoop in the form!
Further let's put the numbers into context. Australia settles around 180,000 'normal' migrants every year. On top of that there are around 200,000 457 visa holders, who come and can apply for residency after three years continuous work. So even by that measure asylum seekers in boats are still a tiny proportion of all new arrivals. So Bernard, why not make an upper limit of even as much as 80,000 per year. The next lot would wait in Indonesia until the next year if they knew there was SAFE PATHWAY.
Now let's look at the premise. The mainstream premise that You espouse, Bernard, is that asylum seekers are a threat. If you are honest you will admit we need to look at our own history of racism to find the reason for this – the Yellow Peril, Red Devils, Nips and Wogs and White Australia. Not to mention the massacres of our First Peoples. We are still largely in denial about all of this just as we are in denial about what is happening to our country right now! Australia has reached step two on the eight steps to genocide. The first is to verbally vilify a particular group and the second is to take away their rights. This we have already done with unashamed gusto. It is a slippery slide that is dangerous for us as human beings. To violate the rights of others damages us. But we don't get it yet.
Instead, we suggest that asylum seekers somehow have a choice. Surely we don't need to trawl over the facts of why people get on boats!. . . . Of the bombings of Hazaras in Quetta, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the hangings and torture in Iran, the massive reprisals against Tamils in Sri Lanka? Can I just state AGAIN. No one chooses to be a refugee, to risk their life on a leaky boat. Every asylum seeker is a real person with hopes an fears just like you or me, a person who loves their life just as much as each of us does. Most asylum seekers are young, savvy, energetic and often skilled. Just what this country needs. I am proud to say "Let them all come!' If you knew them as I do, Bernard you would say that too.
Please don't twist what Malcolm Fraser is saying. Yes, he suggests a regional processing centre in Indonesia with safer pathways to resettlement. Nobody disagrees. But it should be quite clear that Australia has nowhere near reached it's capacity or done it's fair share. Not by a long shot. Only then should we ask other countries who already do more than us to take people. It's time to take a good hard look in the mirror, chuck out deterrence and all its waste and welcome refugees.
Jenny Haines & Fabia Claridge, BRAVO:)
"Let them all come" is a new one on me. My fellow progressives and I tend to agree on helping those who do manage to arrive on our shores (in our waters) as well as taking concerted action in the Middle East and Africa, working with other countries be they Western or even from the Eastern bloc. Such a collaborative effort would be viewed with less suspicion than what we do at present – sending in troops simply furthers the view of western nations as imperialistic overlords.
Otherwise a welcome article to an near impossible problem.
Thank you for using a photo of me in the above article to demonstrate "unthinking progressives." Incidentally, it appears that this term is a euphemism for "bleeding heart" or "loony lefty". As a consistent paid-up Crikey reader over the last three years I'm going use up my virginity as "long time reader, first time writer" and take the opportunity to tear down your straw man.
I paint my sign, put on my Sunday Best after a full week of work and go to the rallies not because i'm driven there by totally my heart as "unthinking" suggests. However, I am guided by responding to the affect of this community, especially where I work in Greater Western Sydney.
While your article raises some interesting points it misses the overwhelming facts concerning the affect in our culture regarding our borders and boats. I'd suggest you look into the work of Australian-British academic Sara Ahmed in which these concepts are elucidated thoroughly and convincingly.
I attend these rallies because I oppose the public response to refugees who arrive by boat as portrayed by politicians and the media reflecting particular public sentiment. For example, when I took my sign on the train on the day the photo was taken I was told by a young sydneysider "f*ck the refugees!" before his friend pulled him away. The friend, the other train participants and the train guard who told me "I welcome the refugees too mate" tell a different story.
The dark sentiment above is harnessed by manipulators of affect and emblazoned 'policy to secure our borders'. At the moment 4,700 people arrive by boat annually because they are fleeing war, persecution and torture. While these push-factors exist people will continue to flee any way they can.
We need to have the guts to accept this. I challenge your notion that all we need is a "thinking" approach in this debate. I firmly believe that guts, emotion and affect are fundamental in establishing a mature response to this situation.
Finally, the racist, anti-immigrant bent to the public sentiment against refugees who arrive by boat that masks the scared face of a young insecure nation also exists. We need to acknowledge this and stand against it. I stand against this and I stand for dignified refugee migration.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/29/let-them-all-come-is-stop-the-boats-for-unthinking-progressives/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/
Show popup
Unlock articles instantly and get Crikey in your inbox each weekday.
Sign up FREE for your 21-day Crikey trial.
We've sent a confirmation to your email address — please open that email and click the "activate now" button. Then access is all yours!


text:
CANADA STOCKS-Futures gain ahead of Fed meeting
Sept 20 (Reuters) - Stock futures pointed to a higher opening for Canada's main stock index ahead of a two-day U.S. Federal Reserve meeting starting on Tuesday that investors are betting will leave interest rates unchanged.
December futures on the S&P TSX index were up 0.35 percent at 7:15 a.m. ET.
Canada's main stock index rose on Monday, led by financials and resource stocks as commodity prices climbed and amid uncertainty around the Fed's decision on interest rates.
No major economic releases are scheduled on Tuesday.
Dow Jones Industrial Average e-mini futures were up 0.27 percent at 7:15 a.m. ET, while S&P 500 e-mini futures were up 0.34 percent and Nasdaq 100 e-mini futures were up 0.31 percent.
(Morning News Call newsletter link.reuters.com/nex49s ; The Day Ahead newsletter link.reuters.com/mex49s)
General Motors Co and the Canadian autoworkers union announced a tentative contract deal early on Tuesday, averting a strike that would have shut some of the automaker's Canadian manufacturing facilities. Continued...

subset: commoncrawl


text: Meta Battle Subway PokeBase - Pokemon Q&A Login Register All Activity Questions Unanswered Tags Users Ask a Question Rules Chat How do you get Celebi in SS? 2 votes 6,196 views soulsilver celebi asked Aug 26, 2010 by tsfmistros edited Aug 26, 2010 by Pokemaster Please log in or register to add a comment. Please log in or register to answer this question. 3 Answers 3 votes You can only get Celebi from and event. Unfortunately, all the events with it have passed, so you would have to trade for it. If you have the japanese version of the pokemon colosseum bonus disc, you can get it on a GBA game, then pal park it to gen 4. answered Aug 26, 2010 by DarkTyphlosion edited Aug 27, 2010 by DarkTyphlosion Please log in or register to add a comment. 2 votes See here: http://pokemondb.net/pokebase/6609/how-can-i-get-celebi answered Aug 26, 2010 by Pokemaster Please log in or register to add a comment. 0 votes no pokemon is not getabel you can use cheat to get it but i dont alow it but in this case i do answered Mar 20, 2012 by fuzzy292 Please log in or register to add a comment. Related questions How do you get a Celebi egg? In pokemon heartgold/soulsilver do you need to use Celebi for any thing? How can I get Celebi? Can you catch celebi in soul silver without the event? Can I get Celebi and Arceus in Soul Silver? is it possible to get celebi with relocator without event pokemon How to find mew and celebi on pokemon soulsilver? Where can you find Celebi in SS? Useful Meta Posts Vote for Sun/Moon moveset questions How to change your username How to add a user avatar Why was my post hidden? The points system Question etiquette Flags vs Downvotes Anime FAQ


text:
If I ever see one of these for sale I will pick one up. I like the idea of having a long gun that fires the same rounds as my carry pistol. My intent would be to make this my SHTF rifle and add it to my BOB.
This is a discussion on Olympic AR-15 9mm that takes Glock mags. within the Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I own several 9mm Glocks and was considering getting the Olympic AR-15 that takes the Glock mags in 9mm. Thought it would be nice to ...
I own several 9mm Glocks and was considering getting the Olympic AR-15 that takes the Glock mags in 9mm. Thought it would be nice to have a rifle that shot the same caliber and actually used the same mags as my pistol. Anyone own have any experience with this gun?
If I ever see one of these for sale I will pick one up. I like the idea of having a long gun that fires the same rounds as my carry pistol. My intent would be to make this my SHTF rifle and add it to my BOB.
Maybe I should buy some more 33rd Glock magazines?
I have my hopes on buying this after the first of the year. This carbine uses Glock mags
Olympic Arms - K40-GL Flat Top Pistol Carbine, .40SW http://www.snipercountrypx.com/showp...productid=1782.
Then I would need to get some of the 30 rd .40 S&W mags for it.
No experience with the Oly, but I just had a Lone Wolf AR/Glock in the shop. The gun itself was fine, the owner screwed it up trying to add some Taiwan Tactical stock to it. They're great. The only downside is they aren't compatible with other uppers. I have a ton of Sten magazines and was going to use one of my stripped lowers to make a 9mm eith Olympics Sten conversion, now after shooting the Lone Wolf I think I'll keep the Sten mags for another project (MAC M11) and go with a Glock mag AR.
Try not to screw up so bad they name the screw up after you. (Station 15 saying)
NRA Certifed Instructor
Ruger PC9GR PC-9 Carbine 9mm Blue Synthetic
Kholster/Glock 17/Rugar SR9c/Bersa 380CC/Ruger LCR/SW 624/ SW 629
Doublestar Star 15 M4 5.56 / Mossberg 500 Tactical Persuader
I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence
Malcolm X
Olympic Arms is generally considered to be at the lower end of AR platform rifle makers. Would it sever as a decent HD rifle....likely but not as well made as rifles from the better combat worthy makers like LMT, BCM, Colt, Noveski and Danial Defence. But basically on Par with Bushmaster, DPMS, Rock River and some others who make a decent rifle. They may have the only Glock compatable AR though so you may have to go that route for an AR with Glock mags compatability.
When I leave the home port:
S&W 642 Airweight, Ruger SP 101, Colt Detective Spec., CZ RAMI, Kahr PM9, Kahr CW40, S&W Model 10-7, Glock 30, 19, and 26, Browning Hi Power, CZ82, Colt Commander, Dan Wesson PM7, Ruger LCP
Lone Wolf makes a Glock compatable lower. Oly is the only company that offers a Sten magazine lower where others use modified Uzi magazines. The Uzi is a double column feed, the Sten is a single feed magazine ( and is available at dirt cheap prices ).
I own a lot of each kind of magazine (and in true gun-nut style I don't actually own anythng the Sten mags fit...yet ). I believe when I build a pistol caliber AR, it will be a Glock compatible lower. Oly is OK, but we do a lot of business with Lone Wolf where I work so I'll probably get a better deal from them.
Try not to screw up so bad they name the screw up after you. (Station 15 saying)
NRA Certifed Instructor
Another option is the KelTec Sub2000
It's a big handgun. Pass.
If you are picking up a rifle...fire a rifle bullet.
I'd rather have a Nagant.
Kel-Tec P-3at, Taurus PT-908, Glock 17, Glock 19, Glock 26, Kel-Tec SUB-2000 9mm (Glock 17 mag compatible),Kel-Tec PF-9, Ruger SP-101 2¼ barrel hammerless, Maverick Arms 88 Security 8-shot 12 gauge, Marlin 336W .30-30 Win., Rossi Model 92 SRC .357 Mag.
I too have been searching for a 9mm or 40 cal carbine (Glock mag compatible) as I own multiple Glocks. I stumbled on Mech Tech (MechTech - Home) - just as I found this site by chance. Mech Tech manufactures carbine conversions for most Glocks and 1911's. At first I was skeptical, but the site is very informative and the product appears well designed and nicely machined. This could prove to be a great alternative as opposed to the Olympic, Kel-tec Sub 2000, Ruger PC, or other; especially for Glock owners with mutiple models of the same cal. (19, 17 -22, 23).
Did the ATF ever rule on converting the Mech Tech from carbine back into a pistol?
Also new since this ancient thread was started is the "JRC" Just Right Carbine from EMF. It's a totally ambi design with a Glock magwell. I saw one at the gunshop but didn't get to shoot it. One is on my "eventually" list.
I have one of the Rugers and its nice, but a bit clunky with a pretty heavy bolt. Mine is marked "Police Carbine" instead of PC, and it served as a companion to my P85 and 89 for years.
Try not to screw up so bad they name the screw up after you. (Station 15 saying)
NRA Certifed Instructor
When I want a rifle...I want a doggone rifle. When I need a semi-automatic rifle what I don't need is a semi-automatic pistol with an extra long barrel.
Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ
Well I'd like to have a semi-auto pistol carbine myself. The old Tommy guns were pretty good, so I think a pistol carbine would be nice. I'd like the 9mm variety Thereon defense , Keltec, Oly or a lone wolfe.
Having both the carbine and the rifle in the same caliber would be nice hence the choosing the 9mm. A 45 would be a better choice but the cost difference in ammo is the deciding factor for me.
And yes I'd like a AR in 5.56 also.


text:
Member Since: March 3, 2010
Country: United States
125kHz HID cards aren't encrypted. They are simply RFID devices that spit out a hard-coded 26, 35, 37, or however many bits in their particular format. If you have 125kHz HID cards, yes this ought to read them fine. This is a good overview of how the HID 125kHz stuff sends data:
No public wish lists :(


text:
"When people say our progress in this World Cup has all been very suspicious, I get angry because we could mention a lot of incidents when we haven't had the benefit of the doubt," protests Korea's new Messiah.
That coach Hiddink should feel obliged to defend his team's quite glorious and wholly unexpected campaign against the whines of the bleating conspiracy theorists and pathetic sore losers is deeply sad.
Because, whatever happens today in their World Cup semi-final with Germany, nothing should be allowed to deflect from the uplifting nature of a campaign which, on and off the field, should only help restore our faith in what's best about football and ought to give every European soccer super-power a lesson in humility.
It's been a story of what you can achieve with all-for-one, one-for-all teamwork, supreme fitness, underrated skill, an inspirational coach and with big hearts. It's proof miracles can happen when you love your work and when you don't believe the multi-millionaires you're up against are Gods.
And, frankly, the wails of protest from Lisbon to Rome to Madrid about being cheated out of this World Cup should be consigned to history just like the sulking Portuguese, Italian and Spanish aristocrats who've all been dumped out of the competition by a bunch of honest, never-say-die pros few had ever heard of before the event,
In Portugal, they preferred to cry foul rather than scold one of their own, Joao Pinto who struck a referee, and another, Luis Figo, who, according to two of his Korean opponents, seemed rather keener during the game to broker a deal whereby both teams would qualify for round two than actually go out there and justify his £40million tag. In Italy, they cried "cheat" about the refereeing, yet never mentioned Christian Vieri getting away scot free despite breaking Kim Tae-Young's nose with a flying elbow.
Instead of the sort of pitiful reaction which has seen Perugia sackKorea's scorer Ahn Jung-Hwan, and then reinstate him last night, and had Italian broadcasters seeking compensation from FIFA, why isn't anyone there asking why a team of Serie A stars sat back in timehonoured negative fashion and weren't good enough to defend an early one-goal lead against a team who, collectively, wouldn't cost you as much as one Francesco Totti?
Yes, Italy and Spain were unlucky but for them to complain of a fix to ensure the hosts progressed is absolutely priceless. Poor footballing minnows being victimised in favour of mighty Korea. Do us a favour.
Host teams invariably get lucky and moans about incompetent refereeing are par for the course.
A couple of years ago in Buenos Aires, Antonio Rattin was still complaining to me about how the 1966 World Cup was fixed for England to win. Yet, in truth, Korea's startling campaign here tells us as much about European football's problems as FIFA's perennial headache of sub-standard officiating.
Not just them either. Japan's freshness made Belgium and Russia look stale; American athleticism overpowered Portugal and was unlucky not to knock out Germany too. Senegal ran the champions France ragged, Mexico terrified the Italians while Costa Rica almost ensured Turkey never made it to the second round.
Nigeria fielded a bunch of raw kids and still gave England a scare, while even Ireland's splendid crew of journeymen didn't need their one superstar Roy Keane to drive Germany and Spain to distraction.
With all of these so-called little teams, the same picture has emerged of players who've looked to be uplifted by the whole occasion, who've made their World Cup experience seem as if it's meant everything rather than being a post-season chore.
In comparison, so many of the fat cats have looked, well, a bit flabby. The culture of European club greed which has forced them to come here with barely a break after the demands of their domestic and Champions League exertions has played its part. So, perhaps, has the culture of hero worship which reminds them every day how wonderful they are supposed to be.
Yet how wonderful were, say, Totti, Figo and Juan Carlos Valeron with the tigerish Korean midfield blanketing their every move. This was supposed to be theWorld Cup of Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham and their ilk but, instead, they've been eclipsed by SeolKiHyeon, Choi Jin Cheul and Hong Myung Bo.
When he took the Korean job, said Hiddink, he found a team which "had a false respect for European teams and felt inferior." Yes, he's brought organisation but "making them believe" has been his crowning triumph. Okay, maybe time will inform us that this World Cup was just a one-off. Yet I'm not so sure.
Win or lose today, there will be seven million Koreans on their streets ready to party wildly having watched their squad show world football a glimpse of the possibility of an exciting new road ahead.
World Cup semi-final
Germany v South Korea
(Today, Seoul, 12.30pm. Live on ITV1)
- More about:
- P Funk


text:
Charlotte AlexanderAssistant Professor of Law
- Education
B.A., Columbia University
J.D., Harvard Law School
- Specializations
Employment Law
Labor Law
- Biography
Charlotte Alexander, an assistant professor of legal studies in the Department of Risk Management and Insurance at the J. Mack Robinson College of Business with a secondary appointment at the College of Law, focuses on the employment relationship as a source of legal and economic risk for both workers and employers.
Alexander is interested in the decisions workers make in choosing whether and how to challenge unsafe or illegal working conditions and the incentive structures built into the law that are designed (but perhaps fail) to encourage workers to become enforcers of their rights. She also uses empirical methods to study trends in employment litigation, employers' perceptions of their employment litigation risk, and the changes that employers make to their policies and practices in response. At bottom, her work investigates the ways in which workplace problems convert into legal claims and the consequences of employees' claiming choices for both parties to the employment relationship.
Alexander received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Columbia University and her J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where she was elected president of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau and received the Dean's Award for Community Leadership, the Kaufman Pro Bono Service Award, and an Excellence in Teaching Award for her work as a teaching assistant. After law school, she clerked for Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and then served as a Skadden Fellow and senior staff attorney at Georgia Legal Services' Farmworker Rights Division.
Alexander's previous and forthcoming law review publications have appeared in the New York University Law Review, Indiana Law Journal (Bloomington), University of California at Davis Law Review, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, and the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, among others. She also has published in peer reviewed journals, including the American Business Law Journal and Industrial Relations.
- Publications


text: Saffron-Sashed Floppy Hat $49.95 $98.00 Style No. 26276741 Qty: Size: * Select Size One Size Sorry, this item is currently unavailable Pick up In-Store » Add to Favorites » Share on Facebook Pin on Pinterest Email a Friend » Details Reviews An expansive brim of navy wool is pulled together with a burnt-orange ribbon and an antique buckle, which resembles a horse bit. - 100% wool - Spot clean - 3.75" brim, 23.25" crown - Imported


text:
27 January 2016
MSI launches new motherboard
Updated 970 chipset motherboard with USB 3.1
MSI has launched its new budget motherboard that will be based AMD's 970 chipset but also brings update connectivity with USB 3.1 ports, the MSI 970A-G43 Plus.
26 March 2015
MSI announces new 970A SLI Krait Edition motherboard
Brings USB 3.1 to AMD chipset
MSI has announced the world's first USB 3.1 equipped AMD chipset based motherboard, the black and white 970A SLI Krait Edition.
03 May 2011
Three Bulldozer motherboards leaked
990- and 970-based


text:
2017 Route
Sporting aspects
The route
Running from Saturday July 1st to Sunday July 23rd 2017, the 104th Tour de France will be made up of 21 stages and will cover a total distance of 3,540 kilometres.
- - 9 flat stages
- - 5 hilly stages
- - 5 mountain stages including altitude finishes (La Planche des Belles Filles, Peyragudes, Izoard)
- - 2 individual time-trials stages
- - 2 rest days
The 2017 Tour de France will include a total of 23 mountains climbs or hills and altitude finishes ranked in second, first or HC class.
The geographic distribution will be as follow:
- - 1 in the Vosges
- - 6 in the Jura
- - 8 in the Pyrénées
- - 2 in the Massif central
- - 6 in the Alps
Distinctive aspects of the race
The 104th Tour de France will visit three neighboring countries: Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg. In France, 34 counties will be visited.
It hadn't happened since 1992. The five main mountain ranges of France will be on the program in 2017. The Tour will visit, in the following order, the Vosges, the Jura, the Pyrenees, the Massif Central and the Alps. The highlight will be the very first stage finish at the top of the Col d'Izoard.
It'll be after a 14-kilometre time-trial in the streets of Düsseldorf that the first Yellow Jersey of the 2017 Tour de France will be awarded. In Marseille, after the 20th and penultimate stage, a 22.5 kilometre time-trial, the winner of the 104th edition of the Grande Boucle will be crowned.
Re-introduced in 2015 after a seven-year absence, bonus seconds will again be up for grabs at the finishes of all the normal stages. There will indeed be 10, 6 and 4 seconds to be gained for the first three of each stage.
The green jersey will be awarded to the leader of the points classification. These points will be given out at the finishes of each stage as well as on the unique intermediate sprints of normal stages.
The polka-dot jersey will be on the shoulders of the leader of the best climbers' classification. Points will be awarded at the top of each Col or Côte and the three altitude finishes (La Planche des Belles Filles, Peyragudes, Izoard).
10 new sites and stage cities
- Düsseldorf (1st stage and start of stage 2)
- Mondorf-les-Bains (start of stage 4)
- Nuits-Saint-Georges (finish of stage 7)
- Nantua (start of stage 9)
- Eymet (start of stage 11)
- Laissac-Sévérac l'Église (start of stage 15)
- Romans-sur-Isère (finish of stage 16)
- La Mure (start of stage 17)
- Izoard (finish of stage 18)
- Salon-de-Provence (finish of stage 19)
The stages
Official Timekeeper
Jersey wearers after the stage 21
- the day's winnerGREIPEL A.LTS
- teamMOVISTAR TE.MOV
Sporting stakes
Receive exclusive news about the Tour de France
Discover Historical Guide
Sponsorship and Environment
Since it was founded, Amaury Sport Organisation has been involved in various sponsorship and philanthropy activities. It is the generosity of sport that can be found in a certain number of initiatives aiming to invest in the workings of the disciplines themselves (sponsorship of the French Federation of Cycling), in a humanitarian and social framework, (Mécénat Chirurgie Cardiaque, Actions Dakar, Un Techo Para Mi Pais) or in the environmental sphere (Madre De Dios, selective sorting, etc.). Read more
A.S.O. is committed to integrating environmental considerations into the organisation of its races: Limiting CO2 emissions; A quality waste management policy for the spectators but also for the organisers and the riders; The promotion of cycling as an alternative, environmentally-friendly means of transport. Read more


text:
A "No" Vote on Bernanke is a Major Fundamental Event
There is a growing belief that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who was nominated to head the Central Bank for a second term by President Obama last August, will not receive the 60 senate votes required for re-appointment.
The increasing possibility of a "no" vote on Bernanke, a Republican appointed by President Bush in February 2006 to succeed Allan Greenspan, is likely send global equity markets deeper into the tailspin they've been in since President Obama announced his plan to reign in proprietary trading at the nation's largest commercial banks. It also would likely cause the dollar to rise in a wave of risk aversion against the euro, pound, Australian and New Zealand dollars that would be accompanied by a move into Treasuries and away from commodities. It's the type of Major Fundamental Event that will have the market moving in a herd mentality (negative) until further notice.
No time has been set aside for the vote as of yet, but Bernanke's term as Chairman is due to expire on January 31. Bernanke has a separate term as a Fed Governor, which doesn't expire until 2020.
From an economic perspective, Bernanke has several very important marks against him. As a member of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), he participated in the Fed's mistake of keeping interest rates too low for too long a period. The Fed didn't begin raising interest rates from 1.00% until early 2004, over two years after the 2001 recession (which was mild), ended in November 2001. They raised rates too slowly (25 bps increments over 13 meetings through June 2006) once the tightening cycle was begun. The Fed failed to adequately supervise the banks as they went on a credit binge. But most damaging of all was Bernanke's repeated assessment during 2007 that the sub-prime crisis would be contained.
The economic arguments, however, pale in comparison to what's happening politically. The election last Tuesday of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts for a U.S. Senate seat the Democrats had held since former president John F. Kennedy was first elected to it in 1953 is being viewed by politicians up for mid-term elections as the beginning of a populist revolt against the government's failed response to The Great Recession.
Unemployment has remained painfully high as Wall Street bankers are once again earning record bonuses, and the perception is that the Government and Federal Reserve have come to the aid of Wall Street at the expense of everyday workers, whose tax dollars went a long way in preventing an economic collapse.
The facts are that while Government and Federal Reserve policies over many years did help to inflate the credit bubble, they also helped avert what would have been a complete collapse of the economic system and a second Great Depression. But proving a negative is difficult in the face of high unemployment and skyrocketing foreclosure rates while the rich get richer and working people continue to suffer.
The Republicans have a vested interest in seeing economic conditions remaining poor because it will be much easier for them to regain power if voters remain dissatisfied with the job that the Government, which currently is under rule by the Democrats, is doing.
But Democrats concerned about being caught up in the populist backlash are also coming out against Bernanke's re-appointment in greater numbers. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) affirmed her intention to vote against Mr. Bernanke. While saying she said she had "a lot of respect" for him and offering praise for what he's cone toward preventing the economic crisis from getting even worse, she also said it was "time for a change," and for "Main Street to have a champion at the Fed."
"Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past," Ms. Boxer said.


text:
Fibromyalgia is a complicated condition. It has no specific causes and no known cure. Yet for those who have it -- as many as one in 50 Americans -- the chronic pain, fatigue, and psychological strain of fibromyalgia are all too clear.
Fibromyalgia symptoms are treatable, however. Many experts believe the best treatment is a multifaceted approach that combines medication with lifestyle changes and alternative treatments.
You may need to work with your doctor, a physical therapist, and possibly others to tailor a treatment plan to your needs. Here's how to get started.
Fibromyalgia Treatment: Start With a Diagnosis
Fibromyalgia is a syndrome-- a collection of symptoms, rather than a specific disease. Some of the most recognizable fibromyalgia symptoms are:
- Widespread pain
- Severe fatigue
- Tender points on the body
- Anxiety or depression
Doctors often diagnose fibromyalgia by considering criteria such as how long you've had pain and how widespread it is, and by ruling out other causes. This can be tricky, however, because symptoms associated with fibromyalgia can be caused by other conditions. So it's best to see a doctor who is familiar with fibromyalgia.
There is a blood test that can help diagnose fibromyalgia. The test identifies markers produced by immune system blood cells in people with fibromyalgia.
Learn About Fibromyalgia Medications
Once you've been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, your doctor will talk to you about treatment options. Several types of medicines are used to help manage fibromyalgia symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
Three medications are FDA-approved to treat fibromyalgia:
- Cymbalta ( duloxetine): Cymbalta is atype of antidepressant called a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Researchers aren't sure how Cymbalta works in fibromyalgia, but they think that increasing levels of serotonin and norepinephrine help control and reduce feelings of pain.
- Lyrica ( pregabalin): Lyrica is a nerve pain and epilepsy drug. In people with fibromyalgia, it may help calm down overly sensitive nerve cells that send pain signals throughout the body. It has been effective in treating fibro pain.
- Savella (milnacipran): Savella is also an SNRI. While researchers aren't exactly sure how it works, studies have shown that it helps relieve pain and reduce fatigue in people with fibromyalgia.


text:
Symptoms: Immature, green sori larger than the seed develop on panicles during grain fill. A single sorus develops per floret. As grain matures, sori change in color from green to dark brown. Sori are filled with dark teliospores.
Pathogen and disease characteristics: Chestnut brown to black-brown sporeballs are composed of 200 to 1,400 aggregated yellowish brown globose to subglobose teliospores. Teliospores germinate to produce promycelia with basidiospores and sporidia (Subba Rao and Thakur 1983). Infection occurs when sporidia suspended in rain or dew infiltrate into the boot (Wilson 1995). Aerial populations of sporidia are greatest when minimum and maximum temperatures range between approximately 21 and 31 °C and maximum relative humidity is greater than 80 percent (Kousik et al. 1988).
Host range: Pearl millet.
Geographic distribution: United States (Wells et al. 1963), India, Zimbabwe, Senegal, Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Malawi (Wiehe 1953,Saccas 1954,King 1970,Jouan and Delassus 1971,Rachie and Majmudar 1980), and Tanzania (Mbwaga et al. 1993). Also Zambia, Sudan, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali (S.B. King, personal communication, 1995).
Nomenclature discrepancies:Synonyms:Tolyposporium penicillariae Bref. (Vanky 1977), Tolyposporium senegalense Speng.
Considerable confusion exists in the literature concerning smut of pearl millet. For further details, see "Questionable or poorly described diseases of pearl millet reported in the literature."
Seed transmission: Seed may be infested with teliospore balls, but infection does not take place through seedlings (Bhatt 1946). Teliospores may remain viable in the soil, where basidiospores and sporidia may be produced (Patel et al. 1959).
Primary citations: As indicated above.
|previous page
|next page
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
The material on this page is in the public domain.
Original posting: June 5, 1999.


text:
a place for zinesters - writers and readers
Its much cheaper than whisky or rum. If you are a sick fuck, you will buy it.
Super Aids Zine -Contains verses descriptive or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexjual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority figures, lawlessness, and human rights violations and atrocities.
I still have 50 copies left. I am also sending one copy to Joseph Fritzl...


text:
Nov. 13, 2011
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. ---- Seniors Thais Soares and Heather Thomas led the UAB volleyball team in a 3-0 (25-20, 25-16, 25-15) sweep of the Tulane Green Wave on Sunday afternoon at Bartow Arena.
UAB (21-8, 11-6 C-USA) hit .255 as a club, connecting for 41 kills on 106 attacks. The home defense was equally if not more impressive, showcasing why it holds the lowest opponent's hitting percentage in Conference USA. Tulane (9-19, 4-13 C-USA) managed just a .081 (26K-18E-99) attacking clip, including being blanked in the final stanza, .000 (6K-6E-29 TA).
Soares and Kate Morrell paced the offensive surge, recording 11 and 10 kills, respectively. Soares hit .292 for the match and added eight digs, while Morrell registered a .333 attacking mark with six digs, three aces and three block assists.
In the back row, Thomas led UAB in digs with 11 and now has tallied 2,070 during her career in Green and Gold. She needs just five digs to move into fourth place on C-USA's all-time list. The Madison, Ala. native also scorched a pair of aces in the contest, as UAB tallied nine as a team for the match.
The nine aces marked the most by the Blazers in a C-USA match this season and the second most in a contest all year. UAB recorded season-high 10 aces versus Kennesaw State on Sept. 10.
"I think a key to the victory today was our girls did a nice job serving and keeping Tulane out of system," head coach Kerry Messersmith said.
Another individual that stood out offensively was Ashley Ricks. The New Washington, Ind. product hit .600 on the day, smoking nine kills on 15 attempts with zero miscues.
At the setter slot in the lineup, Alison punched in a well balanced effort into the box score. The junior dished out 22 assists, added seven digs along with a match-high four aces in the victory.
"It is always nice to send the seniors off with a win because it is such an emotional time for them," Messersmith said. "Sometimes it's tough to get up and play because of the all the emotions going on, but both seniors did a nice job for us."
Tulane was paced by Cori Martone's 14 kills, while libero Nikki Osuna topped the Green Wave in digs with 13.
UAB is on the road next weekend with a trip to East Carolina on Friday, Nov. 18 for a 6 p.m. CT match. The Blazers will follow that up with a contest at Marshall, starting at 1 p.m. on Sunday.


text:
Thriving Family
Focus on the Family
8605 Explorer Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
Emails and letters will be answered by Focus on the Family's Family Help Specialists before being forwarded to Thriving Family. By writing to Thriving Family you are granting us permission to reprint your comments (wholly or in part).
E-mail author submissions to: firstname.lastname@example.com
Developing thankfulness in your child can help fight off a sense of entitlement and envy.
Featuring the insights of: Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend
Taken from Session 6 of Boundaries With Kids. Copyright © 2007 by Henry Cloud and John Townsend. Used by permission.
If you like this video, check out more on the Focus on the Family YouTube channel.
Little Book of Great Dates:
52 Creative Ideas to Make Your Marriage Fun
The Mission of Jesus:
Triumph of God's Kingdom in a Broken World
© 2010 Focus on the Family.
Privacy Policy/Terms of Use


text:
Track My Order
Frequently Asked Questions
International Shipping Info
Send Email
Mon-Fri, 9am to 12pm and
1pm to 5pm U.S. Mountain Time:
(303) 284-0979
Chat With Us
Member Since:
May 7, 2009
United States
Product BOB-11083
about 5 years ago
YES! I've been wanting to build my own clock radio w/ NOAA radio for some time now but couldn't find any way to get the chip.
No public wish lists :(
Forgot your password?
No account? Register one!


text:
ROYAL WORCESTER Days of the Week - Sunday Girl Figurine
- Sold for: Start Free Trial or Sign In to see what it's worth.
- Item Category: Ceramics
- Source: eBay
- Sold Date: Aug 20, 2007
- Channel: Auction House
ROYAL WORCESTER Days of the Week Sunday Girl Hand Painted Porcelain Figurine AM OFFERING A WONDERFUL, PERFECT CONDITION (COMES IN ORIGINAL BOX) ROYAL WORCESTER FIGURINE. THIS IS "Sunday Girl" FROM THE "Days of the Week" SERIES. Size: 5 in tall. T are no chips or cracks . VERY CUTE!.. Thank you for looking. I also have another figurines from this series, so if you are interested I'll be glad to answer your questions


text:
Stay Social with Adirondack.net
Articles - Read & Subscribe
Become a fan of Adirondack.net on Facebook, submit your photo on our wall with #ADKpicoftheweek!
Towns > Schuyler Falls
Schuyler Falls, NY
On the edge of the Salmon River just outside of Plattsburgh is Schuyler Falls. With the Macomb Reservation State Park down the road, Schuyler Falls has much to offer campers and nature lovers.
Whether utilizing a trailer or a tent to sleep in, the State Park invites you to spend time there. Picnic tables and playing fields dot the grounds, and it also has its own beach. Iit's not just swimmers who enjoy the water, though - fishermen are welcome as are boaters (those without engines). Winter brings a different feel to the park, with cross-country skiers and snowshoers making their way across the landscape.
We're sorry...


text:
Location: Commodity Protection and Quality Research
Project Number: 0500-00044-035-02-S
Project Type: Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement
Start Date: Sep 23, 2008
End Date: Sep 22, 2013
1. Collect baseline pest management data and calculate the cost of current and alternative NOW management practices. Estimate the resource and labor use for each set of practices for each of the three crops. 2. Compare the efficacy of current and proposed NOW management programs in terms of gross income and control costs. Gross income which reflects both yield and quality. 3. Determine the economic impact of adoption of non - EC pest management on California growers of each commodity taking into account the pest management costs and any changes in efficacy.
The economic analysis phase will estimate the total on – farm costs of the base control method and the alternatives for each commodity – material combination identified. The on – farm costs include the application cost plus the materials cost. All aerial and ground applications will be done by custom operators with a per acre charge. All custom operator charges, air and ground applications, will be determined from surveys of commercial service providers. We will collect material cost data from local suppliers, including volume discounts, if possible. The number of applications and application rates per applied acre will be determined in the first phase of the research and verified through the product labels. For each commodity, we will calculate the on farm per acre pest management cost for each NOW control alternative and the base practices and compare the per acre costs. The final analysis will take any differences in efficacy into account and estimate the additional impact of lost income due to any decrease in yield or quality. We will also calculate the potential number of pounds of EC pesticides eliminated with full adoption of the alternatives proposed.


text:
"How would you like to hang out with Yogi Berra and Ron Guidry during spring training? Funny and sweet, "Driving Mr. Yogi "transports you there." -- Jim Bouton, author of "Ball Four "
It happens every spring. Yankees pitching great Ron Guidry arrives at the Tampa airport to pick up Hall of Fame catcher and national treasure Yogi Berra. Guidry drives him to the ballpark. They watch the young players. They talk shop. They eat dinner together and tease each other mercilessly. They trade stories about the greats they have met along the way. And the next day they do the same thing all over again.
As every former ballplayer can appreciate, in that routine, every spring, there emerges a certain magic.
"Driving Mr. Yogi" is the story of how a unique friendship between a pitcher and catcher is renewed every year. It began in 1999, when Berra was reunited with the Yankees after a long self-exile, the result of being unceremoniously fired by George Steinbrenner fourteen years before. A reconciliation between Berra and the Boss meant that Berra would attend spring training again. Guidry befriended "Mr. Yogi" instantly. After all, Berra had been a mentor in the clubhouse back when Guidry was pitching for the Yankees. Guidry knew the young players would benefit greatly from Mr. Yogi's encyclopedic knowledge of the game, just as Guidry had during his playing days. So he encouraged him to share his insights. Soon, an offhand batting tip from Mr. Yogi turned Nick Swisher's season around. Stories about handling a hitter like Ted Williams or catching Don Larsen's perfect game captured their imaginations. And in Yogi, Guidry found not just an elder companion or source of amusement - he found a best friend.
At turns tender, at turns laugh-out-loud funny, and teeming with unforgettable baseball yarns that span more than fifty years, "Driving Mr. Yogi" is a universal story about the importance of wisdom being passed from one generation to the next, as well as a reminder that time is what we make of it and compassion never gets old.
Narrative of the friendship that's developed between Ron Guidry and Yogi Berra as a result of Berra's annual trips to Florida for Yankees spring training.
|Driving Mr. Yogi: Yogi Berra, Ron Guidry, and Baseball's Greatest Gift
|Harvey Araton
|Hard Bound
|Publishing Date:
|Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
|Number of Pages:
Please Note -
* We sell only NEW book and do NOT sell old or used books.
* The book images and summary displayed may be of a different edition or binding of the same title.
* Book reviews are not added by BookAdda.
* Price can change due to reprinting, price change by publisher / distributor.
BookAdda (www.bookadda.com) is a premier online book store in selling books online across India at the most competitive prices. BookAdda sells fiction, business, non fiction, literature, AIEEE, medical, engineering, computer book, etc. The books are delivered across India FREE of cost.