Border Mail letters: Border Mail readers have their say on the issues of the day

Corboy comes up short

Thanks for sharing the opinion offered by Marty Corboy, ‘We Would Be Foolish To Leave Coal Behind’ (The Border Mail, June 30). Unfortunately his confused piece offered little to inform the need for urgent energy transformation.

Noting Mr Corboy’s run at the last federal election, I believe we have a right to expect much more intellectual rigour from those who seek to represent us. After all, cities, states and countries around the world are achieving a 100 per cent supply of renewable electricity, and all without a collapse of ‘jobs and health’. In fact, it’s quite the reverse.

Please Mr Corboy, we deserve informed leadership not misplaced nostalgia. 

Matthew Charles-Jones, Yackandandah

BACK OFF: A reader says too many drivers fail to understand the dangers of tail-gating, saying that every time he drives one or more drivers sit too close behind.

BACK OFF: A reader says too many drivers fail to understand the dangers of tail-gating, saying that every time he drives one or more drivers sit too close behind.

Deadly habit on roads

Tail-gating (driving too close to the car in front) is illegal but why aren’t drivers told why tail-gating is dangerous? Nearly every day that I drive, one or more motorists tail-gate me. Travelling at 100km/h with another motorist one car length behind me is intimidating and dangerous.

If I had to stop suddenly, one or both of us would be killed or severely injured. When the tail-gater is a 15-tonne semi-trailer, the likelihood of death is even more certain. Consider a trip from Albury to Melbourne at a speed of 100km/h with two cars following, with car A one car length behind and car B 100 metres behind for the entire distance. Car A would arrive at Melbourne 3.6 seconds before car B. 

How far behind a car should one drive? Imagine the car in front to be a tree that has suddenly popped up. If you couldn’t stop before hitting it, you are driving too close.

D. A. Corbett, Albury

Mama mia, what rubbish

Since the MAMA art gallery opened, it has staged many fine and diverse exhibitions. Most have been excellent, some of world-class quality. But has MAMA gone completely nuts by commissioning Nick Dorey's bizarre structure made up of old timber beams, barrels and pipes and culminating in a large swirling pool in the foyer?

It's rubbish, along with a gobbledegook caption that  says the work, titled The Drowning of Hermaphroditus, “mines the knowledge systems of millennia-old traditions that serve to develop an understanding of the place of human beings in the physical universe and our imaginings of, and reverberations within, a spiritual realm”.

It's true Cr Darren Cameron has compared MAMA to the Taj Mahal, and that place has a pool, but what the heck is a sandbagged pool doing here? Believe it or not, Dorey has used items from the local tip to create this mess. Go and look. It's free.

Howard Jones, Albury

Writer true to form

This weeks “On the Wallaby” column by David Everist continues the curious technique he has become known for – making peculiar unsupported jibes at barely defined people or groups. Last week his issue was the cost of pumping water using diesel, to which he said, presumably sarcastically, “pure joy for the environmentalists”.

The heading for that article was “Irrigators outraged at higher energy costs”, which is curious in that he highlighted a point of agreement between irrigators and environmentalists, yet attempted to somehow score a point against the environmentalists for agreeing with irrigators.

This week’s column was equally baffling, and perhaps more disturbing. His subject was Australian Bacon Week where bacon producers were given awards for the quality of their product. Not one to let an opportunity go by though, David just had to add “It did bring a smile to my face, as the week passed without one protest from those that attest bacon is not clean.” Just who is he talking about here? Does he mean Jews?

If so then he should be more explicit. I would welcome any other interpretation of his comments.

Graham Parton, Stanley