Comments

Excellent points, but you should retitle this so that people realise why you are posting it. Paul Craig Roberts is an international US based political commentator, isn't he. (More info would be good for our readers.) I suggest you retitle this, 'Paul Craig Roberts right on much,wrong on Stalin' or some such, James. Then tell us why we should read PCR on other stuff. Many people lack your global history perspective.

The Green party, as do most other parties or groups, are driven by an innate human need to gain social acceptance amongst peers and build reputation and status. This drive underlies much of what people do.

The Greens are a party whose members and supports belong to a social milieu in which this type of moral signalling gains status and esteem. It just so happens that the Cultural Left do this by signalling their willingness to put the "other" before their own and give away what Western Civilisation has gained. They call this "progressivism" but it's nothing new, similar notions have existed in religion before. Just as before, people displayed their religious piety, their abstinence from sin and vice and denouncement of "heretics" for social status and inclusion in an almost exact manner in which people today display their Liberalism, their dislike of natural social and familial orders and denouncement of "racists" and "bigots".

Sarah Hansen Young cruising the Mediterranean to allow illegal entry of Africans into Europe is the ultimate in moral signalling.

Just as anyone who said anything which could be remotely interpreted as challenging to religious canon was a "heretic", so too do people today find those who say anything which could be remotely interpreted as challenging the religion of Political Correctness be branded a "heretic". Even the language used to justify this attitude is the same. The way that the religion is hostile to any interpretation of facts which doesn't fit their worldview is the same.

In the past, politicians have exploited religion to get the masses to do their bidding. The politicians using open borders mentality to support big business and Capitalists is the same.

That is to say, Sarah Hanson Young is adhering to a religion. In the past, many intelligent people supported theocracies and religious persecution. In a way, if doing so gained favour of those who had established power, this made sense, (in a social sense, not in a truth and reason sense).

I have acted on advice given below and changed the title from "27 million Soviet citizens died because Stalin trusted Hitler". - James

The following is a response to what was recently written by Paul Craig Roberts:

"As for Stalin, the Saker sees him as the thug element opposed to the intellectual element. ..."

Dear Paul Craig Roberts,

Whilst I consider you to be the most informed and insightful Internet author of which I am aware, I consider your judgement of Stalin as a capable leader of the Soviet Union is terribly mistaken and can easily shown to be wrong.

If it had not been for the Stalin/Hitler pact of August 1938 and for Stalin's blind trust in Hitler from the signing of that pact right up to the launch of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, the Second World War would have been over years earlier. Instead, according to Wikipedia, 27 million people just from the Soviet Union had to sacrifice their lives by 1945 to save humanity from the scourge of Nazism. Many millions more Eastern and southern Europeans of the total of over 70 million dead had to also die in the Second World War.

Your analysis omits this terrible price paid for by the people of the Soviet Union for their 'victory' over Nazi Germany in May 1945. Surely with the vast military resources, industrial resources and raw materials that the Soviet Union had at its disposal, they should have been able to defeat the invading armies at the cost of vastly fewer lives.

Surely, had Stalin heeded the warnings of Western governments, German Army deserters, his own agents including Richard Sorge, the Red Army could have defeated the invading Nazis at far less cost.

Surely, had Stalin not murdered his best officers in the purges of 1938, the Red Army could have performed so much better and not have allowed Nazi Germany to almost reach Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and the Caucasus Mountains?

If the United States was able to play such a decisive role in the war against Nazi Germany and Japan at the far less terrible cost of 419,400 dead, why did 27 million citizens of the Soviet Union or 14.24% of its 1939 population have to die?

We only have to look at where I live to know that we are over populating our cities.Mike Baird has turned his back on his electorate in order to satisfy developers needs. Some of the developments have been thoughtful.....however the roads are now heaving with cars and no real discussion on Public transport as that does not suit the roads mentality. Surely governments need to plan accessibility and think through impacts on bush and humanity long before they state that we need millions more living here

Cheers Liz . Greens Member Sydney

Good letter, Geoff.
What appalls me is that we import “skilled”, trained migrants from third-world countries – let these poor countries bear the burden of training – and a the same time we strangle Australian training institutions such as TAFE.
Yet another example of siphoning money from the poor to the rich.
George

Some suggest getting rid of it over your left shoulder to ward off evil.
It is said that Romans suffered from lead poisoning because too much Salt killed the taste.
Armies would plough Salt into the land of their enemies in order to destroy it and create starvation. I think that is what is happening now in Australia.

This letter was read by Ian MacNamara (Macca) on Australia All Over, Sunday 20th January ABC 774.

In relation to population growth, plenty of recent newspaper articles have been making the assumption that Australia will have on-going high levels of growth. It is hardly a surprise that big business is pushing for and celebrating high population growth, as the resulting housing shortage pushes up prices, a boon for developers, banks, estate agent – a false economy. and others.. There are also increasing numbers of people looking for work, so there is no incentive to increase wages, and many businesses depend on it to increase their profits – a false economy on a finite planet. Politicians are happy to jump on board, but financially, environmentally and in many other ways, we are worse off than we were 50 years ago when one wage earner could comfortably afford to buy a house for their family.

The costs associated with rapid population growth are not only a challenge – they are a real threat to our current and future well-being. Every aspect of our lives is negatively affected by a burgeoning human population. Massive Infrastructure and maintenance costs for roads, and everything else required for new suburbs and infilling are already biting hard, so there is little left for equitable health and education systems, managing parks and biodiversity, or research and innovation to develop new and better ways of using our diminishing resources sustainably.

We seem to understand when kangaroos, rabbits or koalas are over abundant, as the impact on our (their) environment is obvious, but we appear to be blind to the impacts of humans. We are so lucky to have a wonderful diversity of people in this country – their cultures and traditions enriching our lives, but the sheer human numbers, here and globally, means that our quality of life is diminishing along with many of the other species of animals and plants with which we share our country.

A shame we cannot use our intelligence to stabilize our population in a fair, equitable and respectful way so we all have a future to look forward to.

Jennie Epstein
Little River, VIC.

Hate laws in Australia can apply to victimisation of people which target their race, colour, ethnicity, origin, disability and sexual orientation. Salt really incites resentment (a type of hatred ) for older people, painting them as a burden without the right to continue their lives (beyond the point which is convent for others) As for one's race, or disability or sexual orientation, age is beyond one's control. Age is a very visible physical characteristic but the degree to which an older person is a "burden" depends on the person's health and wealth. if an older person is in poor health then surely that should be seen similarly to a disability and the person should not be discriminated against? If the person is not self supporting financially in old age, then why is this different from a long term unemployed person in terms of "burden"? I think Bernard Salt, who to me looks like an older person, anyway is quite dangerous, with respect to death wishes for older people even if the law has not caught up with his shocking type of discriminatory vitriol.

There a deeply ingrained ideology that the Left must advocate for an open-door policy and that nations that restrict entry to anyone is "racist". To accept that Australia's population growth rate is unsustainable, and inherently connected with the environment and demands on natural resources, would be a contradiction in terms for the Greens. So, they must greenwash away any thought of limiting population as the route to sustainability. Where humans are concerned, their rights are paramount, over the environment. It troubling and inconsistent of the Greens and they are caught in their own trap. No wonder they are stuck as a protest party, and never seem to really bloom. To many contradictions.

[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net]

Hello Geoff,

I admire your forthright efforts to communicate with Minister Dutton, and Sarah Hanson Young. I was enthusiastic about the Green political movement until I realised that the issue of immigration control was at odds with persuasive voices in the Green party who firmly believe in the right to migration ie anyone who wants to migrate has a right to do so.

These voices had major input into the Greens policy on sustainable population and cried rascism if people disagreed with them. The Greens policy on sustainable populationn avoids all mention of reducing immigration rates.

Whilever the right to migration voices have a strong influence on Green's policy (particularly from the multicultural working group) I feel you may be beating your head against a brick wall.

The way I have found to deal with this is to vote Sustainable Australia in the federal election as the Federal Government is responsible for immigration and visas and Green in the State election where decisions are made regarding mining and energy exploration, and environment, transport etc.

Sustainable Australia is on the same page as yourself and it is a relief to read their literature.

Regards,
Prue M

[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net]

Hi Geoff,

Pretty ridiculous how they think a reduction in immigration will lead to a population reduction, when clearly all it will do is slow the increase.

In fact that entire paragraph is quite pointed. She refers to integration of cultures, but I’ll bet you she claims to be in favour of multiculturalism. Conflating the two terms is something the pro-immigration lobby all do. Yet the difference could not be more stark: under multiculturalism, whether a country has a consensus culture the people can rely on (such as a default language) becomes entirely dependent on which culture has the greater numbers. Whole suburbs become effectively excluded from incumbent Australians as a dominant culture takes over.

They also all love to invoke nostalgia surrounding the Snowy Mountains Scheme (which is what she mainly refers to in “recovery post World War II”). Not that there ever was a post-war depression in Australia in the first place. In fact war always provides opportunities for industrial nations not deeply involved in the conflict to supply one side or the other with weapons and other equipment, as well as rebuild afterwards. War was not something this country needed to “recover” from. “Recovery” here is a term economic rationalists like to use, because they believe economic growth is the single highest ideal Man can strive for. “It lifts all boats” they say, when really it’s been shown time and time again that in the long term it does little more than increase the divide between rich and poor and degrade the environment - making us all poorer. The Snowy Mountains scheme itself by the way, may have engendered a lot of nationalistic pride, but it didn’t meet expectations for power production, has left the Snowy River a mere trickle, and severely impacted that watershed and its ecology. It’s not something to celebrate. What’s more the post-war influx of immigration also created Sydney’s first urban sprawl.

The other bit of nostalgia the immigration lobby love to use is reminiscing about the “cultural diversity” immigration has brought us. Sure, we now have cuisine we didn’t have before, but those effects are a one-off. Bringing in more migrants from those same cultures isn’t going to introduce more novel delights. Instead we have what has been referred to as the “MacDonalds-isation” of culture: the same everywhere you go. True diversity is what the Aborigines had: countless tribes with over 1000 different languages, each with a different culture necessitated by the different environments in which they lived. Yet it was immigration that snuffed all that out.

This leads to a very profound question regarding the nature of community. Communities are relatively small groups, functionally (often geographically) separated from the surrounding population. You don’t get a sense of community when people are crowded together. Instead Homo sapiens natural response is to become competitive, rather than cooperative. This is why there is so much social decay in this country; our population policies have created an “every man for himself” mentality.

The Greens believe in what has been termed “decoupled” economic growth. That is, growth in production without the attendant “throughput” of pollution and increased use of finite resources. The truth is, the larger the population, the harder it is to accomplish such a task. Renewable energy can only achieve so much. Ultimately it is self defeating, particularly when you consider that economic growth is inseparable from consumerism.

This is why I’m disillusioned with the Greens. If they’re the most progressive, forward-thinking option we’ve got, we’re doomed.

Regards, Peter.

[Comment republished from Geoff's email correspondence - Ed. Candobetter.net] Geoff. Quite right about what you write, but her response is not pathetic, it is the best her quietly persistant IQ can do; bless her for hanging in there, and lets get some really sharp candidates who understand economics and numbers and the fact a 3.5% growth rate in an ALSO unsustainable lifestyle, is to ruin our fragile world and reduce comfort for Western Sydney people in schools, hospitals, roads so they vote liberal..blaming the migrants but the wrong ones.
Liz, Byron Greens

Ps growth is driven also by interest rates embedded in everything, income transfer to the 1%. which demand 40% of effort and resources see Ellen Browns website. Hurray for Bernie Sanders!

People interested in Syria should look at this link to a Democracy Now episode from 10 years ago. A journalist, Reese Erlich, interviewed Assad. DN played the video, and then interviewed Erlich, plus British journalist, Patrick Seale.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/18/u_s_exclusive_syrian_president_bashar

The story shows that the U.S. was threatening war against Syria 10 years ago; that Assad was trying to explain to the U.S. about the stabilizing role Syria played in the region, and how "destabilizing Syria (...) is going to destabilize the region."

The detail is really fascinating and predictive. Assad refers obliquely to rendition programs as helping the US after 9-11. Then he says how he felt that the US was not acting to prevent terrorism. Etc.

U.S. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad on U.S. Foreign Policy, the Resistance in Iraq, Syrian-Lebanese Relations and More (July 18, 2006)

In a Democracy Now U.S. broadcast exclusive, we air an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. He spoke with independent journalist Reese Erlich last month in Damascus in a wide-ranging interview on United States foreign policy, resistance to the occupation of Iraq, Syrian relations with Lebanon and much more. [includes rush transcript]

As the bombardment of Lebanon continues, the United States and Israel have been calling on Syria to pressure Hezbollah to back down and release the two captured Israeli soldiers.

On Monday President Bush was caught on tape speaking privately to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On the tape, he curses and blames Syria for the current crisis. Meanwhile, former CIA Director James Woolsey, appeared on Fox yesterday to call for US air strikes against Syria.

Damascus has warned that it will respond in a "unlimited" manner to any Israeli attacks on the country. Meanwhile, a massive pro-Hezbollah rally was held in Damascus yesterday.

Today, a Democracy Now U.S. broadcast exclusive: An interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. Last month, he gave a wide-ranging interview to independent journalist Reese Erlich in Damascus. Erlich is a freelance foreign correspondent who reports regularly for CBC, ABC Australia, Radio Deutche Welle and National Public Radio. He also co-author of the book "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You"

In the interview, Asad discusses United States foreign policy, resistance to the occupation of Iraq, Syrian relations with Lebanon and much more.

Bashar Al-Asad, president of Syria interviewed by freelance foreign correspondent Reese Erlich on June 14, 2006.

We get response on Bashar Al-Asad’s comments from British journalist Patrick Seale, a British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 30 years. He is the author of the definitive biography of Bashar Al-Asad’s father Hafez, titled "Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East"

Patrick Seale, British journalist who has covered the Middle East for over 30 years. He is the author of "Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East"

TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, President Bush was caught on tape at the G8 summit speaking privately to the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On the tape, he curses and blames Syria for the current crisis.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s*** and it’s over.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, former CIA director, James Woolsey, appeared on FOX yesterday to call for U.S. air strikes against Syria. Damascus has warned that it will respond in a "unlimited manner" to any Israeli attacks on the country. Meanwhile, a massive pro-Hezbollah rally was held in Damascus yesterday.

Today we bring you a Democracy Now! U.S. broadcast exclusive, an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. Last month he gave a wide-ranging interview to independent journalist, Reese Erlich, in Damascus. Erlich’s a freelance foreign correspondent, reports regularly for CBC, ABC Australia, Radio Deutsche Welle, National Public Radio. Reese Erlich is also co-author of the book Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You, and he now joins us from San Francisco. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Reese.

REESE ERLICH: Thanks very much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about this interview that we’re about to play? What were the circumstances of it? Where did you interview the President of Syria?

REESE ERLICH: I interviewed him at the presidential palace, up on a hill above Damascus, where he has his formal meetings. It’s a very impressive place. You go in, and you have about eight miles of red carpet and huge doors, and it’s quite an impressive entrance. And then, out of a little room comes the President of Syria and welcomes you in and shakes your hand. He’s a very friendly guy. I’ve had an opportunity to interview presidents from a number of different countries, and most of them are rather stiff and formal. He was very informal, easy to talk to, was forthcoming in the interview. And we talked about a whole range of issues, from Iran and Syria and U.S. relations and terrorism down to issues of democratic rights inside Syria.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to the first part of that interview right now, where, Reese Erlich, you started by asking President Bashar Al-Asad if he was concerned the United States might also be considering Syria as a target for military action. Mind you, this is before the current conflict. You asked him if the U.S. might also consider Syria as a target. This is the President of Syria answering.

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, Syria has a history of 5,000 years, and it made its history, it makes its presence, and it will make its future. The people in Syria will decide who’s going to be in charge, who’s going on the helm and who’s not. But the most important thing, whoever think about destabilizing Syria, he should know that he’s going to destabilize the region. We are the safety valve in the region.

REESE ERLICH: The safety valve?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, safety valve in the region.

REESE ERLICH: What way? How?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: In a geopolitical way. Geopolitical way. The history of Syria, the road of the Syria and the region, the link between Syria and our neighbors, social links, ideological links, and the interest links with the region. So the whole region is connected with each other.

REESE ERLICH: You mentioned that in the past Syria has helped provide intelligence about terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and so on. Explain that. And when did that cooperation end?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, we started cooperating with the United States — we took the initiative to cooperate with the United States intelligence after 11th of September. And we succeeded in preventing more than seven plots made by al-Qaeda against the United States. The cooperation stopped last March 2005, because of mistakes were made by the United States, first; second, because of their political position or stand against Syria.

REESE ERLICH: What were the mistakes made by the United States?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Technical mistakes that led to losing many opportunities to go forward in fighting terrorism in the region.

REESE ERLICH: That was also around the time in which the U.S. was pressuring Lebanon to demand the return of Syrian troops and the charges about Hariri, and so on and so forth. So, did that, in general, sour the political atmosphere?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Definitely, definitely.

REESE ERLICH: Do you think the Bush administration will militarily attack Iran, using the issue of nuclear weapons development, supposedly, that Iran is involved in? Do you think that’s likely?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Anyway, it’s a hypothetical question, but if we want to talk about logic and the interest of the region and of the United States and the rest of the world, it’s not to do such a thing, because the whole world would pay a very expensive price.

REESE ERLICH: What would be the consequences if the U.S. did either try to impose sanctions or even a military strike on Iran?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Sanctions won’t do anything, from the experience in Iraq, in many different countries. Sanctions won’t do anything. But the consequences of destabilizing the region by sanctions, by military actions, by any kind of means, will lead to destabilizing the whole Middle East.

REESE ERLICH: Iran has a number of options, should something like that happen. For example, it can work with its supporters in Iraq to attack U.S. forces, when they’re not doing that now. It has influence with Hezbollah, and it could inflame the situation there. Do you think those would be some of the examples of the destabilization?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: I think the question should be, as to the Iranian, I mean, both, they’re going to do. But for me, the consequences are much deeper, if you look at Iraq as an example. You cannot talk about factions or parties or groups. It’s much more deeper than this. It’s chaos. It’s going to be a total chaos.

AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich interviewing the President of Syria. We’re going to go back to that interview, joined by Reese Erlich in studio in San Francisco and Patrick Seale, British journalist who’s covered the Middle East for over 30 years, who wrote the biography of Asad called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East.

Patrick Seale, I wanted to go to you in France right now to give us a little background on Asad, on the President of Syria, and to also your response to this first part of the interview.

PATRICK SEALE: Well, as you know, he’s been in power for about six years now. He took over from his father, when his father died in June 2000. He is an eye doctor, trained as an eye doctor in Britain and in Syria. He wasn’t really prepared for power, so he’s had a rather hard innings, particularly, of course, since the attack on Iraq by the United States, which is probably go down in history as a monumental blunder. Nevertheless, he has proved a very tough defender of Syrian interests, and it’s striking that he should make this claim, that whoever — that to destabilize Syria is to destabilize the whole region. I think that’s really, in a way, one of his key remarks. He points to his concern and his attempt to persuade the world that Syria has an important regional role and continues to have that role.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you give us more on the background, Patrick Seale, of how Bashar Al-Asad rose to power? And then, also, if you could talk about the reference to Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese leader who was assassinated last year.

PATRICK SEALE: Well, he rose to power — in a way, it was a sort of joint decision of the political elite in Damascus after his father died. He seemed a natural candidate, and in fact his father had, I think, to some extent, prepared him for this task in the six years since his elder brother, Basil, died in a car crash. His elder brother, Basil, was the acknowledged heir. When he died, then they recalled Dr. Bashar from London, where he was studying ophthalmology, and he was then trained to succeed his father. As I said, it’s not been an easy problem.

Now, the Lebanon is vitally important for Syria’s security. Syria cannot tolerate a hostile power in the Lebanon, and this, I think, lies at the root of much of Syria’s policy. If you may recall that in 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, killing about 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians and attempting to bring Lebanon into its orbit with the help of the United States. George Shultz, at the time, the American Secretary of State, tried to broker a separate peace between Israel and Lebanon, which would have put Lebanon in Israel’s sphere of influence, and the Israelis were anxious to install a puppet government in Beirut, which would do their bidding.

Now, the Syrians managed to overturn that accord and bring Lebanon back into their sphere of influence, which, as I said, is necessary for their security, but is also a reflection of the numerous ties between the two countries. They are tied, intimately tied, by the family ties, trade ties, financial ties and, of course, historical ties. So for all these reasons, Syria has a very strong interest in the Lebanon.

Now, we don’t know whether or not Syria killed the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. The investigation into that matter is still continuing, and indeed into the murders which followed. Many people have pointed the finger at Syria and have argued that Rafik Hariri wanted to change the relationship between the two countries. But, as I say, it remains unproven to this day.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk to you about the cooperation between Syria and the United States, but first, we’re going to go back to the interview. Again, this is an interview done before the current conflict. Independent reporter Reese Erlich in this Democracy Now! U.S. broadcast exclusive, speaking to the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad.

REESE ERLICH: Does Syria plan to demarcate its borders with Lebanon — and then, a second related question — or open embassies between the two?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: The first part about the borders, we had a letter, formal letter, from the Lebanese prime minister, and we sent him a reply, formal reply, that we are ready to demarcate the borders. We don’t have any problem, because we had such a problem with Jordan a few years ago, and we solved it.

About the embassies, as a concept, we cannot say we don’t want to have an embassy in another country, as a concept, but that needs normal relation. Now, we don’t have this normal relation with the Lebanese, so it needs better relation to discuss this issue.

REESE ERLICH: What kinds of issues would have to be resolved in order to have a normal relation?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: First of all, not to have a government that works against your country. This is first of all. And second of all, you need the Syrians to feel that they have real neighbors, not cradle for or not a hub for terrorists to come and do such terrorist acts in Syria.

REESE ERLICH: One last question, what would it take to improve relations between the United States and Syria now? Are there any steps that could be taken that would improve them?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Definitely by the United States, not by Syria, because we did a lot, and we couldn’t get any result, because they don’t have the will. So first of all, they should know and they should understand the situation in the region. They should appreciate the role of Syria in the region. They should know that we have common interests that they don’t see. And I think they should be neutral in dealing with our causes. That’s how we can get back our relation to normal.

REESE ERLICH: So, do you want to be any more specific about your causes and [inaudible]?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, definitely. The most important thing, our occupied land, Golan Heights. The United States should take into consideration that we see everything in Syria through our occupied land. Without talking about peace process, in order to get this land back, what the benefit of this relation?

REESE ERLICH: Anything else you would like to add, in a message to the American people?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: I think after the 11th of September, which was a very tough lesson, not to the United States people, to everybody in this world, first of all, you should learn more about what’s going on behind the ocean, all over the world. You should send more people, more delegations to meet with other cultures to discuss with them, to know the facts, not to be isolated away from the rest of the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad. When we come back from break, he will talk about the war in Iraq, and we’ll continue with our conversation with Patrick Seale, who wrote the biography of Asad, called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. And we’ll also speak with Reese Erlich, who did the interview with the Syrian president in Damascus.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview that we’re bringing you in this U.S. broadcast exclusive. Independent journalist Reese Erlich was in Damascus last month and interviewed the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad. We’re also joined on the telephone by Patrick Seale from France, who wrote the biography of Asad’s father. It’s called Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. Patrick Seale, as you listen to this interview and hear Bashar Al-Asad talk about the United States, can you comment on the relationship that Asad has had with the United States, as well as Lebanon?

PATRICK SEALE: Well, Syria has — there’s a terrible noise on this line. Can you hear it?

AMY GOODMAN: We can hear the sound, but we can also hear — we can hear you.

PATRICK SEALE: Can you hear me?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, I hear you fine.

PATRICK SEALE: Well, it’s incredible noise. One second, please.

AMY GOODMAN: We can hear you, if you can try to ignore the sound. We can hear you fine.

PATRICK SEALE: Well, Syria has always sought better relations with the United States. Now, it’s suffered very much from what it considers America’s alignment on Israel. Indeed, it’s striking that President Bashar should urge the United States to be more even-handed, more neutral in its approach to the Middle East, not only, of course, on the Palestinian question, but also on the subject very dear to Syrian hearts, the occupied Golan. Now, as you know, Israel occupied the Golan in 1967, and the United States, in spite of Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, has allowed that occupation to stand, as it has allowed the occupation of Palestinian territories to stand for the last 39 years. The United States allowed Israel to occupy Lebanon, Southern Lebanon, for 22 years, and occupy the Palestinian territories for 39 years. Now, these are the reasons why many, many Arabs are very disgruntled, very hostile to the United States. Now, the United States believes that Israel can use force to protect its own supremacy in the region, but this is increasingly contested.

And so, in terms of President Bashar Al-Asad, he made very clear that Syria cannot tolerate the use of Lebanon to mount hostile operations against Syria. That’s when he was answering the question about why not restore — have an exchange of embassies, have diplomatic relations with Lebanon. He said, 'Well, we could do that once we have normal relations and once we have a Lebanese government in Beirut which doesn't work against Syria or cooperate with its enemies.’ So he was very clear on all those issues, and his appeal to the United States was to understand the region better, understand that there are other countries in the region, apart from Israel, with whom the United States has common interests, and should recognize those interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh detailed several years ago how the Bush administration destroyed U.S.-Syrian relations by attacking a convoy of cars inside Syria in an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein. It turned out the convoy was made up of cars that were smuggling goods out of Iraq, and Syria has since stopped cooperating with the United States.

PATRICK SEALE: Well, that’s true. It wasn’t just that. I mean, Syria, like many other countries in the world, like France, like Germany, was very much opposed to the attack on Iraq. The Syrians had no love for Saddam Hussein, but the idea that the United States should attack — I mean, an unprovoked attack against a major Arab country — and smash it and kill tens of thousands of people, and then accuse Syria, of all countries, of interfering or Iran of interfering, when the United States, which previously had opposed, over the horizon, of keeping away from the heartland of the Middle East, suddenly makes this qualitative leap of attacking a major Arab state, this has caused consternation in the region.

And, of course, the Syrians feel threatened. They feel that they may be next. At least they felt that in the earlier stages of the attack. Now, I think they feel a bit more confident, because of the quagmire in which the United States finds itself. I mean, it looks very much as if the neo-cons, the pro-Israeli neo-cons, in influential positions in the U.S. administration took the United States for a ride. They involved it in this attack on Iraq, no doubt believing this would improve Israel’s strategic environment. But this has proved to be a catastrophe for the United States, extremely costly in men and treasure.

AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Seale, we’re going to go back to the interview that independent journalist Reese Erlich did with the President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad, last month, again, before the current conflict.

REESE ERLICH: President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad today, or yesterday and today. Zarqawi was killed. Do you think that — the Bush administration is trying to say that they’re making progress now in Iraq. Do you think — well, first of all, do you think that’s accurate, or do you think the U.S. in some ways has actually already lost the war?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Lost the war and making progress are linked together, so have to ask about the goal first. So you have goal, democracy, the answer is very clear: the situation is much worse than before, even during Saddam’s, that we don’t defend in Syria. If they talk about better living standards, the situation much, much worse than before. If they are talking about development, about infrastructure, about anything, so everything is worse. So that depends on what the goal of the war.

You cannot talk about occupation. I mean, occupation is not the goal of the war. This is the mean, occupation. But if we talk about the military side of the war, killing Americans every day in Iraq, and, of course, killing Iraqis, tens of Iraqis every week, is that the goal of the war from the military point of view? I don’t think so. The answer is very clear for us.

REESE ERLICH: But even in a military sense, the U.S. no longer controls certain areas of Iraq. It’s very unstable, even in the south, in the Basra area. It would seem that even from a strictly military standpoint, the situation has gotten worse from the U.S. Do you think that’s true?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: It’s self-evident. No power, no military power in the world, even the United States, can control a small country militarily. You can only control a country if the people wants you to control it. When the people are against you — and this is very normal to have the people against the occupation in Iraq and in any other country — you are going to have resistance, and you will not control anything. This is normal.

REESE ERLICH: What do you think the outcome is going to be, if you said a few years from now, what do you think the situation will look like in Iraq?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: That depends on the constitution, first of all. You need consensus. If you want to talk about the future of Iraq, we should talk about a consensus about something, and normally the future of Iraq is going to be inside the constitution. So far, according to what we hear from many Iraqi factions, some factions think they are oppressed, so this needs to be re-evaluated. I think this is at the core of the future. If there’s no consensus about the constitution, you will have conflict or maybe a civil war. This is the core, not having a new government or having some relation. This is good, we support in Syria. We support the political process, but this is not enough. This is for the short term, it’s okay. For the long term, no, it’s not enough.

REESE ERLICH: Sources have told me you’ve been involved in promoting some negotiations between the Sunni resistance and the government. Is that accurate?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, what we tried to promote is the unified Iraq. This is the only thing. We tried to see what’s in common between the whole Iraqis, and we tried to make some negotiations, some marketing, some ideas that the Iraqi would think it helps unifying Iraq or keep it unified, so far. And this is how we put our role as, in general.

REESE ERLICH: But, specifically, have you helped facilitate some talks between the resistance, the people opposed, fighting the United States, and the Iraqi government?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Actually, there’s a delegation that comes to Syria. We don’t know if they are resistance or not. They are Iraqis. And they don’t know — nobody knows who are the resistance. Only the Iraqis. So don’t believe if anyone tells you that he knows what the resistance? So, but definitely, most of them, most of the Iraqis that we meet, they are supporting the resistance, at least politically.

REESE ERLICH: And are you trying to facilitate the political supporters to hold negotiations with the government?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Yeah, we always say that we are ready to help in any way, but definitely Syria is open for this, and we tried to. Yeah, we did some effort.

REESE ERLICH: There’s been recent deaths on the beach in Gaza. Hamas has ended its ceasefire with Israel. What is your — it seems like a very great struggle is re-emerging now in Palestine. What is your prediction for the next short-term period in Palestine?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: You mean the Palestinian-Palestinan relation or Palestinian —

REESE ERLICH: Palestinian-Israeli relations, yeah.

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASAD: Of course, when you have conflict between the Palestinians, you won’t have a peace talk in the near future. So I’m talking about — I’m talking from the West’s point of view now. From our point of view, it’s something — between the Palestinians, it’s something humanitarian, that we consider them as brothers.

But I think the Palestinians are paying the price of Oslo, treaty in 1993, and this is first. Second, they paid the price of the paralyzed peace process, especially after the 2000 negotiation at Camp David and the deadlock that they reached between the Palestinian and the Israeli and the negligence of the American administration of the peace process, in general.

AMY GOODMAN: The President of Syria, Bashar Al-Asad, speaking with independent journalist, Reese Erlich. We’re going to go to him in a minute, but I wanted to ask Patrick Seale quickly, in France, about how much control you think Syria has over Hezbollah in Lebanon now.

PATRICK SEALE: Hezbollah is, of course, its ally, as it is the ally of Iran. This doesn’t mean that it has full control over Hezbollah. Hezbollah has become an autonomous player, particularly ever since it managed to expel the Israelis from Lebanon, from most of Lebanon, in the year 2000. Of course, Israel continues to occupy a small area known as the Shebaa Farms on the pretext that they actually belong to Syria, rather than Lebanon. Syria says, no, these are Lebanese. But nevertheless, the Israelis maintain their occupation there and, of course, are holding a lot of prisoners. Now, both the Hamas attack, in which was captured an Israeli soldier, and Hezbollah’s attack, which captured two Israeli soldiers, these were intended to act — to serve as bargaining quarters to force Israel to release some of the many, many prisoners it holds. It holds about 10,000.

AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Seale, we’re going to leave it there for today. We’re going to play more of the interview tomorrow. Reese Erlich, we have 30 seconds. Your final comment today on this part of the interview you did with the Syrian president.

REESE ERLICH: Well, I think it’s clear that he has accurately portrayed the difficulties the U.S. faces in Iraq. It’s an unwinnable war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing Iraq to live in Syria, including 18,000 Christian Iraqis, who have fled as a result of their churches being attacked and their communities being attacked, something that even Saddam Hussein never dared to do.

AMY GOODMAN: Reese Erlich, I want to thank you for sharing this interview. We’ll play more of it tomorrow. Reese Erlich, independent journalist, recently back from Syria. And Patrick Seale, author of Asad: The Struggle for the Middle East. Tomorrow, again, part two of the interview.

There's a lot of worship for the contribution migrants make towards our economy. and Australia Day is focused largely on celebrating the success of high immigration!

According to the Australian Bureau of statistics (ABS), the proportion of Australians who were born overseas, currently at 6.6 million people, has hit its highest point in 120 years. We are hardly short of "diversity"!

It's claimed that migrants lift the three "Ps" - population, participation and productivity - of high economic growth. Australia has a relatively stable fertility rate of 1.9 births per woman, which is below the replacement level. In actual fact, even without immigration our population would still be increasing, due to more births than deaths.

After 25 years of "economic growth", on the contrary we are facing greater budgetary austerity than before! With our high population growth, there's no necessarily a corresponding growth in participation or productivity.

There was an article recently about thousands of skilled migrant women either struggle to ever join the workforce or have their careers derailed by being forced into low-level jobs. A new labour force study, by AMES, funded by the federal government, has called migrant women Australia's "hidden assets", whose professional skills and potential value are being drastically underused.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/skilled-migrant-women-struggling-to-find-work-or-settling-for-lowlevel-jobs-study-20160107-gm1o77.html

There seems to be an extraordinary concern about migrants facing unemployment, or underemployment! Why should they be in front of any job queues?

With high rates of successful migrant integration and participation in the workforce, there would be more questioning of our high immigration. To proceed towards the unwanted "big Australia" policy, lots of manipulation is needed.
There's desperate attempt to describe migrants as "hidden assets" What about our own existing human resources, of well-educated and trained people in jobs below their expectations, and qualifications? They are considered of less importance.

Syrian Perspective has also just announced that Al Bab Aleppo has fallen, ISIS fled to Raqqa
http://syrianperspective.com/2016/01/isis-flees-al-baab-in-aleppo-withdraws-completely-to-al-raqqa-army-to-enter-city-any-minute.html

Al-Baab: It had to happen sooner or later. The terrorists belonging to ISIS were warned in the city of Al-Baab that they would be exterminated along with their stinking families if they did not leave. Turk terrorist handlers were overheard telling the rodents to abandon Al-Baab for the city for Al-Raqqa, specifically in the town of Tabaqa, where, conveniently, American Special Operations commandos are located to help them readjust. The vermin collected their families and set out sporadically in a disjointed convoy designed to prevent casualties. There were 20 cars and 1 large bus which conveyed the stinking rodents. The SAA and PDC are only 5 kilometers away from the southern entrance to the city. It is expected that the army will occupy Al-Baab over the next 4 hours. Al-Baab is 35kms from Aleppo City and only 13kms from the Turk border.

It had become obvious to the Turks that the SAA was going to overrun Al-Baab after Syrian government forces liberated southern satellite villages such as Al-Multaffa, Al-‘Abboodiyya, Al-‘Aajooziyya, Rasm Sirhaan and Sirhaan Farms.
In the West, the SAAF and RuAF have been pulverizing Nusra and Jaysh Al-Fathpositions at Hardatnayn, Hayyaan, Bayaanoon, Tal Rif’aat. At the first town, the SAAF destroyed 2 HQs belonging to Nusra/Alqaeda.

Thanks for the editor response, clarifying. I too find the 'It's not the banks' comment a bit confused. But it's interesting to see how people perceive things. Peter James may be perceiving things from his own situation and he may not meet many homeless or struggling. I think that if you work in a bank or any big growth focused institution you probably get the idea that people have more control than they really do. And the people who speculate on their family home probably do delude themselves with the propaganda the government and banks put out there.

This letter will be effective because it has been published and also sent all over the place by email and facebook. The author obviously knows that writing to a Minister is like putting messages in a bottle and sending them out to sea, but publishing them all over the place might just alert people. Here is a great article about the need to abandon process prescribed by the enemy:

Give up hope, its the best chance we have to save everything we love.

Everyone seems to like blaming the banks for this -- but it isn't them at all (have recently worked at one of big 4, now at another - trust me, they have no idea what they are up to - they are just listening to the man..)

The man, in turn, is trying to make the corrupt average Aussie happy - a white bloke who wants to never stress out, do very little - and end up a millionaire miraculously.

So how do we make this happen - well, just keep inflating sh*t to death - that same bloke seems too dumb to realise by pricing himself out of his own house he isn't actually winning (but then again if he were smart he'd never left Britain, right - it wasn't the clever ones that were sent here, let's not beat around the bush)

Then we nicely invent how we need immigrants - which is in fact only to fill those houses so white blokes can get paid good for building 70s styles dwellings - so all of Australia gets to pay the price of their lack of education or ability to do something smarter (but then the smart ones from Britain - well, see the previous point on this)

And then we blame it on the banks and the immigrants - so the same white uneducated bloke can feel smug about cheating the system into making him a millionaire while he's out surfing - a feeling he desperately needs (due to the same point about his less-than-stellar relationship with Britain - again)

This is nothing but 'dumb commoner' mentality at work - if you look at republics - democracies even, housing prices are lower - people there KNOW they ALREADY own the land by virtue of being its citizens, so why would they indebt themselves to buy it again? In a dumbed down former colony Australia - commoners stuck in the past still feel like land is almost unobtainable (see relationship with Britain reference - even smarter poor souls there suffer the same - courtesy of the assumption land is always owned by the crown) - and so media happily sells them an idea they can relate to - that they are not worthy of owning land - and then sells them the carrot on a stick how if they get into the ponzi they will end up worthy citizens - something the general lack of esteem or intelligence swallows like the best candy jo bloggs commoner could possibly imagine.

So the real question is - does Jo get to wake up before his kids are obliged to speak Mandarin - or is he dumb enough to celebrate his own demise? The time will tell...

Editor's response: I do not understand much of your post, Peter. I also don't understand why you have posted it here and fail to see what in the article and above comments this is responding to.

No-one here has just blamed the banks alone, but, nothwithstanding your claim to the contrary as a former bank employee, it seems to me that banks, together with property speculators, real estate agents and land developers, are complict in having made housing so unaffordable in recent years.

Whilst I can agree with some of what you have posted, I object to your claim that that ordinary "corrupt [white] average Aussie" hopes to gain from housing hyperinflation.

Former Prime Minister John Howard on one occasion put to the newsmedia in 2006 (or 2007) that ordinary home owners welcomed high immigration because of the way it drove up the value of their own homes. Whilst some individual home owners may have fallen for that argument back then, most have woken up to the fact that unless they wish to move to where there is less public amenity in the far outer suburbs or to a distant country town, the increased market value of their homes only adds to their living costs including higher council rates amongst other things.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has confirmed the traces of the sarin gas used in Syria are not linked with the Syrian government’s former stockpile of chemical weapons. The announcement follows an investigation carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) at the request of the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government. The scientific report released by the organization, and based on analyzes carried out on the bodies of the victims of chemical attacks, in fact accredits the Syrian government claims that the cases of use of chemical weapons in the civil war were to be attributed to some of the factions - almost all Islamists - that compose the anti-Assad militias front. When the devastating sarin gas incident left some 1400 civilians dead in East Ghouta in 2013, the United States, European Union and Arab League were quick to accuse Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian military of utilizing its chemical weapons to combat Islamist rebels in the Syrian capital. The report corroborates the Syrian government’s assertions that the faction responsible for the chemical attack, as well as 11 other instances of chemical weapons use, was the Syrian opposition. There's a global theatre in operation, being played out by the media, against Assad, to demonize him. Islamic rebels, and the United States, are the actors in this macabre tragedy. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/assad-never-used-chemical-weapons-islamist-rebels-did/al-Masdar News is off-line, but this story seems to be linked to from the al-Masdar News Twitter page -  12:48 (+10:00) 15/1/16 Ed

If you heard the reports this morning on the ABC, you would at least conclude that the ABC is one source you definitely CAN’T trust! A report by Sophie McNeill from Istanbul, referred to the IS ‘threat to Turkey’, as if she had no idea that Turkey is IS main sponsor, Oil trader and arms supplier, nor the Erdogan is a pathological liar and war criminal. She then echoed his demented words by saying that ‘3 Russian nationals has been arrested in SE Turkey in connection with the bombing.’ Given that the Army of Conquest, the Saudi-Turkish mercenary force in Syria is purportedly composed of mostly Turkish Turkmen and Chechens, there are quite a few thousand of those ‘Russian nationals’ currently fighting for Turkey in Syria, whether there or with ‘IS’ – which may just be a label or generic name for all the takfiri fighters. The ABC then compounded the story by telling us – and it was a big shock to me – that Australian army members are now part of the UAE armed forces fighting against the Houthis in Yemen – or rather assisting the Saudi coalition’s insane and illegal bombing campaign against the Yemeni resistance and national independence movement of which the Houthis are part. And the ABC says – this is OK because our forces in Iraq operate out of an air base in the UAE and the Emirates are a part of the coalition fighting Islamic State.

The confidential state government files reveal that three days after a lightning strike on December 19 caused a small, half-hectare blaze to begin near Wye River. Victorian fire officials ordered a controlled burn operation which included the dropping of small fireballs from aircraft. This controlled burning operation could have had catastrophic consequences, causing a bigger blaze that would threaten houses. The Wye Rive fire has prompted accusations of a cover-up from fire-fighting officials and local residents, who are also demanding an independent inquiry. Before the backburn began on the afternoon of December 22, the fire had engulfed an estimated 141 hectares of bushland. After the backburning, the fire spread to about 271 hectares. Backburn may have caused Wye River fire to escape (13/1/15) | The Age "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." – Albert Einstein

There were "credible reports of people dying from starvation" in Madaya, including a 53-year-old man who reportedly died. Two videos emerged today, filmed by a doctor with the Syrian American Medical Society, which has been working with residents of the besieged town of Madaya. In the pictures shown, a severely malnourished little boy is asked by the doctor what he would most like to eat. Western and Arab media used earlier taken unrelated photos, images of skin and bone bodies, widely circulating, falsely claiming they reflect Madaya starvation, wrongfully blaming Damascus for imposing siege conditions. It cited phony reports of Madaya residents "living on grass and leaves, and seeing family members dying of hunger or killed by (Syrian and Hezbollah) snipers..." "Actually, there was no starvation in Madaya,” Bashar Ja’afari (Syrian Ambassador to the UN) told reporters at the UN headquarters in New York, where the UN Security Council met to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Syria. He said false information about starvation deaths in the Syrian town are aimed at “demonizing” Damascus and “torpedoing” peace negotiations due in the Swiss city of Geneva on January 25. While there are crises all over Syria and well-documented suffering that has produced millions of refugees, one would think there would not be a need to manufacture phony stories surrounding recycled pictures.

Title was: "I dont think he is innocent". - Ed

I don't think he is innocent but we don't know the full truth either because his mother said he had aspergers autism and I don't think that's true. People with aspergers do have a problem with their tempers but if Martin maybe she only said it to help him out because I've never heard of anyone else with it killing anyone and I don't believe the government had anything to do with it either I just think we don't know enough about what kind of problem he had that is what we should focus on.

Editor's response: I suggest you take the time to read the facts in this article and Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? (3/4/14). Should you decide that you still think he is guilty, then I suggest you explain what claims made by the authors are wrong and why.

Martin Bryant never faced a jury trial for allegedly killing 35 people at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996. Any competent juror would have easily been able to see the 'case' against Martin Bryant for the fabrication it was and he would have quickly been found not guilty. However, instead of facing trial, Martin Bryant was held in isolation for months and put under intense pressure to confess. It is claimed that at one point he confessed. After he 'confessed', the trial was called off and he was locked away. Martin Bryant's supposed defence attorney colluded in this frame-up.

Thanks, John Bentley for this post. I encountered some problems when I was checking the information contained within (see notes below). That is why it took so long to publish this comment. My apologies. – Ed

While the weather has been as hot as again, I've been doing a spot of reading in the last couple of days. In no particular order:

2016: Oil Limits and the End of the Debt Supercycle (7/1/16) | Our Finite World

A fine piece by Gail Tverberg - 2016: Oil Limits and the End of the Debt Supercycle, next the venerable Steve Keen with an article on Joe Stiglitz at Forbes -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2016/01/06/note-to-joe-stiglitz-banks-originate-not-intermediate-and-thats-why-aggregate-demand-is-stuffed/ – this URL eventually takes you the right page, but only after redirecting you to the "Welcome" page. At least it's not behind a paywall. -–Ed

... and then a couple on the bushfires - this one via Dr Bill Johnson at The Conversation -
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/87cf62366063879dca256ecf00077084/$FILE/05-02.pdf – when I tried to load this URL into my Firefox web browser, I was advised "Page not found". When I tried to download the page using the free open-source wget program, I was advised: "HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 400 Bad Request. 2016-01-12 22:51:46 ERROR 400: Bad Request." – Ed

... and of course the recommendations of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission and the implementation of them or not -
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=vbrc%20recommendations – This is the Google search page with the search terms 'vbrc' and 'recommendations' (quotes omitted). As was put to me by a librarian once, there is no guarantee that this search will give the same results on each occasion in which it is used. It is better to include one or more specific URL links within the text, for example <a href="http://dpc.vic.gov.au/index.php/component/content/article/22-html/867-2009-victorian-bushfires-royal-commission">2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission<\a> .

The above HTML code would be rendered on your Firefox Web browser as: 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission . – Ed

... and file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/BushfiresRoyalCommissionImplementationMonitorFinalReportJuly2012%20(1).PDF As Dr Bill says the lack of common sense in the ongoing bushfire saga is enough to make a grown person weep!! For those who are interested. – This 'URL' points to PDF file on your own desktop computer and cannot be used by anyone else on the Internet. – Ed

What's wrong with our universities?

The 55 minute program, which was repeated at 8:05am this morning, was originally broadcast on 16 July 2015. The 26Mbyte podcast file can be downloaded from here.

We are forever talking about the importance of education, but what type of education are our universities providing? According to Richard Hill, the contemporary Australian university is under-funded and characterised by overburdened academics, falling standards, and never ending reviews and audits. It's a world he describes as Whacademia and he speaks with Paul Barclay about it.


Richard Hill is author of Selling Students Short (Allen and Unwin - 2015).

Other problems that students face at University, as described by Richard Hill, include: Students don't make friends at University any more. This seems to be the consequence of many having to work part time to make ends meet and the huge level of competition between students. Diminishing rates of employment for law and psychology graduates. Many Psychology graduates find themselves stacking shelves at Coles and Woolworths supermarkets.

Double oops!! Not only stuffed up the link, but also the author of the piece, it was actually written by Syd Stirling the former Labour Member for Nhulunbuy, thanks Ed.

One has to look quite carefully to see that the article "is a guest post by Syd Stirling, the Labor member for Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1990 to 2008" and not written by the blog owner Bob Gosford, so I wouldn't be too hard on myself, if I were in your shoes, John. Thanks for the informed and insightful contribution. - Ed

Referring to " Turnbull's plan to unlock the north", in contemporary bureaucratic parlance "unlock" means to break in, exploit and ruin. The word "unlock" was once harmless, unthreatening and not irreversible. It used to imply that whoever did the unlocking had a key and entered legitimately and could secure again after entering and exiting. The new "unlocking" is done against the will of others and to their permanent detriment.

The German city is reeling after a series of apparently co-ordinated sexual assaults on local women, allegedly committed by large groups of "Arab-looking men". thousands of people were drawn to year-end festivities outside the western German city’s main train station and its famous Gothic cathedral on New Year's Eve. Various reports give startling accounts of dozens of offenders surrounding victims, robbing them and in many cases sexually violating them. At least one rape has been reported. Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a statement, called the assaults disgusting – even though she authorized their arrival!

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention is from a different era, and totally inappropriate today. The world has changed and populations have exploded since this time. Now, it's about back-filling people into mature nations, in absence of peace, stability, security - and overwhelming conflicts over resources.

The UN are allowing the spread of criminals, Islam, and mis-fit deviants. How can all these "refugees" be checked for valid ID and security? The era of migration must end, and problems in dysfunctional nations, and conflicts, must be fixed at their source, not spread to developed countries of the West.

These Middle Eastern factions, and divided people, need dictatorship1 under Syrian President Assad and Saddam Hussein to control them. The US and NATO should never have intervened, under the false flag of WMD and installing "democracy". Now the borders of the West are opened and the hoards have been allowed legally to invade. The only thing Europe can do is to shut their borders, increase domestic security, and send back home any "refugees" that fail to assimilate.

Opening the hornet's nest is foolish policy and comes back to haunt the allies that supported intervention in the Middle East.

Footnote[s]

1. The presstitute media claim that President Bashar al-Assad is a ruthless dictator is a lie that is, unfortunately, not challenged as strenuously as it should be, even by apparently sincere supporters of Syria. Some opponents of war even repeat that lie and other lies.

UK MP George Galloway in his successful opposition to plans by the British government to launch war against Syria in August 2013, nevertheless, accepted the claim that the Syrian President would be ruthless enough to use chemical weapons against his own people in different circumstances (longer video, in which I believe he made that claim, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Han5fgzy4KU , is no longer available. The shorter 0:25 minute video of that speech is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPzvy808pr8).

As shown Syria's press conference the United Nations doesn't want you to see of June 2014, republished from Global Research, the Syrian president has the overwhelming support of the Syrian citizens, both internal and expatriate. (The article includes an embedded 55 minute video.) The support that President Bashar al-Assad enjoys in Syria is far greater than that enjoyed by any of his enemies – Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, Angele Merkel, the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, Benjamin Netanyahu, then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, ... . These 'leaders' claim to legitimacy cannot be anywhere near to that of the Syrian President. - Ed

Thanks for the timely reminder of the folly or should that be land grab by our elected representatives. Bob Gosford had an even more timely article, Good money after bad. The NT Government and the Ord River Irrigation Scheme (13/2/14) in the Land Rights News (Northern Edition) back in 2014 and can be found at: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/2014/02/13/good-money-after-bad-the-nt-government-and-the-ord-river-irrigation-scheme/ (not http://blogs.crickey.com.au/northern/2014/02/13/good-money-after-bad-the-nt-government-and-the-ord-river-irrigation-scheme/ - Ed)

Not only is this throwing good money after bad, they made many of the same mistakes up north as they have in the Murray Darling Basin plus they have invented a few more to boot. I wonder whether the Food Bowl Modernisation Scheme can have the same disastrous effects up there as they did down here??

See "Developing the North" [1]

I've been receiving "Developing Northern Australia Conference" invitations for a couple of years. I think that the forces pushing this one along are hoping to break down indigenous land tenure and bring in freehold. That would lead to an international land-sale bonanza for developers looking for finance. There would also be a huge immigration program to assist development and industrialisation. Organisations like APop and the Property Council of Australia are aiming at something like 50 huge cities around Australia and a population of 200 million. Some also hope to exploit nuclear power. The general idea is that once Australia's population is over 50m, no-one is going to be able to protect indigenous rights or mitigate mineral and energy exploitation. Horrible plan. Hope it fails miserably.

[1] "DEVELOPING THE NORTH
IN June the Federal Government released the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia, to create a development zone for everything north of the Tropic of Cancer and the entire NT.

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott drove the push, but it was embraced by “the Rich Dude who became PM”, Malcolm Turnbull, with the appointment of a dedicated Minister for Northern Australia, Josh Frydenburg.

In November more than 200 investors worth $1 trillion descended on Darwin for a conference looking at investment opportunities. Interestingly, the agriculture and tropical medicine opportunities attracted more interest than the resources sector.

The conference was hosted by Trade Minister Andrew Robb, who successfully negotiated the free trade agreements with China and the Trans Pacific Partnerships during 2015.

In December, an NT delegation, including key industry stakeholders from the cattle, resources, and produce sectors visited China to gauge market opportunities. They came back aware that supplying demand will be a challenge."

The Federal Liberal Government has released its mid-year economic review. Health cuts announced involve slashing workforce programs including education and training across the nation by $595 million over four years and bulk-billing changes to the tune of $650 million that will shift the cost back onto patients and the public hospital system. Queensland's health minister has heavily criticised the federal government over new health cuts he says will hit the state hard. Cameron Dick said the slashing of health funding will shift the cost back onto patients and the public hospital system. The population boom will mean less health care for each person. Independent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling confirms a 15% GST on everything will make all Australians pay: At least $10 billion every year more for fresh food, At least $7.4 billion every year more for school fees and education, and At least $9.6 billion every year more for healthcare; visiting the doctor. The cuts include: another $650m cut from Medicare by slashing bulk billing for diagnostic imaging and pathology services – services on which cancer patients rely; axing radiation and oncology programs; slashing $420m in aged care support for seniors with complex needs; and cuts to child care before the government’s reforms have even started. Medicare is being dismantled, piece by piece. There's no precedent for endless "economic growth". Instead of wallowing in increasing wealth, Australians are facing more austerity and cut-backs to meet budgetary short-falls. Despite the stringency, hardship, and increasing costs of health, education and welfare, our population growth is not being adjusted to match. We are still on a growth projectory, and "big Australia" is still on the horizon. There will be more of us in the future, but less spending on each individual.

Letter in The Age: Firing up burn debate (6/1/15) Fuel-reduction burning takes place across all public land tenures, parks included (Comment, 5/1 – see Age article linked to from above comment - Ed)). Furthermore, it is unfortunate that poor planning decisions allowed Mark Adams' house to be constructed on a steeply wooded slope on the edge of a forest where even planned burns are difficult to control. Current fire science tells us that fuel reduction burning is least effective in times of acute fire weather, the very thing we are increasingly experiencing under climate change. And given that we have had more fire in the landscape across Victoria, planned and otherwise, than at any time in recorded history, it's time to rethink fire policy. We need far better planning laws, we need to increase our capacity for rapid aerial attack on fires, and people who choose to live in vulnerable areas must take added responsibility. That should include installing well-designed private fire bunkers, a forgotten urgent recommendation of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Philip Ingamells, Victorian National Parks Association http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-letters/federal-cabinet-ministe... – above letter is second from the bottom of the Age letters page.

There is a law under consideration in New York State to make support
for BDS and, actually, any public dissent against Israel, a
crime.     This is ridiculous, but it sets a terrible precedent and
everyone should sign the petition against it and forward widely. 
There is a link to the actual bills on the website

Say
No to Anti BDS Legislation in NY

The legislation would create “A LIST OF PERSONS IT DETERMINES
BOYCOTTS ISRAEL,” and defines boycotting Israel  as

“ENGAGING IN ACTIONS THAT ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND ARE
INTENDED TO PENALIZE, INFLICT ECONOMIC HARM ON, OR OTHERWISE
LIMIT COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS  WITH THE  STATE  OF  ISRAEL  OR
 COMPANIES BASED IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL OR IN TERRITORIES
CONTROLLED BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”

Who will it affect?

  • Individuals or Community groups that support
    Palestinian human rights by supporting a boycott of Israel.
  • Contractors and other businesses seeking partnerships
    with New York State.
  • Non-profit organizations that receive New York State
    grants.

Say
No to Anti BDS Legislation in NY

The following is from Better forest management can help prevent bushfire disasters (5/1/16) | The Age:

"... Our place was built using second-hand along with new materials. Much came from the demolition of the Large Lecture Theatre (LLT) in the School of Botany at the University of Melbourne. ...

"An irony is that generations of foresters were taught about the ecology and management of forests in that large lecture theatre, or LLT, as it was known. ...

"... We hoped that at least once, the authorities would come and run a fuel reduction fire in the forest behind. Like most, we are strong supporters of the Country Fire Authority. ... (my emphasis)

"I know – and I mean I know – that for more than a quarter of a century there had been no serious fuel reduction within cooee of Sep and Wye. Sure, there had been the odd cosmetic burn along the Ocean Road, but the serious fuels to the north and west – the quarters from where the big risks would come with hot dry winds — were ignored. Easier by far to declare the forests a national park and then let nature take care of itself.

"For decades foresters were taught how to manage fuels in concert with the ecology of the forests. Some of it they learnt by sitting on the same blackwood stools that are now piles of ash. It wasn't too hard for them to manage forests so that disasters were avoided.

"..."

The above article was also published in the Canberra Times. The author, Professor Mark Adams, is director of the Centre for Carbon, Water and Food at the University of Sydney. The CSIRO book Burning Issues (2011), which he co-authored, supposedly "examines the many facets of fuel reduction burning in forests." Claims, similar to those made above, were made on the ABC Radio National Background Briefing program Fighting fire with fire (transcript here, 23MB podcast here).

Regarding Salt's pronouncement that "Mum's at work" and kids are in after-school activities, I would have thought the first would be the cause of the second. It's also a cyclic argument, that there are no back yards because kids don't have time to play in them, and parents are enslaved to paying off mortgages and costs of living. The demand for housing, and the crushing of our suburbs with high density housing, is manipulated by high population growth. Our lifestyles are being manipulated too, and robbing kids of the lifestyles of past generations. It's being twisted by Salt as if it's our own choice, and more "efficient" living! Back yards provide valuable play space for kids, and room to move. It's a place for pets, veggie patches, fruit trees, family gatherings, and part of our Australian culture. The only beneficiaries of the loss of amenities and back yards are the capitalistic owners/investors in property, and real estate industry. The big con is that we are better off, and more prosperous? Our living standards are being made more streamlined, and efficient, by having to do nothing but work, eat and survive. We are seen as no more than rats in a maze, trained to obey orders and forced to fit into a model imposed on us, and not unlike pigs in factory farm, with designer lives from birthing crates to the abattoir- streamlined to the fatal END.

According to an Age article. "Eighteen aircraft have been bombarding the Otways fires, trying to save the surf coast towns."

Inside the herculean effort to save surf coast towns (2/1/15) | The Age

The CFA has 60 aircraft at its disposal across the state. Of those, 18 have been used in the Otways, including helicopters of various sizes, air tankers, an aircrane? similar to "Elvis" and, for the first time in Australia, a Chinook – the enormous twin-engine helicopter used by the American military.

Wayne Rigg a CFA helicopter pilot said "throwing more aircraft at the fire wasn't the answer. Relatively speaking, this fire is not over a large area, so you have to remember that we have to manage these aircraft in a very tight area.....Air crews don't put fires out; ground crews put fires out and there's ground crews down there who are, quite frankly, slogging their arses off and we support those ground crews in any way that we can."

Maybe there were fears about damaging properties, from water bombing, such as breaking tiles and structure? It's about being damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

As a late '49er I was born into a large family and raised in Kew with a small backyard and no room to have a kick of the footy. Our place backed onto the local council yard which became "ours" for footy, cricket or whatever. We later moved into a brick veneer at Lower Templestowe (don't know if A. V. Jennings was the builder) on a corner block with a large back yard, no incinerator. Backyards are wondrous places whether big, small or otherwise. As a kid I remember different things about both of them, they were both mystical and banal, they kept your secrets (I had a strong imagination, still have) and you could play for hours with or without your siblings and/or friends. Then as we grow up we discover that the backyard isn't big enough and we annex the community. There are those who are still growing up and want to annex anything and everything, but that's another story. Memories of growing up in the backyard are treasures I'll take to the grave, the good and the bad alike some were defining moments in my life, some painful others total rapture. "Leaner, cleaner more efficient way of living"?? I think Bernard should relax his grip as nothing could be further from the truth. Leaner - obesity is increasing rapidly, our bloated society; cleaner - definitely not, never has the world been more polluted; more efficient way of living - only if we make the effort but most of us don't and there's too many of us to boot. As the article states Salt is writing for Murdoch (he could also be writing for Fairfax) both companies are pro-growth, pro-big population, products of capitalistic absolutism, its what he gets paid to do although his scruples are in the sewer.

As the centre of the bushfire zone is opened up in coming days, hundreds of native animals will require rescuing and we anticipate that the rescue efforts will continue for weeks, perhaps months. .They are seeking assistance for the purchase of medical equipment, fire-suitable rescue gear, transportation costs, professional veterinary costs, species-specific burn creams and bandages. These items are required urgently and all donations, no matter the size, are most welcome. They are also hoping to provide wildlife rescue kits to all our active volunteers so that no animal is left without the immediate care they require. They are a volunteer organisation with volunteers who have been rescuing wildlife in the Surf Coast region for 25 years. By supporting them, you help us to: - provide immediate veterinary care to injured wildlife - transport wildlife out of the fire zones - provide ongoing rehabilitation of wildlife until they are ready to be returned to the wild - place orphaned wildlife in long-term foster care - supply wildlife rescuers with efficient wildlife rescue kits - supply wildlife carers with ongoing medical supplies - provide public awareness and educational programs specific to the rescue of wildlife in the region Donate generously and thank you for your support They need $35,000, and there's a long way to go!

While I intimated that Alloush could not possibly be taken seriously as part of a negotiated settlement, it wasn't only SBS which had this idea - this morning's Al Jazeera interviewed someone from the Opposition 'SNC', which has already made a complaint to the UN about the 'targeting of Alloush by Russia'. The Syrian Army has acknowledged that the SAA carried out this strike, so the SNC's attribution to Russia is just another piece of propaganda. Also AJ said that the Yarmouk settlement had been delayed, but also noted that Syria and Russia had negotiated with IS and Al Nusra to leave Yarmouk (presumably to be bombed later - but that's their choice) and insinuated that once again Syria was working with IS, and against the interests of Syrian opposition groups. Considering the role proposed for Alloush and Jaish al Islaim by the Saudi coalition, and the fact that he has been the orchestrator of continuing attacks on Damascus from Douma, the SAA no doubt made a special effort to dispose of him. The stand off between the Saudi's FM, Adel al Jubair and Moscow will now be final I think, after he rejected Russia's proposal for joint counter-terrorism action back in July, and continues to have the ear of Kerry, in as far as the man has ears.

Ref: UEV-20151214-51249-USA Situation Update No. 1 On 2015-12-24 at 12:09:02 [UTC] Event: Non-categorized event Location: USA State of California Los Angeles County Situation A court ordered SoCal Gas Company to provide temporary housing for thousands of Porter Ranch, Los Angeles, residents made sick from fumes from a massive gas leak. An infrared camera captured the size of the gas plume that\'s been leaking for two months. The court order issued on Wednesday will come as a relief to more than 2,500 families in Porter Ranch, a northwest San Fernando Valley community, who have been waiting to be relocated by SoCal Gas since the leak began spewing methane into their homes and schools on October 23. As of Tuesday, the company had paid for temporary housing for more than 2,000 other households, according to the Los Angeles Times. There are 30,000 residents who live in Porter Ranch, an upscale bedroom community of gated developments where the average 4,000-square-foot home is sold for $1 million. Judge Emilie Elias directed the gas company to relocate the remaining residents within 24 to 72 hours. The court order follows a restraining order sought by the Los Angeles city attorney that would have required the company to relocate residents within 48 hours of their request, and called for a \"special master\" to oversee the moves. The gas company is having increasing difficulty finding alternative housing nearby, because most of the available hotel, motel rooms and rental homes have already been snapped up by relocated Porter Ranch families. The shortage is also sending home rental prices as high as $8,500 a month as landlords, who prefer leases of a year or longer, seek compensation for renting properties for much shorter terms than the three to four months SoCalGas said it needs to cap the damaged well.\r\n\r\nNew aerial footage of the leak was also released on Wednesday by the Environmental Defense Fund, which captured the intensity of the leak by infrared camera. The video footage shows a steady, thick plume pouring into the air over a densely packed residential area. It is hard to judge the width of the plume from the video, but EDF said it is pumping out 62 million cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere each day. Methane packs 80 times the 20-year warming power of carbon dioxide. "What you can\'t see is easy to ignore. That's why communities that suffer from pollution from oil and gas development are often dismissed by industry and regulators," said Earthworks spokesman Alan Septoff in a statement. "Making invisible pollution visible shows the world what people in Porter Ranch have been living with every day for months." Trouble began at SoCal gas' Aliso Canyon, a gas storage field, on October 23, when gas company employees noticed a leak out of the ground near a well called SS-25. Efforts to fix the leak were unsuccessful as gas billowed downhill into Porter Ranch, and customers a mile away began to complain about the smell. Since then, thousands of complaints of headaches, nausea and nosebleeds have been made to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. LA Weekly reported that the well was drilled in 1953 and was designed with a sub-surface safety valve 8,451 feet underground. That valve broke and was removed in 1979, but was never replaced. The company says it will take until March for them to drill a relief well to resolve the problem and cap the current well. "I hate seeing SoCalGas' pollution billowing over my home and community. Knowing this gas leak has been polluting us since October and won't stop until March, if then, makes it clear there's only one way to keep us healthy and safe now and in the future," said Matt Pakucko, president of Save Porter Ranch in a statement. "[California] Governor [Jerry] Brown needs to shut down the Aliso Canyon facility." The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that the LA city attorney sued SoCalGas, alleging that the utility failed to prevent the leak and then exacerbated \"the effects of that failure by allowing the acute odor and health problems faced by the community to persist for more than one month, to say nothing about the indefinite time it will persist into the future," according to court papers. Gas officials could be deposed in that case as soon as January 7, according to the city attorney. The city wants to determine the cause of the leak, the amount of gas released, and the effectiveness of the air infiltration systems being provided by the company, the newspaper reported. "Events of this size are rare, but major leakage across the oil and gas supply chain is not. There are plenty of mini-Aliso Canyons that add up to a big climate problem - not just in California, but across the country," said Tim O'Connor, director of Environmental Defense Fund\'s California Oil and Gas Program in a statement. "Regardless of what the future holds for the Aliso Canyon storage field, this is one reason why strong rules are needed to require that oil and gas companies closely monitor for and manage methane leaks." RSOE Emergency and Disaster Information Service (EDIS)

We are always taking this arrogant stance that women have more rights here (in the US, say) than anywhere else and somehow this is an outgrowth of our democratic and capitalist society. This is hogwash. Two specific situations came to mind when I read your comments here. First, when I was a single mother with a toddler working odd jobs to get by, I knew other single mothers who, unlike myself, had gone through a divorce from a man who now had a new family, often living in a comfortable suburban home with a new family while these women were living with their children in the city and leaving them alone to go to work because they didn't have money for a babysitter. On a lighter (?) note, when I was in Boston on a business trip a few years ago I visited the Mary Baker Eddy house and museum. The museum was mostly feminist news from the first decade of the 20th century. One article that stayed with me was titled "Does a Woman Own Her Own Clothes?". The title was meant to be facetious, I suppose. But in fact, a married woman in the US at that time often didn't own anything at all except through her husband. By making constant war on the more secular and open minded governments in the Middle East, we guarantee that those women will not be in a position to assess and then develop their rights. War privileges men in a society, as you say. Christianity is no more innately open minded than Islam. Peace, prosperity and education allow societies to open up and become more supportive of the rights of individuals so both women and men benefit. The fact that the nations targeted are specifically the ones that have these characteristics is telling. These wars are undermining our freedoms just as surely as they are destroying the targeted nations.

Just briefly, for now:

DennisK wrote:

Any site which [disallows discussion of conspiracy] is not worth the bytes of data to load it.

In fact, sites like NoFibs.com.au, and the political groups behind them, are worth a lot, but not to those who oppose the vested interests of the wealthy elites, or at least the more overt consequences of their misrule, as NoFibs purports to.

They cause people, who might otherwise be truly effective, to pour their effort and money into political activism that will make almost no tangible difference.

Those of us who are able to see NoFibs for what it is, should, amongst other tasks, show it up for what it is.

There is pretty much nothing you can't do on the Internet now, that you couldn't in the mid 90's. Some rubbish ISP's like AOL tried to create a cloistered, "consumer" internet, but thankfully AOL is dead. With regards to the NBN the two hurdles which may occur are 1) Download limits, which don't exist in many other Western countries and 2) Asymmetric speeds, which means you might be able to download and watch movies in real time, but may have trouble transmitting video. The highest NBN plans have a 100MBit download, and 40Mbit upload, which is OK, but the lesser plans are for people consuming data, not creating data. They are limited if you want to put out a lot of data, such as transmit in real time high quality video. The mindset is very much that we are recipients of information, and not transmitters of it. Imagine if everyone could host a TV channel from their home. You could set up a camera, and using a program, have a "channel" which others could tune in on. Like YouTube, but without a third party hosting. All this is currently possible, but its not they way we view Internet. Apple, Facebook, Microsoft push a vision of the Internet were we are clients rather than peers.

By banning "conspiracy theories", they are essentially forbidding any criticism of "official stories". If one was to question why the USA took so long to fight ISIS, has failed to defeat it, has taken measures to avoid fighting it, and turns a blind eye towards their oil trafficking, and suppose that perhaps this was the result of foriegn policy, then this would make one a "conspiracy theorist".

If one was to suppose, or suggest that the government was using policy to keep house prices high, then this would make one a "conspiracy theory", as such a suggestion is a suggesting that a conspiracy is occurring.

Any site which does this is not worth the bytes of data to load it.

Here some conspiracy theories which turned out to be true. Note this is only a selection of what is available:

7 Bizarre Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be True (21/10/12) |  news.com.au

Protesters push Facebook to revise 'real name' policy

from RT, 16 Dec :

Facebook will take a small step back from its current hardline “real name” policy after being flooded with pleas and protests from a variety of vulnerable groups.

The social media company is preparing to test new tools that will allow people to share any special circumstances they feel prevent them from using their actual name.

It should help vulnerable people such as those who have suffered domestic abuse or in cases where a user’s sexuality may put them at risk.

The company is standing firm on their "real name" policy in all standard situations, however.

They say forcing people to use their real names makes them more accountable for what they say online.

A point not all online users agree on.

Margo Kingston, author of Not Happy, John (2003) who now edits the 'Citizen Journalism' web-site No Fibs, also insists upon contributors to No Fibs using only their real names.

Some time after 2006, Kingston disallowed any posts advocating 'conspiracy theories' on her web-site, then known as 'Web Diary'. Not withstanding her claimed objection to then Prime Minister John Howard taking Australia to war against Iraq in 2003, her objection to 'conspiracy theories' has since morphed into a failure to oppose any the ongoing wars of the late 20th and early 21st centuries by the United States or its vassals – Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, ...

The only mention of any of these conflicts, which I could find on No Fibs is an article about the Syrian conflict, War, greed and the future of #Syria: (3/11/15). This article repeats the current mainstream media cover story for war to overthrow the democratically elected 'Assad regime':

"Experts have warned that the Isis militant group cannot be beaten without regime change in Syria, after a group of defectors revealed the horrors they had witnessed at the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s government … a doctor, a pathologist, a judge and a chemical weapons official from within the Syrian regime spoke about the atrocities they saw committed – and their frustration at the lack of attention from the international community.

"Forgetting about the institutionalised atrocities of the Assad regime only aggravates the situation on the ground. Bombing Isis from the air while turning a blind eye to Assad will just slightly shift the balance of power in Syria – where the civilian population is effectively trapped between the Assad regime and Isis … the removal of Isis necessitates the removal of Assad and a positive long-term engagement with moderate rebel groups including moderate Islamist groups. Because only these groups can actually make a difference for the population on the ground"

The above quote on No Fibs is from Syrian defectors reveal horrors of life under Bashar al-Assad's regime in reminder for West to 'not just focus on fighting Isis' (17/8/15) The Independent.

While not being an expert of any description in this field, I reckon you've put that pretty well Dennis. I like the last paragraph in particular, unfortunately I don't think the NBN will ever its true potential, at least while the neocons are in power. And while the people perceive in thinking that they are doing OK, their will to support an open, free and democratic internet will remain missing. I truly despair at what most people perceive to be freedom, when in most cases they are being told what to do, nicely, but nevertheless they are being cajoled and manipulated into doing things that are totally unsustainable.

This is to be posted to johnquiggin.com.

Ikonoclast wrote on December 8th, 2015 at 08:03

I know we disagree about Bashar al-Assad because we have disagreed about him in the past.

My response, which seems to have vanished after 'awaiting moderation' has also been published on my own web-site, candobetter.net, as The most unjustly demonised national leader in history?.

Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, by labelling the Syrian President a 'butcher' and a 'murderous tyrant' have revealed to us that they are uninformed - whether wilfully or otherwise - at best.

Bashar al-Assad, far more than either Turnbull or Shorten ever has been, has been scrutinised by the global newsmedia, including, as an example, in a marathon 56 minute interview by 60 Minutes on 10 Sep 2013. This is far scrutiny has been subject to in recent years. (Only the Russian President Vladimir Putin has come even close.)

In my view Bashar al-Assad came out of all of those interviews look very good. Had there been any truth in the claims by Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull that would not have been possible. I have yet to see either of those two be subject to that kind of scrutiny.

Like Labor Prime Minister John Curtin and President Franklin Roosevelt during the Second World War has so far, succeeded in defending his country against foreign aggression. Given the ferocity and ruthlessness of the invaders - armed and paid for by the United States, the United Kingdom, the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and others, the trials endured by the Syrian President surely surpass even those trials. Certainly, the Syrian President, unlike either Turnbull or Shorten, will be be left standing alongside the likes of Roosevelt and Curtin by future historians.

The open natures of the Internet is paradoxically part of the problem. The protocols and data formats which drive the core of the Internet remain open. Transmission of data occurs openly without owners. It is still a system where anyone can connect to anyone without any intermediary (except the ISP's to transmit data), and anyone can host a service (though some ISP's dont take too kindly to this being done with "home" internet accounts. Facebook is actually a small island of closed, regulated, unfree Internet connectivity operating among a free and user controlled net. People choose to use Facebook to chat, instead of other chat protocols, or through direct connections. People choose to put their photos on Facebook and have Facebook own them, instead of using their own personal webspace. Admittedly, personal webspace isn't offered by many ISP's, but some, like iiNet still offer reasonable amount of space. Security and privacy can be obtained through PGP and in more trying circumstances, TOR. I don't condone what Apple or Facebook do, nor consider it desirable or worth celebrating, but centralised control isn't being forced. It's being adopted by people who don't know, or want to know better. It is being adopted and becoming de facto standard by people who place convenience and ease over everything else. Facebook users either don't care about their rights and privacy, or simply are willing to yield for the supposed benefits of social networking. Australia had a good opportunity with the NBN to create a true peer to peer internet, with good upload speeds, which will allow decentralised communication and collaboration, instead of centrally controlled portals. The technology is there, it has been there for decades, and will remain for years to come. What is missing is the will of people to support an open, free and democratic internet.

Your point on the notion of linear chronological 'progress' is taken, Quark. Thank you. There is, however, a much more cogent and vital measure of women's rights, and that is land rights, notably their distribution via inheritance. Taditionally Muslim women have been accorded one third their brothers' rights, but in the 'good sister syndrome' they often give this up to their brothers, supposedly in the hope that their brothers will take care of them. (Note that this problem of unfair distribution is corrected for Muslims living under Roman law in modern Europe, but not under Anglophone country law - i.e. Australia, England, most states of the USA, New Zealand.) As in all societies in all regions, there was a point where fertile land was not at a premium and female humans, like other animals, dominated their own territory and passed it on to their children, whence it descended in male and female lines. I argue in Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law2: Land-tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain, Countershock Press, 2014, that past eras of global warming which reduced land-areas and provoked migrations may have been a catalyst for the reduction of women's rights, the development of agriculture as a more intensive method of getting food, and the formation of tiered societies under separate ruling castes. I don't think that agricultural society was a gain; agriculture was a technological solution to the problem of sudden loss of territory associated with widescale sudden population pressure. I would maintain that hunter-gathering with modest traditional gardens (as are maintained still in the Pacific Islands) was the first choice. England was reinvented under Norman (Viking) law as a frontier administered by soldiers who earned land-rights through service to their leader. That service entailed defending the frontier. Women could not inherit this land because it was land to be defended by [male] soldiers, but it could be transmitted through women to their husbands. This situation persisted in England until the early 1920s, when it finally became permissible to leave women land. Nonetheless, in England and in her colonies, there is no obligation to leave land to women and women continue to be land and asset poor compared to men. (Spousal inheritance was an attempt to partially correct this, but brings its own problems, see end of this comment.) In contrast, in Roman law, women were able to inherit (although not to manage) land. Napoleon reinforced this law and made it mandatory for all children to inherit equally, whether they be male or female. His example of the civil code was taken up by all countries except Britain by the 19th century in Europe. This gives women a much better footing in the non-anglophone countries of Europe, with the exception of Portugal which was influenced in some ways by British law. I do not know if it was under Islam that women lost fair access to land through inheritance in the Middle East or if it occurred earlier or independently. I must investigate! I understand that in Hindu traditional law women have the right to nothing at all! This subject of discussion is SO important and women in the anglophone countries have so little understanding of how recently they were in a similar position to the women of the Middle East in this way. It is this historical skew, in my opinion, that is the most important factor in the lack of respect for women in many societies. Basically lack of assets translates to lack of power and lack of power translates to lack of respect. Note also, that in Pacific Islander and African societies, 19th and 20th century colonials tended to revoke through new laws the tradition of female land-inheritance lines, impacting not only on wealth, but also on power and fertility, turning women and children into slaves of slaves (i.e of colonised men). Were there similar effects of colonisation in the 19th and 20th century in India and the Middle East? We must always bear in mind that until the industrial revolution, most societies were clan and tribe based and probably had multiple land-tenure systems, with many of them limiting marriage to a small proportion of the population with the rest cooperatively housed in extended families or male and female houses. As for the question of whether we are entering a new Dark Age: the settings are right for it in Australia (and globally). For Australia governments are engineering drastic land-scarcity. Our inheritance laws do not safeguard children's or women's rights. There is no obligation for parents to leave their assets to their children nor for them to apportion them equally to each child regardless of sex. If a man or woman remarries and has a second family, the first family can be and is often left out of the inheritance in favour of the new spouse.

From RT (19/12/15)

The Syrian president Bashar Assad and his wife, Asma, visited the Notre Dame de Damas Church, an ancient cathedral located just 2 kilometers from the rebel-held neighborhood of Jobar in Damascus.

They attended Christmas preparations at Our Lady of Damascus, just two kilometres (around a mile) from the rebel-held Jubar district.

The visit coincided with the adoption of Friday’s UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire and political settlement in Syria, which was unanimously adopted. The resolution refrained from mentioning the Syrian leader.

Assad, a member of the Shiite Muslim Alawite sect, presents himself as a protector of minorities in Syria. He says that his administration is an example of tolerance that contrasts with the behaviour of jihadists, including the Islamic State group that has seized large swathes of the war-torn country. Alawites like Bashar al-Assad celebrate Christmas and Easter as well as all the Muslim holidays, but the American media portrays Assad as a monster to be removed and vilified.

Alawites make up just 10% to 15% of Syria’s population, and they are usually presented as fervent supporters of Mr. Assad. Alawites ignore the religious practices associated with Islam, and they keep their own rituals secret.

Jeremy Salt's comments regarding the enlightened views of Islamic scholars on women's rights during the Middle Ages is worthy of further study. His observations are further evidence that "progress" is not necessarily a linear phenomenon linked to perceived time, stretching ever forwards Are we entering a new Dark Age?

Open letter calling for both sides of Syrian conflict to be put to the Australian people

Dear Tanya Plibersek,

I note that in the Guardian article "Tanya Plibersek: Australia deserves a seat at the table in Syria negotiations" (15/12/15) 1 you claimed that "[Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad has proved to be incapable or even unwilling to protect Syrian civilians."

Whilst this is nowhere near as serious as other accusations made by the mainstream newsmedia against the Syrian President, it is, nevertheless, a grave allegation that I don't believe can be substantiated. Certainly, please feel welcome to send me any evidence that you have in support of that allegation.

Given Australia's own record in the Middle East in recent years, I fail to see how other countries in the region could be expected to trust Australia to play a constructive role in any negotiations to end the war against Syria.

Australia and other members of the 'coalition of the willing' took part in two illegal wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Australia also imposed sanctions against Iraq after 1990, even denying food to starving children and medicine to sick children. As a result, many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. According to former United States' Attorney General, Ramsey Clarke on 17 Sep 2013, the death toll may have been as high as 3,300,000! 2

As a consequence of these wars and sanctions a total of 1,300,000 million Iraqis fled to neighbouring Syria to be cared for alongside 543,400 Palestinian refugees, according to Wikipedia. 3

I am not aware that Syria has ever been compensated for the huge trouble and expense caused to it by Australia and its allies.

Instead, based upon the pretext of the unsubstantiated allegations that the Syrian government had massacred its own citizens at Houla, the then Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr expelled the Syrian ambassador and imposed sanctions against Syria. As far as I am aware, Bob Carr never gave the Syrian ambassador the opportunity to put to him his government's account of the massacre.

As Professor Tim Anderson and many others have explained, there is far more evidence that the massacre was committed by terrorist 'rebels' against supporters of the Syrian government. 4 No doubt the additional difficulties caused by these sanctions have contributed to the awful death toll that has reached 250,000 so far.

The Syrian government has come out very well under media scrutiny

Are you aware that since March 2011 the Syrian President has been subject more often to more intense media scrutiny than any other world leader I know of? This includes the marathon one hour interview of 10 September 2013 by Charlie Rose of 60 Minutes. 5 Most Recently he was interviewed on 11 December by the Spanish News Agency EFE6

Other recent interviews of the Syrian President include: by the Italian TV Channel RAI UNO 7 and by the Chinese PHOENIX TV Channel. 8

For someone held by the mainstream media to be a corrupt mass-murderer, Bashar al-Assad came out of all of those interviews looking surprisingly good. In fact, it seems to me that the Syrian President demonstrated far more humanity compassion and intellect than I have seen in most leaders in the West and that includes Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Would you be willing to undergo the same level of public scrutiny?

The Media Services of countries allied with the Syrian government, including Iran's PressTV and Russia's PressTV often allow people who are critical of or even opposed to their government to put their views to their audiences in interviews and panel discussions. Such shows include , on RT, "Worlds Apart" 9 compered by Oksana Boyko, "SophieCo" 10 compered by Sophie Shevardnadze, grand-daughter of the late Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze(1928-2014) and "CrossTalk" 11 hosted by Peter Lavelle and, on PressTV, "The Debate". 12 In contrast, Australian media, particularly the ABC, almost never interview the opposite side of these international questions. I am sure that Bashar al-Assad would be entirely willing to explain himself on our national television, if permitted and that Australians would benefit from this exposure.

If you still believe that you are right, then why not offer to put your views to those media outlets and show them and their audiences why they are wrong about Syria and its President?

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon ph 0412 319669

Appendix: response from Tanya Plibersek

The response I received from Tanya Plibersek, at 2:56PM, is:

James --

Thank you for your feedback. If your matter is urgent you may wish to contact my electorate office on 02 9379 0700 or at Tanya.Plibersek.MP [AT ] aph.gov.au.

Best wishes,

Tanya

Footnotes

1. Tanya Plibersek: Australia deserves a seat at the table in Syria negotiations

2. Fmr US Attorney General: US Sanctions Are Genocidal (17/9/13) | YouTube

3. Syria - Demographics | Wikipedia

4. The Houla Masaccre revisited: "Official truth" in the dirty war on Syria (16/12/15) | Global Research

5. The full transcript of the CBS interview is at President al-Assad's Interview with CBS News. Video and Transcript (10/9/13) Global Research – also republished here on candobetter.net.

6. President Al-Assad Interview: "The West Is Not Serious in Fighting Terrorists" (11/12/15)

7. President al-Assad to the Italian TV Channel RAI UNO: ISIS has no incubator in Syria...Terrorists are main obstacle in front of any political progress (19/11/15) | SANA

8. President al-Assad to Chinese PHOENIX TV Channel.. From the very first day, we were determined to fight terrorism (25/11/15)

9. Worlds Apart | RT

10. SophieCo | RT

11. CrossTalk | RT

12. The Debate | PressTV

Thanks for these fine articles on Homs. Have you noticed the pseudo dialogue between the US and Turkey?

'We want them to do more' – US defense secretary asks Turkey to seal Syria border (15/12/15) | RT

Publicly the USA pretends to be 100% opposed to ISIL and is shocked that Turkey is not helping out enough to defeat it. Privately, USA policy involves helping and nurturing ISIL. In this case the US calls Turkey to task for not doing enough. Of course, the ISIL/TURKEY oil smuggling was actually brokered by the CIA. But the USA can't admit that ...

By asking Turkey to 'control' the Syrian- Turkey border, the US is thinking it can maintain control over ingress of weapons and fighters and egress of wounded or retreating fighters.

If Syria and Russia were able to jointly pull off sealing the border, well, then most of the current duplicitous game would be over.

"No available territory for kangaroos"! There seems to be endless "territory" for human expansion, even the destruction of food bowls and arable land! The fringe of Melbourne is being impacted by the city's obesity - and keeps expanding. There's no urban boundary, and it's simply growing and sprawling with market forces, and heavy population growth. The growth monster has no boundaries, and is always seen as "good". Their solution to kangaroos endangered by roads and fences is "culling". They have no economic value, and are a risk to drivers and the people coming in contact with them. The sterilization and the destruction of our landscape to create generic housing estates is destroying our country, and making it into a featureless desert of concrete and commercial structures.

VicForests seem to think they are a law unto themselves, and because they are a company set up by the Victorian government, they can do what they like, when they like - with State government endorsement! Like the Japanese illegal whalers, they think they are above the laws of the country, and can shift the goal posts to do what they want - to make their destruction "legal". The forests of Victoria belong to all Victorians, and our future generations. They are not just sterile trees, or natural resources, that can be plundered and somehow not make a difference. They are focuses of myriad ecological systems, and the homes to so many species. It's like extracting the heart of a city, or demolishing a significant building full of workers/public, and wondering why people are shocked and complain? Our Victorian government is meant to be the custodians of our wildlife, our unique environment, and our natural heritage. Instead, they are violating it, for short-term $$ from logging! Who do they think they are?

i have just spoken to a representative from the State Dept of the environment regarding wildlife on the urban fringe , particularly kangaroos. I wanted to know what preparations are made re wild life as Melbourne expands He told me that the department works with local councils to avoid creating "gaps" when new developments are created, where kangaroos become trapped then are killed by cars on the roads. He said that kangaroos cannot be re-located firstly as there is no available territory for them and of course they become extremely stressed and there are very high mortality rates if they are "darted" and captured. He mentioned "precinct planning groups" regarding wildlife which I gathered are made up of council and Environment reps. The officer pointed out to me that once there were kangaroos in Kew but i was already aware that wildlife is always expended as suburbs extend. He apologised to me that there was no good news and that development in his observation is accelerating.

It was good to see Aunty doing a bit more Syria bashing last night. The lies and innuendo that the ABC now indulges in is sickening. Not only is it sickening, it is also absolutely pointless. As a public broadcaster, it has failed its charter. As a medium for the accurate depiction of fact, it is a failure. The integrity of the ABC has made the quantum leap from the gutter into the sewer with startling aplomb and joined the rest of the spineless pack otherwise known as the mainstream media.

The following was posted to a discussion on JohnQuiggin.com. It is now 'awaiting moderation'.

Ikonoclast wrote on December 8th, 2015 at 08:03

I know we disagree about Bashar al-Assad because we have disagreed about him in the past.

Could you please explain again your views about the Syrian President? I cannot recall what you wrote about President Bashar al-Assad and I couldn't find anything you had written about him. The discussions about Syria on JohnQuiggin.com that I could find are:

Monday Message Board (7/12/15), Monday Message Board (9/9/15), Monday Message Board (24/8/15), Sandpit (26/10/14), Yesterday's enemies, today's allies ... and tomorrow? (7/10/14)

It seems to me that the Syrian President could well be the most unjustly demonised political leader in all history and those 'journalists' and politicians who continue to push the narrative that he is a murderous tyrant are ignorant and lazy at best.

What other political leader has been so closely scrutinised by all the world's newsmedia including CBS's 60 Minutes on 10 September 2013? Only last month he was again interviewed by an Italian TV station and by the Chinese Phoenix TV station. If he really were the monster claimed by the mainstream media and by the likes of Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in November 2015:

Interviewer: ... has described Assad as a butcher. Is that how you would classify him, and is that why he has to be removed?

Malcolm Turnbull: Well, he's killed - he's been responsible for killing many, many thousands of his of his citizens. So, the many people have described him as a butcher. I think he has been a murderous tyrant. There is doubt about that.

The calculation is this. There is a lot of opposition. Obviously there is a very deep enmity, as I've said the other day, towards Assad and his regime by many people - perhaps most people in Syria. Well, it's hard to tell. There's obviously, there's deep enmity towards him by other players in the Middle East - the Sunni, you know the Sunni majority states. His supporters, of course Iran and Russia. I think the reality however is that the approach has to be a pragmatic one, and whatever combination of players that are able to achieve the settlement - that includes groups inside Syria, with the exception of Daesh, who as I say, have no interest in settlement and nobody has any interest in a settlement with them, but there is going to be a need to be very pragmatic about it.

If you look at the other countries that are close to the scene and, that is, certainly what neighbouring countries are talking about, now. A more pragmatic approach and I think that David Cameron spoke for the room in [Antalia?] when he said the negotiations had to be approached in a spirit of pragmatism and compromise.

The fundamental problem is that there is a war there that is going on there that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, is still killing thousands of people and there are 4 million plus refugees - two and a half million of them, or thereabouts, in Turkey alone. So this is a humanitarian catastrophe of extraordinary scale. It's said to be the worst since the Second World war and I have no reason to doubt that. So a resolution is absolutely critical.

... and by 'Opposition' leader Bill Shorten:

Bill Shorten: I do not believe that long term peace in Syria can be guaranteed while Assad the butcher remains in control. Now I understand that in transition arrangements, some compromises may have to be made in the short term.

Well, what I am completely convinced of, is that if Assad was to remain in charge of Syria, then there is no prospect for any stability and peace for the millions of people who live in Syria and there's very little chance of the millions of Syrian refugees wanting to return to Syria whilst Assad remains in control.

... Bashar al-Assad would surely have been torn to shreds more than once in these interviews recent years. Yet in each interview the Syrian President stood his ground, confronting all allegations made against him and refuting them.

As Jenny Warfe writes, Melbourne on current trends is headed towards being a city of 20 million by the end of the century. I really hate to imagine the quality of life at this point for its inhabitants. The level of hygiene would have to plummet for lack of adequate water to drink, to wash in and for sewerage. Australians seen once by Europeans as people fanatical about showering every day would be long forgotten. When I try to illustrate to my friends the problem we have in Melbourne with our massive population growth, I do so with a picture of Melbourne as a city of 20 million. At this point, nearly everyone says, "Well, I'll be dead by then." It seems that they just give up contemplating the issue when the numbers get too great and the anticipated future is beyond their lifetimes even if they have children or grandchildren who may still be around. How do you get this message across? Does it need to be demonstrated in full technicolor and in 3D? How do we make it real for Environment Victoria and everyone else?

The true cost of the Wonthaggi Desal Plant is $23.5 billion over the 30 year lifespan of the plant on a take it or leave contract. This does not include operating costs or the cost of infrastructure to get power to the plant, deliver the desalinated water to customers or maintenance. Similarly owned and operated by Melbourne Water as part of the drought proofing of Melbourne was the North South Pipeline at a cost of $1 billion. As the erstwhile Ken Davidson commented at the time Melbourne Water had several options available to it at a fraction of the cost. The upgrading of the Carrum Water Treatment plant has since been completed at a cost of $159 million further boosting Melbourne's water reserves. The Werribee Water treatment Plant is currently being upgraded and will further enhance Melbourne's reserves. Davo also advocated several other proposals including the catchment of storm water which currently flows down our gutters into drains and streams into the Port Phillip and Westernport Bays. This water by the time it reaches the bays is polluted with various contaminants from sewage, to chemicals, to sediments, to litter. The water outlook for Melbourne remains "well placed to deal with a warm dry summer" according to Melbourne Water. "Melbournians are to congratulated for continuing to use water wisely (220 litres/person/day) with household demand over 20% lower than 10 years ago" they said. Currently Melbourne's storages are at 70.4% full and water restrictions won't be applied this summer let alone the running of the desal plant. For those wishing to install tanks which come in all shapes and sizes, to catch stormwater, this can be facilitated by purchasing the tank and materials and installing it yourself or getting a plumber/handy(wo)man to do the work and it is relatively cheap. Anybody who suspects that the stormwater may be contaminated can get the water tested by any of the various water testers around Melbourne.

The obvious solution for water supply, in the face of increasing exponential population growth, is more desal plants! The desalination plant was commissioned at the height of the drought by the Bracks Labor government in 2007, and the final construction milestone was achieved later than scheduled in October 2013. Victoria needs a desalination plant because of the population growth, climate change and drought. The desalination plant is being put in place to guarantee the reliability of our future water supply. Of course the parameter of population growth is assumed to be fixed, with no debate or democratic input. It's part of our economy, with population needed to keep up our GDP and economic growth model. The Victorian desalination plant, southeast of Melbourne, will have cost water users $1.2bn by the November 29 state election, rising to $2bn by the end of the next financial year. The real problem is our government's addiction to population growth, for the benefit of business elite and property investors, but the real costs are passed onto the people of Victoria. What retailer would survive such an arrangement with massive fixed costs and only a small amount for what we are supposed to be paying for - the actual water? It is expensive overshooting our ecological limitations. Access to water and housing are basic human rights, not privileges, but both rights are being violated by our Brumby government. The cost has soared, despite no water having been drawn from the facility since its opening in 2012. The desalination plant, built to guarantee the state’s water supplies amid the population ponzi. Of course, population keeps being "projected"! If Melbourne’s population had remained stable at 1995 levels, there would have been no need for desalination. Our "ageing population" needs fresh, young migrants, to stop it's assumed decline! This growth mania capitalizes on our inherent fear of personally ageing, and that ageing population must be bad, crippling, arthritic, and disease-prone - leading to "death" of our economy! So, we need to spend $BILLIONs to secure that growth will continue, despite climate change! The fetish for endless growth is seen as the path to future wealth, but it's about chasing the pot gold at the end of the elusive rainbow. Demographically we'll be confined to the a retirement village, or nursing home, waiting for our economy to shrivel up and die, unless we keep up the growth mantra - and pay out for whatever this monster demands! Growth is good, but being what's called "stagnant", a stable population, will attract microbes, bacteria, fungii and amoeba!

First published at RT Published time: 12 Dec, 2015 09:19 Edited time: 12 Dec, 2015 09:51 Saudi Arabia is holding municipal elections on Saturday, in which for the first time women will be allowed to vote and run for public offices. The ballot is being ignored by the majority of Saudi citizens and no women may be elected in the end. The ultraconservative Arab kingdom was the last nation on Earth to introduce universal suffrage. During the previous election in 2011, King Abdullah did not allow women to participate, but promised this would happen in 2015. His successor Salman has delivered on the late monarch’s promise. Municipal elections are the only kind that Saudi Arabia allows. Two thirds of the seats in 284 councils are up for grabs with the remaining officials being appointed by the ministry of municipal affairs. The councils have limited power to run things, such as cleaning the streets and looking after public parks. There are about 5,938 men and 978 women competing for the vacant offices, according to the BBC. The count of registered voters is similarly disproportionate – 1,360,000 men versus just 131,000 women – and is only a small fraction of Saudi Arabia’s 20-million population. Bureaucratic obstacles, a lack of awareness of the process and gender segregation laws all hinder female participation. “People are put off by segregation and restrictions. They think: ‘Why should I bother?’ That is true for voters and candidates. Registration is difficult because you need to bring a lot of documents. They are not accustomed to voting and don’t have a lot of faith in it. To a lot of people it feels like a waste of time,” said Jeddah journalist Samar Fatany as cited by the Guardian. Campaigning for female candidates was more difficult than for their male competition as well. While both genders were banned from publishing their photos under election rules, for women it was almost impossible to meet voters. Social media and online chats were the main means of communication for female candidates, although some recruited their male relatives to act as proxies for speaking to the public directly. While many women rights activists in Saudi Arabia see the introduction of universal suffrage as a milestone, there are fears that no female candidates will win a seat in 2015. “What if no woman wins? My fear is that at this stage we have momentum, but once things settle, and if women are not elected, life goes back to normal,” Fatin Bundagji, a board member in Jeddah’s Chamber of Commerce, told the Foreign Policy. Hope remains that even without a single win some female officials may be appointed to councils. Saudi Arabia has been slowly drifting towards allowing women take a greater part in public life. Women have lately served in executive positions in big companies and as cabinet-level officials. They are not barred from the Sharia Council, an appointed body advising the royal family on legislation. Heavy resistance remains in Saudi Arabia’s conservative circles against giving women more rights, which is perceived as crippling westernization by critics. Women are not allowed to drive, travel alone, arrange marriages or apply for jobs without a guardian’s consent. Neither are they allowed to meet with male non-relatives.

9th December 2015: for immediate release Ignoring the major while emphasising the minor: population increase in Pacific nations. The emphasis which the Federal Government is placing on sea level rise affecting Pacific Island nations, swinging $1 billion from foreign aid for adaptation purposes is seriously misplaced says environment NGO, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). National president of SPA, Sandra Kanck, says that greater long-term good could be achieved if this money was used to address a far more serious, immediate, as well as long-term problem affecting these people. As an example, the population of the Pacific Island nation, Kiribati, has more than trebled, from 30,000 in 1960 to 105,000 in 2014. This means that even without climate change or sea level rise each member of that population now has access to less than one third of the land, less than one third of the fresh water and less than one third of all the other resources, such as fish stocks, than they did just 55 years ago. Thirty four percent of Kiribati’s population is under 15, still to enter their reproductive years. Without strong family planning tied to limiting the size of families the current rate of population increase of 1.25% is likely to continue for many years. At this rate the population will double by 2071 to 210,000 thereby halving the existing meagre resources available to each person compared with today. Yet only a quarter of all couples use modern contraceptive methods. This pattern of population growth is common across most of the Pacific Island nations. It presents a far more serious and more immediate problem than sea level rise. It would be far better use of Australia’s one billion dollars if this money was used to ensure that all Pacific Island people had access to family planning, contraception and an understanding of how population growth reduces every person’s share of finite resources. As sea levels rise - as they inevitably will given the failure of governments around the world to take the necessary more stringent action - redirecting aid in this way would help to ensure that far fewer people would be impacted by this and other climate changes. Any other adaptive solutions developed would be easier to apply. - ENDS - Media contact: Sandra Kanck, Ph. 08 8336 4114 or 0417 882 143

"Although immigration (overseas and interstate) were acknowledged as components of population growth, most respondents were probably not aware of how large this discretionary component was, especially the overseas part." Few people really know the implications of our high, and manufactured, population growth are, and understand our demographics. The "immigration" news is repeatedly focused on asylum seekers and "boat people", but how would the public know that they comprise only a very small proportion of our net overseas migration? High unemployment, unaffordable housing, costs of infrastructure, rising costs of living, lowering living standards, the crush of traffic congestion etc etc are all incremental, and come to be the norm! Linking all the impacts of high population growth to immigration rates is unlikely to happen. Linking them as causal is unlikely, so without solid experience or knowledge of immigration, demographics and sustainable population number for Australia, any answer to surveys are likely to be of zero value! (except as confirmation for the growthists)

Hi Sheila, I note that the drop in birthrate did lead to a overall drop in population, briefly, but I don't find the use of "any" or "no" contentious, even if not technically 100% true. Even so, it wasn't a conscious choice to shun growth at a social level, and no large complex human society has ever declared its population levels sufficient. Any stasis in population size was not the result of a social endeavour to keep a particular population target, but due to individual or small community choices taken with regards to their environment, culture, etc (which is what I advocate as the most feasible solution to propose today for sustainable population). I'm not aware of ANY population which ever decided to keep a static number as a goal, except for maybe a hippie commune here or kibbutz there,and in this case it is true to say there is little to no evidence of human societies choosing a population target of no growth. It may have incidentally have occurred, but not as a matter of policy. The only time a policy has been put in place to control a population, or limits its proliferation or its proportion in a society,, is when that policy has had genocidal intentions.

A mob of kangaroos have lost their home Melbourne’s north as works begin on Mernda South Primary School. Picture: William Sharp THE Education Department has locked out distressed kangaroos from proposed new school sites in Mernda. Mernda residents have described upsetting scenes of roos crashing into wire fences erected around a site earmarked for Mernda South Primary School as they try to get back into a paddock they’ve grazed on for years. In a carefully worded statement, Department of Education senior media adviser Diana Robertson wrote: “There are no kangaroos located on the Public Private Partnership (PPP) schools sites in Mernda”. Ms Robertson confirmed the Mernda South Primary School site had been recently fenced but did not answer whether the department would consider relocating the mob. “Environmental management planning is undertaken for each school site to ensure that the Department complies with all applicable environmental legislation and regulations,” she said. But that’s little consolation for residents who see the loveable marsupials bounding through their streets at night. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/department-of-education-banishes-homesick-roos-from-mernda-paddock/news-story/219f2222eb274e94f33313023d76fe27

Hi Dennis,

It is true that humans are very easily led. They are not so easily led astray in smaller societies, which have local biofeedback. Australia at the turn of the 19th century was much more functional society in terms of people communicating to each other and participating politically I think. Now we are much more passive, due to the mass-media having stolen the public talking stick. However, I agree largely with the problem as stated.

Just wanted to say this. The author writes:

"Nor has any human society with the means and opportunity to expand its population or economy ever consciously and willingly shunned further growth. No large, complex human society has said "enough is enough," and declared itself satisfied with its current population or GDP levels."

That is untrue for many small societies (as he implies) but also for quite a few European societies, which remained localised although they could have gone and plundered to expand.

Notably, France after the French Revolution spontaneously controlled its numbers. See "English translation of Etienne Van de Walle: “French fertility in the 19th century,” by Sheila Newman".

That may seem like nit-picking except that it is perfectly true. Why?

I think I know, but most people, it is true, believe it is impossible to know, or that they have no right to know, so show no curiosity.

I suppose the mainstream media keeps Bashar -al- Assad hidden from view because to hear what he has to say would contradict the image of him they wish to create.

Anonymous, paraphrasing Donald Trump, wrote above:

"Assad might be replaced by someone worse if he were ousted." (my emphasis)

It's unfortunate that so many lies about Syria and its President Bashar al-Assad are being parroted by otherwise informative and well-meaning people.

In fact, far from being a ruthless dictator – or worse – as he has been portrayed by the pro-war mainstream media – and even some people opposed to war including Donald Trump – since March 2011, Bashar al-Assad, for a national leader who has led his country through such a terrible and bloody conflict, is surprisingly humane, compassionate and good-humoured.

Also, he seems to have an intellect that towers well above that of any of the world leaders opposed to him.

This can be seen in the large number of interviews President al-Assad has given in recent years, including the 27 minute interview with the BBC of 9 Feb 2015, embedded below. Other recent examples include:

President al-Assad to Chinese PHOENIX TV Channel ... From the very first day, we were determined to fight terrorism (22/11/15) | SANA

President al-Assad to the Italian TV Channel RAI UNO: ISIS has no incubator in Syria…Terrorists are main obstacle in front of any political progress (19/11/15) | SANA

Three earlier examples, republished on candobetter, include:

Interview: Syrias President Bashar al-Assad: "The West has no Desire to Combat Terrorism"; channels money and arms to terrorists (31/3/15) with embeded video – previously published (6/3/15) on Global Research.

Swedish Expressen Newspaper interviews President Bashar Al-Assad 17 April 2015 (18/4/15)

Syrian President al-Assad interviewed by CBS News (10/9/13)

Syria conflict: BBC exclusive interview with President Bashar al-Assad (FULL)

 

If Middle East strongmen Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were still in this world, it would have been a better place, because what came instead is much worse, US presidential candidate Donald Trump said.

Both Hussein and Gaddafi were dictatorial leaders who ruled with a strong hand. Hussein was ousted by a US-led coalition that acted with no mandate on a pretext that he had a clandestine program of weapons of mass destruction. The accusation was later proven to be false. He was tried and executed by the post-invasion authorities.

World would be a better place with Saddam, Gaddafi still in power – Trump (26/10/15) | RT

So was the "regime-change" theory of the war wrong from the start, or is it still possible that the theory was right and the execution incompetent?

Trump mentioned the countries in comparison to current efforts to drive Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out of power.

"You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there, it's a mess," Trump said on NBC.

Middle East would be more stable if Saddam, Gaddafi still in power: Trump (4/10/15) | Reuters

Trump said last week Assad might be replaced by someone worse if he were ousted.

According to the findings of a recent survey by local rights NGOs, women were treated better during the Saddam Hussein era – and their rights were more respected – than they are now. According to the survey, women's basic rights under the Hussein regime were guaranteed in the constitution and – more importantly – respected, with women often occupying important government positions.

What Iraq needs is a strong leader, a man who can keep a violent, bloodthirsty argumentative Iraqi population all under total control. Iraq has always been violent, that's how Iraqis are.

Exactly. How are people supposed to determine the optimal size? Even if it were a valid question, does anyone actually know how to begin answering that question? Growth lobby included! Good point. And shows how these surveys just manufacture consent. The most reliable means to judge, is to evaluate the results of the program thus far, which is congestion, poor infrastructure, cultural and suburban destruction and the erosion of the middle class and creation of a rentier class. Based in this, the program goes against the people's interests, so any government or entity which promotes it is hostile to Australians interests. This we know. There is no "debate". Its a one way conversation from one lobby trying to get the people to accept wholeheartedly their program.

I've just watched a lecture by Kevin Anderson which takes us behind the scenes and bullshit of the climate change debate. The main thrust of the lecture was prepare yourselves for 4 degrees celsius of global warming if not 6 rather than 2 degrees. The lecture can be found at:

Kevin Anderson — Frustrated In Flatland

... A must for all who wish to prevent the destruction of the anthropocene.

Good points, Dennis. Getting people to engage with national numerical population targets is getting them to engage with something which is ultimately to their detriment. Furthermore, people don't really know how many people the country can accommodate unless they study such issues. Most of the country is remote from them, so they would have a better idea if the discussion centred on the number of people in their street or suburb where they have direct experience. I, for one am now totally over all the talk about population growth in the media, the "debates" , the submissions and other ways of having one's say etc.(and then being ignored) Once it annoyed me that the population was rising fast and obviously causing congestion type problems but the media was silent on it. Now they are wallowing in it. You are right that we are not being given the chance to respond naturally to our environment(s) and to collectively determine our own demographic destiny.

With regards to why people don't quite see that mass population growth is an issue, maybe these articles may help. I rarely recommend articles to read because of the imposition of time, and only do so when I believe that there is truly something big to gain. Adventures in Flatland This article links to a part 2, 3 and 4 which are also just as good. The author of this blog, Decline of the Empire takes a rather unique (and sensible) approach, by acknowledging that human nature itself is limited, and our ability to solve problems and provide technical solutions and run society are limited by inherit characteristics. He's position is it isn't just particular lobby groups or interests which cause peoples to misunderstand or not acknowledge major issues, but it's a fundamental aspect of human nature, which goes the whole way through our society. Our psychological makeup, determined by evolution and the needs of being a social species is ultimately the problem, not merely BP, Shell, Frank Lowy

The trick here is you "ask" people what population target there should be. 30m? 35m? 50m? 15m? Whatever the answer is, it is predicated on the assumption that the people need to set targets. Can anyone find similar policies prior to the post WWII era, anywhere, where countries set specific population targets? We act as if this is business as usual, as if it were a normal part of the functioning of society to set population targets like this, but it is actually a curious anomaly. In posing the question this way, it assumes that you should have a target, and therefore the fight the government has to override the peoples wishes is already done. All thats left is to argue about the numbers. I do repeat this point often, but I think its critical. The question as I see it is, "Should the government have the right to override the nations natural demographic development so some can profit?" That's REALLY the issue at stake, isn't it? Thats REALLY whats happening, and the choice that is being denied to us. That the state is overriding peoples wishes for population size, to benefit a few? We don't really want to choose what the number is, do we? We want the state to stop messing with our population and leave it be determined by our OWN choices with regards to the numbers of children we have?

Most people i speak to on the subject of immigration or population growth have virtually no idea of the numbers. The sorts of things they seem to worry about are the spate of perfectly good houses being bought and bulldozed and replaced with high density dwellings of some description or a monster house reaching boundary to boundary, traffic jams, high rise in their area, and parking problems. On the whole they cannot or will not see what is causing these things. A friend I was with yesterday insisted to me that immigration had nothing to do with the ever increasing traffic even though she had just spent 90 minutes driving through the city of Melbourne at around 4.00pm.Her explanation of increased traffic is that we are all much better off than we used be and now we all have cars and have "children" who drive cars. Her solution (half tongue in cheek) is that older people need to get off the roads. I argued that very large numbers from overseas are coming into the country and that most of them will drive cars. She insisted that other drivers she sees on the roads are not migrants. I asked how she could tell and she said she could tell by looking at them in their cars! What are migrants supposed to look like in her estimation? Are they all supposed to be in full national costume to be thus classified? This is a particularly zany example but typical in my experience of the level of confusion.

Hi Mark Allen,
Your article is generating some interesting debate. Well done. On the subject of Matthew Guy 'calling for a population policy', my opinion is, unfortunately, it's the same old. Read the detail:

"I think there has got to be a genuine community, business and governance discussion about how we really focus on building the population of our regions, because I am very, very sure that the four-and-a-half million people of Melbourne think ... our city is bursting," Mr Guy said. "Can you imagine it with another million people on top of this, as it will be within 15 years time?" Source: http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/guy-calls-for-population-debate-and-places-east-west-link-back-on-the-agenda-20151130-glbnac

No way this little politician is going to have a real 'debate'. He is looking for big business support by signalling (a) reverse EW Link decision (b) signal to big construction (c) signal he will push population growth via the usual pretend 'debate' mechanisms. What he has said is utterly unnewsworthy, but it is what the growthist newspapers like to pretend is news.

It's about as newsworthy as saying that a well-known prostitute has just got out of the drug rehab and is announcing she will be pounding the streets again.

With apologies to the sex industry.

I do get the gist of your point, which is thoughtless planning can undermine multicultural communities due to the haphazard nature in which this planning takes place. My argument isn't so much that this isn't true (it is), but that this argument is one which appears contradictory and is, at least in my opinion, one which undermines the goal or message by sending mixed signals. It is a line of reasoning which undermines that anti-rampant growth project by implying particular value judgements. That implication is that some communities are more valuable than others, or that some demographic make ups are more valuable, or virtuous than others. This is a common mistake, and seems to be one the majority of those who push for sustainable growth make. The inaugural Victoria First meeting spend about 1/3rd of the time pushing the virtues of looser immigration policies, either through affirmations that diversity and multiculturalism was good and necessary, or that a fight against immigration restriction in the 60's was a worthy fight. It then seems ironic that the same people would then want tighter immigration controls, after celebrating the results of what loosened immigration restrictions brought. The irony of people who pushed against any policy or party which had a whiff of 'xenophobia' complaining about that overzealous sentiment coming back to bite them was lost on pretty much everyone. My argument is that affirmations and propitiations to the ideals of diversity and multiculturalism must be left out entirely from discourse, because any support of it then must be explained in the context of wanting to reduce the migration which led to it, which means having to explain your position in further detail, which means your point is lost, because 99% of people WON'T go back for clarification.

Cut mass migration - visas in line with job creation

Letter to Australian Parliament:

We the undersigned respectfully request the Government to reduce the number of people coming into Australia on “term visas” namely:- migration visas, s457 and s417 work visas and student visas.

We request that the current level of over 600,000 visas per year be reduced to a number that is one-half of the new jobs generated annually.

This would mean a reduction in the number of “term visas” from 620,000 per year to around 100,000 per year.

And further that the Government takes note that our economy is:

1. Only generating around 200,000 new jobs a year.
2. There are over 200,000 school leavers and other young Australians seeking those jobs.
3. These 200,000 along with the 620,000 “term visa” arrivals makes over 800,000 people now competing for only 200,000 jobs.
4. The visa entrants are often from low wage countries, they will therefore naturally get job preference over Australians, so it is Australians in the main that will be forced onto welfare.

We the undersigned assert that since the Federal Government cannot afford this cost burden they therefore will be forced to cut health care, education, pensions and other essential services to Australians or maintain massive budget deficits burdening future generations.

We further ask the Federal Government to recognise that a continuation of this policy of mass migration is placing Australians at risk.

The 13 November 2015 events in Paris and the three publicly identified serious incidents in Australia in just one year, demonstrate clearly the dangers. In two of these incidents three Australians were murdered and in the third a group was discovered who were planning the mass murder Australians on Anzac Day. There were other potential mass casualty events averted by our security agencies.

We ask the Federal Government to acknowledge that reducing visa access to Australia will contribute to a lessening of the risk of violence and harm to our fellow Australians.

And that the Government acknowledge that with mass migration some terrorists will slip through the net and use Australia as a base for violent jihad in Australia and to fight decent Islamic people overseas striving to provide a civilised and stable life for their citizens.

Finally we the undersigned in making this request to Government and assert that:

a. We oppose the persecution or isolation of any group in Australia and remind our fellow Australians that for example, Afghan Cameleers were an integral building block in the creation of our nation. They sought to, and became, ordinary patriotic Australians. Many varied ethnic groups have successfully integrated into Australian society including Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, Chinese and scores of others.

b. Persecuted minority groups (such as the Sikhs – 80,000 killed in one year alone) where such have a demonstrable history of “Rule of Law Democracy” and are “from areas without a terrorist paradigm” must continue to be allowed into Australia.

c. A situation where Jewish people in their own country - Australia - have to have armed guards at their children’s schools, synagogues and at Jewish functions, shows clearly the failure of the mass immigration policies of successive Governments.

Petition to end mass immigration

There is a strong element of population growth being pushed onto us, in a type of feudal system. Those making these "growth" decisions, without concerns for human/environmental welfare, are in a sense cushioned from the impacts - and the crush. Their own status, as elites, will allow them to continue enjoying their privileges, and simply discard concerns and debt to the public arena. They have their pensions, superannuation, homes, holidays, tax breaks and chauffeur-driven cars. There's a great distance between the public, and mere taxpaying mortals, and the high status of politicians, and economists. There are various techniques used to damped protests, such as PC, the refugee debate, the allure of "economic growth", "xenophobia", "racism" and it's assumed inevitability. They are all ways of social control.

"It then become a paradox to argue that this diversity is a plus and multiculturalism is an enrichment, while simultaneously arguing for policy which slows this enrichment. Again, a mixed, confusing message." I do not want to get further embroiled in this debate but I will make this final point before bowing out. I am saying that the current policy of high migration is what is slowing down and even reversing this 'enrichment' because it forces planning policy on the hoof with the knock on effect of suburban sprawl and high density development in multicultural communities, the latter of which has a gentrifying effect on the neighbourhood. A slower rate of migration allows for more considered planning outcomes which enables the development of meaningful and cohesive communities. At the end of the day Dennis we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

'do you not think that they will be derided by the major parties and the mainstream media Australia wide'. I agree with you John but I do believe that if the Greens were to frame the issue properly, they would win the empathy of the vast majority of people who do not wish to see a big Australia. The media I believe would continue to try to avoid the population issue precisely because their arguments for large scale migration do not hold up to scrutiny. If anything the media would fail to report the issue and wait for the topic to pass as they did over the reaction to Kevin Rudd's Big Australia "gaffe". Matthew Guy has even raised the population issue in the past few days (though I am suspicious of his motivations) but it is an indication that the issue of population is becoming less politically dangerous. This can only be a good thing.

Worrying about being called "racist" or "xenophobe" is counterproductive. Making changes to your position or speech, in order to avoid these labels is counterproductive. The purpose of these labels is not to describe what you are, but to stop you speaking, or adjust your tone and argument, or make concessions, maybe just enough to make your argument untenable.

I firmly believe that the very presence of a "Population Policy" will lead to an evil, regardless of its intention. Population policy assumes that the state has the right, the obligation and duty to shape the population, ahead of what the people choose to do themselves. This can manifest itself in policy which is designed to remove a particular ethnic group, either through murder, displacement or demographic engineering and assimilation. A fatal flaw in "sustainable population" arguments, is that it pushes the virtue of a population policy, which thereby supports the position that the government, not the people, decide who makes up the nation. Because the state can argue for population policy based on "economic growth" and "inclusion", it then has the upper hand, and can argue that policy should be based on their dictates, and not the will of the people. In short, it argues for a losing position. How do the people decide what the population should be? Through their individual reproductive choices. I think, at least in Australia, or the Western world, this alone is sufficient. If it weren't for mass immigration, we would already have stable population levels (thereabouts), without having to cede power to the government to decide for us. Government policy is therefore ONLY about dealing with our choices. If the population starts to fall, the state must adapt. Lastly, if we are to accept the places like Footscray are a boon, because of their "diversity", then we are then tacitly back to accepting a population policy, because we are then arguing that demographic engineering and altering is a desirable goal and therefore there is a 'benefit' in displacing one ethnic group from suburbs with another. It then become a paradox to argue that this diversity is a plus and multiculturalism is an enrichment, while simultaneously arguing for policy which slows this enrichment. Again, a mixed, confusing message.

Australia takes up to 20,000 refugees a year. This is 10% of our annual migrant intake and it is by comparison a modest number of people, so I think it is important to put things into perspective. The question of how we choose our annual refugee intake is complex and it would be completely out of my area of expertise to try to add to that particular conversation. I am however proud of our rich history of welcoming refugees into Australia and I believe they have done and continue to do so much to enrich our society. If you are against multiculturalism, well that is your prerogative but please do not blame refugees for the environmental impact of large scale migration. Otherwise you are playing into the hands of the big Australia advocates who shout xenophobia every time someone tries to start a serious conversation about the impact of rapid population growth. The issue here for me is about numbers, not about questioning our cultural mix.

The problem is that the government which is itching to push these people out of their homes, is the same government they voted for. It seems people want their cake and to eat it too. They cheer their rising house prices, then wonder why their home is then seen as a "prize" and now people want to get their hands on it. Well, DUUHH! Did people think that their homes could rise so much in price, and nothing would change? I don't get how so many Australians want the rising house prices, but then complain about the units and subdivision, when that is the inevitable result....

That's not the only "development" that is along the Yarra! While they won't be megalomaniac towers, like a massive cascade of levels, this one is typical of the downfall of Melbourne's non-productive economy! A mini suburb approved for Alphington paper mill site.

New mini suburb approved for Alphington paper mill site (3/12/15) | the Age

The creation of a new mini suburb comprising 2500 homes to built on the old Amcor paper mill site in Alphington has been ticked off by an inner city council.

Yarra Council passed a resolution on Wednesday night giving the green light to a revised development plan for the 16-hectare site which would house up to 5000 residents.

It was the former Amcor paper mills, with a huge plant close to Chandler bridge and the Yarra river. The Alphington Paper Mill development, situated on the 16.5 hectare former Amcor paper mill site, is centrally located, 6.5 kilometres northeast of the Melbourne CBD.

The population of Alphington will surge, and overload the already limited schools and add to unemployment. Victoria's economy in the past relied on high levels of manufacturing and productivity, but now it's housing and finance lending.

One Yarra councillor for the area, Stephen Jolly, said the plan would mean too many homes built on the site. "It's sardine central," Cr Jolly said. "They are squeezing the equivalent of the entire population of Alphington into [this site]. And it has no primary school."

And he said the development would be too close to the Yarra River banks – 30 metres in some cases. This is the new standard of living, in little boxes straddling what used to be a place of jobs, industry and productivity.

I would recommend voting for the Sustainable Australia Party at the next election - votesustainable.org.au

They are running a candidate at the by-election in Joe Hockey's old electorate in north Sydney - the candidate is William Bourke. I think at the by-election the party will still have to use their original name 'the Sustainable Population Party'. They are the only political party that recognises the devastation caused by overpopulation, and have actual policies to address the problem. The Greens are too busy loving all the humans on earth (all seven billion of them) to actively address the issue, in fact I don't believe the majority of Greens members or supporters even comprehend the impact of overpopulation on our environment (or human societies).

Your are, as is typical in all media today, suggesting Australian Australians look after everyone else, at significant cost to themselves, their society and their land. It's time the bleeding hearts woke up to the bigger issues that affect our world and our lives, and stopped the 'let's rescue everyone' mantra. Because, in particular, those who chant the loudest, don't appear to lose out with the 'humane' 'generous' policies they support. They don't live in western Sydney, they don't live in Dandenong or Springvale. They don't care about loss of native habitat. They are also usually immigrants themselves, or first generation Australians. Not only do they not care what we have already lost through mass immigration, (environmental damage, beyond repair as well as destruction of the very fabric of our society), they have not 'improved' the lives of the people already here, nor do they themselves believe they should. It's merely about improving the lives of the immigrant or refugee.

Multiculturalism is a failure. It's merely the segregation of the population, into an incoherent, non-cohesive mass of human beings. It's the antithesis of culture and community. And while we pander to the needs and wants of 'others', we lose more and more of our own freedoms. The title of the book reflecting on the damage we've done to our country through immigration and subsequent overpopulation should be titled 'At What Cost'. I for one, would say, it hasn't been worth the cost.

It think Mark Allen acknowledged that population growth was at a significant cost to native inhabitants and to our environment. I think he was arguing that we discriminate in favour of refugees over economic migrants. Of course, even this is problematic, given 1. the enormous number of refugees in the world today; and 2. the difficulty in deciding who amongst refugee applicants are genuine refugees.

Also, could contributors, try to specify the subject in the Subject field above the comment? If you don't, the Drupal content management system will attempt to create a subject from the first words in your comment. I this case, the subject was "Your are, as is typical in". - Ed

Mark while I don't disagree with you that the Greens (and even if the independents are in accord) need to challenge both the Coalition and Labor over their growth fetish, do you not think that they will be derided by the major parties and the mainstream media Australia wide. It would be an honourable and it would a courageous exercise on their part, but, unfortunately, they would be outvoted and therefore it will not be enough.

We, the electorate, had our chance 12 months ago and we weren't up to the task. We caved in to the false prophets who espoused more of the same bullshit we've been dieting on since we got Jeffed!! Why?? Because we're shit scared of having to forgo a couple of creature comforts, of having to get our hands dirty, terrified of having to put our values on the line, petrified of the unknown.

WE ... got ourselves into this mess and WE have to get ourselves out of it.

I earlier suggested that the ballot box would be the way forward which it will be, however, if more prompt action is required, WE must extract the digit and become more verbose about our thoughts and actions. WE must show both Labour and the Coalition that we don't want more of the same. WE must demonstrate that Melbourne's/Victoria's burgeoning population is a noose around our necks. We want to be able to live in peace and harmony into our old age with our kids and grandkids. But first we must demonstrate and demonstrate hard and long until they give in. There is no other way!!

With the preferential voting system, it is possible a voter to give her/his first second and voting preferences to small party or independent candidates who stand for policies that the major parties won't. Before you vote at any election, find out which of the candidates in your electorate commits himself/herself to opposing 'growth' and allocate your voting preferences accordingly.

Other policies of candidates I would vote for are listed in the article Issues that should be decided at the 29 November Victorian State elections of 14 Oct 2014. - Ed

"I would add that population policy should be to the benefit of people already living in Australia that is apart from refugee policy which is in the interests of the people arriving." Population policy can be about both. Refugees are a small component of our annual intake and they have played and continue to a play a major role in enriching our multicultural society. Ironically, I believe that due to large-scale migration aimed at boosting GDP, we are making it harder for incoming refugees to build meaningful communities, precisely because multicultural areas such as Footscray are in danger of being gentrified through high density apartment development. The savings in infrastructure that we would make by slowing non-refugee migration could free up more money to help refugees whilst also giving us the opportunity to start to catch up on our existing nationwide 200 billion dollar infrastructure debt.

There are times when I totally despair for our wildlife, there are people who have the courage of their convictions and take action to bring Governments comply with the wishes of the majority. Not an easy task, people need cause and motivation to do this and they need strong leaders to make Governments realise that they are given a Mandate by the people to govern on their behalf. Unfortunately in the genre of wildlife there is massive complacency and too many armchair wildlife warriors who have a lot to say on social media but are mute when it comes to taking action to write or lobby Governments about their concerns. When was the last demonstration about the plight of our wildlife? When was the last demonstration about urban sprawl? When has a comprehensive petition been presented to the Victorian Government dealing with wildlife the urban sprawl or over population? Nothing will change until we force the Victorian Government or the Federal Government take our dissatisfaction seriously. If we want change we have to get out there, spread the word and confront the government.

Older people might think that they have a moral duty to vacate their houses to make room for our societies' "children" i.e young couples with their children. Most of them will not be able to think this through since understanding of Australia's population growth is generally very poor, at least amongst those I speak to. If Australia had a stable population number within its shores with birth numbers equivalent to death numbers and immigration equivalent to emigration then there would be sufficient housing, without needing to stress vulnerable groups and pressure them to vacate their premises. We would have a pretty happy situation for most except developers and those who actually want rapacious population growth to fuel associated enterprises such as shopping centres and barn- like furniture stores; anything that feeds on growth. Australia does not, unfortunately enjoy a stable population but rather one that grows very rapidly with more than half of the growth from overseas migration. So vulnerable older people would be almost half right in thinking they were cooperatively making way for younger Melbourne families - not their own family but at least someone local. But it's more likely that they will be moving out to make way for a family from overseas that already has somewhere to live in that country! It won't be homeless people from anywhere who will be buying their Glen Iris or Murrumbeena bungalows! Is this remotely morally right? Once older people sell up the "family home" it cannot be left to their children. It amounts to stripping property and very modest wealth from middle and working class families. They have paid for their houses paid with after- tax dollars. Nobody has a right to move them on.

I cannot see how any wild life can continue to survive when its habitat is alienated from it. What could Mr. Temby have possibly meant when he said that is was possible? What he says now, I'm afraid is more realistic. I live in an established suburb and there are no kangaroos here. I'm sure there would have been 150 years ago. All the kangaroos in the path of Melbourne's development juggernaut will die eventually, as they have in my suburb, whether they are massacred by a "wildlife authority" or they die adventitiously as cars mow them down. It is painful to hear any news item about this. It is even distressing to hear of one poor animal trapped in a car park or on a road. Sometimes an incident will be depicted as humorous by various radio presenters when they issue their radio warnings to motorists. Maybe the attempt at humour is to stop us feeling and to objectify the suffering animal. Painful as it is , I think people should be confronted with it more often. The newspapers and television should be full of it complete with photographs and footage so that people know what population growth is costing. Wildlife corridors as suggested would be palliative for the situation because in the end the habitat is gone and it seems to me that the animals would be escaping to nowhere. Correct me if I am wrong. The only kind and humane solution, really is to stop population growth. Why doesn't Mr. Temby say that?

Good stuff Mary! John Quiggin has a good article on the financial sector at johnquiggin.com

Pages