Comments

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2011-04-28 22:09

I received the following, in an e-mail, from a person who actively against the North Bank project in 2008:

I have a quite different view of the politics of North Bank, because it is my belief  that it was a Beattie deal that Bligh was locked into before she took over the Premiership.

I personally am very grateful that Bligh and Lucas took the tough decision to scupper the project in 2008, and I was pleased to see the back of some of its strongest backers in Public Works at that time.

In my view Bligh acted honourably in this matter, and I have nothing but admiration for her subsequent leadership of the state and the party.

Editorial comment (continued): His view, that Pemier Anna Bligh did not want to procede with the North Bank project, is contrary to the impression I formed at the time and wrote of in the brief article, above. I remember how many, who campaigned against decisions of former Premier Peter Beattie, held out hope that things would improve once Beattie was succeeded by his then Deputy Premier Anna Bligh of the supposedly "left-wing" faction of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party. In my view the evidence is that nothing of consequence has changed. The decision by Bligh to scrap the North Bank development might just be an exception to what I consider to be Anna Bligh's on-the-whole poor record as Premier, but I have yet to see any evidence that she wanted to stop the project. I have yet to see evidence that Bligh did not stop it only because she judged the political cost of continuing with the North Bank project would have been too great. I have invited the person, who sent me that e-mail, from which the above excerpt was taken, to

explain why he believes that "Bligh acted honourably in this matter." When he does, I will be happy most happy to publish it. Of course, he, as are all site visitors, is welcome to submit the material as a comment himself.

nimby (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-28 10:42

Sarah Hanson-Young is right in that asylum seekers should be processed faster. However, if they arrive without documents and a visa, the whole process is inevitably long! The solution is processing off-shore, from refugee camps.

Any illegal arrivals entering Australian territorial waters should not be allowed to enter Australia. By accepting them, it is giving a signal to others that they can be successful in obtaining residency, and more will come. Numbers are predicted to escalate in the future, with overpopulation, famine, conflicts and climate change.

We must set some tough precedents now. We should abandon our economic immigration and take more of our share of humanitarian refugees, and WE Australians should choose who comes here!

The Greens, the political party that supposedly seeks a better future for Australia's most poorest and disadvantaged people and better environmental protection, is putting the welfare of illegal asylum seekers first!

According to the Salvation Army Report into Poverty showed that 2 and half million Australians - or 1 in 10 - are already living in poverty and over 100000 Australians are homeless!

With NO POPULATION policy, how can the Greens implement any of their policies for Australia's benefit?

The Greens should promise to fix up things for the two and half million poverty stricken Australians and the homeless BEFORE they open the flood gates and allow MORE people into the country! With contradictory policies, the Greens will never do well in the polls.

Editorial comment: The Greens were formed in 1992. The fact that the Greens have made so little headway in all these years given the obvious rottenness of the major parties surely shows that those who lead the Greens prefer the Greens to remain as they are with no effective presence in most Australian Parliaments and almost no ability to interfere with the plans of greedy vested interests to ransack the Australian public and its environment. The real impact of parties like the Greens on Australian politics is to take up the time, energy and money of thousands of well-meaning supporters, who would otherwise use their efforts far more productively. Their campaign, referred to by nimby, only for the rights of prospective refugees who are able to pay people smugglers, whilst saying almost nothing about the two and a half million impoverished Australians, the 100,000 homeless Australians, or even the millions of other refugees in refugee camps not able to pay people smugglers' fees, is a perfect way to waste the efforts of many of the well-meaning, but naive, people who the Greens draw into their ranks.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-04-27 23:24

A three-year-old girl was savaged by dingoes after wandering into bushes on Fraser Island (called a "tourist island" by the media ?), according to witnesses. The dingoes were out of sight in nearby bushes and when the child was away from the adults, and they "came in and attacked the child," said Terry Harper, head of the Queensland environment department.

Both of the wild dogs were later captured and destroyed by park rangers.

A TV report said April 25th 2011 that NO Rangers were working over the weekend at Fraser Island!

After the sudden death of Clinton Gage at Fraser Island on Monday 30th April 2001 the Queensland Government instantly ordered for "culling" of the dingoes to begin. Nowhere did they say that Clinton Gage was tormenting and teasing the dingo by throwing stones at it prior to his attack and ultimate death. Where were the parents?

admin

Wed, 2011-04-27 23:12

The Opposition has slammed a proposal that would allow some violent asylum seekers to remain in Australia on temporary protection visas. Also, changes to immigration laws will make it easier to send criminals back to their country of origin or, at least, prevent them applying for permanent protection visas.

The minister says the Migration Act already permits him to issue temporary visas, although he stresses that refugees will not be returned to countries where they'd be in danger of persecution.

The Liberal Party wants to reinstate temporary protection visas because it says there use acts as a disincentive to people smugglers and is one way of stopping asylum seeker boats.

The changes proposed would be backdated to today, meaning those involved in recent uprisings at detention centres, but who are yet to be charged, would face the new character test.

The 1951 UN refugee convention is not appropriate today. The world has changed. It was formed after the second world war, and our allies were displaced and Australia has a small population. It is now predicted that by 2050, there will be millions of asylum seekers fleeing wars, famine, natural disasters, overpopulation and climate change. Our human carrying capacity is already at the brim!

Our economic immigration is crippling our ability to manage immigration numbers, and priorities.

The government is not representing the interests of the people of Australia. It shows how our "democracy" is an illusion. We are allowed to vote on peripheral issues, but the main decisions made by governments are outside our control, and they don't listen! Humanitarian immigration intake should happen off-shore, and replace economic immigration and family reunions. Anyone arriving without documents and visas should be sent back to their homeland, or where they came.

There's too much political correctness, and not enough patriotism for Australia. Why don't any members of parliament have enough courage to uphold our sovereignty?

Matt (not verified)

Wed, 2011-04-27 21:43

Hi, I'm always grateful to see people such as yourself voicing what to me is obviously the most important issue we face. We need to stabilise our population at no more than our current level. I just thought you might be interested in knowing we have a couple of parties emerging with this as their primary agenda. I am a member of the 2nd one who currently are offering free membership but the top one is larger and so has a stronger base. Joining either of these and voting this way is a good way to get this message across to the major parties - they need to listen to this. Carbon tax is a crock and not a solution - just another dumb idea that the less informed less intelligent think will solve the problem. It's about finding a balance between population size and lifestyle - currently, any increase in population means sacrificing lifestyle not to mention native wildlife and farmland which we do so at our increased peril. We need to change our economy to work with a stable population base and push our governments and businesses to take actual action in working within our land's ability to clean itself and stop the lies regarding aging population and other rubbish they spew. Here's the groups: http://www.populationparty.com http://www.stoppopulationgrowthnow.com regards Matt

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-04-27 10:05

A three-year-old girl was savaged by dingoes after wandering into bushes on Fraser Island (called a "tourist island" by the media ?), according to witnesses. The dingoes were out of sight in nearby bushes and when the child was away from the adults, and they "came in and attacked the child," said Terry Harper, head of the Queensland environment department. Both of the wild dogs were later captured and destroyed by park rangers. A TV report said April 25th 2011 that NO Rangers were working over the weekend at Fraser Island! After the sudden death of Clinton Gage at Fraser Island on Monday 30th April 2001 the Queensland Government instantly ordered for "culling" of the dingoes to begin. Nowhere did they say that Clinton Gage was tormenting and teasing the dingo by throwing stones at it prior to his attack and ultimate death. Where were the parents? The Queensland government is clearly more interested in tourist dollars than protecting the last remaining pure dingoes in their sanctuary. Would these parents leave their children unattended in a lion park? Dingoes are predators, and hungry dogs are more likely to attack. They should have food drops! But no, they must be "sustainable" and live on their own resources - something that humans haven't achieved ourselves! Any visitors entering wildlife territory should take responsibility for the risks, and stay together with any children. Tourists should be fully informed. But restricting tourists might mean less of them, so the dingoes must be "put down"! We in Australia are the biggest extinguishers of mammals in the world in the last 220 years. There needs to be more balance in managing Fraser Island, and greater protection for our remaining iconic dingoes.

nimby

Wed, 2011-04-27 08:38

The success of relocating and rehabilitating injured kangaroos is a knowledge that is not welcome here in Australia by the mainstream. If healthy roos are seen as moving targets, when one is "down" or seen as an impediment to human progress, bullets are considered cheaper and preferable. Relocating kangaroos is more easily considered as inviable, and impossible, due to "welfare" concerns. This was what happened at South Morang, in Victoria. There was an attempt to relocate a few kangaroos, but it was deliberately set to fail, and thus they were shot as the DSE decided there were no other alternatives for the mob - all under the banner of animal welfare and public safety!

quark

Tue, 2011-04-26 18:36

Humans do seem to be the cruellest of species. I cannot think of any other that could compete for this dubious honour. There are more humans living on the planet than ever before and the numbers are rising such that each extra billion is added in less than 15 years. For a very large number of humans -those struggling for survival - and for most other animals, because of pressure from humans , life on Earth is more like being in Hell and deteriorating. The human plague is an obscenity and blight on the Earth's biosphere. It's a tragedy playing out right now. Our predatory instincts towards other creatures as well as what appears to be, in many a pathological desire to inflict suffering come together synergistically becasue of acute overpopulation. Fortunately there are some sympathetic and brave souls like this woman in China who can replace suffering and death with comfort and life.

nimby (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-26 18:23

The Opposition has slammed a proposal that would allow some violent asylum seekers to remain in Australia on temporary protection visas. Also, changes to immigration laws will make it easier to send criminals back to their country of origin or, at least, prevent them applying for permanent protection visas. The minister says the Migration Act already permits him to issue temporary visas, although he stresses that refugees will not be returned to countries where they'd be in danger of persecution. The Liberal Party wants to reinstate temporary protection visas because it says there use acts as a disincentive to people smugglers and is one way of stopping asylum seeker boats. The changes proposed would be backdated to today, meaning those involved in recent uprisings at detention centres, but who are yet to be charged, would face the new character test. The 1951 UN refugee convention is not appropriate today. The world has changed. It was formed after the second world war, and our allies were displaced and Australia has a small population. It is now predicted that by 2050, there will be millions of asylum seekers fleeing wars, famine, natural disasters, overpopulation and climate change. Our human carrying capacity is already at the brim! Our economic immigration is crippling our ability to manage immigration numbers, and priorities. The government is not representing the interests of the people of Australia. It shows how our "democracy" is an illusion. We are allowed to vote on peripheral issues, but the main decisions made by governments are outside our control, and they don't listen! Humanitarian immigration intake should happen off-shore, and replace economic immigration and family reunions. Anyone arriving without documents and visas should be sent back to their homeland, or where they came. There's too much political correctness, and not enough patriotism for Australia. Why don't any members of parliament have enough courage to uphold our sovereignty?

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-04-26 08:19

Canada has the disgrace of their annual baby seal clubbing atrocities, but we in Australia have the dishonour of the biggest terrestrial wildlife slaughter in the world - of kangaroos! Baby joeys, about one million a year, and clubbed to death and other are left to die lonely and slow deaths. Our environment Minister Hon Tony Burke gave the sum of $400,000 of public funds to subsidise our commercial kangaroo killing industry. He is to be congratulated for his stance against cattle in our Alpine National parks, with his statement that cattle are not "native animals". Yes, quite rightly, cattle are introduced species and have no place in national parks, and the so-called "scientific research" on fire reduction is a scam to allow free/cheap agistment. Now, it is time he actually did something for our real and genuine native animals - our wonderful and iconic native kangaroos! They are our mascots, and the most well recognised symbol of Australia in the world. How sad it is that they are so little honoured and recognised as actual living animals rather than just tokens! The rationale for this slaughter is covered with words such as "sustainable", "harvest", "well managed" and "humane", but the reality is quite contrary. These animals are hunted at night, and the lights themselves are a threat to their safety. Shooters cannot possibly shoot directly at their brains in such conditions, and mis-shots are very regular. Kangaroos are hop away and die slowly in agony. This is how we treat our wildlife? Indigenous people hunted single roos, but not on an industrial scale and not with such ongoing massacres. There are so many challenges to our kangaroos, and wildlife in general. We have floods, bushfires, urbanisation, agricultural land, roads, introduced animals and climate change impacting on their survival, and the list of threats can only get worse. Numbers have plummeted in the last few years, but still the relentless shooting continues? Farmers and the public still have historical-colonial attitudes to kangaroos, and treat them as "pests" when we know now that they do not thrive on crops, do not compete with livestock except in extreme conditions, and are frugal in their grazing and actually help in grassland management. This cruel and shameful industry must stop, and our government must protect all wildlife, and encourage farmers to live harmoniously with native animals on their land - a have a holistic approach to farming. This is in light with modern research results. Fixing fences should be a normal part of farm maintenance, and there are kangaroo-enabled fencing where it is needed. Propping up a disreputable and ugly industry for Australia with public funding is contrary to our interests! Tourists come here and expect to see kangaroos in the wild, but they and many other species are disappearing before our eyes.

MIllicent (not verified)

Mon, 2011-04-25 11:43

I recently got sent a card with a photo of Mr Eddie, one of the little mascot dogs saved from a dog meat market. It has upset me for days. The dear little dog was just hours from a certain and painful death. They have the foul and sadistic idea that more pain means better tasting meat. They make sure they suffer. The human race is clearly the most cruel and criminal species. How could such atrocities happen to gentle animals? Not only dogs and cats, but sheep, pigs and cattle. More than 16 billion animals who are killed for food every year just in the U.S. Nearly one billion of those are pigs, considered to be among the most intelligent of animals. Farm animals are stunned by electricity or percussion, and killed by cutting the blood vessels in the neck, causing blood loss. The halal and shechita method, used by Moslems and Jews, involves cutting the neck without stunning the animals. The toll of 7 billion people on our planet is tremendous, and clearly unnecessary considering eating meat is optional, not essential.

nimby

Mon, 2011-04-25 10:15

What's good for a growth-based economy is not in our interests. There are times when growth in human numbers is convenient and necessary to build up an economy of scale, to create a feasible and coherent society and justify infrastructure investments. However, continuing on the route to endless growth is akin to obesity, and cancer. Growth over an optimum size means massive costs to re-engineer our city, outstripping current funding. What would a bigger Melbourne, a Big M, achieve that can't already be achieved? What's to be gained? It's all about those in power making more wealth form property development, and more mega-stores growing and maintaining a bigger customer base. It's not for the benefit of us, the average people, but the elite who will be shielded from the negative impacts due to their wealth. An economy based on perpetual growth and consumption has a limited time-frame, and is inherently fatalistic. It means that our collective human mass will end up a creating destructive monolithic top-heavy mega cities, with an appetite greater than what an economy or Nature can feed it. A sports writer would know that too many team-members would cause chaos and mayhem, not a unified and focused team optimised to win!

VivKay (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-24 08:57

Why allow populations to maximise anyway? What is the advantage of allowing humanity to reach the brim of our “carrying capacity”? Surely when it comes to consumption and resources, conservative numbers is to our advantage. The planet Earth is not just humans. We share this planet with thousands of species, and their decline is due to human numbers and expansions. Surely balanced ecosystems are better than human numbers pushed to the limit, eliminating other sentient creatures? Each species help preserve and ensure ecosystems are healthy and functioning. Animals can’t evolve fast enough against human aggression. It’ s not only about ethics, conservation and conservatism, but maximising human numbers makes us vulnerable to resource declines, the energy crisis, shortages of potable water, natural disasters and climate change. What’s the point of more people except to defy reality and continue the status quo of growth and more growth as if we were still a great "empty" sunlit land of expansive horizons? Surely we in Australia, in Melbourne, can achieve what we want to achieve with our present numbers without adding millions more people to Melbourne? Our city was not designed to be a monolith. It would mean re-engineering our whole shape and infrastructure. The costs and upheaval will be tremendous. Why go down that route? The addiction to a misanthropic economic model based on perpetual growth is one that needs to be challenged in light of our energy crisis, our declining natural resources, natural disasters and climate change. The "business as usual" model should assigned into the dustbins of history. We need an economic model based on survival, sustainability and equilibrium with available resource declines.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-04-24 07:07

Thanks, Sheila, for drawing our attention to this astonishing article. How any professional editor would have seen any value in Niall's piece is a mystery to me. It is no more than value judgement without any data, facts or logic to back it up. Does Niall seriously expect us to believe that Melburnians of the 1990's would have thrown away housing affordability, open spaces and relatively uncongested roads in return for the allegedly more interesting food choices of today? I somehow doubt if hundreds of thousands of Melburnians struggling with acute accommodation stress, cost of living increases and longer working hours and commuting times would see the "sexiness" that he and Bernard Salt claim to see in Melbourne in 2011.

Have-a-heart (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-24 00:03

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5154/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6207 I was disgusted to read about how the US Government has allowed a gas station to display a rare tiger in a small, unenriched cage day in day out, subjected to fumes from trucks and taunts from passers-by. I do not understand how that country can pretend to be any better than the worst countries in the world or pretend to teach other people how to live. America needs to be taught decency. Someone should invade them and teach them a lesson. How can anyone who could afford a tiger treat it this way. What kind of IDIOT runs that truck stop? Whoever it is should be locked up in that tiny cage himself and the key thrown away. "Tony the TigerJoin the Animal Legal Defense Fund in urging the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to revoke the permit that allows Michael Sandlin to display Tony, a ten-year-old Siberian-Bengal tiger, at the Tiger Truck Stop in Grosse Tete, Louisiana, where he has lived with no other tiger companions since 2003. In addition to being subjected to noise and diesel fumes 24-hours a day, Tony is also frequently harassed and taunted by visitors at the truck stop. His enclosure is devoid of adequate enrichment, such as logs, trees, or complex vegetation that would allow him to engage in natural tiger behaviors. He has no pool of water large enough to allow him to submerge himself to cool off in the blazing heat of the summer. As a result of the stress of his confinement, Tony constantly paces on the hard concrete surface of his enclosure, putting him at risk for dangerous and painful veterinary conditions. Michael Sandlin, the owner of Tony and the truck stop, has been cited by the USDA due to violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including a lack of proper sanitation and improper feeding practices. On April 11, 2011, ALDF filed a lawsuit against the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and its secretary Robert Barham, arguing that he violated state law in granting a permit allowing Sandlin to exhibit Tony at the Tiger Truck Stop. Join the Animal Legal Defense Fund in urging the state of Louisiana to revoke the permit that allows Tony to be kept at the Tiger Truck Stop—a permit that violates both state and local ordinances designed to protect people and wild animals like Tony. Sign the petition to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (on the same web page) now!"

quark

Sat, 2011-04-23 22:39

The title of the article is "Big Melbourne isn't to be feared" but the infamous Bernard Salt is quoted within it in support of Big M saying that the "Adelaidification of Melbourne" (not so fast gowing Melbourne ) is a "frightening prospect" The author of the article certainly isn't frightened of using the word "frightend" as a weapon against the citizens of Melbourne, accusing them of being so, but it is apparently quite OK and cool in the eyes of the author (or did he not notice)?) for Bernard Salt to say he is frightend of growth slowing. No problem about a rather irrelavent lashng of "boat people' at the end either to complete the messy stew dished up to The Age readers today by the sports writer, Jake Niall.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-04-23 17:45

In Syria human rights organization say at least 90 civilians had been killed by security forces during the biggest demonstrations so far against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in cities across Syria on Friday to call for current president Bashar al-Assad to step down. Food prices in Syria continue to rise faster than wages. During the last two years, the prices of meat, vegetables and even beans increased while salaries stayed the same. Syria continues to host the largest population of refugees from Iraq, and it is the only neighbouring country of Iraq that continues to provide relatively easy access to Iraqi refugees. Due to prolonged drought and an increase in fuel prices, the affected rural population of northeast Syria has almost exhausted all coping strategies and has become extremely vulnerable. Since June 2010, an additional 44 million people fell below the $1.25 poverty line as a result of higher food prices. This issue shows up in double-digit food price inflation in Iran, Egypt and Syria, with more moderate levels in other parts of the region. Prominent among the challenges in the Middle East are rapid population growth, spreading water shortages, and growing food insecurity. Saudi Arabia's growing food insecurity has led it to buy or lease land in several developing countries, including two of the world's hungriest, Ethiopia and Sudan. For ordinary citizens, a 20% rise in the cost of basic food stuff is a nightmare in suppressed countries. They therefore ask questions ...."if we have all this mineral wealth how comes we're so poor..?" Overpopulation is now a worldwide problem and shortages of food and water are coming to us all.

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-04-22 09:21

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has insisted he is "not concerned" about our whaling case against Japan. He sounds very confident of their legality, and totally arrogant. We in Australia have shown condolences and friendship after their tragedy and devastation, yet their Prime Minister just dismisses the mass slaughter of whales in an international conservation zone as a triviality, not to "worry" about! They have shown flagrant disregard for foreign treaties and territories, and total disrespect for our diplomatic pressure to stop the slaughter. Friendship should not be interpreted as weakness, or as accepting criminal activities. There are limits to friendly relations, but they should be based on respect. Their war on whales is more than just a mere "dispute"! We all know their whale killings are not "research", and they need to be exposed. Sometimes disaster makes people more humble, more compassionate, but obviously not Kan!

Katie (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-21 14:14

u r such an awesful person wat the crap is wrong with u?? and u r a republican wow your showing how good u r! i wish that possom would of bit ur face and gave u rabies! Plus did that possum look happy or r u just stupid like that and have fun doing that to animals, and i bet if u had a tail u would just love it if i can up to u and picked u up by it. Now dont u just feel like a good person, have a bad day >:( hate, katie

admin

Thu, 2011-04-21 13:48

Nimby, We would really like to hear more about this kind of thing in Hong Kong, which suffers from a similar British colonial system as Australia. In Hong Kong Australians can see what the nasty developers think it is their right to impose on us all. Well said when you say that "Developers are the boss of the government and the real enemy of society." This statement can be defended on every level sociologically, economically and environmentally.

VivKay (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-21 09:18

With consistent and 8 years of ongoing protests, non-political and non-violent activism, under a true democratic system, this development would surely be thrown in the bin as one that ticks all the boxes as being "inappropriate development"? Serendip has many native birds, and a recovered wetland system. Out of all the birds, 19 are of particular conservation significance and are listed under the EPBC Act, and The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. This case at Lara sets an important precedent. If this conservation sanctuary, of international and regional significance, can't be protected, then there is little chance for any other! It must be won. There is widespread environmental illiteracy in our population. The councilors at the City of Greater Geelong are no doubt simply "out of their depth". How could they be informed enough to understand the threats to our wildlife, and the significance of breeding Eastern Barred Bandicoots? Yet, 5 out of 9 approved the development? Victoria is the State with the most land in private hands, and the one most cleared and damaged. Where are wildlife to live and breed in safety? Victoria - and Australia - is being transformed into a generic, sterilised and de-constructed into an International territory for globalisation and multiculturalism, with almost nothing left or our natural heritage and indigenous past. Is this the bland and cleared Australia we really want? A sea not of native forests, grasslands, wetlands, woody bushland, but of mega-stores, roofs and roads?

nimby (not verified)

Wed, 2011-04-20 21:07

Residents of Hong Kong housing complex Mei Foo Sun Chuen say they first heard the construction trucks arrive and a few of them rushed downstairs to see what was going on. Resident Hewit Au confronted a truck driver, and then proceeded to lie down in front of the truck to stop it entering the work site. Au and his fellow residents have become more than just middle class homeowners with a complaint against a local developer. Billion Star has permission to a build a 20-story residential tower adjacent to Block 8 of Mei Foo Sun Chuen. It will block the light and air, and be very close to their windows. How can the people "breathe"? Hong Kong property prices have risen almost 69% since January 2009. The Mei Foo residents organized a major street protest at the beginning of April, with hundreds participating. Some activists claimed the raid on a ParknShop superstore at the Hung Hom Bay Centre on March 26 was a success, although one protester admitted it should have been planned better to avoid disrupting shoppers. They target developers because they are the boss of the government and the real enemy of the society. People in Hong Kong are united enough to protest directly against inappropriate development. This should happen here in Australia. Despite our democratic system, property developers can't be said "no" to!

admin

Wed, 2011-04-20 18:51

Thanks for this article, Wei Ling. Good to have a new commentator in Queensland. I had a look at the article you recommend, on Chinese democracy, and note that perhaps China has recovered to some extent from the disorganisation of the cultural revolution in the rural areas. In Australia and in most of the English speaking western world we are severely disorganised by high immigration and industrialisation which have fragmented normal family and clan bases and their relationship with space. I am sure the same situation prevails in the big Chinese cities and in places where massive landscape transformations have occurred (as in the construction of that huge dam), however it may be that the still high proportion of Chinese rural population is quite well organised now along family, clan and village lines. If that is the case then the local governments would be potentially very important in giving better representation to their constituents. Australia, with well over 80% of its people in big, structurally disorganised cities, lacks these valuable potential sources of democratic power. Candobetter is interested in reform of democracy. We don't endorse economic growth though, which we see as undermining democracy because it confirms more and more power on corporations, which are not democratic at all and which prefer financial gain over human and planetary welfare, with the trend to destroying life support systems. I do agree with you that it is shocking that the LNP has brought in an outsider who has 'binned' all its policies, but I don't agree that he knows nothing about the rest of Queensland. I don't approve of his politics and I see him as a skillful marketer of growth lobby policies, a representative of the developers who are ruining our self-government, paving over democracy and the natural environment. Another spin-doctor. Unfortunately, trends are normalising the insertion of professional marketers into political office. Although the binning of former policies and the induction of a new leader from outside are novel political tactics, they are explainable by the fact that politicians are more and more salesmen for commercial lobby group ideas rather than actual representatives of their party or conceptualisers of real public policy. You also suggest that politicians have failed to comment on significant problems in our society, and you are probably right in most cases, but we alternative journalists should look to Hansard Australia and the Hansards for each state, to be fair. Given that almost everything that occurs in Australian parliaments is reported there word for word, you do find that some politicians have made significant speeches there which don't get reported by the Press. What your article exposes, without saying it, is probably that the media only reports certain things, so even if politicians make comments on real issues, they don't get published. In fact that is how real politicians are selected out by the Australian (and Western) political process. Mr Murdoch and other major media-owners presumably choose their editors for obedience or like-mindedness and what gets out there is a reflection of newsmedia owner's tastes - and probably their financial investments as well. By the way, the issue of poker machine debt is an important component of poverty and homelessness in this nation and the ALP makes a lot of money out of the ownership of poker machines, as does other big business, so to take issue with this may be to diminish a worthy issue. Candobetter would be happy to publish articles against gambling. Also, one wonders why, given the huge takes that governments make from gambling, if continuing income taxes can be rationally justified. I suggest that you precise that you are referring to democracy in English speaking nations because there are different styles of democracy in Europe and they work better and don't suffer from exactly similar problems.

admin

Sun, 2011-04-17 22:48

This was posted to The National Interest in response to a story on the high number of informal votes cast in Australian elections

The easiest way to reduce the informal vote would be, as Peter Mares suggested, to adopt Queensland's optional preferential voting system, where no valid vote need have more than a first preference or an 'X'.

Personally, I think that every voter should make full use of the preferential voting system. Use of the preferential system ensures that if a voter's most preferred candidate does not win, then, his/her preferences will be used to help decide who, amongst candidates that are not that voter's first choice, will win. Without preferential voting, it is possible for a candidate, who is opposed by most voters, to defeat a candidate who is supported by more voters.

The lack of preferential voting makes elections in the UK, the United States and Canada particularly undemocratic. If the US had preferential voting in 2000, even the rorting of the Miami ballot would not have prevented Al Gore from defeating George W Bush.[1] Instead, preferences from votes for Ralph Nader, most of which would have flowed to Gore, went into the bin.

Whilst voters should not be forced to allocate preferences, if they don't wish to, it is a waste of their vote not to. Those who advocate that voters only vote '1', and not make use of preferential voting, as many independent and small party candidates do, do democracy a grave dis-service.

Above-the line voting in Australian Senate elections is a rort. This is because the preference deals made between the parties behind closed doors are not revealed to the voting public.

In the 2007 federal ections, I could not obtain, from electoral officials, how my the preferences of my Senate vote would have been distributed if I had voted "above the line". (I was recovering from a serious injury, so did not make similar inquiries when I voted in 2010). If deals are made between parties to distribute preferences and the Australian Electoral Commission distributes those preferences according to those deals, then why won't the Australian Electoral Commission let voters know how they are going to distribute their "above the line" votes on their behalf?.

However there is a far greater deficiency in our electoral system than those described above. This is the lack of choice offered to electors by all but a small handful of candidates. Why, for example, during the 2009 Queensland elections, whilst Queenslanders were enduring the disastrous consequences of the privatisation of the retail arm of Queensland's power generation utility by former Premier Beattie, was opposition to privatisation not put to voters, except by a single candidate (myself)? The Bligh Governenment's plans to privatise coal loaders, the Port of Brisbane and much of Queensland Rail announced only afetr the 2009 elections, have been consistently opposed by the order of 80% of Queenslanders yet none of the Parties in Queensland --- not even the Greens --- raised this as an election issue.

FOOTNOTES

1. Consequently, the world was made to endure the horrors that President Bush and his controllers inflicted upon the world - the Afghan War, supposedly necessitated by 9/11, the Iraq War of 2003 (shown to be illegal by the movie "Fair Game"), the global financial crisis, etc,. etc.

Friend in Kyushu (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-17 16:56

Last couple of days the Rolling Updates have been exemplary IMHO, easily the best place to follow what is going on...and what isn't going on. I'd like to hear more of the secretive talks going on in Tokyo amongst the world's leading nuclear minds. I can only presume they are working out a way to snuff the problem out asap which would explain the miserable time wasting and dithering from Tepco. Keep it up, Tony.

nimby

Sun, 2011-04-17 09:02

Despite 8 years of strong campaigning and great opposition by residents, this development was approved.
Their impressive efforts included:
• 2410 signatures presented at the Legislative Assembly of Victoria,
• 670 submissions to Council
• 2 public meetings with hundreds of residents present
• Public Rally "Walk for Serendip"..over 400 residents present.
• Facebook site. Save Serendip..No Rezone over 1100 members.

To rezone this land sets a dangerous precedent for open slather development that places the very SURVIVAL of our wildlife at risk. Consequently, Serendip will become "an urban park in an urban matrix" instead of the sanctuary which is internationally recognised for successfully breeding captive species such as Brolga ,Musk and Freckled Duck and now the EASTERN BARRED BANDICOOT which is on the brink of EXTINCTION.

Numerous free ranging wildlife like the Cape Barren ,Magpie Geese and Eastern Grey kangaroos breed here and spill over on to the rural land surrounding the Sanctuary that is also only 2 km from You Yangs Regional Park. This is an important wildlife corridor. High density housing opposite the Sanctuary also brings increased numbers of cats and dogs and an increase in fox population due to urbanization.

The Wood Report, (an independent report organized by Parks Vic and not referenced to at either of the Independent Panel hearings by D.S.E) forecast this outlook if high density housing was approved
on the land opposite Serendip Sanctuary. How is this to impact on endangered species and regenerated ecosystems?

It is very clear that the City of Greater Geelong Council will develop land ANYWHERE irrespective of natural assets such as Serendip Sanctuary and You Yangs Regional Park not to mention the Ramsar listed Limeburners Bay and Avalon that directly link these wildlife corridors.

We must "accept our share of developments" said one councillor! Our population growth problem will not be solved while growth continues, and we keep accommodating it! It's not inevitable but a politically-driven decision done in consultation with business groups.

The City of Greater Geelong Council will also allow development regardless of MAJOR flood and fire threat as experienced in the past and present. Already population growth has outstripped infrastructure, but this does not seem to faze this Council.

Why is Council neglecting their Duty of Care and placing Lara residents at further risk from floods and fire?

To the west of Lara close to 30 years lot supply is available for Lara’s future development needs. Lara residents say appropriate development is needed in appropriate regions. It's politically correct to not be "against appropriate developments", but population growth is grinding us into more poverty, environmental stresses, higher costs at a time of declining manufacturing in the West, and Victoria wide. Population growth is outstripping welfare too. It's driving land clearing, loss of farming land, climate change and our native species further into extinctions.

Our natural assets must always be protected for us all and for our children's future and the very existence of our wildlife. Serendip is an internationally recognised sanctuary and so it their success in protecting and breeding endangered species. This hardly gets a mention in Geelong city planning!


This case sets a democratic precedent. If this inappropriate and toxic development goes ahead despite the wrong location and impacts on wildlife, then anything goes in Victoria!

TLC Lara Group

Mobile: 0418 327 403

VivKay (not verified)

Sat, 2011-04-16 15:04

Confidential Treasury figures showed a $13 billion fall in economic growth for this financial year.

The Treasurer will announce forecast growth of just 2.25 per cent, far lower than the 3.25 per cent forecast in the November budget.

Treasurer Wayne Swan revealed that the combined effects of floods, cyclones, a rising dollar and weaker economy, had wiped $4.5 billion off expected revenue.

With Labor committed to returning the budget to surplus in 2012/13, unemployment benefits could be ripe for spending cuts. Ms Gillard said government spending needed to be cut so public spending didn't crowd out private investment. Privatisation has been the downfall of this country. It hasn't worked in the US and it doesn't work here.

As if introducing a carbon tax in addition to the increasing cost of utilities, food and inflation wasn't enough, the government are now about to target some of the poorest in the population.

Population growth became a key election issue last year after Julia Gillard expressed concerns about a “big Australia” in the wake of Treasury’s projection that the nation’s population would reach 35 million by 2050.

The Property Council’s submission to Tony Burke's national population strategy points out the dangers of a low population growth policy, saying it would “dramatically increase burdens on taxpayers”.

However, less people would also mean less dis-economies of scale, and less need for all the upgrades and infrastructure spending.

“Immigration will help future-proof the country as our aging population sees us slip beyond this current demographic sweet spot.." Do they imagine that immigrants don't age? Keeping a population "young" would mean a massive and continual influx of new people that would blow out our budget and carrying capacity forever! The fact is that nothing will keep Australia's population young. The myth of an aging population threat is one perpetuated by those with vested business interests. It is population growth - and young people - that consumes public spending, not older people.

Editor's comment: I could spend a lot of time responding to all the points made in VivKay's incisive comment.

The newsmedia ideologues and Government insist that they have no choice but to reduce spending on useful services and infrastructure in order to get Australia's budget out of 'deficit', as if the deficits that will inevitably result from these cutbacks will be any less real than the financial deficits they are supposed to save us from.

Isn't it strange that during the years in which the Hawke, Keating and Howard Governments savagely reduced spending to keep our federal budget in surplus that none of the ideologues, who lavished praise on these governments, noticed the massive deficit in skills that was the result of these cutbacks?

Then a few years ago, the economists, who helped bring about this deficit, suddenly noticed and and began to demand higher 'skills' immigration to reduce this deficit of their own making. Of course, they neglect to mention that providing infrastructure for so many new immigrants is precisely the reason why the Federal and state governments are so much in financial deficit today.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2011-04-16 01:32

I transcribed the following dialogue from the movie Reds made in 1981 starring Warren Beattie as Jack Reed, a founder of the modern American Communist Movement and author of Ten Days that Shook the World, the bestselling work that popularised the 1917 Russian Revolution amongst English readers.

John Reed:[Edmund Borscht (spelling ?)] is going to do nothing but alienate himself from any potential broad base of suport. He's sociologically isolated and programatically impossible to deal with.

Louise Bryant: You, mean, he's a foreigner?

John Reed: Don't be like that, Louise. ... These people barely speak English. They don't want to be integrated into America. The foreign language federations aren't going to create Bolshevism in America any more than Eddie Borscht will. Being Russian doesn't make a revolution. Do you think the American workers are going to be led by the Russian Language Federation or an insular Italian like Louis Frayna? [1] He has no possibility of leading a revolution in his country. The revolution in this country is not ...

Louise Bryant: Unlike you?

John Reed: I'm just saying, the revolution in this country is not going to be lead by immigrants.

This dialogue only deals with how Reed believed that having leaders of the American Communist movement, who were not being integrated into the culture of the United States, would prove to be an insurmountable barrier to winning the American workers across to communism. It does not address the kind of mass immigration that is being faced today by workers in the United States, Canada, Australia and The United Kingdom. However, it seems unlikely that Reed and his followers back in 1918 would have excused or defended similar levels of high immigration into the United States in the same way that supposed socialists, bleeding heart liberals as well as those claiming to have drawn their political inspiration from the likes of John Reed, have excused or defended high immigration into anglophone countries in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Footnote: 1. In spite of being highly critical of Louis Frayna in this scene, John Reed found more common cause with Rayna later on in the film.

Wikki Winkles (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-15 16:27

Tony has made the error of trying to make sense of the gob of contradictory statements coming out of the various agencies and TEPCO officials. This has been shown to be more damaging to health than the actual amount of radiation coming out of the plant. Not to mention the Asahi article I saw today that said TEPCO had a plan to remove the fuel rods from unit 4-- "TEPCO considers plan to remove spent fuel rods from crippled Fukushima plant" Give them credit for considering something! However, the idiotic writer for Asahi who lays out TEPCO's plan for doing so, ends the column with this glittering gem of insight: A TEPCO executive said, "It will be impossible to conduct the work now because of the high radiation levels." Conundrum onion bun, side order of fried nukes.

Dave Kimble (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-15 12:06

Perhaps this diagram of a boiling water reactor similar to the Fukushima ones will help people picture what it is like: http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/nuclear/BWR.design.gif The spent fuel rod pools are located as close as possible to the opening in the roof of the containment chamber and reactor vessel, so that the overhead crane has the minimum distance to move when it extracts the spent fuel rods and puts them under water in the pond. Since the rods are generating heat for months after the reactor has been stopped, the ponds would have to have water circulating through them, and that clearly failed. The water would then slowly boil away until the rods are partly exposed. Then the exposed portion would get so hot it begins to 'crack' the water into hydrogen and oxygen. These gases would accumulate in the top floor section with the flimsy roof until they recombine explosively, blowing the roof away. As the remaining water boils away, the rods get hotter and hotter until the outer Zircalloy tubes fail, dropping the fuel pellets onto the floor of the pool. When all the water is gone, you have a meltdown in the open air. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Francis (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-15 10:27

Julia Gillard said this week that with 4.9 per cent unemployment and strong demand for labour, made this a good time to make an assault on welfare dependency. Gillard has indicated welfare reforms will be at the centre of the budget. The overhaul of welfare is likely to be accompanied by initiatives to help people to be job-ready and to cope with personal hurdles such as health and family responsibilities. The Grattan Institute's Saul Eslake defines a ''tough'' budget as ''one which risks offending people [whose votes] the government actually needs''. Surely we the public should not be subservient to an Economy that drives down our standards of living? One based on perpetual population growth? While are are being told we have crippling "skills shortages", more industries are being closed down. Ministers are coming under pressure from lobby groups, most notably the campaign to prevent or minimise cuts in medical research! Aren't we meant to be a nation advertising our educational system to the rest of the world as one of the best places to study? Less research will mean less opportunities for research scientists. This is ironical considering that we in Victoria are accumulating more of our share of new people, and at the same time losing employment opportunities. What sort of work will these people be able to find? Of course, some will be self-servicing, such as police, teachers, distribution, customer service, health and other industries, but what about serving our trade deficit? According to the Victorian government, exports of goods and services fell 2.4 % including large declines in metal ores and gold exports. These decreases were partly offset by growth in exports of meat and metals. Coal exports rose slightly but this followed a large fall in January due to the Queensland floods. Monthly imports rose 4.9 %, including a large increase in fuel imports. Population growth - importing people - is a short-term economic stimulus with long-term inbuilt fatalism.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-04-15 09:21

France has just passed its anti-fracking law in parliament. The law rescinds rights previously granted and puts any schale-mining for gas on hold pending new and safer technologies. Source: JT, Edition du Mercredi 13 Avril 2011, http://jt.france2.fr/20h/ This parliamentary decision is yet more evidence that the Napoleonic system in France and Europe is far more democratic - in protecting peoples' rights and communal (and national) assets and vital resources - than the anglophone systems in their various forms in Britain and her current and ex-colonies. America, Canada, Australia are among the least democratic countries in the world, with vast and growing differences between the haves and the have-nots, in legal systems which cannibalise and destroy their own community, citizens and resources. The reason that these countries are not yet obviously reduced to the poverty of Haiti is that their citizens started out with more resources per capita. As commonwealth is transferred more and more into private hands in those systems, people who have to date been able to survive, will not survive. The growing numbers of homeless and hopelessly endebted are indicators of the social unsustainability of the current economic and legal systems in Australia, America and Canada. In France and the rest of Europe, it is virtually impossible for citizens to be left without shelter unless they voluntarily opt out - as some homeless do - albeit with every attempt made to shelter them each winter. High on the list of reasons against fracking in France was the risk of contamination of water supply and its impact on agriculture and human health.

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-04-15 07:44

Addiction to growth and short-term economic "fixes": More people! A $1 billion housing development near Werribee will cater to Melbourne's future growth. There is no station though and little infrastructure. Delfin Lend Lease will build a billion-dollar urban community for up to 12,000 people on 438 hectares about three kilometres west of Werribee, west of Melbourne. Another new residential development, Toolern just south of Melton, is expected to ultimately expand in population to the size of Mildura. At the same time, TOYOTA will halve production at Altona affecting 3300 workers, as Ford axes 240 jobs from its Victorian plants. However, less jobs but more people, which means as production and manufacturing are going overseas, there will be more people distributing and consuming mostly imported goods! Our trade deficit will simply blow out more, and we will owe more to China. Wyndham mayor John Menegazzo said the suburb's swift growth was causing significant road congestion, exacerbated by inadequate public transport. Population growth is continually outstripping infrastructure and funding. What we have is an addiction to growth. Population growth doesn't pay for itself, but only gives a short-term injection of funds to big businesses and State government. The long term needs keep getting exacerbated, and blowing out economies of scale. The solution to funding shortfall?- bring in more people! Thus we have an addiction cycle of need, a boost and so on. An economy based on limitless and perpetual growth is fatalistic and misanthropic and not sustainable. It's pushing us to our limits - environmentally, socially and financially. Our economic growth dependent on population growth is severely time-limited. When will our politician start to think in the long-term impacts, and that this dependency is basically fatalistic? This frenzy of growth must stop. A vote for the Stable Population Party of Australia is the solution. Plans for billion-dollar suburb of 4000 homes at Werribee The Age

Sustainable-water? (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-14 13:27

Australians could soon be drinking recycled waste water with a national productivity commission recommending the process be allowed. One way to get around water shortages while maintaining efficiency would be to allow used water to be pumped back into supplies, it says. It also condemned the desalination plant as a waste of money. The Productivity Commission called for an urgent overhaul of the urban water sector, declaring consumers were paying more than necessary for their water as a result of poor government decision-making. The productivity commission is no doubt deeply committed to and deeply entrenched in the economic concept of perpetual and ongoing growth - which includes population growth. The lack of water means we must resort to recycled water to ensure enough supplies. The Economy should be our servant, to support our lifestyles for our benefit - Not the contrary! What about "sustainability"? We are all prepared to be sustainable but not the economic model being forced onto us? It is possible to remove solids and excrement from waste water, but what they have been finding in the United States increasingly in recycled waste water are pharmaceuticals - from all the medications people are taking. There is a limit to the number of dams we can build. Many ecologies depend on flooding, and already a number of native fish are endangered. Choking more rivers is not sustainable. It's simply assumed that our population will, naturally, keep growing. Nothing is said about limiting consumers and having a sustainable population. It's assumed that this would be "racist".

Lyceene (not verified)

Wed, 2011-04-13 20:37

The Minister for the Interior announced on 12 April 2011 that several women have been called in for questioning or charged with offences under the law prohibiting the wearing of total veils in public in Paris, France.

LED Lighting (not verified)

Wed, 2011-04-13 14:33

I just listened to the Canadian election "debate" and every party is for more immigration into Canada and adamantly so. It is a breath of fresh air to find a few kindred minds who see the folly of such dogma. I personally liked it better when there were fewer folks, and I believe the quality of life in Canada was better. My two cents worth.

Fair Water Use

Tue, 2011-04-12 20:16

It is becoming increasingly clear that the process of water reform in Australia entails the de-facto privatisation of water. With the support of the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre at the University of South Australia, the Water Action Coalition, of which Fair Water Use is a member organisation, is holding a landmark forum in Adelaide on the 18th May 2011, to allow discussion of the social and environmental consequences of water reform. Supporters of Fair Water Use are encouraged to attend. Admission is free, but tickets are limited - so be sure to book early. Full details can be accessed at http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2011events/WAC.asp

Mary (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-12 13:04

Kyodo News agency and public broadcaster NHK both reported that Japan's nuclear safety agency had decided to raise the severity level of the crisis to 7 - the highest level on the international scale. Chernobyl in the then Soviet Union spewed a large volume of toxic radiation and poisoned large areas of land and affecting thousands of lives. Japan’s nuclear safety regulators put the crisis at level 7, the highest possible rating on the international scale, which had so far only been assigned to the Chernobyl incident. The disaster is believed to have killed more than 25,000 people, but many of those bodies were swept out to sea and more than half of those feared dead are still listed as missing. Radiation doses on the first day were estimated to range up to 20,000 millisieverts (mSv), causing 28 deaths – six of which were firemen – by the end of July 1986. Since it is currently impossible to determine which individual cancers were caused by radiation, the number of such deaths can only be estimated statistically using information and projections from the studies of atomic bomb survivors and other highly exposed populations. In a series of reports about to be published by the UN health watchdog, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe. The silence and controversy over nuclear will be quashed by the media, and reports.

nimby

Tue, 2011-04-12 10:58

The mutilation attack on an injured kangaroo at Yarrambat is gut-wrenching. Kangaroo castrated while still alive in Yarrambat, Victoria Police believe the animal was hit by a car before being attacked somewhere in the vicinity of Red Box Court. Whilst lying on the ground injured, police believe someone castrated the kangaroo and removed the area below its tail called the "mound". It was probably a sick-headed souvenir! The kangaroo was later put down. How can wildlife be protected when there are so many contradictions in State and Federal laws? There are healthy and non-invasive "protected" kangaroos being lethally "managed" at Eden Park, Whittlesea. No explanation or community consultation is required from NMIT or the DSE! Letters and emails go either unanswered, or get a generic, and vague, response. The culture of stonewalling and secrecy is deeply ingrained in the DSE, and over the years they have become a law unto themselves. They are not answerable to the Law, the Council, the Victorian Ombudsman, and even the Minister Ryan Smith remains tight-lipped. Native waterbirds are allowed to be killed by recreational shooters in wetlands. We had a nesting swan sadistically killed last week, and now this sickening attack! How are the young, and low-lives, meant to differentiate between legal killing and illegal wildlife attacks when there are clear parallels? There is no science behind kangaroo "management", thus the silence must remain. Wildlife should be protected at all times without ambiguity and without exceptions.

Willy Wickles (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-12 09:07

Ishihara apologizes for gaffe, sorta A Pee News, April, 9 Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, the old man who is repeat offender of re-election to his office by the ignorant worker slaves of Tokyo, apologized for blaming the March 11 earthquake on the Japanese people due to their moral corruption. Ishihara who has been in the pockets of TEPCO and the nuclear industry throughout his career, just days before the earthquake remarked to the Independent of the UK that Japan should develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Bozo the Clown and Kim Jong Yomama. (Kim Jong Il - President of North Korea? -  Ed) Ishihara clarified his remarks by saying that while he did in a sense blame the Japanese people, it was not Heaven's Revenge, "but voter support for an old clod who is an elitist out-of-touch hypocrite and represents the basest values of militarism and crony politics. Why do these people keep electing a senile slime-ball just because he once wrote a novel and gained fortune and fame?" "So while I do certainly blame the Japanese people for their moral stupidity, I don't blame Heaven, where I intend to reside in the not too distant future." Nevertheless, in the upcoming election Ishihara is slated to win again despite the fact that the populace is upset with TEPCO's handling of the nuclear crisis-- apparently unaware of or indifferent to the Ishihara-TEPCO connection. President Obama was not available for comment as he was out playing golf with male hookers. However, the ghost of P.T. Barnum noted to reporters that "there's a sucker born every minute."

nimby (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-12 08:16

Ms Pauline Hanson has a lead of more than 6,000 primary votes over Greens candidate Jeremy Buckingham, who is also vying for the final position in the NSW Upper House. Ms Hanson stood as an independent candidate at the March 26 election, having severed formal links with One Nation, the party she co-founded. One Nation party threw its weight behind Ms Hanson, saying it still shared many views with its one-time leader. According to the media she "could hold Australia's most populous state to ransom if she wins a seat in the NSW Parliament today". For all her defects, or outspokenness, or illegal activities, she clearly has voter confidence. The same-same mantra of growth in the mainstream Lib-Labs, and the Green's avoidance of a policy of population growth, means that there is a "gap" in the policies being presented at the elections. It's assumed that immigrants, once they are here, will vote the parties that support ongoing immigration and growth. However, this is not necessarily so. Many of them have come here to be free of high rise living, congestion, corruption and pollution. Australia is/was an attractive option where our lifestyles were attractive and affordable, and the country accessible. Our cities are now changing for the worst. There are people worried about the future, about sustainability, about our food security, our rising costs and the coming energy crisis. The Economy is the main concern for politicians, rather than human and planetary welfare!

XTR75 (not verified)

Mon, 2011-04-11 18:33

I agree in principle that a bag limit would maybe see some fishermen take to the water more often, however, from an economics perspective, the bag limit may deter some from bothering, and these are precisely the ones who should be removed from the equation. The demand for fish is unlimited and by you catching your own you will not slow commercial fishing, so clearly people with chest freezers full of fish which could have been out there breeding are part of the problem as much as commercial fishermen. 30 is an absurd amount of fish to keep, and most people realise that we cannot take fish from nature to feed our family nowdays and that fishing is for pleasure. It's just logical that we have to change our habits, and when you tell your grandkids how you used to catch and freeze 30 bream, they will ask what a bream is. The cost of fishing needs to be increased with a daily permit just like Fraser island has, that way the market mechanism can work and those who don't want to cover the external cost of their activities will go without. Yes it cost money to run a boat, but how much of that is for the damage done to the seagrass, the fish populations and the fools who throw beer cans in the water.

admin

Mon, 2011-04-11 10:16

Another article from Murdoch's misnamed The Australian, which has disappeared, is of 2 July 2008 by Bernard Salt. Some of it has been extracted and posted here and below.

Extract from Check out Jackson's death becomes celebrity thriller in the Australian of from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25719720-25658,00.html

"THERE are still questions to be answered about the untimely death of pop singer Michael Jackson and I suspect these questions will continue to be asked long after he has been laid to rest.

The reason is that all the ingredients are gelling for a grand conspiracy theory.

To bake a delicious conspiracy theory, here's what you need: Take a celebrity with global fan appeal but make sure your candidate is aged between 33 and 50 (any younger and they haven't amassed the fan base necessary to incite hysteria after death; any older there's a diminution of the feeling of being robbed by their death). There's no "injustice" in an 80-year-old dropping dead.

(Blah, blah, blah, rhubarb, blah, blah - Princess Diana conspiracy theory - blah, blah, - Harold Hot's defection to the Chinese - blah, rhubarb )

But if you really want to create the perfect conspiracy theory, then have a celebrity power figure, say a 46-year-old US president, assassinated in public. And then have the whole thing captured on a single movie camera operated by a middle-aged man with an exotic name such as, oh I don't know, say Abraham Zapruder.

(Blah, blah, blah, rhubarb, blah, blah - fake moon landing conspiracy theory - blah, blah, rhubarb )

Other conspiracy theories question the motives behind global events: the bigger the event the greater the market for an elaborate theory.

Did you know that 9/11 was orchestrated by the CIA so a pretext could be established for George W. Bush to invade Iraq via Afghanistan? [1] The And this is because Bush wanted to please his father, who regretted not taking Saddam Hussein out after Desert Storm."

Footnotes.

1. The 2010 Movie Fair Game starring Naomi Watts as former CIA agent Valerie Plame (which ends with live footage of Plame testifying before US Congress) shows incontrovertible evidence that George Bush's Government faked evidence to construct a pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Australia, the US, the UK and other allies. (As Iraqi deaths are estimated by a number of authoritative sources to be at least 100,000 with The Lancet estimating 700,000 deaths (pdf) in 2006 and other sources higher and given that the invasion has wrecked the economy and inflicted poverty and unemployment on many formerly prosperous Iraqis, how Iraq could have been worse off if Hussein's dictatorship had endured has not been explained.) Don't hold your breath waiting for Salt and other journalists, particularly Murdoch journalists, to debunk the movie Fair Game.

nimby

Mon, 2011-04-11 08:41

The federal opposition has backed a West Australian minister's controversial comments on the burka, saying the dress goes against Australian culture and should not be worn. Minister says burka is 'alien'- The Australian WA Minister for Women's Interests Robyn McSweeney sparked heated debate when she spoke out against the burka at the weekend, labelling it "alien" to Australia's way of life. Australian women (except Aboriginal women) were enfranchised for the new Commonwealth Parliament in 1901. Women first voted in second Federal election in 1903. Suffragists attempted to speak for themselves and argue for full legal and civil equality, and for the personal freedom. Women battled for reproductive rights such as contraception and abortion, family allowances, equal employment opportunities, education, respect for women's domestic labour in the public sphere. No woman was elected to an Australian parliament until 1921. The first federal female parliamentarians were not elected until 1943. It was generally accepted that women's roles were as nurturers and home-makers. It was considered their destiny to get married, have children and devote their lives to the needs of their husbands and offspring. This was reinforced by beliefs that women were incapable of leading any other sort of life. Times have changed, and women now demand equal rights to careers, representation, education, political representation and freedom of expression. The struggle has been long, and anything less is confrontational. The covering of women, and confinement to domestic duties, and the draconian dress and oppression of women under Sharia law and muslim codes are not appropriate in Australia. Neither is speaking with the face covered! Some countries and territories have drawn up bans on the burqa and the niqab, however France -- home to Europe's largest Muslim population -- will be the first to risk stirring social tensions by putting one into practice. As the host nation to introduced cultures and ethnic immigrants, they (and we) surely have the right to set the standards of what is the expected dress-code and values that are to be enshrined - historically and culturally? Multiculturalism and "diversity" are the default result of high immigration rates, not some humanitarian ideal that all peoples are a great unified melting-pot, that all cultural practices are acceptable.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2011-04-11 07:25

The following is my comment to Ellen Bown's article Why Japan Can Easily Afford to Rebuild. Perhaps, the title should have been Why Japan Can More Easily Afford to Rebuild. Even a country, such as Japan, which has, fortunately, not been burdened with the private banking scam that has burdened nearly all other industrialised economies as Ellen Brown has shown, will surely still find the cost of rebuilding from its largely avoidable man-made nuclear disaster a huge burden. The article is also published on Global Research as Japan: Financing Reconstruction. The Monetary Implications of the Nuclear Catastrophe and The Huffington Post as Why the Japanese Government Can Afford to Rebuild: It Owns the Largest Depository Bank in the World

Whilst not having the dead weight of a private banking system monopoly gives Japan an enormous advantage in rebuilding from the devastation caused by earthquakes, tsunamis and nuclear accidents, I think we still have to bear in mind that even countries with good financial systems can still suffer horribly from natural and avoidable man-made disasters. Some authoritative figures, including the French nuclear reactor construction company, AREVA, are calling this the worst peace time disaster ever (see speech by Arnie Gunderson at http://www.fairewinds.com/content/closing-ranks-nrc-nuclear-industry-and-tepco-are-limiting-flow-information).

So, whilst Japan has a vastly better banking system than most of the rest of the world, this may still not come anywhere near to countering the terrible losses that Japan has suffered and will suffer, because it has adopted such a dangerous means of generating domestic electric power and allowed its privately owned power companies including TEPCO to skimp on proper safety.

We can't completely exclude the possibility that even if Japan retains what is of merit in its banking finance system as Ellen Brown has rightly and cogently argued -- and let's hope that it does -- it still may end up an impoverished wasteland if the worst fears of critics of Japanese nuclear power are realised.

Articles, which may be of interest about the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster, written by Tony Boys, an English-speaking resident of Japan, and Sheila Newman, can be found at candobetter.net/node/2428 candobetter.net/node/2408 (in French) candobetter.net/node/2419 candobetter.net/node/2413 candobetter.net/node/2412 candobetter.net/node/2410 candobetter.net/node/2409.

nimby (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-10 08:18

France is the home to Europe's largest Muslim population. This will be the first country to risk stirring social tensions by putting the ban on the burqa into practice. They total between four and six million people. French officials estimate that around 2,000 women wear a niqab or a burqa - full-face veils that are traditional in parts of Arabia and South Asia. Understandably, they are more than an anti-fashion, anti-Western and feminist garb. They are symbols of extremism and of using women in the front line of a cultural "war". Hiding the face and mouth is not acceptable in societies that are democratic and presumably transparent. There is a security aspect too. Anyone refusing to lift his or her veil to submit to an identity check can be taken to a police station. There, officers must try to persuade them to remove the garment, and can threaten fines. Identity hiding means wasting police time on potential crime or terror suspects. Sarkozy declared the full-face veil was "not welcome" in France and branding it a symbol of "servitude" rather than one religious observance. Religions must serve the people and be human "friendly" or else they have hidden political-social agendas. Surely faith communities that fail to transcend human weaknesses and ephemeral concerns cannot find a path to eternity or comprehend any concept of "god"? Belgium's parliament has approved a similar law, but has yet to enforce it, and other European countries are considering following France.

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-04-09 09:28

The threat to koalas is described logging, land clearing, poor management, attacks from feral and domestic animals, disease, roads and urban development.. That almost covers all human impacts on native forests! How are these impacts to be stopped? The population of NSW is not capped, and neither is Queensland's. Without pre-planned wildlife corridors connecting habitats, there is little likely to be done except give token considerations to relocation. Those clearing land are unlikely to check each tree, and there is little way each koala could be accommodated in national parks. The government submissions will mean they can tick the box "community consultation" and justify "business as usual". The public however, can be effective. A push to ensure koalas are protected in the massive new residential estate at Cobaki has been lost after failing to get support from Tweed Shire councillors. There has been a lot of talk about koalas at Kings Forest, and a koala plan of management was drawn up, but not much has been done with this site, said Greens councilor Katie Milne said. She accused them of seriously underestimated and misrepresented what the community's preferred position would be , their deep love for this wildlife and their concerns about the appropriateness of extreme population growth in Tweed with the recent approvals for an extra 31,000 residents. Of course, the people would prefer the koalas than more generic and toxic population growth and ugly urban sprawl. However, money talks louder than concern for wildlife and public interests! The cash-flow created by all the new residents will give a short term injection of funds into the area and give it an economic boost, but in the long term, and environmental "capital" value will be destroyed, and an iconic native animal will be gone! Koala protection lost in Tweed council However, the Greens still fail to have a population policy. Without one, they will have serious inherent lack of integrity and contradictory policies. This will hamper their polling success.

Steve (not verified)

Sat, 2011-04-09 08:06

Now that I found your wonderful reporting of the home situation in Japan, please know that you have a fourth supporter for your global campaign. Ha. We can surely build a safer, greener world replacing nuclear power with clean, renewable energy; conservation; and simpler, saner lifestyles. So much of the U.S. reporting on Fukushima #1 goes directly to the question of, "Can it happen here (US)?" Of course nuclear accidents can happen in California or anywhere in the world. Nuclear power is not cheap and it is not safe - especially for the thousands of years nuclear materials remain a threat to public health. Do you know the status of harnessing tidal energy in Japan? I know Canadians have been working on it on their west coast. Best wishes!

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-04-08 19:06

Only psychopaths would justify making water a commodity by over-ruling citizens' natural rights. They are putting lives at risk. No government can guarantee always having the funds and the fuels to maintain an artificial production and distribution of water. We are increasing risks in this society at a fundamental and unsustainable level. Our leaders must be aware of this and should be made to be more responsible and democratic, with criminal sanctions for placing citizens at risk. Nothing justifies these commercial values and activities at the expense of the majority of people, who have no say at all in this most important of matters. People should keep records with names of public servants, politicians and private persons who support these dangerous and antisocial policies. At some future date it may become possible to bring these people to justice.

j (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-08 13:48

You're doing a great job with the rolling updates. This video with A. Gundeson is perhaps the most chilling to date. I look forward to his comments on the Areva meeting today. For anyone interested in the Fukushima fiasco I would single out Gundeson for MUST WATCH status. Keep up the good work! J. [Absolutely agree with you, J! - Tony]

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-04-08 11:35

Tony's very important comments about the loss of traditional local knowledge and sensible laws vis a vis local risks inspired me to write this article. http://candobetter.net/node/2429 "Disasters, Disinformation, Capitalist Totalitarianism and the Growth Lobby." This is what I am commenting on:
VLook for "Tokyo Newspaper, p.20" in Tony's rolling update no. 2, here: but I am citing it below anyway: "An article on p.20 mentions that a) tsunami in the Tokai region in 1498 reached a height of 15 m and killed 50,000 people at a time when Japan's population totalled only about 12 million, and that b) this is far larger than current assumptions concerning possible tsunami disasters. A second article on p.20 mentions that after the Showa Sanriku earthquake in 1933, Miyagi Prefecture issued regulations including fines or imprisonment clauses prohibiting construction (of homes and so on) in coastal areas likely to be affected by tsunamis. The regulations appear to have been rescinded in the 1950s, when the national Building Standards Law was introduced. Over three thousand people lost their lives in the 1933 earthquake and tsunami. An article I missed in the yesterday's (April 6) Akahata (p.14) describes a book published in 1995 by former public school teacher Mr Yugi Iinuma on the history of the dangers of living in the flat coastal area of Sendai City, Miyagi Prefecture. A picture in the article shows the former teacher, now 80, holding the book at an evacuation center in Miyagino Ward, Sendai City. The Mr Iinuma's house was destroyed in the tsunami, but he managed to escape in the time between the earthquake and the arrival of the tsunami. It would seem that people forget about the dangers of tsunamis over time. It's sad to see how a large part of the destruction, and the nuclear disaster, could have been avoided if the collective memory had remained intact."

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-08 09:46

According to the Centre of Independent Studies (in A bigger country is inevitable by Jessica Brown in The Australian of 4 Aug 10), "The best way to cut migration is to cut economic growth and no government wants to do that." So without immigration, we will not grow economically? Maybe our governments should stop allowing themselves to be servants of a great consuming and destructive Economic model and start government for the people they represent, the voting public! "Short of introducing a China–style one–child policy, governments can’t do much to control how many babies we have, either". There could be free vasectomy and fertility clinics, and family planning made more available. Limiting the baby bonus to only 2 children would also help. We should avoid China's draconian one-child-per-family by encouraging alternatives. The parameters of growth are ecological and environmental. Economic theories and models are infinite and without finite limits. Not the real world!

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-04-08 09:02

The extravagance of Victoria's massive and expensive mulit-billion desalination plant has been deemed unnecessary. Other solutions, such as rainwater collection and recycling are available. Academic and engineer Professor Peter Coombes told The Age - Baillieu adviser urges new desal contract that, as leverage with the desal builder/operator, the government should make use of the heavy penalties that apply if the consortium misses deadlines for completion. This should save some public money. John Brumby has the luxury of being able to retire while still in his 50s, to "spend time with his family" and still have access to a parliamentary salary. Once we are in ecological overshoot, it's time to stop growing! The public are victims of reckless decisions, and doubtless we will continue to be forced to pay for this monstrosity of a desal-plant. Our ecological life-support system should set the limits and parameters of our growth. Providing for Nature's bounty artificially is costly, environmentally and financially. He imagined that despite a 13 year drought, Melbourne could still have perpetual and limitless growth. Brumby should be held responsible and be sued! Author Rebecca Gill explained households should pay more when dam levels were low and less when they were high. Herald Sun -Study says we should pay more for water We should be slugged more for water to accommodate population growth, he study says. Ms Gill said the nation's population was estimated (read "targeted") to reach 35 million by 2050, but even with dramatic immigration cuts numbers would still climb in the coming decades. (However, most of our growth comes from immigration. The baby bonus should be limited). She says The way forward is not to cut population growth, which is inevitable, but to consider a range of water sources to meet the growing demand... Our population growth is anything BUT inevitable. Water is not a luxury commodity. It's one of life's basic essentials. The public should not be forced to pay for population growth that is contrary to their interests! Rebecca Gill is a Research Assistant at The Centre for Independent Studies. She is in her fourth year of B.Com (Liberal Studies) at the University of Sydney. She is not an environmentalist but obviously deeply entrenched in the academic ideal of perpetual and ongoing growth worship! Households represent only 13% of total consumption and agriculture 50 per cent. Nevertheless, prominent demographer Bob Birrell believes our cities will have to be ‘completely redesigned’ to cope with a growing demand for water. Our population growth is not a reality that requires a drastic overhaul of water and urban infrastructure. It's time to abandon Liberal, Labour and the Greens and vote for people that are really serious about stabilising the population - Stable Population Party of Australia!

admin

Thu, 2011-04-07 18:22

See Moonee Valley development will make kids worse off: MP in the Moonee Valley Leader of 4 Apr 11.

A FEDERAL MP has claimed Moonee Valley Racing Club’s proposal to build four 20-storey apartment towers at its racecourse would be like “Melbourne turning into Mumbai’’.

Kelvin Thomson, the Wills federal Labor MP, claimed the $1.4 billion, 200-plus apartment development would bring 6000 extra residents to the area, creating traffic chaos.

“Proposals for 20 storey towers at the Moonee Valley racecourse will damage the quality of life for neighbouring residents in Moonee Ponds, Essendon and Brunswick, increase traffic congestion at Moonee Ponds Junction, and on Mt Alexander Road, City Link and Melville Road, and take Melbourne down the road of the high-rise concrete jungles of Asia, and Latin America,’’ Mr Thomson said.

...

But Mr Thomson said, ... “It would be wrong to shove this development down the local community’s throat on the grounds that Melbourne’s population has to grow by 1500 people a week.’’

“Melbourne’s population growth is not inevitable. Local communities and residents should be allowed to decide, through being allowed to determine planning matters in their own community, whether and at what pace Melbourne continues to grow.

Mr Thomson also made the claim that children who grow up in an apartment were worse off than those who have a backyard.

“There is something intangible but important about the personal space of a backyard,’’ he said.

“I believe the children who grow up in concrete jungle suburbs are subject to more bullying and harassment and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs.

“A child with a backyard is known as a free range kid. I think free range kids have a better time of it than battery kids.’’

...

VivKay (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-07 17:27

"In the affordable housing sector CRA Group works closely with providers such as Mission Australia to achieve workable delivery models that accommodate key essential workers and promote the social values of true communities". (According to the Pacific View Estate website). It seems that there are other parasitic "not for profit" or "community" businesses "helping" to provide affordable housing to the community, because of the great need. They are leaches like the Committee of Melbourne and the KPMG groups, under the cover of helping Melbourne's community but with interests in their own profits. Mission Australia should be targeting the root cause of declining living standards and housing affordability - population growth - rather that advancing social housing! If they are really accountable to Christian principles, how could they justify destroying prime environmental landscapes and wildlife habitat? These Pharisees are gaining political points, under the guise of a community service, but it hides the corruption of terror on the environment and the habitat of our native koalas. Mission Australia are aligning themselves to the god of mammon, the Ponzi scheme of promises of riches through population growth. As the synod of the Anglican Church said last year, our population growth is stealing from future generations. There will be little opportunities for growth for the next generations due to the greed of the leaders in this generation maximizing our numbers, and causing Australia to have the dishonour of having the largest mammal extinction rate in the world!

VivKay (not verified)

Wed, 2011-04-06 07:40

Federal Member Kelvin Thomson has claimed Moonee Valley Racing Club’s proposal to build four 20-storey apartment towers at its racecourse would be like “Melbourne turning into Mumbai’’. Moonee Valley development will make kids worse off: MP Mr Thomson said high housing demand wasn’t an excuse for high rise developments. Melbourne’s population growth is not inevitable but politically decided. Mr Thomson also made the claim that children who grow up in an apartment were worse off than those who have a backyard. Just how are families to live in such high-rise conditions? Children should have room to move, to play and explore. Why should the new generation of kids be denied the advantages of back yards and room to move? The public consultation will inevitably be a sham, just like under the Madden/Brumby government. This is Australia, and we are importing the poor lifestyles of Hong Kong, Singapore and other overcrowded cities. For what? It's due to a government bereft of economic-building ideas, and population growth/property development is the easiest , but short-term, route to growth. According to Doctors for the Environment spokesperson Dr George Crisp, said Australia's rapid population growth had placed considerable strain on existing health infrastructure, services, waiting lists and personnel, as well as negative impacts on the community - with citizens of bigger cities suffering from more pollution, longer commuting times, and more obesity from lack of exercise.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-04-06 02:58

They do care. They just have no effective avenue for complaint. If the women leading all those community groups were better known, perhaps many more would support them. Spread the word: Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don't more participate - or do they? (Melbourne, Australia)" "We found that women dominate politics in Victoria, Australia - they just don't draw salaries. Inside we look at three classical theories for why women participate less in politics than men; argue that the Real Politics are outside Parliament, (Indian theory); give examples of Victorian women in politics outside Melbourne's parliament; analyse these women's political roles as more reactive and militant than planned-for and careerist. We also note that women led the French Revolution and we ask, "Are Female environmental activists in Victoria leading a new political movement?"

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2011-04-06 00:22

Robin Batterham was interviewed on ABC Radio's The World Today story Doubts about Australia's ability to feed itself earlier today.

The story gives a contradictory picture of Austalia's ability to feed itself, At one point reporter Simon Lauder said:

[Robin Batterham] told a national food security conference in Melbourne this morning Australia is sitting pretty at the moment, producing enough food to feed 60 million people.

This is the same Robin Batterham who is advocating the Australia buy Zimbabwean farms, so that Australians can feed themsleves with food now being fed to Zimbabweans. Lauder immediately added:

But there are worrying signs ahead, and market forces will make Australia more and more exposed to global prices.

In confirmation of Simon Lauder's statement, Batterham then said:

The value of our imports is heading fairly close to the value of our exports. So what will we think of ourselves as a food bowl? In value terms we're almost at the point where we're not.

Simon Lauder said:

An 11 per cent rise in fruit and vegetable prices in Australia last month shows how vulnerable household budget's can be to a few natural disasters and new research suggests Australia would already struggle to feed its own people properly.

A team of researchers commissioned by the Victorian government agency, VicHealth, has modelled scenarios for Australia's food needs in the future based on a healthy intake of fruit and vegetables for every Australian.

The scenarios rely CSIRO modelling to factor in population growth, climate change, exports and imports and fuel and water use.

How could these reporters would have failed to notice that Australia has massively boosted its population in recent decades and that many prominent Federal politicians as well as State Governments are using every opportunity to promote further population growth?

Let's hope that next time the like of Victorian Premier Ted Ballieu appears on ABC Radio preaching that further population growth must be accepted, he should be asked if he is really prepared to see Zimbabweans to to go without food so that Australians can eat.

nimby

Tue, 2011-04-05 17:14

I'm not an expert on history, but the whole situation of greed and "managed" population growth surely has parallels with the cause of the French revolution - and probably others too. The chancellorship of Calonne came up with a package of changes which, had they been accepted, would have been the most sweeping reforms in the French crown's history. They included abolishing lots of taxes and replacing them with a land tax to be paid by everyone, including the previously exempt nobles. He suggested that no new tax should be imposed without the king first consulting the nation and, but as they were unelected, they couldn't speak for the nation. The Nobility, like the clergy, the represented another privileged Estate. The nobility held the highest positions in the Church, the army and the government. As an order, they were virtually exempt from paying taxes of any kind. With democracy, civil rights and justice, the horrors of this revolution could have been avoided. Most peasants did not own their land but rented it from those peasants who were wealthier or from the nobility. Peasants were victimized by heavy taxation - taxes were necessary to pay for the costs of war, something that had already consumed the French government for an entire century. Those paying had no benefits from the taxes, or what the money was spent on. While average tax rates were higher in Britain, the burden on the common people was greater in France. Taxation relied on a system of internal tariffs separating the regions of France. With the elite, economist and governments pushing for higher population and higher immigration levels despite housing affordability declining, increasing poverty, and food security threats, it seems that the average people, the great masses of "peasants", will bear the burden of irrational and callous decisions being played out onto the population. This new generation is also becoming landless. Democracy is being eroded and without holistic decisions being made on behalf of the voting public, will polarize our society. Wealth, resources and liveability, is being redistributed unequivocally to the elite, those with power. The prospect of grabbing land from developing countries to support our own economic growth is abhorrent and unethical. The masses will support the lifestyles of the wealthy. Globalisation is economic treachery and gives greater scope for corruption.

Mary (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-05 14:50

New research from the University of Melbourne shows Australia does not produce enough fruit and vegetables for the population to sustain a healthy diet. Climate change, increased importation of oil and population growth, are straining food production systems both in Australia and overseas. Lead researcher Kirsten Larsen, of the University of Melbourne, said the project using computer modeling challenged the notion that Australia had vast amounts of food. Which ever scenario is selected by the program, the result is an adequate supply of all foods in 2030, except for cereal grains which are transformed into biofuels. By 2060 there are not enough crops to cope with biofuel and food demand. We don't eat biofuels! We have politicians, economists and big business elites calling for more population and more immigration, yet there is little consideration to anything but increasing the Economy, not the finite nature of our planet, our nation, or the welfare of populations. The masses of people are simply tools, or resources, to be exploited for the benefit of a few. Both the Liberals and Labor both support the concept of perpetual and unsustainable growth. The Greens, without a population policy, will not be a mainstream political party until they face realities and stop being complacent enough just to be a protest party.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2011-04-05 11:36

A koala has been photographed clinging to a bulldozed tree on land the Gold Coast City Council has been pushing to have turned into a conservation site.

(See Koala sighting incites conservation debate of 5 Apr 11 at
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/04/05/305335_gold-coast-news.html  Please have a look. It will be hard not to feel sorrow for the poor creature. - Ed.)

The poor animal is photographed clinging to a tree after being cleared.

The koala has been relocated, but the Perron Group hopes to build 3500 homes in what now is operating as a farm. This validates the clearing at the moment! More land is to be cleared yet.

Plague proportions of humans vying for land means that native animals such as koalas will be denied habitat, except in zoos and reserves.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-04-04 11:16

"In Japan the entrails of the Fukushima nuclear plant are contaminated with radioactive iodine. It has just been detected in the subterranean water table 15m below one of the reactors at levels 10,000 times the legal norm, according to the management of the site. This is an indication that the water has been in direct contact with the radioactive fuel." France2 Info, 0800hrs, 1 April, 2011.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-04-04 08:52

Thank you, Bandicoot, for doing the difficult and vital work of writing about this weeping sore in Australian politics, democracy and world democracy. Continuing where the Roman Empire left off, Africa has been raped and pillaged since the 13th century by Europeans - Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, British - in the trade and spice wars. Britain, with her exploitation of coal and iron in close proximity, industrialised this commercial raping, with the result of continuous disorganisation of many stable African societies. At first dispossession was a result of colonisation by governments, spearheaded by missionaries. These days it is colonisation by corporations, spearheaded by'aid workers', some of them presumably well-intentioned, working for business-backed 'foreign aid'. Charities and churches mask so many profiteers and so much land speculation. As long as the boards of charities contain corporate players, their policies will be skewed to commercial principles. The extraordinary film Avatar is a classic dramatisation of this process. See candobetter pages on land grabs in Africa and elsewhere. The corporate colonisation also continues in Australia, where people have been mis-educated to believe that they are 'white and privileged'[1] and that political and material dispossession by corporations can only occur in places like Africa. Wrong, as you point out. Over the past few years Victorian farmers have been fighting the corporatised government's water-stealing pipeline and "Foodbowl Unlimited" and week after week for years now groups of suburban citizens, largely led by women, (see: "Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don't more participate - or do they? (Melbourne, Australia))" have been fighting for our rights to live in peace and self-govern. Only relocalisation of power, from clan, tribe and village upwards, can bring this machine to a halt. The machine must be halted. Its servants must be identified and held to public shame. Note also that candobetter.net has whole sections devoted to the network of activities associated with the Scanlon Foundation, ATSE, the Multicultural Foundation and the Institute for Global Movements, all of which lead back (particularly via the Multicultural Foundation) to a decades long entanglement with Australian prime ministers and priministerial contenders, in a kind of gordian knot which, as a fascinated and apalled sociologist, I would just love to find the beginnings of. The roles of these associations in our history and ongoing politics needs to be exposed to every schoolchild and academic student. We cannot rely on the corporate press to do this, such as the Fairfax and Murdoch media, because they are sponsors and financial beneficiaries of these undemocratic forces in our society. [1] On this subject, this short and relatively comprehensive paper by Peta Stephenson, "'Race', 'Whiteness' and the Australian context,"gives a quick introduction to this subject. Peta has not spelled out how the ideology of "Whiteness" has been exploited by land speculators, but she does say how it can disadvantage its apparent beneficiaries by preventing them from identifying common cause.

Kazuki Shiibashi (not verified)

Mon, 2011-04-04 00:37

I agree with your campaign Tony, we should opt to phase out nuclear plants – thank you for all the hard work ! To be honest, I don’t know what to believe, but in setting a vision for the future, I have no reason to disagree. The world wouldn’t be the same without someone like you; I really hope this catches on.

Best, Kazuki

Mary D (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-03 18:02

Mary D,

My apologies, but I have accidentally deleted your comment. If you have kept your own local copy, would you kindly consider posting it again? - Editor, 3 Apr 11

Mary D (not verified)

Sun, 2011-04-03 18:01

Another disgrace of a ruling by VCAT

When will they be reined in?

We will soon have no heritage left and the poorer for it. The Melbourne University could have built their research building anywhere, why wreck a heritage building - SHAME ON THEM ALL.

Mary

See Demolition of key hotel approved of 30 Mar 11 at http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/demolition-of-key-hotel-approved-20110329-1ceub.html

Thanks, Mary.

The Age article has attracted 104 comments. Many commentators support the decision, because they claim the building is ugly and the building is more modern than buildings usually deemed to be of historical worth and the replacement medical research centre is a better use of space. I have been swayed by your arguments and the arguments of others:

Really? Does a structure only qualify as a landmark if it's attractive? And is which beholder's eye do we determine the beauty? I would have thought it's about what a building represents - architectural style, historic significance, uniqueness etc...are there any other examples of this particular style so that if it goes is it only reference material we have to remind us. If a University hasn't access to some clever folk who could turn the building into the right kind of facility without the need to bulldoze it then I'd question the value of attending the institution! by Terry

To those of you who state this building is 'ugly' and not worth saving like 'historical' buildings, you realise you are echoing the same sentiments that people had in the 1960s about buildings of the early 1900's , which saw the demise of some of our best Victorian era architecture. What you see as valueless- mark my words- will be appreciated in years to come.

Viva la Modernist Mid-Century Architecture!!

www.modernistaustralia.com
modernist australia (The site is, unfortunately, marred by a link to a Real Estate page -  Ed.)

I adore some of the new buildings that have been built in Melbourne - they're eye-catching and unique. I also love the older buildings that have heritage value and remind us all of this city's history.

The Elizabeth Towers Hotel has significant historical value and needs to be protected. I can't get my head around VCAT being able to override a protection order to allow it's demolition - this is clearly something that the government needs to address.

Yes, the potential benefit to society of a new medical facility is great, but at what price? And why can't the facility be constructed within the current building? Yes, it may cost more, but that's not a good enough reason to destroy a historical building. by Tracey

A comment against preserving the Elizabeth Towers Hotel is:

Are you guys for real? That building is a complete eye sore. A "striking 'glazed circular corner tower, housing Melbourne's tallest concrete spiral stair''? Has the person that wrote that ever seen the building in question? Good riddance to it. by Timbo

- Ed.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-04-03 15:17

The following comment was posted to ABC Radio National's National Interest web site in respose to their story NSW electorate hands out electoral drubbing to ALPof 27 Mar 11. It was also one of the listeners' comments read out (mpeg, 2.6 MB) at the end of their program of Friday, 1 April.

I would have thought that if the Greens were, in any way, capable they would have years ago become the viable second party that Australia so badly needs.

Why, for example did they perform so abysmally in the 2004 and 2007 Federal elections when decent Australians were crying out for a viable alternative to the truly appalling Liberal and Labor parties?

Why have the Greens performed so abysmally in all but very few recent state elections? Why did the Greens achieve such an abysmal result in the Victorian state elections when people all over Victoria were fighting to save their environments and communities from the state 'Labor' government?

Lets hope that, for a change, the elected Greens in the New South Wales and Tasmanian state parliaments show some inspired leadership and apply imagination. If they were to do that there is no way that their support could not grow by leaps and bounds in the coming months and years, given the alternatives on offer by mainstream parties.

Two other readers' comments about the Greens were read out. My comment above was a response to the following:

It may be that the Greens are the new second party.

Their vote is growing and their 'failure' (according to the media) to gain seats sees them scoring about the same proportion of the vote as the 'majors' in seats like Marrickville and Balmain.

My guess is that lots of people (especially the younger ones) now see the Greens as the progressive party and are choosing between Lib and Green.

The Greens were formed 19 years ago in 1992. I would have thought that nineteen years would have been plenty of time for any party with the following of Greens to have made a noticible and positive impact on Australian politics. However, since that date, very little has been has been achieved, considering the huge amount of time, money and energy that large numbers of Australians have poured into it, particularly at election time.

It is hard to know how a lot more could not have been achieved if those energies had been applied elsewhere since 1992. The Greens, like most other alternative, 'soft left', 'hard left' and 'pro-environmental' parties in Australia, only seem to divert energy away from where it could be put to truly effective use.

But, as I wrote in my above comment, published on the ABC National Interest web site, we may still hold out hope that the Greens recently elected to the NSW and Tasmanian Parliaments may, for a change, help bring about a worthwhile change for the better.

Appendix: Comment apparently in response to mine

The following comment was formatted on the message board as if it were in response to mine, although it doesn't address the issue I raised. It was also read out on the program.

Those who news come exclusively from the ABC and hear interviews of Bob Brown in which he is treated as a Dalai Lama, "tell me how wonderful your policies are" and without having a developed a critical faculty will have a rose-coloured glasses view of the Greens. They are politicians just like the others. The only difference is that, as they will never form government, their policies are not realistic and are not subject to rigorous scrutiny.

Those who weren't reading fairy tales at the time will recall then Australian Democrats leader Janine Haines having a tilt at a lower house seat. The media looked at their policies more closely and she was roundly defeated.

The reason for the result was that Labor was seriously on the nose and the voters wanted an alternative government that could turn things around. The Greens clearly didn't fit the bill.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-04-03 01:16

Tony,

Thanks for a very calm, but critical, assemblage of conflicting reports. Your journalism is superb, Tony.

Here is another French report that at once confirms your impression that the message coming from within Japan is trying to be reassuring and at the same time, damns that message:


Source of these photos was from moving footage on French News, France 2 JT, http://jt.france2.fr/20h/ Friday 1 April 2011

Whilst showing footage of catastrophic damage within the Fukushima Nuclear Power station filmed by a camera attached to a crane, Laurent Delahousse, the French announcer, commented with shocked amazement:

"And what should we think of these words which were intended to sound reassuring from the Prime Minister who stated, and I quote, 'that there was no danger if the population followed the advice of the authorities,'?" [1]

Note that Japan has been using the French as the major consultants on the nuclear problems and that the French are highly specialised and experienced in this area. We are therefore more likely to get better information from the French. In fact, the quality of reporting on the mainstream tv news has been quite superior.

The news reporter also said that 600 men are still working around the site in an attempt to strangle the leaks. [The French news announcer was referring to radiation leaks, not information leaks. :-) ]

[1]French version: Laurent Delahousse: "Et puis, que faut-il penser des propos qui se voulaient du nouveau rassurants de la part du Premier Ministre qui assurait, je cite: 'qu'il n'y avait pas de risques si la population suivait les conseils des autorités'. 600 hommes travaillent toujours autour du site afin d'essayer de juguler les fuites."

Sheila Newman, population sociologist

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2011-04-02 16:58

Whilst I am not knowledgable enough to be able to from my own judgement as to whether housing prices have inflated excessively compared with demand, they certainly have inflated massively compared with most people's real incomes, so a crash in housing prices would be a great thing for most people. A possible exception could be those who have gone massively in to debt to buy their own home at prices which have been deliberately inflated by Australian Government policy in recent decades. When I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's a modest single income was all that was needed to buy a house. It was cheaper still to rent. That has been deliberately changed by Australian Federal and State Governments so that at least two incomes of people working long hours are now needed for a loan of any home suitable to shelter a family, and even those homes are often remote from necessary amenities and work. The circumstances, currently faced by people on ordinary or low incomes are completely contrary to the claims fed to us by Govenrment, economists and the mass media, since the 1970's that 'free market' reforms and high immigratin would bring prosperity to all. The exact opposite has occurred for most. If the housing bubble bursts, those, who are heavily indebted from buying their own home should be compensated at the expense of the bankers, speculators and land developers who have gained so much at the expense and at the expense of the environment and future generations. Let's just do what we can to ensure that the Federal Government does not prevent the the threatened "Land Bubble burst" by ramping immigration up further..

kika (not verified)

Sat, 2011-04-02 12:41

Are you ready for the property bubble to burst?.........as it gets closer, more and more properties will be listed for sale, exposing the lie that we have a “housing shortage”. duck for cover as that bubble bursts............. “Our housing market is one of, if not, the most expensive in the world and is already starting to cool. Just today, RPdata released statistics showing National capital city house prices fell 1.3 percent for the three months to February. Darwin is leading the falls, recording a drop of 9 percent in the three months, and 6.7 percent for the single month of February. We have record level of property listings, suggesting everyone is flocking to the exits at once. Housing finance is contracting, along with personal, commercial and lease finance and building approvals are plunging, recording a 21.8 percent fall in February for total dwellings approved.” www.whocrashedtheeconomy.com/blog/?p=1460#comments thedepression.org.au/?p=5665

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-04-02 10:27

Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu refuses to put up the "full" sign for Victoria. He wants to "invest in the future". However, "investment" means spending public money and that's what our Victorian government is short of. He said he would never ''put up the stop sign'' to curb population growth, but warned Victorians will have to ''endure'' the problems of a growth rate that saw Melbourne increase by more than 1500 people a week last financial year. http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/interstate-raiders-buying-up-... Ivanhoe state Labor MP Anthony Carbines is calling on the Liberal Government to commit to the unfinished projects, saying their future could be in “serious jeopardy”. The funding for community schools, roads and libraries is being stalled, as well as the Olivia Newton-John Wellness Centre that needs funding to the tune of $44.7 million to finish stage 3 of construction. Premier Baillieu condemned the previous Labor government that allowed Victoria to "fall behind,'' but the reason for this was rampant population growth that outstripped public spending. There are tremendous social, economic, sustainability and environmental implications of our misanthropic population boosting. Present Planning Minister Mr Matthew Guy back last year condemned the Brumby government's ability to manage population growth. “This astonishing incompetence by John Brumby and his part-time Planning Minister shows Labor has no idea how to cope with our current population boom and has failed to plan for such rapid growth,” he said. “Labor’s failure means more skyrocketing land prices, a reduction in our competitive housing advantage and falling housing affordability for those wanting to get a start in the housing market." However, with more than 1500 new people vying for housing in Melbourne every week, the competition means that values will continue to "improve" and afford ability will continue to decline. It means they are running an Economy, not a Society of people who need schools, health care, education, libraries, roads, public transport and last but not least - affordable housing! The voters, the rate-payers and citizens are forced to endure rising costs, lack of housing, and priorities such as housing, roads, hospitals, and vital infrastructure. We are victims of market forces, not citizens of a sovereign nation any more.

nimby

Sat, 2011-04-02 08:23

Asian Honey Bees, known for wreaking havoc in South-East Asia, have made their way to Australia. Asian bees were first found in Australia in Cairns in 2007. This week, the Federal Government bowed to pressure from the honey bee industry and abandoned plans to end the eradication program. How much money is Australia prepared to put into an effort to try to eradicate an invasive species which will such significant adverse impacts on the environment, on human health, on the bee industry etc? The Federal Government has agreed to rethink its decision not to fight the invasion of the destructive Asian honeybee after widespread criticism. The decision that it was impossible to eradicate the pest caused outrage in Australia's $90million honey industry. The Asian honeybee has the potential to cause havoc across Australia should its path be unimpeded, given it competes directly with the European honeybee for food. They carry diseases that can harm Australia's native bee population and they compete with local bees and even steal the honey from managed hives. The honey industry is not the only one under threat. It goes to the heart of Australia's future food production, with around 65 per cent of agricultural production in Australia depending on pollination by honeybees. Efforts ceased to eradicate these invading bees despite warnings from the CSIRO that the bee will spread throughout Australia and decimate hives. This species is also known to carry the varroa mite, a parasite which latches onto the bee, effectively killing off the European bee. The Federal Government has agreed to rethink its decision not to fight the invasion of the destructive Asian honeybee after widespread criticism. Obviously our food security isn't as important as our GDP!

admin

Sat, 2011-04-02 00:21

I attempted to post this to a discussion forum Some unsolicited advice for Anna Bligh on johnquiggin.com.

Australia is a country in which politicians can flagrantly act in ways which harm the public interest (but not the interest of those powerful vested interests pulling the strings from behind the scenes). Australia cannot be said to be governed by "by the people for the people."

Both Anna Bligh and Andrew Fraser kept from the Queensland public their plans to sell off more publicly owned assets even though I repeatedly and specifically asked both of them to state their intentions in regard to privatisation.

They were assisted by the ABC, in particular, by Madonna King, in keeping the Queensland public in the dark about these privatisation plans. Madonna King refused my request to put to either Andrew Fraser or Anna Bligh, the question that I had put to them which they had ignored. Thanks to the ABC, Labor crept back into power without either having to either tell the Queensland public of its fire sale plans or having to make a firm commitment against privatisation.

Professor Quiggin wrote:

"The most effective opposition has come from the Electrical Trades Union, whose secretary, Pete Simpson, is currently facing expulsion for supporting the official policy of the party, on which (as with Iemma in 2007) it ran in the last election."

Whilst it is true that the Electrical Trades Union is one of the very few groups to have raised its voice against privatisation, I have yet to see any action on the part of the ETU or any Union in Queensland that I would call "effective".

For further information, see ETU raises white flag in fight against Queensland fire sale - Why? of 30 Apr 2010 If the unions get off their knees, privatisation can be stopped of 4 May 2010.

(Unfortunately, an injury I received in a road accident on 18 May, shortly after I wrote the second article prevented me from following up on what I had written.)

James Sinnamon (former independent candidate against both Andrew Fraser and Campbell Newman.)

leveni (not verified)

Sat, 2011-04-02 00:09

The cartoon is a very appropriate representation of the Atheist Foundation of Australian(AFA). Atheism has been around long before religion even started, yet still has not been able to set up any organisation to help those in need. After reading about the AFAs opinion of the Wesley Mission in Australia, I have the following to say about the AFA. The AfA came into being into 1970, ample time set up an agency for screening suitable families as foster families. Yet has done nothing what so ever in that field. Has the AFA ever applied to any government agency for funding to start a foster agency? No. Rather than try and destroy an organisation, like the Wesley Mission, that is trying to help children, rather then tell that organisation they are wrong, the AFA should start its own foster parent organisation. If the AFA and its members are so intelligent and caring, they should easily be able to do so. There is a traditional Australian adage that goes like this: "put up or shut up." I suggest David Nicholls take heed of this part of the Australian culture and stop whining like a 5 year old, grow up and start putting his own words into action. This is the adult thing to do. Either the David Nicholls and the AFA start their own foster care agency or they should shut up. Regardless of there being no god, religious organisations like the Wesley Mission, Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Salvation Army, Local Baptist and United Church groups, put a lot of time and effort into helping the 'down and out' in our society. And even though the Government does give such organisations money, a lot of the work done at these organisations is done voluntarily, I personally know of one such women, a Methodist, who started her volunteer work in the 1940's and still continues to do so today. The AFA and its members are full of rhetoric, I would use the word dribble to describe what they say, but none of them have any substance in what they say. Finally the AFA is not an Atheist organisation. By its own definition it is an agnostic organisation that has decided to hijack and redefine the word atheist along agnostic lines.

admin

Fri, 2011-04-01 15:42

I think Milly Osborne has hit a nail on the head here. However, it is not only political parties and political leaders (and not just mainstream) that are bereft of intellect, but also most of our newsmedia, which is meant to held them to account. I would like to know how these politicians and journalists could seriously maintain that adding more living quarters and people living in them could possibly add to the prosperity of the people who were already living here, let alone make Australia more sustainable in the longer term? In the short term, we are paying higher charges and services to fund the building of newer infrastructure to cater for the new arrivals. It is a myth that having more infrastructure and more services to cope with a larger creates an economy of scale. In fact, it is the precise reverse. To provide the transport infrastructure for, say, two million inhabitants of a town, where previously there were only one million inhabitants, costs more per capita, because addition infrastructure per head of population is needed. The most obvious example is roads. As population expand, greater lengths of freeways and major arterial roads have to be built per head of population, in addition to the roads in which the dwellings of the higher population are to be housed. If it was not necessary for the larger population to move around much of the larger sized cities then the expanded population could cope with the same quantity of roads, per head of population. But it is necessary for people to travel, all the more so, because of abysmal urban planning, so the expanded population will not be able to manage as well unless more length of road per head of population is built. And this is on top of the problem of there being a finite quantity of land and natural resourced to t be shared amongst more and more people. Basic intuition, should tell most people that increasing population can only make people on average poorer and not more prosperous. The additional knowledge that politicians and journalists have should make that clearer to them. As most are not stupid, the fact that they purposely promote the lie that growing population adds to our prosperity can only be because they are in on the scam in which a few gain at the expense of society on average and at an even greater cost to the poorest in society.
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Fri, 2011-04-01 13:26

Sawatdee Khun Jeaby! Khorp khun maak thii phim comment thii website nii na khrap! Thank you so much for your comment, Khun Jeaby! You are so right. If anything good comes out of this current nuclear disaster it will be that people around the world realize that nuclear power is too dangerous to operate! If Thailand wants to build 5,000 MW of nuclear power, that will mean 4 or 5 of the largest nuclear reactors now running (about 1,380 MW per reactor). Since nuclear reactors require a lot of water, they will probably have to be built in the beautiful south of Thailand or to the east of Bangkok along the beautiful coastline near Cambodia (I don't think the Cambodians will be very happy). I believe the people of Thailand will now reject this policy as being close to madness. Please ask all your friends to say 'No to nukes!' and to pass it on till everyone in Thailand is saying 'No to nukes!' Khit waa sanuk maak na khrap! Khor hai chork dii, Khun Jeaby!

Milly Osborne (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-01 12:35

We are going down the same route as Sydney. It was a beautiful city, but ruined by lack of infrastructure. The "shortage" of services is really euphemism for too many people and overpopulation. The costs of population growth outstrip the benefits.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraud built on pushing the plausible belief that money coming into the investment entity will forever be increasing. At core the new population growth push is the ultimate national pyramid scheme. We need to get to 36 -- or 50? -- million, to have the taxpaying workforce to support the now ageing baby-boomers? This would wreck our environment and living standard even further. What can more people do that can't be done now? The immigration Ponzi scheme highlights how bereft of intellect our political parties have become. We import more people to look after our aging population is a rationale that is illogical and misanthropic. Do they think these new people also won't grow old and require care? It's beyond absurd. We mindlessly expand until we explode. A real economy should be reliant on innovation, manufacturing and production, not property that relies on perpetual population growth. A plague of bacteria will eventually eat its host, and die. Similarly, we are eating away at our own future.

VivKay (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-01 08:20

Our legal system is based on the assumption that people are free of guilt until proved guilty. The evidence to charge Schapelle was conveniently destroyed by the prosecutors in this case. No DNA evidence was able to be recorded from the drugs. The conviction was on hear-say. The Marijuana could easily have been "planted" as a warning to tourists, a cruel example of what can happen to drug pushers and importers. Schapelle could easily be a scapegoat. Even if she was guilty, her punishment doesn't fit the crime. Murderers and rapists and violent criminals in Australia usually don't get 20 years imprisonment! She is a living example of police and border security "success".

Jeaby Sukdasna (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-01 03:45

Subject was: Totally agree with your article.

Thailand has long wanted to construct its own nuclear power plant. It was included in the Power Development Plan 2010 (PDF, 2.4 MB - Ed) which said that we should build nuclear power plants with the production capacity of 5,000 megawatts. But luckily that there are so many criticisms and objections over this project. Since we are in doubts over its benefits and its safety.

It seems to me that the situation of nuclear power plant in Japan has given us a good answer whether we should have it or not. I guess the answer is self-explanatory in this case.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-03-31 23:59

But of course lets all forget about the other Australians in overseas prisons who's physical and mental health continues to deteriorate?

But then again if she is really innocent, then where is the evidence, as all we seen are claims she is evidence no actually evidence?

Editorial comment: I suggest you read the article and read the articles on the web site linked to from here. If you know of any evidence of Schapelle's guilt that would convince an attentive and diligent Australian jury and not the Indonesian judge, please let us know. Also. please feel welcome to post to www.freeschapelle.com.au/ or to here, any holes you find in the case of Schapelle's supporters.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2011-03-31 23:18

The use of such a catastrophically dangerous technology as nuclear power should not have even been been contemplated in the first place, unless it was to have been under the control of an open and publicly accountable body with no ability to profit from cutting corners.

Such a body would have been owned and controlled by the same people who were to consume nuclear power and who are now imperiled as a result of the mismanagement of that technology. If the managers of the nuclear power stations, under the control of such bodies, had been made fully accountable to the public they served and had no ability to conceal vital information from those working in the industry or the broader public, it is possible that the nuclear failure might have been considerably less catastrophic than it turned out as a result of the natural disasters faced by Japan in recent weeks.

Whether even a power generation utility, fully owned and controlled by the public in an open and accountable democratic political system, would still be able to reduce, to an acceptable level, the peril that would be faced by the Japanese in the event of any likely calamity, natural natural or man-made, would be hard to know. However, removing from the hands of private companies particularly the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), whose callous cutting of corners has resulted in the threat to the lives and health of tens of millions of Japanese living in the near vicinity of the Fukushima reactors, would be a necessary first step.

Ironically, it seems that Australia's elder 'Labor' statesman, Paul Keating has failed to understand how many Japanese have already paid with their lives and health for having placed public safety responsibility in the hands of private companies, and if the worst were to come of the unfolding disaster the toll could be much higher.

On the night of Tuesday 29 March, the ABC's 7.30 Report made Australians swallow yet another lecture on the supposed necessity and virtues of the "free market" and of privatisation by the same man that imposed "free market" economics on both the Labor Party and the Australian public in 1983, when he became Treasurer in the newly elected Hawke Federal Labor Government, namely Paul Keating.

The title of the story, Keating on Labor's woes, implied that the election of John Robertson, as Leader of the Labor Opposition, a man who publicly opposed the NSW Labor Government's policy of privatising electricity would confine the Labor Party to political oblivion for years to come. The fact that the rank and file of the Labor Party and Trade Union movement and the broader NSW public strongly support Robertson's public opposition to the sell-off of their electricity generating assets was considered irrelevant by Keating, who dismissed it as 'populist'.

admin

Wed, 2011-03-30 12:56

The following is adapted from some e-mail correspondence I was recently engaged in:

E-mail to me

Yesterday I heard you lecturing Patrick on electricity pricing, on how they are soaring and increasing costs at home.

Today I saw this comment in Andrew Bolt's blog:

A new report by Victoria’s utilities regulator shows power costs for some small businesses have fallen by more than 20 per cent since former premier Jeff Kennett sold off the industry in the mid-1990s....

The Essential Services Commission report [1] found households in Victoria are paying between 3.1per cent and 6.2 per cent less for power than before privatisation, depending on the level of usage. For example, last year the average bill for a family consuming 6500kwh of electricity was $955, compared with $1018 in 1994-95, adjusted for inflation… .

My response

It would be worth putting this report under the microscope. I heard on the 7.30 Report last night that electricity prices had rocketed up 37% since privatisation.

If prices actually FELL as a consequence of selling this state's electricity generators and giving a private operator the right to enrich himself/herself at everyone else's expense, I would be amazed.

To some extent, I think 'feather-bedding', to the extent that it may have existed before privatisation, may not have been an altogether bad thing if it allowed a civilised pace of work for ordinary workers, on-the-job trainig and a decent career structure. I think, as long as others in society enjoy similar conditions, then they should hardly object to paying a little extra so that public sector workers having those conditions.

Privatisation has not removed 'feather-bedding'. It has just shifted the 'feather-bedding' that existed away from ordinary workers and added it that already enjoyed by the rich and I think the evidence will show that it has not reduced waste but, added to it.

Footnotes

1. Where is the report? I can't find it here.

admin

Wed, 2011-03-30 11:17

This comment was moved from this location, which is the second page of the discussion What recourse do victims of nuisance dog barking have? of 18 Jul 09, because a problem with our web content management system prevents browsers from being able to follow the link from the left hand column of this page. - Ed.

I feel so very sorry for the humans in Tasmania that have to rely on a self serving city council that does not have laws that protect humans from noise pollution. In the United States the owners of those dogs would be fined and or in jail or both. It is recognized world wide that dog barking per the World Health Organization is noise pollution that is hazardous to human health. I would look at a class action law suit against your city and or the owners of the pets to mitigate the noise, seeking damages and restitution for pain, suffering and loss of useful right of your property which includes the right to quiet in your own residence.

How dare any of them take your right to quiet for granted. To allow and animal more rights than a human is disgusting.

Editorial Comment:This comment and the earlier discussions referred to by the contributor, raise an issue which can and does gravely affect the psychological and physical well-being of a sizable proportion of the Australian population, including myself. The indifference or outright hostility that many dog owners and those who are unaffected by incessant dog barking show towards victims of dog barking can seem quite cruel or downright malevolent. In my experience, this is sometimes a misguided consequence of a justified concern for the welfare of dogs and other animals, many of whom, suffer unfairly at the hands of humans. I believe that, only if those on both sides of this contentious issue show concern for the well-being of those on the other side, can a compromise be arrived at which is tolerable to all parties. For my own part, I am able to endure dog barking if it is of relatively limited duration and does not occur too frequently. If dog owners, who feel that their dogs need to bark, could ensure that the barking does not occur too frequently and, when it does, does not go on indefinitely, then I think many who are affected by dog barking may find that they are able to cope.

I think a better longer term solution may be for people who prefer peace and quiet be able to live together in designated reduced noise areas and those, who don't mind loud noise including dog barking, be required to live elsewhere if they choose not to prevent the imposition of excessive noise on people around them.

Of course, the plans of Australia's greedy elite to crowd more and more people together in this country so they can enrich themselves, from their population growth Ponzi scheme, at the expense of the rest of us and our children, will make this harder to achieve.

For further information, see http://www.barkingdogproblem.org/forum/.

JohnT (not verified)

Wed, 2011-03-30 09:55

This contribution has been copied to here and my comments added. Please add comments on that page, or else, to http://www.barkingdogproblem.org/forum/, which is linked to from that page. Comments on this page are closed because of a problem with the linking of comments beyond the first page. - Ed. I feel so very sorry for the humans in Tasmania that have to rely on a self serving city council that does not have laws that protect humans from noise pollution. In the United States the owners of those dogs would be fined and or in jail or both. It is recognized world wide that dog barking per the World Health Organization is noise pollution that is hazardous to human health. I would look at a class action law suit against your city and or the owners of the pets to mitigate the noise, seeking damages and restitution for pain, suffering and loss of useful right of your property which includes the right to quiet in your own residence. How dare any of them take your right to quiet for granted. To allow and animal more rights than a human is disgusting.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-03-30 09:43

A Brisbane woman is suing a luxury United Arab Emirates resort after she was jailed for adultery when she complained of being drugged and raped by three men in Saudi Arabia. The Age 28th March. Ms Gali was drugged and raped by three co-workers in a United Arab Emirates resort, was jailed for "adultery" and served eight months before being "pardoned". Her employer failed to obey the laws and to give her proper induction. Understandably, she is suffering from trauma and a host of psychological pains. Magnanimously, she stated she did not want the incident to be manipulated into an anti-Muslim or anti-Arab attack. Even though the perpetrators weren't from the Middle East, they were collaborators in a system that makes women victims into criminals, to be vilified, imprisoned and punished. Another victim, who was 19 at the time and whose name has not been released, was raped in 2006 in Qatif, a city in the Eastern Province. A Saudi court more than doubled the number of lashes that a female rape victim was sentenced to last year, to 200, after her lawyer appealed against the original sentence. The woman's offence was meeting a former boyfriend, who she had asked to return pictures he had of her because she was about to marry another man. The couple were sitting in a car when a group of seven men kidnapped them and raped them both, lawyers in the case told the Arab News. Shariah law punishes victims of rape, because when a victim reports rape, she admits to sexual intercourse with the accused. Sheik Faiz Mohamad, a graduate of Islamic law and lecturer at an Islamic centre in south-western Sydney. He said in 2005 that women largely bear responsibility for rape if they make themselves an object of sexual desire. He upset many in a religious community still haunted by images and stories of Bosnian refugees being gang-raped during the recent war. There has been little significant response from Muslim community leaders, when condemnation of Faiz's comments should have been swift. Such archaic cultural misogynous laws still exist today, and are completely incompatible with today's human rights, women's equality, and democratic principles. This is why multiculturalism has its limits.

admin

Wed, 2011-03-30 01:26

Anyone who may be under the illusion that former Prime Mister Paul Keating was or is in any way driven by respect for popular will or for Labor principles and the interests of ordinary people, should read the transcript of his interview by Leigh Sales, of the ABC's 7.30 Report, Tuesday 29 March. In it former 'Labor' Prime Minster Paul Keating provided further confirmation of his opposition to democracy. Essentially, Keating was pouring mud over John Robertson, the new leader of the NSW state Labor Opposition and other figures in the NSW Trade Union movement, particularly branch Secretary Bernie Riordon for their outspoken opposition to privatisation. Paul Keating brushed aside Leigh Sale's point that the NSW public, as well as the NSW trade union movement and NSW Labor party rank and file, overwhelmingly oppose privatisation. Keating argued that a good effective and effective government should not be "looking over their shoulder" with any concern about how the public might view its actions. Rather it should act like the "Road Runner" cartoon character and run so fast down the highway ahead of public opinion that it literally tore up the highway and bridges and prevented anyone else catching up with it. If a government showed any concern for public opinion it stood to be run over by the public. Whilst the Federal Labor Governments from 1983 until 1996, in which Keating served as Treasurer and then Prime Minister, certainly implemented policies in "Road Runner" fashion, too far ahead of the of the public to be knocked over by public, it can hardly be argued that their policies served the public interest. Policies implemented by Keating and Hawke in "Road Runner" fashion include:
  • The floating of the Australian dollar and financial deregulation.
  • Privatisation of retirement income (a.k.a "Superannuation") as first implemented by the bloody Chilean military rulers in the 1970's which even former US President George W Bush could not get US Congress to pass;
  • The extension of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's "wages freeze" until 12 months had past, ensuring that all workers' wages were reduced by 9.1%
  • The privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank
  • The privatisation of QANTAS
  • The privatisation of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories
  • Participation in the first Iraq War of 1990-1991;

Kikuko Kawaguchi (not verified)

Wed, 2011-03-30 00:56

Konbannha, Tony-san I definitely support your campaign. People says this nuclear power plant disaster is a man-made disaster and TEPCO has to be accused, but all mankind has to be accused more or less, for he or she connived at the construction of those plants. It's the time to say NO, No More Nuclear Power Plants on the Earth!! I'm going to let my friends know about your article and campaign. I graduated from PSU in 1968. The main campus of Penn State is not very far from Harrisburg. Harrisburg is near Three Miles Island! I still keep in touch with my college friends in Pa.and NY State. They are very much concerning of the current situation in Japan. Your description of what the earthquake brought in Hitachiohmiya will give my friends accurate information of what I have encountered for I'm also a resident of the same city. I know few young organic farmers in Northern Ibaraki, they are also concerning of this nuclear plant disaster. I'll tell them to visit the site, Candobetter.net, as well. Hoping the aftershocks of the Great earthquake settles soon and the plant situation improve surely even if it is step by step.

Dominik (not verified)

Tue, 2011-03-29 22:20

Subject was: Thanks

Thanks for this article Tony. I've put it on my Facebook, maybe some people will have a look ;)
Take care and good luck!
You have my support!

admin

Tue, 2011-03-29 12:29

See A Choice for States: Banks, Not Budget Crises of 25 Mar 11 by Ellen Brown Seven ways state-owned banks could help states overcome budget deficits and boost their local economies. Cut spending, raise taxes, sell off public assets—these are the unsatisfactory solutions being debated across the nation, but the budget crises that nearly all the states are now suffering did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation. The crises arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street. In the wake of the 2009 financial market collapse, banks curtailed their lending more sharply than in any year since 1942, driving massive unemployment and causing local tax revenues to plummet. The logical solution, then, is to restore credit to the local economy. But how? The Federal Reserve could provide the capital and liquidity necessary to create bank credit, in the same way that it provided $12.3 trillion in liquidity and short-term loans to the large money center banks. But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke declared in January 2011 that the Fed had no intention of doing that—not because it would be too costly (the total deficit of all the states comes to less than two percent of the credit advanced for the bank bailout) but because it is not part of the Fed’s mandate. If Congress wants the Fed to advance credit to local governments, he said, it will have to change the law. ...
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Tue, 2011-03-29 10:28

Thanks for your comment, Richard.

In Japan now, people are saying that in the future modern Japanese history will be divided up as follows:

1. 1868 - the Meiji Restoration
2. 1945 - Defeat in World War II
3. 2.46 pm 11 March 2011 - the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.

I think this shows that at least a section of the Japanese population thinks that we are now in a paradigm shift situation.

By the way, I should mention to all who are reading that Richard Evanoff is the author of the fine book

Bioregionalism and Global Ethics – A Transactional Approach to Achieving Ecological Sustainability, Social Justice, and Human Well-being, Routledge, 2011

I have read and written a review of this book, which is available for all who wish to read it - but rather than that, please read the book itself!

Thanks again, Richard, and let's say 'No to nukes' as we move towards the paradigm shift.

Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Tue, 2011-03-29 10:13

Hi Nick, thanks for your comment. Well, here again, we are sure not to agree (though we can agree to disagree) because neither supply and demand nor footprint/carbon output are of great concern here, except to say that the 'footprint' of Fukushima No.1 Power Plant is now unacceptably large. What I am saying in the article, and what many forward-looking people are also saying, is that this is the time when we should start to consider moving towards a 'low-energy' society. The main reason for this is that fossil fuel resources are becoming scarce and expensive and within the next decade will become more so, perhaps until they are prohibitively expensive for most people, i.e. effectively unavailable. At that point, I believe it will be very difficult to run nuclear power, for the reason I have described simply in the article. Further, if fossil energy use declines (as it must) over the coming decades (20-30 years) then the human footprint on the Earth and carbon output will be reduced. Concerning what you say about supply and demand, it is not always necessary that supply matches demand, or that we should always make the greatest effort to see that it does. Sometimes we may have to say that supply just won't meet demand and therefore demand will have to be reduced. (In the current world, demand for crude oil is high but is adjusted to the supply by increasing the price, and so the price is now around US$100 per barrel where it was less than US$20 per barrel only about ten or eleven years ago.) I think also there are many people who feel as I do that nuclear power is just too dangerous to be acceptable any further and that existing nuclear power stations should be shut down at an appropriate time, e.g. when they reach their originally stated lifetime or when they are shown to be too dangerous to continue. If we have to 'suffer' because of the lack of energy to run the current economy, then we will have to change our lifestyles. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to know why, I think I should explain it in another comment because it's a little off the topic here and will take too long. Maybe I should write an new article about that. Basically, moving to the low-energy society need not necessarily be all downsides. I have stated in my video on YouTube (the link is at the top of this page, I think) that I believe the fast-breeder reactor and nuclear fusion to be, in practical terms, 'technical impossibilities.' I did not reach this conclusion as a result of writing this paper two or three days ago. I have been researching energy problems since about 1989. When I wrote what is currently my most detailed paper around 2000 I came to the same conclusion there. Nuclear fusion is too dangerous (just as nuclear fission is) and will never be a commercial option for the generation of electricity. That's my personal conclusion after looking at the facts of the technology (my background is in chemical technology). It will be interesting to see if you are right or I am right. I don't think nuclear fusion has a future and I will continue to say 'no to nukes!' until I am fully satisfied that there is no danger from them, which may mean that they are all shut down. Everyone is entitled to say I am wrong; I do not fear criticism. I hope we will be able to continue this debate in its current spirit. Thanks, Nick, and take care.

Richard Evanoff (not verified)

Tue, 2011-03-29 10:05

Indeed, what's happening right now at Fukushima should be seen in the context of a global society which is geared towards expanding economic growth at all costs, with little concern for the damaged planet being left in its wake. The stated goal of our present consumer economy is to "make life better," but it's not difficult to see how undermining the life-support systems we all depend on – the air, the sea, the land – is in fact making life worse. It's time to consider shifting society away from the current paradigm, based as it is on unlimited economic growth and the resulting ecological devastation, a growing gap between rich and poor both within and between countries, and a deteriorating quality of life in terms of both our ability to provide everyone with the basic necessities of life and to create rich and meaningful lives for ourselves, towards a more sustainable and sane economy, which emphasizes ecological sustainability, egalitarian participation in society, and genuine quality of life. Tony's initiative is a good start in this direction.

Nick (not verified)

Mon, 2011-03-28 19:51

Hi Tony, thanks for your reply I have to say that, if my career hadn't taken me into the airlines, I was determined to work within a nuclear power station; having said that, you have to trust me in that I caused a real stink asking difficult questions about nuclear waste whilst visiting Wylfa power station a few years ago. As has been pointed out within this very interesting debate, it is all about supply vs demand. I agree that nuclear power is not a panacea, but in terms of footprint/carbon output, it is excellent. So really, it comes down to a balanced risk. Having lived within the line-of-sight of a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point) I have accepted that there is a certain element of risk living close to such a plant, but part of the UK's answer against nuclear power was to effectively put a plug on the Bristol Channel. Ecologically, this would have been a disaster & whilst nuclear power (even now) needs to move on, in terms of handling its waste, I believe that until nuclear fusion comes online, it is the future.
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Mon, 2011-03-28 19:27

Dave - Thank you very much for your comment and for your very appropriate information. What you say in your last three lines is correct. What I am trying to say in the article and to do by appealing to people to say 'no to nukes' is that renouncing nuclear power is the first step to changing what we have been doing, and what has ruled our lives, for at least the last century - the economic growth paradigm. The fact of simply thinking about phasing out nuclear power forces us to review the whole energy situation and by extension how society is run and the direction in which we are heading. I'm asking people to take this first step on the way to changing society at this point, now that it has become abundantly clear that nuclear power is simply too dangerous to use to generate electricity. I'll join with anyone who agrees with this general idea and I hope many, many people who have not realised it before, but will perhaps wake up when they see this disaster in Japan, will join in and add their voices to the chorus of 'no to nukes'.

Pages

Click to read all comments.