Comments

Milly Osborne (not verified)

Fri, 2011-03-11 17:31

Public meeting: cattle don't belong in parks Also, see Victorian National Parks Association web-site for details of public meeting Due to unforeseen circumstances the date and venue for the public meeting ‘Cattle don’t belong in national parks’ has changed. The meeting will now take place at the Box Hill Town Hall on Wednesday, 6 April 2011. (Please arrive 6.30pm for a 7pm start.) The meeting is being held to discuss the Victorian Government's decision to allow cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park. Speakers will include environment groups, politicians and others. Please forward this email on to anyone you think might be interested in attending this important community event.

admin

Fri, 2011-03-11 11:34

Editorial comment: The following was originally posted as a comment to the article What recourse do victims of nuisance dog barking have? of 18 Jul 11. As a bug in the earlier version of Drupal, from which this site is built, prevents links to pages, other than the first comment page from working, I have reposted the comment here.

These dogs are everywhere in Manitou spgs, Co., (Not sure whether this is a place or what? - Ed) where k 9s are respected more than people. Since Manitou doesn't subscribe to the aspca, it's a real battle to impress upon code enforcement that noise is an issue. As a retired individual and a combat vet. I truly appreciate my silence. But when the code officer doesn't live in town and is a dog owner, well you're really pushin' chain. Basically in my humble opinion it's a real matter of consideration by the dog owner, if they don't give a crap about your life, etc, then why shouldn't I use every legal effort to make that owners life as miserable as they make mine. I know that sounded petty but I'm open to alternatives. One of these owners happens to be deaf, doesn't know noise from silence. But the village puts up with such, and since I seem to be the only one complaining ( my auditory abilities are better than normal ) I'm the odd ball. This doesn't preclude a valid complaint, but when you're one against the whole village of dog owners, you may as well have leprosy. I can only hope that some these inconsiderate owners, someday get the annoyance of their lives by some screaming red headed triplets. I like animals, I have raised children, dogs, and can shoe a horse, all the time in doing so there was never a complaint by others to me to manage my animals. Inconsiderate, this is the bottom line for those with animals that cause this nuisance.

quark

Thu, 2011-03-10 22:57

Just about any development in a national park is over development. In fact the more accessible you make any place to humans the less interesting it becomes. Wilson's Promontory in Victoria. Australia when I was a child used to have minimum facilities and deliberately so in order to limit the number of people visiting at any particular time. The place was for the wild life and a few people at a time. What was enjoyable about going there was NOT seeing buildings and crowds of people. We have so little in the way of national parks surely tourists who are after hotels and restaurants can go elsewhere. leave the national parks to the wildlife and the tourists who are self sufficient and resourceful enough not to these comforts laid on. Let the other tourists do a day trip with a a packet of sandwiches and experience something which may actually be new to them. They can then lay their heads on 5 star pillows in a nearby town or city.

David Hughes (not verified)

Thu, 2011-03-10 21:52

Dear Rev Fred Nile In yesterdays wednesday 9/3 business pages of The Australian, there was a story about the imminent bankruptcy of TXU - Texas Energy USA. Loaded up with debt, and having its cash stolen by the usual wall st criminals. ref. film The Inside Job; ref: book Griftopia. The connection that worries me is that to my knowledge TXU Aust changed its name to TRU ENERGY amd recently bought gen trader rights, and half the retail electricity and gas sector in NSW. You chaired an enquiry into those shonky deals. Maybe TRU ENERGY Aust has other solvent shareholders, dont know. A news ltd journo told me they plan to go public IPO later this year. If TXU - TRU ENERGY goes bankrupt, what chaos will this cause to consumers in NSW? How could the ALP sell huge assets to a tottering (overseas owned) company? Would you be able to raise this issue during the NSW Election campaign.? David Hughes

nimby

Thu, 2011-03-10 10:53

Not only "cow paddocks" but national parks may be opened up to developers! This is especially to encourage tourists from India and China, who expect to enjoy our Victorian National parks in style! The state government's efficiency watchdog has bluntly warned that tourism across Victoria will stagnate unless current ''slow and cumbersome'' laws preventing private development in national parks are dumped. The "slow and cumbersome" laws are meant, by default, to protect our natural assets from such developments! They are not commercial assets but land for conservation, ecological values, flora and fauna, and those wanting to enjoy the bush. Parks may open to developers The Age Apparently "restrictions" were holding back investment and limiting the state's ability to attract international visitors. These "restrictions" are to protect our environmental assets from such developments. International visitors need to learn to tread respectfully and softly on fragile environments. They are sacred places and we are the hosts. Visitors need to obey our laws and respect our territories. We already have native waterbirds being shot at for recreation, cattle in our Alpine areas causing environmental trashing, thousands of native animals "controlled" each year, and now possible commercialization of Victoria's National parks. We are seeing tacky high rise developments in our cities to cater for foreign students, and our universities have already been outsourced as businesses resources for Indian and Chinese students - and a short-cut for PR - and now to add insult to injury, our iconic and prized national parks are to be modified to cater for tourist comfort. According to our Federal government: The National Reserve System is Australia's network of protected areas, conserving examples of our natural landscapes and native plants and animals for future generations. Based on a scientific framework, it is the nation's natural safety net against our biggest environmental challenges. The reserve system includes more than 9,300 protected areas covering nearly 13 per cent of the country. It is made up Commonwealth, state and territory reserves, Indigenous lands and protected areas run by non-profit conservation organisations, through to ecosystems protected by farmers on their private working properties. How do developments such as hotels and stadiums help fulfill these aims? When do the owners, the people of Victoria, get a say in how things are run? It would defile the very for the existence of national parks. The big problem is that Victoria has the biggest proportion of privately owned land in Australia! We are being sold off!

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2011-03-09 13:37

This article rightly shows that because of their effective support for high immigration, the Greens can't be considered a serious political party in favor of the environment.

However, I think the most critical factor about how the existence of the Greens adversely affects democracy and serves Australia's ruling elites has been overlooked.

In the 19 years since the Greens were formed in 1992, they have succeeded in drawing out of many thousands of well-meaning environmentalists money and energy that could have been put to far better use.

Given that the two major political parties, Labor on the one hand and the Liberal/National coalition on the other, have poor to abysmal records in government and that this has been shown conclusively again and again, it is inconceivable that after 19 years, the decent alternative that the Greens claim to be could not have at least steadily and consistently increased its electoral support. By now such a party should be in government either in their own right or in coalition, in many parts of Australia. At the very least, such a party should have a substantial presence in all Parliaments.

With a few rare exceptions, like the 2010 Federal elections and the 2010 Tasmanian state elections the electoral performance of the Greens has been, at best, mediocre and usually poor.

If the 'anti-war' Greens could not have performed well in 2004, then when could they ever have?

The outcome of the 2004 elections were particularly harmful to Australia, not to mention the rest of the world, and could have been avoided. In 2003 the Howard Government participated in the illegal invasion of Iraq, using a pretext shown to have been a deliberate lie.[1] At the 2004 elections, Howard did not even have to pay the slightest electoral price for his actions and was re-elected with effectively an outright majority in the Senate. The campaign by the Greens, supposedly leaders of the anti-war movement, in those elections did not stop the Liberal/National majority from gainining an outright Senate majority, where the proportional quota voting system should have made that easily achievable.

At the recently concluded 2010 Victorian state elections, the Greens won no lower house seats and were again unable even to stop the Liberal/National party from winning an outright majority in the upper house.

The outright majority that the Liberal/Nationals have gained has taken away from Victorians any recourse in Parliament against the Liberal/National Coalition Government until the next state elections in 2014, should it choose to govern in a way which is as harmful to ordinary Victorians as they have in the past.

I don't believe that the Greens would perform as poorly as they nearly always do unless it actually suited the purposes of those in control of the Greens not to wield any effective influence in Parliament.

If they were to hold the balance of power or even were to form Government, then their supporters would rightly expect them to do something for their benefit.

This would mean that the Greens would either have to act against the powerful vested interests they claim to be against or be shown up as the frauds that I believe most of them to be.

As they have never gained enough representation in any Parliament, they have been able to avoid being put to the test. (Of course, they now have the balance of power in Tasmania with 5 of the 25 the seats. This will be worth following closely. Hopefully, just possibly, the Tasmanian Greens may show themselves to be an exception to this sad pattern.)

Footnotes

1. As shown in the recent movie Fair Game or in the YouTube broadcast of testimony by CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson before the US Senate (also embedded in this comment), upon which Fair Game was based, the pretext given by The U.S. government and the Australian government for the invasion of Iraq was a lie. That lie was that Iraq had a secret nuclear weapons program, which it intended to use on other countries. In Australia, the largest demonstrations since the Vietnam, War were held against the threatened invasion. In defiance of public opinion, Howard proceeded with Australia's participation in the invasion of Iraq. As the Greens were part of the leadership of the anti-war movement, they should at least have gained massively, but didn't. If they could not gain in those circumstances, then how could they ever expect to?

See also Valerie Plame Wilson interviewed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show on 30 October 2007, Wikipedia and Sixty Minutes.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-03-09 08:36

Privatization of water is a disaster for Melbourne. Water is a birthright, a basic of life. Mr Holding said PPPs provided the best value for money to the taxpayer, but he provided no evidence of this and figures needed to do so are confidential. Mr Brumby warned that our water cost would double with the desalination plant. Privatization is also at odds with the reality that the private entities view the responsible management of water as secondary to their prime aims - unfettered infrastructure development and consumption-based profiteering. We are obliqued to pay the cartel for the Wonthaggi desalination plant whether we want it, or need it. Mr Brumby has left a $24 billion debt for the public to pay! 70% of our water is used for agriculture. Private organisations won't be interested in environmental concerns, but commercial returns. Julia Gillard's carbon tax wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't at the same time intent on ongoing and contradictory population growth. Her popularity rating is now as low as Kevin Rudd's was when she deposed him. His "big Australia" gaffe should surely be a lesson for her to learn from? If State governments hadn't gone ahead and privatised gas and electricity, then their commercial interests would not be such an impediment to directly investing in renewable energy sources. These companies have to be cajoled and persuaded by market forces through the carbon tax to, maybe, invest in renewable energy. Private companies are interested in profits and growth, not the public or the long-term impacts of climate change. Our State governments are thus not free to directly invest in renewable energy, and this indirect carbon tax, and the compensation for the public, is so roundabout, and full of contradictions, that's it's doubtful the public can really see anything to gain from it, or that it will really have any impacts on mitigating climate change. It's just another complicated and expensive tax that will blow out family budgets even further. We should be directly paying for renewable energy sources, not relying on possible market forces to do it. Private ownership reduces local control and public rights.

nimby

Tue, 2011-03-08 10:07

The anti-whaling group's two main ships, the Bob Barker and the Steve Irwin, arrived in Hobart on Sunday. For the third year running, AFP officers searched the anti-whaling vessels. Japan sometimes asks our Australian government for "help", such as to not let Sea Shepherd ships leave any of our ports! Clearly, our whispered protests of being an "anti-whaling" nation have not been heard, even after all these years of diplomatic pressure! The Japanese government has complained about the Sea Shepherd ships getting in the way of commerce and industry, according to Senator Brown. Isn't this contradictory to their so-called "scientific research" on whales? An AFP spokesperson said that Sea Shepherd's activities in the Southern Ocean would be investigated. As an "anti-whaling" nation, why would the AFP be perusing legal grounds against the anti-whaling group, Sea Shepherd, on Japan's behalf? Our AFP is not paid by the government of Japan, as far as we know, so why should they be doing the work of Tokyo by "investigating" the law enforcers? The AFP executed search warrants for the SSCS vessels. What did they hope to find? According to Senator Bob Brown: "The good police are doing the work of Tokyo". Clearly Sea Shepherd's success has brought shame and embarrassment to our government. All their tough talk of stopping Japan's whale slaughter is shown to be nothing but shallow assurances with no substance. Sea Shepherd are the real heroes, not criminals to be investigated. Sydney Morning Herald: Sea Shepherd sails into more controversy

admin

Tue, 2011-03-08 09:13

My efforts to understand the causes of what has been going on in the Arab countries of North Africa and the middle east have not been helped by the reporting by the mainstream newsmedia, or, for that matter, even much of the supposedly 'left-wing' newsmedia. They refuse to make known to their readers, proven facts of recent history, most disturbingly, that the pretext for the current "American War on Terror" including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is a lie[1]. So, should it be any surprise that their reporting of these upheavals makes little sense? A far more informative article is one written by Fidel Castro Ruiz, the retired former President of Cuba, whose nation has defied threats of invasion from its powerful northern neighbour since 1959. The article, published by the Canadian service Global Research, is NATO’s Inevitable War: The Flood of Lies regarding Libya. One can only hope that the course of events does not bear out Castro's pessimism. Castro's warning of nuclear war in Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation of August 2010 has, most thankfully, not come to pass. However, humankind has only averted nuclear war in past decades due to no less than 2 enormous strokes of good luck, the first being that from 1961 until 1963, President Kennedy three times prevented the US military-industrial complex, against which former President Eisenhower warned, from launching global nuclear war. Sadly, Kennedy was murdered by the military-industrial complex for this (another fact that the media, including most of the supposed 'left' refuse to make clearly understood by their readers). The second stroke of luck is that former Vietnam War fighter pilot Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman publicly campaigned against plans by the administration of US President Reagan to launch global nuclear war in the 1980's. His incredible story can be heard in his interview by Australia's John Bursill here. The mp3 file of the interview, linked to from that page is here. Another most helpful article is, of course, BAHRAIN - National General Strike - Demand for Representative Democracy in an immigrant overloaded state published here on candobetter. Footnotes 1. The lie is, of course, that Islamist extremists based in Afghanistan, launched the attacks of September 11 on the Word Trade Centre and the Pentagon. If it is true, then how is it, that after a ten year military occupation of Afghanistan, not one person with a proven link to 9/11 has been captured? To learn the truth about 9/11 that none of the mainstream newsmedia, including the ABC, or the supposed 'left' newsmedia, including Green Left and Direct Action from Australia will publish, please visit the sites 911truth.org, ae911truth.org, 911blogger.com and sites liked to from them or read articles on this site concerned with that issue.

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-03-05 20:54

It is horrifying and disgusting that a scientific licence has been issued by DECCW NSW Wildlife Licensing and Management Unit NSW to Wollongong University to retain kangaroos in a cage 1 metre x 1.3 meters x 1.7 metres for up to 9 months to ascertain the amount of methane gas expelled by the kangaroos. Apparently they requested 15 kangaroos to be tested but the licence has been approved for 6 animals to start with. The kangaroo will be obtained from excess "stock" from wildlife parks, and they will be euthanased when experiments/ research is finished. Wildlife have a rightful place on our land, and are not "stock" and nor are they "excess". What sort of macabre experiment is this? What could the results be used for to benefit the animals? It would only be detrimental to them, and the individual animals being experimented on. Kangaroos and wildlife will never replace livestock. To reduce methane emissions, we need to reduce meat consumption. What a terrible way for a animal to have its life ended when it was used in a commercial way. This is not science but research to support commercial use of kangaroos and it is no different from Japan's bogus "research" on whales that was really commercial interests. No wonder Australia could do nothing for the whales, with so much embedded hypocrisy at such high levels. Kangaroos suffer incredibly from stress myopathy, and this means they become vulnerable to diseases. The methane emissions could be quite different under these unnatural conditions. Some have been informed the University may also be looking at doing the same experiments on wombats as well. Where are the ethics of such research? Confining, manipulating these range-land grazing animals for dubious purposes. They will be isolated from their mob, their territory, and suffer terribly. The end is misery and death for these captive animals. Please come on board and work together to stop this now ! For more information please view the petition

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2011-03-05 00:15

For those who want to send a message to the Coalition (who take notice of the readers of the Weekly Times) on whether cattle should be kicked out of the Alpine National park – please
go here and vote YES.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au

So far it’s 60% of voters who want the cattle kept up there. Editorial comment: As of 1:20PM on Saturday 5 March, the vote is 51% in favour of removing cattle from the National Park and only 49% in favour of keeping them in the park.

Robert LePage (not verified)

Fri, 2011-03-04 17:44

You have been lied to about butter by: Paul Fassa, Butter has been maligned as unhealthy for decades. Fortunately, the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) disagrees. The WAPF was started decades ago by Weston Price, DDS. He and his wife traveled to isolated locations and examined the diets of peoples free from civilization's degenerative diseases. Others have discovered the truth about butter and disagree with butter's bad rap as well. It's healthier for you than all the substitutes designed to replace butter, which actually damage your health. Butter is better. Why the Negative PR Campaign Succeeded Diet fads promoted aspartame as well as margarine as healthy choices. The overweight and even not so slim were manipulated into diets with only weight loss in mind . That popular movement had its foundation in medical misinformation, based mostly on saturated fat nonsense. That nonsense was compounded by the cholesterol scare. Abstaining from the saturated fats was promoted as a healthy choice. Butter, coconut oil, and palm oil were all given bad press. The doctors, uneducated of real nutritional health science, went right along. Yet all three of those saturated fats are actually health promoting. This trend was accelerated by corporate greed in the processed food industry. They could righteously insert those cheaper trans fatty liquid oils in packaged goods or sell them as healthy cooking oils. And now it turns out that those oils cause long term health damage, including obesity, cardiovascular problems, diabetes, and even cancer. As early as the 1950s, Johanna Budwig criticized the trans fatty toxic oils that were taking over the market place. She said the cooking oil industry censured her for that. She is renowned in natural healing circles as the creator of the cancer curing Budwig Diet, which includes pure flax seed oil and cottage cheese, both high in fats. But her biggest contribution to nutritional science was her groundbreaking research categorizing different types of fats. This was uncharted territory until she did that research in Germany. So she knew what she was talking about when she trashed trans fats. Why Butter is Better There are three levels of butter: The ideal is butter made from the raw milk grass fed, healthy cows. Second best and more accessible is organic butter from the pasteurized milk of grass fed cows not injected with antibiotics or rBGH. Then there is the mainstream commercial stuff. Even this last contaminated version of butter is better for you than margarine . The low fat diet is actually not healthy for most. And the heart disease hype associated with cholesterol has been exaggerated to the point of being considered a myth. A 1991 Medical Research Council study determined that men eating butter had half the heart disease risk as men eating margarine! Natural fats can be converted to carbohydrates as needed. Cholesterol is necessary for healthy nerves, including the brain, and the gastrointestinal tract. Butter from grass fed cows is actually rich in minerals. It also contains a lot of vitamins A, D and K2, which help prevent osteoporosis and arthritis. The short and medium chain fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in butter help prevent cancerous tumors. Glycosphingolipids in butter fat offer protection against gastrointestinal infections. These are not all of the healthy aspects of butter. You'll find more in the sources below. The Folly of Fake Fats Much of the overall worsening health from dietary sources includes trans fatty acids in margarine and hydrolyzed heat processed unsaturated oils offered as health substitutes over the past five or so decades. It comes back to real versus synthetic foods. Keep it simple: Nature knows best. Sources for more information include: Why Butter is Better articles.mercola.com/sites/a... Weston A Price Foundation pdf - Butter is Better www.westonaprice.org/images/... Know Your Fats westonaprice.org/know-your-fats.html Sources for healthy dairy products www.realmilk.com/where.html News and information on raw milk and dairy products www.realmilk.com The Truth About Saturated Fats articles.mercola.com/sites/a... Budwig research and cancer cure part 1 www.naturalnews.com/027452_c...

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-03-04 10:23

"Data from the Census is used by parliamentarians and religious leaders to sway politics and social policy in favour of complying with religious tenets and ecclesiastical notions". The Census is about statistics and demographics and is not political. The solution for atheists and skeptics is simply to put "no religion" in this question box. Surely it is the job of politicians, idealistically, to represent the needs and opinions of the people of Australia. Whether that happens in reality is debatable. Governments need to be secular, and neutral, but this does not mean people are not spiritual beings, or are all non-religious. It is still quite a valid, but optional, question to ask.

tim

Thu, 2011-03-03 14:24

Bandicoot nailed it. Visiting a city is not the same as living there. Pity that Bandicoot is not running the authoritive rating agency that would incorporate the views of people actually trying to make a living in these cities. Having the Economist determine a city's livability is like having Marie Antionette rate soup kitchens. BTW, plaudits to Sheila Newman for supplying the appropriate illustrations and photo. Her input is always give a new dimension to an argument. Want a Vancouver drug crime anecdote? Try this. While away overseas for 8 months, my roomate "Rob" bought speciality car parts for his Lotus Super 7 parked in my garage. The parts were shipped if four large boxes or crates to Vancouver International Airport, where they awaited Rob's return to Canada. When he arrived, he signed for them, and they were delivered to my back yard, 20 miles from the airport. As I was sleeping that hot afternoon, Rob did not want to disturb me so he left them there for the duration of the day. When I awoke an hour later, I found them in my basement, and thought nothing of it. I left the house and returned at 8:30 pm to find the boxes opened and the front door wide open. I closed it believing that Rob had come and gone again, but forget to shut the door. I also noticed that the window to his bedroom was open, with the latch broken. The following day, he thanked me for bringing the boxes in and opening them. When I told him that I had no part in it, we checked the boxes and found all the parts still in them. We could not understand why anyone would pry open the window--in full view of the street---walk into a room strewn with cash, cameras and electronics, ignore them, go downstairs, open the door, carry in four heavy boxes, open them up, and take nothing. But the RCMP connected the dots. The thieves followed Rob home, and when he left, they were desperate enough to walk the through the house, and carry in the boxes, which they knew had drugs of great value placed in them in England during packaging. The police explained that the Vancouver drug gangs are international in scope, knew of their shipment, and had the patience to wait months for Rob's return to Vancouver, and follow him home. And all of this happened in a medium upscale neighbourhood. Considering the value of the haul, it is a very good thing that the thieves did not wake me up, or I would not be writing this story now. In other words, for me, Vancouver would suddenly have become "un" livable.

Bandicoot

Thu, 2011-03-03 11:12

According to their web page, The Economist Intelligence Unit is the world's leading resource for economic and business research, forecasting and analysis. Like The Economist, we are independent of all governing bodies and corporations, leaving us free to deliver accurate and impartial business intelligence. This sounds like the Committee of Melbourne, the KMPG or any of the "not for profit" groups pushing for developments and growth. Vancouver (Canada) sits at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Ranking , a position that can only have been cemented by the successful hosting of the 2010 winter Olympics and Paralympics, which provided a boost to the infrastructure, and culture and environment categories. Those of us who actually live there and know the place chortled. (see article below). This would have created enormous benefits for investors and property developers. In another survey, Vienna again was named as the ‘best’ city in the world, with the Austrian capital’s perennial Swiss rivals, Zurich and Geneva, following close behind. Overall, German-speaking cities occupy six places in the top ten in 2010 Quality of Living Survey by Mercer Consulting. Vancouver remained equal 4th with Auckland. A rating of relative comfort for 30 indicators is assigned across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives an overall rating of 0-100, where 1 is intolerable and 100 is ideal. It doesn't mention housing affordability, lifestyles, crime, accessibility to parklands and green wedges, congestion, utility prices, or the rating of those living there! The rating of "ideal" is surely subjective without community input, and without considering the above essential "details", and heritage values. Another article, dated 1 Mar 11, by Brian Hutchison of the National Post says that Vancouver is the world's most liveable city, if you ignore the drugs and crime! Visiting a city is not the same as living there. A city without unity, community, a common heritage and "heart" is cold and functional only.

quark

Thu, 2011-03-03 10:06

Every term at primary school I was obliged to fill in a form stating my father's occupation, my address and my religion. The problem was that I wasn't sure which category I fitted into. I tried a variety of Christian denominations- rotating 4 I knew of several times or put down whatever sounded good on the day.The teachers never asked me why my religion kept changing ! One day after yet another form filling school day I half seriously upbraided my father for having left me in the ignominious position of not knowing my category. He replied that if I wanted a label then I could go and get one any time I wanted and I could have any one I wanted. I was free to choose! Having been given this carte blanche, I was no longer interested since the appeal of a label to me was that it was something one was given,not what one chose. I declined and from that moment,overcame any desire for a religious label. I wonder what I have missed out on by not belonging to a religious tribe,nor following mysterious learned rituals nor experiencing the immediate acceptance when a signal heralding religious allegiance is immediately understood by a stranger.

Migration Agency (not verified)

Thu, 2011-03-03 00:53

Subject was: Truly it is a good example.

Truly it is a good example of how circumstances can force people to move from their place and position. I wonder if we can ever be secure that we will not be affected by our economic situation. Looking at it in another way, this event may present a new life, a new beginning and new opportunities in themselves.

Editorial Comment: This 'comment' demonstrates no comprehension, whatsoever, of the content of this article, which is highly critical of the global mass immigration rort of which, no doubt, nTRUST (Singapore) PTE (sic) LTD is a part. It's web-site, http://ntrust.com.sg is here, but be warned, particularly if your computer runs on the Micro$oft operating system, which is more vulnerable to viruses than are other operating systems, that the Web of Trust (www.mywot.com) warns, "This site has a poor reputation". It has poor trustworthiness, very poor vendor reliability and very poor privacy.

nimby

Wed, 2011-03-02 17:22

Since when do our lifestyles and living arrangements get dictated to us by the Economy that purportedly "needs" population growth to remain viable and healthy? This is putting the cart before the horse! The economy should be our servant, to provide us the facilities to buy, sell, work and provide an income, not to determine our fates at our own detriment. An economy that relies on perpetual population growth is NOT sustainable, and our suburbs are not resources for property developers. Our population growth is a political choice, and even older people like their gardens, back yards and amenities. Older people are not an economic threat. On the contrary, an ageing population is a sign of high living standards, health care and prosperity. Being subservient to what our Economy demands is the wrong way round. It is meant to serve us and protect our livelihoods. An ageing population brings stability and maturity, and older people often care for children and families and do volunteer work. Those promoting growth usually have self-serving interests in growth. It is younger people who consume more resources and funding than older people. All people age one year every year. We don't have "use-by-dates", and people are not shelf items in a store to be discarded and replaced by fresher products.

solar (not verified)

Wed, 2011-03-02 16:00

Editorial comment: We have decided to approve this one 'comment' (of roughly 10 'comments' posted

on 24 feb 2011) because it seems possible that the advertised product may be of interest to some site visitors. Solar powered hot water may be preferable to the heating of water with electricity generated by coal-powered if it can be shown that the natural capital consumed in manufacturing and operating the solar hot-water panels for a house is less that that consumed to provide the same quantity of hot water from coal-fired electricity.

Advertisement:

An array of photovoltaic cells can capture the sun’s rays and transform it into green electricity. Queensland’s climate is particularly suitable for solar energy generation, and can be used for household energy consumption.

If you are living in Queensland, there has never been a better time to convert your home’s conventional power supply into one that is run by solar power systems Citisolar Solar Power Queensland aims to help you gain the best rebate for quality products. You will need to do your research as not all solar panels are created equal and every company will give you a different rebate.

s

Milly O (not verified)

Tue, 2011-03-01 17:10

According to Queensland RSPCA, there is not evidence of the dogs "starving". In their natural state, they would sometimes be skinny. However, why would puppies by dying of starvation, as shown in the documentary? Nature can be cruel, and it is normal for species to die sometimes. However, humans have altered the landscape and caused extinctions and species numbers to drop considerably. Also, it is a tourist area. Humans living on an island would need to import their food. People eating junk food in front of very hungry dingoes would expect to be confronted. This callous attitude to wildlife is typical of Queensland, trying to market kangaroo meat to China, and exterminating koalas to extinction for property developers. Jenny Parkhust has been persecuted as a whistleblower. The Park rangers should be ensuring the (endangered) dingoes have sufficient food. Any pet owner, livestock owner, or zoo manager would be fined for such cruelty. Such is the power of our government's justice. Wildlife are just incidental, of little importance. Tourist dollars, and the possibility that "savage" dingoes would make their numbers decline, is the main focus of the commercial national park.

quark

Tue, 2011-03-01 16:52

I also saw the program and was most upset at the treatment and attitude towards the dingoes. It seemed the dingoes had been friends with the Fraser Island Aborigines who in all likelihood fed them which is a frequent relationship and transaction between dog and human throughout history. Sounds as though that relationship should be restored.Any creature who is hungry is driven to find food. (Someone I know told me she would eat her own grandmother if she were hungry enough.) The dog who nipped the child in the red outfit was also most likely hungry but the incident was discussed as though the behavior was vicious. In fact A hungry dog would do anything in order to eat and would not be telling itself it should postpone nibbling until something which was actually on the menu came along. The fact that the authorities took the draconian action they did after a child was killed shows that they were not "managing" the situation well at all prior to this. Hungry or starving dogs +unwary unsupervised children= recipe for disaster.

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-03-01 10:40

I am horrified by the program on Australia Story (28/2) and disgusted that dingoes in Fraser Island are being starved and denied food. They are trapped in a land mass and being allowed to die, and become extinct. How can they just be shot by park rangers? Wildlife advocate and photographer Jennifer Parkhust was fined $40,000 and given a suspended jail sentence for guess what ? - feeding starving dingoes. This is a heinous crime in wildlife-hating and corrupt Queensland. Why is it a crime to feed them? Why allow them to starve? We know the present government hates wildlife, and Anna Bligh is trying to export kangaroo meat, and koalas are being sent on the extinction trial due to property developments and mass land clearing. Obviously the Island is to be used totally for tourism $$ and/or developments, and the dingoes are an impediment to "progress". The fine and persecution of Jennifer Parkhurst is evidence of corruption and State sanctioned cruelty. Why should they be denied food? They are native animals, are endangered, and help bring in tourists and their dollars. Humans living on island would find survival hard without imported food. Their natural food sources are limited and they need to have it supplemented. Of course, dingoes will attack tourists if they are starving. Any animal would. They have a right to exist, and if there existence must be supplemented by food, they so it should be. Normally, before dingoes became a "pest" because of livestock they had the whole of Australia to roam and exist. The hatred and vilification of wildlife in Australia, especially in Queensland, is rife. This case needs to be investigated and assurances given that the dingoes are safe from these Park rangers who should be acting on behalf of the animals, not for the humans trespassing on their territory while they go hungry. Either keep people away from most of the Island, or out altogether, and give priority to the dingoes. It is ludicrous that someone can be a criminal for feeding starving animals. Any human with empathy for other living creatures would do the same thing. If this happened to cattle, sheep, dogs or cats there would be RSPCA prosecutions. Why the distinction? According to the RSPCA Fraser Island is recognised as home to one of the purest strains of dingoes in Australia. The dingoes are a protected native species on the Island as the majority of the island is a national park even though they are a declared pest elsewhere in Queensland. Fraser Island is also a significant tourist destination and the dingoes are part of that attraction. However, in certain parts of the island human/dingo interactions have led to significant problems such as dingoes displaying aggressive behaviours towards humans. These problems came to a head in April 2001 when a young boy tragically died following a dingo attack. This incidence confirmed the risk dingoes pose to humans and led to the Queensland Government rethinking their approach to dingo management on the island. The immediate response was a cull of the dingoes followed by the development of the Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy (FIDMS) 2001. However, I don't agree with killing the dingoes to protect humans who come into the island. Fraser Island is wildlife territory, and it is the onus of people and parents of children to take full responsibility. Dingoes are native to Australia, and we can't go an killing rampages because of human stupidity no matter how tragic. There should be some safe areas for people and families to go, fenced off from dingoes. They should not be allowed to starve.

VivKay (not verified)

Mon, 2011-02-28 17:21

Department of Immigration and Citizenship: "Australia's immigration programs are targeted at meeting specific social and economic objectives. In particular, the skilled migration program is designed to deliver skilled workers to critical parts of the economy such as the healthcare, mining, and information technology sectors, where and when they are needed, where these skills cannot be met locally". Despite international students being lured here to study at our, presumably, top class educational institutions such as universities and colleges, we ourselves must admit that there are better resources for studying in the above skills overseas in developing countries. We are sourcing skills from countries such as India and Bangladesh. Can anyone else see the contradiction? "Skills Australia projects that we will have 9.3 million job openings in Australia over the next 15 years. Around 4.4 million of these jobs will arise due to workers leaving the workforce as the baby boom generation begins to retire. While the education and training of Australian workers is the government's first priority, immigration will play an important role in plugging these skill gaps. Immigration will also help address the substantial fiscal pressures that an ageing population will incur, including the increased demand for government services and rising health costs." Surely when the baby boomer generation retires, it should create wonderful opportunities for Australians to exercise their skills and be given opportunities here in Australia. The "skill gaps" should NOT exist if our education sector was funded adequately. "Fiscal pressures" of an ageing population? Surely it is young people who are more a drain on the economy, on health care and infrastructure? Our ageing population is a sign of success and stability, not a "pressure" or a drain. Replacing older people by young immigrants will create a demographic pyramid. Our baby boomer numbers were created initially by mass immigration in the 1950s and 60s, and by the post war number of births. How can sustainability be created by repeating the same thing now, with converging global threats of climate change, peak oil, and global meltdowns. "The goal of the strategy is to improve the wellbeing of current and future generations of Australians through more effective recognition and management of the impacts of population changes, including size, composition and location." Nothing mentioned of the environment, the energy crisis, our sprawling cities, diseconomies of scale and more importantly, that most people in Australia do not want a "big Australia'! It seems that our government is now running a big firm, a company, a brand name, an Economy, rather than a sovereign nation for the benefit of citizens. We are being considered as employees, as resources rather than an integral part of our nation.

VivKay (not verified)

Mon, 2011-02-28 10:35

This is another website with anthropocentric ramblings of denialists without ethics. Science or any human endeavor without ethics and morality is dangerous and totally irrelevant to an orderly world of laws and consequences. Judging from the escalation in scientific knowledge, we could say that science has no limits. However, research becomes more expensive as problems accelerate and become more complicated, and the time required to study them increases disproportionately, and with it cost. As human impacts on the environment are accelerating, so do our problems. The environment is multi-dimensional and is shaped by millions of creatures interacting in a mysterious way. It's a science hard to un-fathom. Changes in such systems cause unanticipated side effects. Very little attention had been paid to the environmental consequences of economic growth. According to Dalai Lama, "...although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness. In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors". We all need checks and balances to ensure that our thirst for knowledge does not outstrip our degree of ethical formation. Humanity has learnt the painful lesson of conducting science without ethics.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2011-02-28 07:34

Raispal's vision is unfolding before our eyes. All of us, in every affluent country with a social safety net, will be overwhelmed, but not so much by the sheer volume of incoming migrants, but by the 5th columnists at our backs who shape public opinion and cultivate an attitude of defeatism and guilt. I am speaking of the Puppet Intelligentsia and the nest of cultural relativists in universities, political parties and the media who will press us to open the floodgates in the name of compassion and moral responsibility. Unless we deal with them

our lifeboat will be swamped. The Greens, the environmental establishment, the trade union bureaucrats who line their guts with members' dues, and the mainstream political parties must be identified for what they are. The enemies of nature, of sustainability and of the indigenous poor, middle and working classes. There can be no fellowship with them.

They aim to take us down. We haven't much time.

Tim

Editorial comment: I can see that we have much to lose, if we allow fruitless compassion that cannot, to any worthwhile degree, hope to improve the lot of all the hundreds of millions of those most at threat from the coming ecological crisis, but I also think we stand to lose a lot if we allow ourselves to give in to those are seemingly on the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Puppet Intelligentsia, about whom Tim rightly complains, that is those who are waging immoral wars against the Middle East and Central Asia. It is striking that so few of the bleeding heart Puppet Intelligentia have spoken the truth about the lies that have been used as pretexts for those wars, that is the lie of Iraqi WMDs as exposed so eloquently and vividly in the movie Fair Game of late 2010, and the even bigger lie of 9/11

The Puppet Intelligentsia want us to adopt measures that can only harm the poorest members of our own community in a futile attempt to improve the lot of those most threatened by the coming global ecological crisis.

It's striking how the most dedicated and effective fighters against war and international injustice are also the most outspoken against high immigration and for the rights of the poorest of their own country. One of history's most renowned opponents of war, population growth (as you, yourself have noted, Tim) and high immigration is, of course, the late Reverend Dr Martin Luther King. His views on the cause of opposing immigration, which is even less “politically correct” then supporting birth control, can be seen from the following:

Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element -- Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against.

If King were alive today, I don’t believe he would be any less contemptuous of the Puppet Intelligentsia, than you are, Tim

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-02-27 23:46

In the debate about refugee funerals, no one has yet discussed the morality of a government granting rights and privileges to undocumented aliens far in excess of what is granted to citizens.

In October 2001, I was being held in Silverwater Prison Sydney, on remand, on federal (ACCC) charges. When my mother died in Perth, I was refused permission to leave NSW to attend her funeral. I believe all states and territories have similar rules in not allowing prisoners to attend interstate funerals.

Had the funeral been in NSW, I would have been obliged to pay my own transport costs. As well I would have had to pay the transport and accommodation costs ot two guards. I saw how this substantial cost prevented aboriginal prisoners attending funerals in Bourke or Brokern Hill from Sydney.

Now a precedent has been set, I would support the commonwealth funding funeral visit costs for all Australian prisoners. Especially across state borders, under section 92 of our constitution.

David Hughes

* The ACCC case can be found on their website, putting "HUGHES" in their search box.

admin

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:40

CIA Agent Ray Davis shooting Pakistanis deserves Pakistani Justice

[Ed. This comment was originally placed as an article, but we have published it as a comment due to its length.]

When will the United States and Israel learn that sending their respective military cloak and dagger agents to criminal missions in foreign countries is not part of liberty and justice.

May US CIA agent Ray Davis receive proper Pakistani justice, according to Pakistani law.
If he is found guilty and summarily executed, so be it a lesson for US spying.

How else is the Pentagon to change its terrorism behaviour?

John Marlowe

admin

Sun, 2011-02-27 22:26

Great analysis, Scott, and beautiful writing, as usual. I will read this article again and think on your take on the various twisted perspectives. I have never read spiked, but, from reading your article, they sound almost like a burlesque of the self-contradictory purported values that make up US 'democracy' - really capitalism. So that, anything that makes money for the rich becomes excusable and anything that stands in the way of this becomes mad and dangerous.

Geoffrey Taylor

Sun, 2011-02-27 19:58

It's hard to be sure what to make of this web-site.

The vested interests served by most mainstream media and how that is served by the way they choose to misreport news and mis-analyse current events are easy to work out, but whose interests are served by spiked-online and how are they served by spiked-online's bizarre and contradictory reporting of world events, if as you say Scott, "they make every attempt to alienate the reader of almost every persuasion"? Surely, there has to be a group of persistent spiked-online readers, who would form a category that would not be alienated by the articles. If not, then spiked-online would surely not have any influence that would concern us.

My guess is that its intended readership is of people who are opposed to forms of injustice and who would be potentially likely to do what they could to oppose the selfish vested interests in control of our societies.

Spiked-online’s likely purpose is to appear to offer such readers a hard-hitting and clear-headed, although unconventional and seemingly novel, understanding of what is wrong and what can be done about it, whilst, in fact, feeding them ideas which do anything but clarify their thinking and motivate them to take effective action.

So it doesn’t matter that much if the message of some of spiked-online's articles can't be shown to serve powerful vested interests as most in the mainstream media can be.

An example of what appears to be a stance by spiked-online against injustice is its support for the uprisings sweeping the middle east against the clearly corrupt and despotic rulers such as in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia for example in “Overdue end to the old world order”.

Of course there is little in that article that any democratic-minded progressive person could disagree with. Much of the regions problems can rightly be blamed on past meddling by the US and other imperialist powers in the region. However, spiked-online’s idiotic anti-Malthusianism prevents it from addressing the underlying problems of resource depletion and overpopulation faced by these regions and proposing solutions that can end the social turmoil.

In my own experience many supposed grass-roots political organisations, led by the most seemingly radical, revolutionary and Marxist types have, in fact, acted as props for the unjust systems they claim to oppose, by causing people of good will to waste their energies unproductively.

An example which comes to my mind is the Australian campaign against the threatened invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although it held demonstrations larger than any since the demonstrations of the Vietnam Moratorium movement, it completely failed to prevent that war or even to cause the Howard Government to pay any price at the subsequent 2004 elections for its deceit of the Australian public in order to and facilitate an illegal invasion of Iraq and war crimes.

That we were lied to by the Australian and US governments has been proven beyond doubt by, for example the movie Fair Game of 2010 and many times before that.

The fate of most other grass roots protest movements against war or for the environment or social justice Australia have been little different recent decades almost certainly because they have been misled by the same sorts of groups which misled the movement in protest against the war against Iraq in 2003. Spiked-online is no doubt run by similar types.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-02-27 16:32

This book has been translated from the German in 2009 by Anne Wyburd. It was first published in Germany in 2007 as Kriege ohne fronten: Die USA in Vietnam. The promotion on the back page which caught my interest in the local Robinson's bookshop is:

To this day, the My Lai massacre has remained the most shocking episode of the Vietnam War. Yet this infamous incident was not an exception or an aberration. Based on extensive research and unprecedented access to US Army archives, and tracing the responsibility for these atrocities all the way up to the white House and the Pentagon, War Without Fronts reveals the true extent of war crimes committed by American troops in Vietnam and ho a war to win hearts and minds soon became a war against civilians.

No attention was even given to the My Lai massacre until a year and a half afterwards, according to the introduction (p 4). It continues:

In principle the accredited journalists in South Vietnam could easily have done so. Soldiers from various units circulated the story for months; Radio Hanoi repeatedly broadcast corroboratory reports; some reporters admitted later to having known about it. However, the majority of reporters had, according to Peter Braestrup of the Washington Post. 'subscribed to herd journalism'.

An honourable exception to this was Seymour Hersh, whose story of the My Lai massacre was printed in 36 newspapers on 13 May 1969. However, Hersh's more recent work stands in stark contrast to his service to journalistic truth in 1969. His book The Dark Side of Camelot of 1997 which seeks to falsely blame President Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedy for escalating the Vietnam War, when they both tried to end it. For trying to end the war, and in JFK's case, stopping nuclear war on three occasions, they were both murdered by the US military industrial complex against which former President Eisenhower warned. To what other figure in all history can humankind be so indebted as to the Kennedy brothers? So, what kind of journalist would attempt to diminish their standing as Hersh has done?

Hersh's treatment of the Kennedy Brother's are answered in, amongst other works, Oliver Stone's magnificent movie JFK, James Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" of 2008 and David Talbot's "Brothers".

I am also currently reading "Brothers" by David Talbot, (but my reading has been interrupted by a friend's reading at my urging.) This book firmly commends the legacy of the Kennedy Brothers. However it also fully discloses all significant facts of the Kennedy's records in public life, including many which don't seem, at face value, to be to their credit. The views of the Kennedy's harshest critics are also presented in "Brothers". So it is possible to find the Kennedys dislikable and unprincipled on some pages of the book. In fact, books as harshly critical of the Kennedys as The Dark Side of Camelot could have been easily written by just using selected material from Brothers. However, all critics of the Kennedys are answered and all apparently unprincipled actions of the brothers are explained in the context of the American political system which was loaded against people of good intentions ever being able to win and hold onto high office in the US. Because Talbot has looked at the record of the Kennedy brothers from every possible side, I find this book takes an unusual amount of effort to read, but it is also immensely rewarding and well worth the trouble.

Brothers firmly and unambiguously endorses the Kennedys as two of the bravest and most well-meaning people to have ever entered US public life and is damning of those in the establishment newsmedia and those supposed 'left-wing' and 'bleeding heart' intellectuals who have helped conceal the truth about the Kennedys and their murders. In spite of his heroism back in 1969, Seymour Hersh is amongst those intellectuals, and is specifically dealt with by Talbot.

War Without Frontiers - The USA in Vietnam costs AU$27.95 and should be available in many Australian bookshops. Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable are still easy to order on-line, but may not be in stock on the shelves of most Australian bookshops.

See also: Why won't the "left" thank JFK for preventing nuclear war?.

Matilda (not verified)

Sat, 2011-02-26 22:42

The turmoil in northern Africa could soon trigger a global migration crisis. 5,000 Tunisians have attempted to migrate to Italy and are waiting for Italy to decide what to do. 300,000 Libyans might try to flee to Italy after a collapse of the Gaddafi regime. The people of these growing and disrupted societies look to migration as their solution. Europe's immigrants come overwhelmingly from the Middle East and North Africa, and they are overwhelmingly Muslims. They usually congregate at the bottom of the labour force and often turn to crime or political extremism. Europe's generous welfare social security offers the low-skilled an attractive alternative to work. The Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of France have all described their societies' experience of recent immigration - called "multiculturalism" - as a failure. The World Bank reports that its global food price index rose by 15 percent between October 2010 and January 2011. Fluctuating food prices contribute to "food insecurity, poverty, hunger and political instability." Price instability can lead to systemic economic instability. Frustration with high food prices is among the underlying causes of the unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. In view of acute shortages of water in Africa, Middle East, Asia and elsewhere, the future wars could be fought over water. High prices for food are adding millions to the number who go to bed hungry each night in the Middle East. Oil prices have jumped, which means food prices will soon follow. Egypt's population is up from 20 million in 1950 to 80 million. This means that 80 million net new jobs are required over the next 15 years just to keep pace with the population growth. Oil-rich countries are acquiring land in poor and under-developed countries. Is this a sustainable way to go in food security? Globalisation has given us the illusion that our planet is bigger than it is.

wendyk (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-25 17:09

Here is a letter recently sent to the UK's 'Times' by an acknowledged expert in Middle Eastern affairs :

While Western powers must, and by all appearances do, welcome the prospect of better governance in Egypt, they would be wise to plan their policies towards that country and the rest of the Islamic world on the likelihood of continued turmoil there.

I have watched with anxiety over several decades how populations have constantly outstripped the effects of economic growth in those states that do not benefit from relatively vast hydrocarbon resources,and this will not change soon.

Egypt's population was estimated at 22 million in 1950.Today, it is about 85 million, with perhaps 10 million more settled abroad. No mode of government could have fulfilled the aspirations of so many young people.

According to the best surveys we have, a third of Egyptians are under 15 years of age, while 60% are under 30. Their total number is expected to reach 120 million by the middle of this century. Furthermore, expectations are unrealistically high-and democracy does not thrive alongside rage.

There are so many parallels between Egypt's revolution and that of Iran in 1979.If you take into account the already dire scarcity of fresh water and arable land in Egypt, the future seems even more bleak. (Emphasis added - Editor)

Hazhir Temourian, London.

Finally, it could be said, perhaps, that reproduction is a form of consumption since all humans consume the earth's resources. Therefore, to promote absolute freedom in the matter of reproductive choice is irresponsible, since the infrastructure-both natural and constructed-is breaking under the strain of ever-increasing numbers.

I think that feminists should visit the website of the Centre for Biological Diversity (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/).

wendyk (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-25 16:15

One of the best, most closely-argued essays written as a challenge to feminist dogma;congratulations to Madeline. I note that Betsy Hartmann has recently written that the 'population explosion is over' : I would beg to differ and I say this as someone who believes that men and women are equal -(and who lives in the overcrowded UK, where the birth rate is now at its highest level for many years). Human rights should be placed in a context of environmental justice and public health should be extended to embrace environmental health. As to the Middle East: in the aftermath of the Tunisian uprising, Italy found itself having to manage an influx of several thousand young men, fleeing unemployment and poverty. Latest forecasts from Libya suggest that as many as 300,000 may flee across the Mediterranean within weeks. And Egypt has the largest population of all.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-25 13:11

Poverty, repression, decades of injustice and mass unemployment have all been cited as causes of the political convulsions in the Middle East and north Africa these last weeks. Rivers are few, water demand is increasing as populations grow, underground reserves are shrinking and nearly all depend on imported staple foods that are now trading at record prices. In just 25 years, Egypt’s population has risen by nearly two-thirds, from 50 million in 1985 to around 83 million today, with an average age of 24. Many governments are suffering from demographic stress, unable to cope with the steady shrinkage in cropland and fresh water supply per person or to build schools fast enough for the swelling ranks of children.

Most ecologists and many geographers argue that there are already too many people on Earth and that it is the steady growth in human numbers that threatens to bring our food/population treadmill experience to a bad ending. We will ultimately have a sustainable population, but until then there will be inevitable suffering.

Martin Hutchinson, one of the few financial writers who understands something about population issues, wrote recently, in a piece called “The Blight of Population Growth,” (Feb. 7, 2011):

Both the rioters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and the Western commentators on those riots have missed a vitally important component of Egypt’s miseries: its excessive and rapidly rising population.

The monster of population growth and unsustainable numbers of people are often ignored.

The Arab world accounts for 6.3 percent of the world’s population but only 1.4 percent of its renewable fresh water. From 1965 to 1997, population growth drove demand for agricultural development, leading to a doubling of land under irrigation. Demographic expansion in these countries is set to dramatically worsen their predicament.

Hunger and thirst are powerful drivers -- not only of migration, but of revolutions as well. Climate change leads directly to water and food shortages in already unstable regions, and can lead to violence and unrest. The International Organization for Migration reported today that it has already driven an estimated 24 million people from their homes--a number, they warned, that could rise to as high a billion people by 2050.
Water-starved Middle Eastern and other countries snap up leases on African land to improve their own food security and thus threatened the survival of already struggling communities.

Milly O (not verified)

Thu, 2011-02-24 17:12

The Property Council of Australia are no better than scavengers, vultures, manipulating our society's vilification of older people as burdens, due to the problem of our "ageing population". They have just as much right to enjoy leafy suburbs as younger families without feeling under pressure, or guilt. http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle500-20090104-03.html Humans as livestock. Human society is a farm, with the ruling class as the farmers and the rest of us as cattle. The "non productive" ones are culled as being not in the interests of farmers' economic necessities.

quark

Thu, 2011-02-24 09:52

On a brief visit to Christchurch about 2 years ago I noticed in the suburbs the attractive modest low slung bungalows with front and back gardens. Since the earthquake a few days ago, the sewerage system throughout the city has broken down- I suppose it is only as strong as its weakest link and I'm sure there is massive damage in many places . In a televised interview with the deputy mayor last night she made this situation explicit and was asking citizens to dig holes in which to bury their toilet waste. Relevance to Melbourne? A significant earthquake is unlikely in Melbourne but only last month after continued heavy rain the Melbourne sewerage system was under so much stress that its contents were released into the local waterways and made its way to our bay swimming beaches. Had the water authority not done this, sewage would have backed up and been returned through people's bathrooms. Furthermore raw sewage was seen on the grass of a local park near where I live having burst through the lid covering the system. High density high rise living leaves no flexibility when systems are under stress. At the very least a backyard enables some way for people to process waste in an emergency.

Bandicoot

Thu, 2011-02-24 09:15

The conventional economic wisdom is that: "Simply put, if we want to live in a First World society, with all its benefits, we need more taxpayers to fund it."
Economists accept that the stability of developed countries depends on continual economic growth and consumption. However this is clearly not possible on a planet with finite resources. Many contemporary governments believe employment and wealth are created by continuous economic growth and consumption and that these are fundamental to electoral success. Political lifetimes are short, and so is political accountability. Short-term benefits are the key to short-term "successful" policies.

The fundamental problem with this ethos of continual growth and consumption is that it ignores the biological principle that all living systems will grow until limited by the constraints of food and resources. No natural species or natural communities can continually grow! Humans aren't an exception.

In a study: Relationship between Growth and Prosperity in 100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas by Eben Fodor December 2010, the annual population growth rate of each metro area from 2000 to 2009 is used to compare economic well-being in terms of per capita income, unemployment rate, and poverty rate. The study found that faster growth rates are associated with lower incomes, greater income declines, and higher poverty rates.

The 25 slowest-growing metro areas outperformed the 25 fastest growing in every category and averaged $8,455 more in per capita personal income in 2009. The findings raise questions about the efficacy of conventional urban planning and economic development strategies that pursue growth of metro areas to advance the economic welfare of the general public.

Scandinavian countries have small, stable populations. They don't use their mineral wealth for day-to-day expenses: Norway saved its oil bounty, of which roughly half the profits went to the government and was put into their equivalent of a 'future fund'. They are wealthy countries that defy the expansionist mantra we hear so much in Australia.

A stable population would allow a more measured and sustainable use of resources and processes, and thus our future can be planned and so can sustainability.

On the contrary to Make Poverty History, we need to Make Wealth History. Under our current system, there are disastrous job losses whenever the economy goes into recession. It’s an inherently unstable system that is guaranteed to deliver a jobs cull every ten to twelve years, until it eventually runs out of steam altogether. The transition may be rocky, but a steady state should be much more stable in the longer term.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-02-23 23:34

Your points are well made, James. Without forced population growth, we Australians would have very few problems. We can blame those who have brought in policies to induce growth for all the coercive situations we suffer. One of the useful things that candobetter.net does is to try to identify exactly who is responsible by name. As Tim Murray wrote today in Undeserved Connotations----The Ugly C-Word In The Population Debate,
"Are we not constrained, or coerced, by many things in life that lie outside the dictates of government? Are we not constrained or coerced by resource shortages, traffic congestion, poor air quality, expensive housing and all the environmental baggage of overpopulation? Has not the sum total of private procreative decisions presently deemed to be the province of sacred and inalienable ‘human’ rights proven to be more coercive than the most draconian of any government’s birth control laws?"

wendyk (not verified)

Wed, 2011-02-23 18:32

I would suggest that we might use 'constraint in the service of restraint' ; in other words, that we become mature enough- (what a hope!)-to accept constraints on our reproductive instincts in order to restrain our growing impact upon the earth and its dwindling resources.(My Collins Thesaurus has some good synonyms .)

As to the feminists : I would say that we should advance beyond the notion of reproductive rights and consider the notion of environmental duties and responsibilities and consider the 'rights' of our fellow creatures-who are losing the race.

Finally, as Asimov foresaw, overcrowding will do for any comfortable and complacent notions of individual liberty : (this is why I find SpikedOnline so irresponsible ; Brendan O'Neill constantly calls for unchecked population growth in the name of libertarianism and freedom of choice).

Wendy

Editorial comment: Thanks, Wendy. It's troubling that any supposedly intelligent person would argue against population control, the only rational choice on offer to humankind at the start of the 21st century. It's good to know who, out there, espouses such insanity. Anyone wishing to see why SpikedOnline causes Wendy so much concern, should look at this blog entry, Down with these Malthusian MPs of 6 Jan 2009 by Tim Black and not Brendan O'Neill. It's teaser is:

A proposal to cap the UK population at 70million shows how mainstream miserabilist population control has become

An article by Brendan O'Neill of 9 Jul 2009 is: Who’s afraid of billions of people? It's teaser is:

In the run-up to the UN’s World Population Day, spiked argues against all attempts to cajole, coerce or convince people into having fewer kids.

A more up-to-date article by Brendan O'Neill of 14 Jun 2010 is: The rise and rise of the Champagne Malthusians It's teaser, apparently intended to be tongue-in-cheek, is:

spiked’s editor joined the population-control lobby in a posh church in London as they quaffed ‘luxury’ drinks and fretted about overbreeding.

nimby

Wed, 2011-02-23 11:09

After Kevin Rudd's "big Australia" gaffe that saw his popularity plummet, surely Gillard's multicultural revival is about appealing to the ethnic vote? The British Prime Minister David Cameron has identified segregation and separatism as key issues behind the threat of Islamic extremism and called for a "shared national identity". Huge increases in immigration in Britain over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer more multiculturalism, and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", a former Government adviser said. It's time for multiculturalism in Australia to be replaced by "integration" and "unity". We meed a strong surge of patriotism for our wonderful country, and forge a strong Australian identity. We don't need a revival of multiculturalism. We have already proved that we are diverse and tolerant. This is just another drive to support ongoing mass immigration. The labeling of Australia as a deeply racist nation, and the need for more support for it, is social coercion and silencing. "Racism" has become the pariah, the ultimate attack on humanitarian ideals, against the holiness of globalisation and world-government citizenship. This is despite the threat of climate change, natural disasters, food shortages, increasing social disruption in the world, increasing crime and the energy crisis over the horizon. Offending the "god of growth" is the ultimate blasphemy, a "crime" against the new world order. A new push to enhance multiculturalism in Australia, to avoid Europe's failure, is to replace "skills shortages' and "ageing population" as the next population myth? Social coercion is a very powerful, manipulating and silencing tool to allow our leaders to proceed with their own agendas, and silence debate.

Enne K (not verified)

Wed, 2011-02-23 10:54

Infrastructure shortages are hampering the growth of New South Wales, claimed Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell at the Property Council of Australia's (NSW) Great Growth Debate, held last year in Sydney.

O'Farrell said “..it’s easy to use population growth and migration as the cause for Sydney’s infrastructure woes. I would go so far as to say it’s dangerous, when it’s the State Government that has failed to deliver proper infrastructure that communities deserve and need.”

It's the people who vote who need to pay the costs of infrastructure, and public pockets are not a limitless resource.

At the same time, the argument is that we need population growth to grow our economy, to provide the taxpayer base needed to fund our ageing population and to sustain the manufacturing and service industries that our country should have. Simply put, if we want to live in a First World society, with all its benefits, we need more taxpayers to fund it.

We end up with a cyclic, unending argument. We need infrastructure, so we need more immigration to provide the taxes, and inevitably we end up with more "shortages" of infrastructure that in turn means we need more population to pay for it, and the skills to build it all! With all this growth, we end up with more "ageing population" and thus need more young immigrants to compensate.

We are trapped in a myopic cycle of growth, shortages, a need for funds, thus add a few more people, ageing numbers increase, more infrastructure needed and more people! It's a vicious, misanthropic cycle of decline and artificial revival that will lead to a depletion of natural resources that won't end until the growth-lobby and government elite come out of their ivory towers and face the real, and finite, planet.

Editorial comment: Thanks for this insightful response to my comment, Enne K. Still, I think it needs to be pointed out that the "vicious cycle" is largely an illusion conjured up by politicians, the Growth Lobby and the newsmedia to further their own selfish ends at the expense of the majority of people and future generations. Any Government, with the will to serve ordinary people and not wealthy vested interests and which was prepared to apply itself diligently, could break this cycle over a short period of time.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-02-23 10:43

Excellent article, Tim. Your point about China plus 400 million more people was very well made. I had to look up the word, “dysphemisms” to see if you had invented it or if it already existed. I was a bit disappointed to see that you were not the actual inventor.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2011-02-22 23:03

The article Time for Melbourne to think about its population surge reported that a Committee for Melbourne report to be released on that day, 19 October 2010, "highlights a $100 billion backlog of unbuilt roads, rails and ports in Victoria that is getting worse by the day." If Victoria's population had been stable for the last twenty years, instead of growing as it has grown, could the backlog of unbuilt roads, rails and ports be anywhere near as massive? It seems far more likely to me that today there would not be a backlog at all. What we had built in the past, would most likely be serving us well today, with only a need on our part to maintain the infrastructure and occasionally make repairs. It would only have been necessary to build new infrastructure when the old infrastructure had worn out with old age. It would have been possible to keep our economy running with everyone's needs being fully met with a shorter and shorter working week instead of what we have now, where everyone is compelled to work longer and longer hours to pay for higher living expenses (housing costs inflated by population growth, most of all), government taxes to pay for new infrastructure or, alternatively, tolls and other charges that private corporations have been all0owed to impose on us by the Victorian Government. How could we expect not to become more indebted and more enslaved if we allowed our population to keep on growing as the Committee for Melbourne would have us do?

admin

Tue, 2011-02-22 18:47

Mary asked me to post the following on her behalf. - Editor

I want to remind Andrew MacLeod that he says he is planning Melbourne for 8 million people and that I heard him say at a public forum that we have to increase the population otherwise how do we pay for the infrastructure we need. In addition he said as quoted in the Herald Sun that he was "appealing to the MORAL SENSE of emptynesters" to leave. I mean moral sense. So it is a moral issue to quit your house?. Further he says 'they SHOULD be encouraged to downsize for SOCIETY'S SAKE'. Does Andrew MacLeod have the moral sense to realize what effect his words have had on some of the seniors who have been calling me on the phone? How vulnerable it makes them feel?

Andrew MacLeod should realize that we are not a communist state.

Further editorial comment: Mary Drost's words are borne out by the content of the following newspaper article: Call for elderly to give up homes (page 1, page 2, all). See also: Lobby group calls for older couples to give up family homes, Melbourne set for eight million people in 2051, Time for Melbourne to think about its population surge. In the poll incorporated in the the article Melbourne set for eight million people in 2051, 76.79% of respondents or 1019 said No, Melbourne could not handle 8 million people, whilst only 23.21% said Yes, Melbourne could handle 8 million people. The Committee of Melbourne's plans to impose massive population growth on Melbourne is clearly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Melburnians. The majority would be even more overwhelming if so much pro-population growth propaganda were not pushed down our throats by the daily newsmedia, politicians and lobby groups such as the Committee for Melbourne.

Mary (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-22 13:21

A decrease in population growth rate is NOT a decrease in population. It's a decrease from the boosted rate of 2.2% in 2009, due to Kevin Rudd's "big Australia" push. In their first year, newborn babies grow a big way, with most tripling their birth weight and increasing their length by about 50%. However, this rate cannot continue. There are limits to growth. Bigger is not necessarily better.

No species, or natural community, can continue growing indefinitely. Growth is only one stage of a life-cycle. Melbourne may have grown fast in the past, doubling in 50 years, but - like living vertebrates - the bone structure (infrastructure) would fail ultimately, and shorten lifetimes.

Editor's comment: 'Mary', who wrote this response to Andrew McLeod and the Committee of Melbourne, is not the 'Mary Drost' referred to in the article by Sheila Newman and by Andrew McLeod. In fact, Mary Drost has asked me to respond to Andrew McLeaod with her words on her behalf and I have done so in another comment. Thanks to both Marys and to others for your insightful responses. - Editor

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-02-22 10:54

How magnanimous of Committee of Melbourne! To slow growth and not FORCE older people out of their homes? Older people like their family homes, their gardens, being close to amenities too. Even if they want/must downsize, why should their homes become development sites - as would be likely? Considering that those promoting growth are comfortable in leafy suburbs, and mansions, why shouldn't they enjoy their homes without being manipulated by guilt? Andrew MacLeod can't understand why Mary Drost doesn't listen? Its because even at 1.4% per year growth, we DOUBLE our numbers every 50 years! How's that sustainable on a shrinking planet and declining Victoria? As Al Bartlett said, people have an evolutionary inability to comprehend exponential arithmetic. Housing affordability - and all the other "shortages" we hear about - would be solved by population stability, and a sustainable economy - not one addicted to misanthropic and unsustainable growth.

Andrew MacLeod (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-22 07:37

Subject was: downsizing - Ed.

I think it is unfair of the authors of this blog (and the H-S) to misrepresent a policy position and to needless scare older Australians.

The idea of Committee for Melbourne is NOT to force anyone anywhere. Indeed we suggest the application of a policy currently operating well in Canberra and apply it to Melbourne.

What is the policy?

To give stamp duty relief to those who CHOOSE to downsize. When my grandmother CHOSE to move from home to an aged care facility she was whacked the full lot of stamp duty. Surely, if someone chooses to move to an area that has better infrastructure for her needs (aged care). [Completion of sentence missing - Ed.]

This idea is about removing disincentives for people who chose to downsize.

Also, Committee for Melbourne is NOT 'promoting faster growth'. We are indeed encouraging SLOWER growth.

We had a population growth spike of 2.2% in 2009. Melbourne's 50 year growth average is 1.65%. Committee for Melbourne's estimation - to plan for needed infrastructure - is to decrease (that is right DECREASE) that to 1.4% pa.

If you people treat people who agree with you, like you are treating me, then ask yourself how you will achieve your goals.

Mary Drost knows all of the above. I don't quite understand why she doesn't listen to it.

See also: comment of 20 Mar 2011, Committee for Melbourne CEO wants to debate and discuss. - Editor

VivKay (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-22 05:57

Humans, due to misanthropic political design, are making us into a plague. The evolutionary drive to deny land and habitat to even endangered species is evidence of humanity's predatory characteristics. All species have an evolutionary drive to take dominance over other species and increase their share of resources, but humans just do it better than others. We are victims of our own evolutionary success, and will eat away our future.

Barry O'Farrell's recent policy announcement that the Liberal/Nationals intend to open up Western Sydney to even more urban sprawl, if realised, will have a huge impact on Western Sydney's bushland remnants. How can he support it's conservation and urban sprawl at the same time? How big does our "herd" have to be to ensure our ultimate survival? Large herds are clumsy, and prone to be inflexible, vulnerable natural disasters and over-consumption.

Any development on the ADI site will likely push many plant and animal species to extinction.Toxic urban sprawl is denying opportunities for indigenous flora and fauna to survive our onslaught. Our governments are driven by not only evolution, but armed with monetary power from developers' patronage.

Once the petri dish is full and overflowing, and resources consumed, all that will be left will be the polluted juices as reminders of our existence.

Editorial comment: Humankind's current practice of destroying the future prospects of other species and, through that, ultimately its own future prospects is ultimately caused by the undemocratic imposition of the will of humankind's greedy elite. rather than the will of humankind as a whole. All opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Australians don't want high immigration and don't want unending population growth. Yet it is somehow being imposed upon us to suit Australia's selfish greedy elite, who, perversely, are able to enrich themselves from what must make Australians as a whole, on average, much poorer. Even the greedy who are able to gain from population growth, surely can't gain that much as it could only become politically more difficult to take a larger share of the wealth that is needed by ever larger numbers of people, that is, unless, they have plans, they have not shared with the rest of us, to take away the political rights of the majority of Australians. The indefinite continuation of the current exponential rate of population can only destroy the future prospects of the descendants of every human being alive today, including the descendants of greedy elites who are pushing population growth. Even in the Third World countries, which are driving most of the world's current population growth, that is, China and India, it seems highly unlikely to me most want unlimited population growth, certainly the most informed and educated people don't want it. If the majority of humankind are able to take away the power of greedy vested interests, who are the principle cause of the world's current population growth, and control its own destiny, then we have every reason to hope for sustainable future with a stable world human population.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-02-21 14:59

Bayer AG and the death of the birds by F. William Engdahl http://www.voltairenet.org/article167544.html#article167544 Believed to be behind the decline in bee populations that has swept across many parts of the world, a new class of insecticides marketed by German chemicals giant Bayer AG is now suspected of causing the decimation of bird species. It is so effective at killing insects, that it has deprived birds of their basic food. F. William Engdahl points an accusing finger at a system where corporations fund the research, the scientists and the government agents, thus making sure all the cards are stacked in their favor. Comment contributed by Val Yule

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-02-19 18:45

The 2003 fires burnt large tracts (tens of thousands of hectares) of alpine country in both Victoria and NSW. Historically, fire in alpine environments has been infrequent, with many decades between fires. After the 1939 fires around Melbourne there was a demand for timber, and this increased access to the Alpine area. The combinations of events that are needed for alpine country to burn - an ignition source, prolonged drought, and severe fire weather - occur only several times per century. However, it is exacerbated by human impacts. The Esplin Report of the Victorian Government Inquiry into the 2003 bushfires concluded that the incidence of fire was not reduced by high country grazing. There was fire again in 2009, not "decades", but increasing fire risks are part of climate change scenario. A government "investigation is being pursued through a 6-year scientific research program, commissioned by the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The program will closely monitor and assess cattle grazing as a fuel reduction measure, including the nonfuel reduction impacts of grazing in the Alpine National Park. Six research sites have been carefully selected to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts". Surely the integrity of the Alpine National Park is under more threat from 400 hard-footed polluting cattle than fires? "The research program is being conducted in accordance with the National Parks Act 1975. The government is focused on delivering the best solution to the very real issue of bushfires in Victoria". Most fires are started by people. People going into the park must use public toilets, sometimes pit toilets. The cattle are except. The allowing of cattle into a National Park, and this "research", is a political decision, not based on science. Farming and grazing are commercial activities, and incompatible with the purpose of National Parks. What could there be to research? Cattle trample wetlands, plants and they have been shown not to help stop fires.

sarakellany k. (not verified)

Sat, 2011-02-19 16:06

A better future for the aquatic life. The annual Japanese whale hunt in the Antarctic has been derailed by harassment from anti-whaling boats. A global whaling moratorium hasn't stopped Japan from whaling as it contends that the practice continues for the purpose of science. The Sea Shepherded Conservation Society has been driving Japanese whaling ships insane with harassment and in general the Japanese couldn't care less about whether they eat whale meat or not.

nimby

Fri, 2011-02-18 19:24

The Japanese government's suspension of their "research" on whales is ironic as there are no valid scientific reports on their findings. Japan was never interested in our opinions, the ecology of whales, or the Antarctic environment. Their only research results have been demographic in nature - age, sex, species and numbers- to support ongoing commercial whaling. These results don't require decades to complete or thousands of dead whales. Japan was never doing "research" on whales, or environmental studies. It was a smoke-screen, promoted by the IWC, and unchallenged by our government. When we hear cruel incidents like mass killing of dolphins in Denmark as a festival, mass killing of seals and dolphins in Japan as a part of entertainment and "tradition", it goes way beyond the question of immorality. All applications for approval of the use of animals in teaching or research on animals in Australia - and it should include Australian territorial waters - must be considered at a meeting of the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science (IMVS) Animal Ethics Committee (AEC), appointed by the Minister of Environment and Heritage, the Minister responsible for animal welfare. It seems that Japan is above the laws that require animals in research to be euthanised humanely (this excludes harpoons) and not in sight of other animals. The Code of Practice for the care and use of animals in scientific research provides general principles for the care and use of animals, specifies the responsibilities of investigators and institutions, and details the terms of reference, membership and operation of AECs. It also provides guidelines for the humane conduct of scientific and teaching activities, and for the acquisition of animals and their care, including their environmental needs. Any scientific research in the Antarctic must be non-invasive and non-lethal and approved of BEFORE hand. The IWC gave an approval for Japan's "scientific research" without a scientific basis. The JARPA 'researchers' insist on using lethal methods not because they are necessary but because they supply whale meat to the markets in Japan and offer an opportunity to train new crew, thus keeping the whaling industry alive. According to the Scientific Committee of the IWC, data such as the age of an animal (obtained from earplugs) and the reproductive status and history of females (obtained from ovaries) can be obtained only by lethal methods. The question is whether these data are really ‘essential’, ‘reliable enough’ or ‘critical’ to justify the taking of the whales that are studied? The only results of Japan's research have been demographic - to support ongoing "harvesting'. The gentle harassing tactics of Sea Shepherd, supported by generous sponsors, and the threat of legal action, hopefully will end Japan's smoke-and-mirrors illusion of lethal scientific "research" permanently. Time for the crew of Sea Shepherd to open the (vegan) champagne for this season, at least!

Milly O (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-18 17:23

The idea of older people being lured to give up their homes, their lifestyles, their property, for the benefit of those wanting the convenience of living near schools etc covers the real reason - profits! While Andrew MacLeod and the Committee of Melbourne ostensibly are interested in community welfare, they are really interested in profits from the property market.

Many older families have adult students and children living at home now, due to being displaced - refugees - in their own city. How are young people supposed to ransom their lives, their futures, for half a million dollars to buy a home? How are families meant to live in apartments?
Those pushing for growth, for the "benefit" of accommodating people, are themselves feathering their own nests, but expect the rest of us to make altruistic sacrifices!

We already have a new suburb in Melbourne - Fisherman's Bend. We can't keep opening new suburbs, or keep sprawling out and rising higher in the skyline! Humans are intent on eco-suicide? With so many uncertainties this century, such as peak oil, energy melt-down, climate change, erratic weather, world food scarcity, why are we depending on population growth and property development for our economic survival?

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-02-18 14:34

Cheaper milk and livestock prices means that farmers must recoup their money from somewhere. The most vulnerable in the supply chain are the animals. Bobby calves have no voice, not status, no rights. By allowing more "efficient" handling and 30 hours without food, they are to bear the burden of cheaper milk prices. Also, cows themselves.

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-02-18 14:31

On the contrary, people living in environmentally friendly single dwellings with front and back yards should make them an insurance against declining living standards and keep them. We need to save our suburbs from high density living and family-hostile apartments. The magnanimous plea from the Committee of Melbourne that older "empty nesters" help young families by moving out and letting developers in is ironical for the fact that they themselves are living in leafy suburbs with large houses and blocks! What morality have they to impose such ideas when they are only interested in lining their own pockets? Single houses with front and back yards should not be assigned to history! They are part of our heritage, and symbol of the Australian way of life - the back yard clothes line, the BBQ, the playground, vege patches, gardens, entertainment, privacy etc etc. By expanding our urban boundary, by accommodating higher density housing and covering green wedges, we are allowing more people from interstate and overseas to add to our population. There must be a limit, and housing is our right. We don't want to end up like Sydney - a city ruined by overcrowding, lack of infrastructure, and congestion.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-18 13:28

I calculated that the house indicated above is sitting on 0.22 acres about 900 sq metres, just shy of the classic 1/4 acre block. Bernard should be compelled to sell his backyard and frontyard to make room for a younger generation, and also lease out those extra spare bedrooms to accommodate population growth. Note that many new estates on the urban fringe make do with only 300-400 sq metres. So you would think that people in high amenity areas of the inner suburbs of Melbourne should be able to make do with even less if you use Salt's logic.

nimby (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-18 12:57

Coincidentally, Kevin Rudd and his wife have just bought a massive, opulent, luxurious "holiday" house on the Gold Coast. It has all the excesses of Magabe's mansion, and more. Due to his support of "big Australia", more people have become displaced and homeless, and suffering from mortgage stress. Not only that, there are homeless people in Queensland due to the floods. While the general public are supposed to downsize, and accept smaller living spaces and apartments magnanimously for the greater good, we have our growth-pushing leaders leading the race for upgrading and adding to their expansive wealth. www.smh.com.au/executive-style/luxury/kevin-rudd-splashes-31m-on-holiday-home-20110217-1axay.html Rudd said in a statement in 2007 that he and his family had stayed at the house several times. "We liked the house and were interested in whether we could buy it one day." According to his story, he was made homeless as a child for a short while and had to live in a car. This experience has obviously not taught Rudd and his family any lessons in empathy or social justice!

quark

Fri, 2011-02-18 11:01

The thrust of Andrew McLeod's and Bernard Salt's streams of consciousness are that ordinary Australians have a moral and community obligation to leave their homes thus liquidating probably their most valuable asset- for the sake of people to whom they are not related and who they do not know. Selling a house is a business transaction normally undertaken at the seller's convenience and in exchange for the maximum amount that can be fetched for the property. Salty and Cloudy appear to be trying to inculcate a new strain of political correctness and social pressure that it is good manners to leave one's house at the convenience of others who have been champing at the bit, waiting for an unpleasant change to someone's circumstances. Such changes of circumstance make people vulnerable to selling at a time which may not be optimal for them. In the dubious "reasoning" of Salt and McLeod, there is a community obligation on the part of the widowed more often than not female but is there any mutual obligation ? Having moved out of their house to accommodate unrelated strangers is there an obligation to the widow on the part of the new family moving in ? e.g promising to move on when her children or grandchildren need the same accommodation? There was a suggestion that stamp duty which is now crippling because of the inflation of property prices due to excess demand due to population growth, should be reduced for altruistic vendors such as the widow . How lovely! Would this amount saved make up for increased value of the house forsaken by the person's estate over say 10 years? Since these commentators speak for the growth lobby they must be hard nosed and they need hard nosed reasoning thrown back at them.

Agent Provocateur

Fri, 2011-02-18 06:08

Yes, and I have another story: my son was run over at work - he required massive surgery to save his leg and eventually got a payout - which the lawyers got a big slice of. He does not own a home and had to live off the pay out for 18 months before he was allowed to claim Centrelinks benefits. He couldn't buy a home, because he didn't have an income to support a loan for the balance. He also had to pay for retraining in a new field of work - he couldn't go back to his old job. Then the tax department contacted him wondering why he hadn't put in an Income Declaration for 2 financial years - they told him he had to put in a Declaration which would indicate interest earned off his payout: a whole $1,130.00. But we can afford to send millions? Billions? in over seas aid - but when there is a disaster at home or several disasters - the government's solution is to tax us more. A solution to the worsening standards of living in Australia is perhaps to 'not buy into it' - i.e. don't buy a house - buy a mobile home or Recreational Vehicle' and deliberately become of 'No fixed Address' ! Much cheaper than a conventional home - every mod con including a fully functional bathroom. Singles or small families can become transitional workers - making life an adventure and a permanent holiday. ... The less you have to lose.. the less you have to lose... I intend to take my own good advice - conventional homes aren't built the way they used to be and are certainly not worth what they are charging for them. Not so long ago a house worth $250,000 - $300,000 got one a view of the ocean or beautiful bush setting. Now it wouldn't buy a high rise cubicle or 'renovator's delight' Ugh! No, I'll continue working - buy that RV and keep my income in that RV - not in the bank where it can be watched. Worry about being robbed? Yes, that's why I won't be keeping the money in a bank.. and has it occurred to anyone that we no longer have 1 Cent pieces? I get no change from something priced at $3.99 - so should I grab a handful of grapes and nuts every few months to make up for the accruing 1c that the shop keepers have helped themselves to? Robbery at till-point is being done by the shop-keepers and business owners - not by armed robbers! If you can't change the World's View - change your own - do some reassessing - give yourself a 60-40 deal - in your favour - not someone elses !

Agent Provocateur

Fri, 2011-02-18 05:25

I've seen some of these hi-rise cubicles - many without even a balcony to relieve the impression of imprisonment. Studios , they are touted as. A room with a bed and whatever else you can stuff in the room. These' horrible, often dingy and miserable catacombs are selling for over $200,000. I should know: I worked in real estate -briefly. If one wants a one-bedroomed 'apartment' - expect to pay over $300,000 - and probably without even a car space - although you might get a squishy little balcony in which to grab some real air! If you see a real estate agent with a brochure or get invited to a real estate Talk Fest banging on about the benefits of squeezing yourself into an early, living grave in order to pave the way for some self-centred youngster or greedy developer - slam the door or run as if your life depends on it. Your (Quality of') life does !

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-02-17 23:55

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY-: Whatever will benefit Australia - that we are for;
whatever will harm Australia - that we are against. William Lane :-

[Ed. Article was originall published

on 17 Feb 2011. The following has been edited because some of the assertions and their tone could put the author (and candobetter.net) in line for defamation. We therefore communicate the names of the people who have been nominated for the award, but in some cases leave readers to find out more for themselves. Those, who wish to, may view the original PDF document linked from the Awards Page of the web-site of the Australia First Party, Victoria]

PRESS RELEASE

Recipients Of
The Prime Native Australian
Australia Day Award
For 2011 Announced

THE ORDER OF THE TOAD

John Hewson

Anna Bligh

Exhibiting the qualities of a Money Changers Quisling through enforcing the transfer of
the Public Wealth of Queensland to corporate interests in accord with the Globalist Agenda

Sarah Hanson Young

[Ed. terminology here a little strong and we don't have the background to know if your generalisation would stand]

Colin Barnett

Undermining the environmental integrity of the pristine Kimberley Region through land acquisition procedures to serve corporate greed and [Chinese]

exploitation of Australian resources.

Kristina Keneally

Excelling in the qualities of a Money Changers Quisling through enforcing the transfer of the Public Wealth of New South Wales to corporate interests in accord with the Globalist Agenda

AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY
Identity - Freedom - Independence
P O Box 223 Croydon 3136. National Contact Line 02 8587 0014 www.australiafirst.net email: ausfirst[at]hotmail.com

Voting for other than AUSTRALIA FIRST is now just a waste of time

Mary (not verified)

Thu, 2011-02-17 17:28

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has rejecting a rising tide of criticism directed at the policy of European leaders who have condemned multiculturalism as a failure- as he unveiled a new multicultural strategy. He said we have a "unique, Australian multiculturalism, built differently to other models around the world." Really? www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/chris-bowen-unveils-new-strategy-on-multiculturalism/comments-fn59niix-1226007226044 He wants to increase support for the Australian Multicultural Council, which will now act as a "champion for multiculturalism". It sounds like another population myth, to support mass immigration. Our own brand of multiculturalism is just the same as those in Europe, but wearing different underpants! We are already multicultural and represent many different ethnic groups, and all sorts of diversity. This sounds like another population myth - that we need more multiculturalism! What we need more than ever is a way to boost unity, and a strong Australian identity. We don't need more immigration to do so. Ongoing "multiculturalism" is a euphemism for mass immigration to support "big Australia", something that we don't need considering the myriad of global and local unknowns and threats this century. Migrants should integrate. We can't have a social "glue" that also celebrates separateness and diversity. It's an oxymoron. Our western liberal values are completely at odds with Islamic draconian ideals. Why should we "tip toe" around our attitudes, our words, and values? He should be aware that most European countries now regret their multiculturalism agenda and are now paying for it with high social security costs, slum neighborhoods, social division because of non integration. possible home-grown terror cells. There is a rising anti-immigration movement in Europe, and "Europeans" are becoming a minority.

admin

Thu, 2011-02-17 09:52

Consumer "choice"

In truth, much choice that consumers should rightly expect in a competitive market does not exist.

Why is it that it is impossible to buy high technology devices that have standardised parts[1] and in which all the parts are durable beyond only a few years? Why is it that so many computers and peripheral devices are very hard to run to their full capacity or at all without and which don't depend upon the installation of expensive proprietary mostly Micro$oft proprietary software?

All this is what many consumers would want and should be easily possible within the technological and financial capabilities of manufacturers, yet nearly all choose not to and force consumers to buy computers which can be rendered useless by the loss of a small part which is very hard and expensive to replace and which are only expected to last a few years.

If the theory behind our supposed 'free market' competitive system causing consumer needs to be better met had any substance, then consumers would easily be able to buy good quality, durable and simple-to-operate high technology equipment. The fact that they are not able to can only be explained if manufacturers must have colluded to the point necessary to ensure that none offer such products to their consumers. (See also article by Sheila Newman Supermarkets acting as a cartel against farmers, cows and the rest of us.)

Democracy confused with capitalism?

I can't see where Vivienne Ortega has confused democracy with capitalism. Certainly, contrary to the Cold War propaganda that we were fed for decades whilst 'Communism' was seen to pose a threat to capitalism, 'capitalism' and 'democracy' aren't the same. (They should not be mutually exclusive either, but in practice, they usually seem to be.)

I find it striking how little 'democracy' is discussed by the mass media these days other than when it, of political necessity, describes our system of government as 'democratic'.

Rarely do we find the term 'democracy' used in articles or commentary habitually produced by our media in praise of our political leadership for making 'tough' decisions against the known wishes of their fickle constituents, the most striking of which have been the privatisations of publicly owned assets, almost invariable opposed by an overwhelming majority of public opinion-- Telstra, Government owned, Insurance companies, Government owned banks including the Commonwealth Bank, government owned electricity generators, public transport, etc.

In fact, nearly every such 'tough' decision has been demonstrably harmful to the public interest and economic efficiency.

If Australia had been run in a truly democratic way for the last four decades, there can be no doubt that much more would be still owned by the Australian people, we would be more prosperous, there would be little poverty (and much more of our natural environment would have been preserved).

Footnotes

1. Admittedly, standardisation would be hard to achieve in a true free market system and would, in fact, require collusion, even if a more benign form of collusion, amongst manufacturers. This is one field in which government regulation would obviously benefit consumers and make our economy more efficient. (In fact, German manufacturing is standardised today because of decisions made by Hitler. For all that man's monstrous crimes against tens of millions of Europeans, he should at least be given credit for that.)

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2011-02-17 03:29

A problem in a lot of this analysis is the confusion of democracy with capitalism. The USA seems to use the two words interchangeably and to treat corporate invaders as missionaries for democracy, when all they are doing is forcibly marketing the religion of consumerism. The public in the so-called democracies thinks that 'choice' is a 'human right' that is protected in Australia (read the Human Rights Inquiry). "Choice" has been marketed this way by commercial interests. Democracy has also been marketed by commercial interests. Why do we fall for it? Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

KaitlinB (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-15 20:40

Natural gas or alternative gas is what we aim for nowadays. But at some point, this leads us to harm like natural gas explosion. I think this can't be avoided but it can be prevented. Only if people know its pros and cons. In Allentown, Penn., one person is dead and 5 is missing due to an explosion. The explosion took place around 10:45 p.m. local time. At least sixteen homes have been ruined by the still-burning fire. 6 homes, at least, have been wrecked as well.

nimby

Tue, 2011-02-15 08:51

Mr. Sen said his writings on famine frequently noted the problems India has had in feeding its people, and he was baffled by the amount of attention his comments about famine and democracy had received. Mr. Sen's views about famine and hunger were reviewed by Dan Banik, an Indian-born political scientist at the University of Oslo. He found 300 starvation deaths in six months in India in the desperate Kalahandi region of Orissa. Mr Sen said there has not been a large-scale loss of life since 1947, only small numbers - not hundreds of thousands of deaths! The Indian government has a national network of ration shops, but they have been undermined by widespread corruption and distribution bottlenecks. During the Bengal famine Mr Sen experienced as a child, he found that food production in Bengal had not declined. Rather, food prices had soared while farm wages had sagged, making it hard for rural workers to buy food. Even more recently in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, Mr. Sen found that they, too, were caused not by food shortages but by lagging rural incomes. Today Ethiopia is democratically governed, but as many as six million people remain dependent on food aid from abroad. In August 2008, the head of the dictatorship in Ethiopia flatly denied the existence of famine. There are millions of fertile hectares of land under “lease” or sold outright to foreigners to feed millions continents away when millions of Ethiopians are starving. Foreigners in democratic countries? Belief and adherence to democracy is no cure-all for problems like hunger and illiteracy. Overpopulation may cause poverty, hunger and water shortages. Overpopulation may cause violence and war. Overpopulation may cause refugee flows. Democracy may not be enough to protect us from famine any longer. We can't negotiate with our planet. Earth is a bounded sphere, and human population growth and consumption growth will eventually be reined in. We must give up at least some human rights if we are to avoid nature's solutions to overpopulation - famine and disease and conflict over limited resources. In April, 2009, head of dictatorship Zenawi gave an interview in which he openly admitted that famine is rearing its ugly head once again in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. According to Sen, such a thing would be unthinkable in a functioning multiparty democracy! International organisations, politicians and the media talk about “food insecurity ”, “food scarcity”, “food insufficiency”, “food deprivation”, “severe food shortages”, “chronic dietary deficiency”, “endemic malnutrition” and so on just to avoid using the FAMINE word. Maybe part of the reason why democracies avoid wholesale famines is their ability to compromise and exploit overpopulated and developing countries corrupted by lack of leadership. Amartya Sen believed that a country need not force upon its people the concept of family planning. In Kerala, a state in India, he says, democratic discourse has helped bring down fertility rates. It has had a dramatic fall in family size, lowest birth rate, low infant deaths, and the women outnumber men. It has adopted a holistic approach--commitment to reading and writing, female literacy, good health care, better working conditions, supply of food to school children. As a result fewer children die; families are also smaller. Yet, Kerala has the highest unemployment rate and morbidity rate (suicides, tension, heart attack). People above the poverty threshold have long since realized that two kids are just enough. There is more complexities today than lack of democracy and corruption. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index hit an historic peak in January, protests against swollen prices seemed to erupt together across disparate corners of the developing world. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen, India, Mexico and Bolivia have all experienced turmoil. If climate change starts to affect agriculture, that would have bigger consequences beyond food security, disrupting the economy itself. Egypt is the biggest importer of wheat and it's not going to produce its own, yet their population continues to climb. Read more: Food shortages caused by global warming may be cause of world-wide unrest - Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_17372948#ixzz1E0RWBery We have climate change, population peak, peak oil, depletion of soils and limited potable water all converging this century. Food supplies grow slowly, Malthus said. But consumers multiply like rabbits. A geometric progression outstrips an arithmetic one every time. Every scene of malnutrition and starvation revives the old Malthusian fear. Even if the planet can carry another 2.3 billion people, the equivalent of another India and China, where will the food come from?

Mary (not verified)

Mon, 2011-02-14 17:32

Italy has declared a humanitarian emergency after thousands of asylum seekers sailed across the Mediterranean Sea from Tunisia, overwhelming authorities. People have come from nearby Tunisia, in the wake of the country's revolution recently. A brewing famine is an advantage for Islam as they will be able to immigrate to Europe and call "racism" if they are denied. This is despite high unemployment in Spain and Italy already. Food riots going on in countries like Egypt will mean access to Europe and more opportunities for immigration. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen famously said that famines do not occur in well-run, democratic countries. The same is almost always true for cholera epidemics. Thirty years ago Amartya Sen wrote a report showing famines were not caused by a shortage of food. He was 10 during the Bengal Famine of 1943. He said that many human beings, if not most, could survive on 15% less food than they ate the year before (easier for some of us than others). People die of starvation only in areas with no free media.

tim

Mon, 2011-02-14 07:10

How appropriate. I just spent 3 days camped out in the paliative care ward at the Richmond Hospital. Mum was one of the few caucasians present. This is the place where the elderly chinese (recently brought over via family reunification) come to die and largely at our expense. The tax on the medical system is impressive ... The good Canadian (Habs fan) orderly is thinking of heading to Saskatchewan to escape the intolerable housing market in Vancouver ..... I advised him that even there, all its not good due to the recent ramp up in migration/immigration to that province. K

Mary (not verified)

Sun, 2011-02-13 10:45

The news has been overwhelmed by stories of suffering, dispossession and deaths due to Queensland's floods and cyclone. Disasters reveal the extremes of good and bad in people. Cassowaries are under threat now, even more than before as limited habitats have gone. Even Anna Bligh came out with glowing reports of her support during Queensland's recent trials. However, little is said about the heroes of animal rescuers, and the horrible consequences of disasters. We know of someone in St Andrews who had a herd of lovely alpacas, about 100, and they all died in Black Saturday's inferno. Their deaths would have been horrific. These sensitive, intelligent and gentle animals would have had no defence against the heat and smoke and flames of the fires, and they would have been trapped.

nimby

Sun, 2011-02-13 09:10

The lessons of decline of electricity supply due to privatisation in Victoria, and the consequential effects, should have been taken by NSW before their fire-sale. Victoria's State Electricity Commission (SEC) generated and sold power to Victorian consumers from 1926 to 1998. In every single year it reduced the real price of power to customers. The SEC ensured cheap and safe power management for Victorians. The Victorian Liberal Government of Jeff Kennett in the 1990s decided to sell the SEC to a private power-generating company to pay off some of Victoria's debt. It was assured that the company would do a better job than the SEC, and more cheaply. The SEC also trained thousands of apprentices in electricity and other workplace skills.The SEC (Vic) used to have its own apprentice intake twice a year, now that they don't exists the apprentice numbers have dropped, at a time of Australia's so-called "skills shortages". Many of these highly skilled tradesmen found their way into the wider workforce. In a similar manner, the SEC also trained engineers and other skilled workers, not all of whom chose to remain in the commission's employ but became independent tradesmen. Either way, the community got the benefit of skills-training provided by the SEC. The current privately-owned generating companies do none of this. What is favourable about privatisation of electricity generation and distribution is simple — public ownership allows too much bargaining power to electricity workers and their unions. Privatisation bypasses the public's grass-roots level political powers. The idea of privatisation is that competition will mean that prices will fall, service reliability will be improved and governments will be able to use the income from privatisation on public infrastructure, and paying off public debt. It's not about service and ownership, but profits and free market forces. In the tragic Black Saturday bush-fires, some fires were started by poorly maintained power lines. The SEC maintained its generating and delivery systems in pristine condition. Private companies can neither afford to do what the SEC did, nor can they ensure back-up electricity generation to help with demand surges. The sale of the power industry was about politicians selling off long term benefits for short-term gain. Private companies are there to make profits, not provide a public service. What appears now is a collusion between electricity sellers, and it appears that we have a monopoly not of public owned provider but between privately owned companies. Competition is stifled and we end up with less services and increasing costs! With a price on carbon, the costs will be passed onto consumers. Prices could even double! Now, there are issues with Brumby's ill-advised Smart Meters. They are mandatory. That imposes serious obligations on those who are forcing them into 2.5 million homes and businesses. Whistleblowers are stepping forward. They say training is inadequate, and supervision rare. It's made worse because 75 per cent of installers are paid per job, not by salary. Installers are under qualified, and they are using Indian subcontractors. There are reports of badly installed meters, causing threats to safety. Smart Meters are supposed to be more efficient in tracking energy usage, but they also allow energy retailers to charge more for electricity during times of peak demand. Unless you work night shift and sleep all day, and most people don't, you'll almost certainly end up with higher electricity bills once you get a smart meter. People at home during the day will get slugged the most - pensioners, the unemployed, stay-at-home parents and people who work at home.

admin

Sat, 2011-02-12 22:39

Floods and fires have rendered many people homeless and carrying debts for useless properties. Insurers are raking in money from these situations. It is obvious that disaster is good for big business (which governments invest in) and bad for small business and ordinary people, about whom governments and political parties seem to care very little. We don't need to go overseas to find climate refugees. That is the irony. I recently received an email about the huge disparity between the vast amount our government gives to overseas disaster aid compared to the quite small amount that it gives local disaster victims. The figures were striking. I didn't republish it because I did not want to appear to endorse begrudging disaster aid to anyone and because most disaster aid finishes up in the construction industry's pockets. This is a really hard area to find solid ground in. Sheila N

admin

Sat, 2011-02-12 20:29

Chapter 2 of Jim Saleam's The Other Radicalism: An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right Ideology, Politics And Organization 1975-1995 seemed to me like a very well well-reasoned examination of the use of far-right wing groups by the Australian state against left-wing groups and anti-war movements from the end of the second World War through the 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and beyond, until I read the following:

A Special Projects Section (of ASIO) carried out individually crafted operations to enervate the Left, with ‘Operation Whip’ targeting the anti-war movement (1969-72) to ensure it did not foment urban-guerrilla warfare.

It is not believable that Australia's national political police force ASIO (the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) could have truly feared "urban guerrilla warfare" by domestic left-wingers. It is not believable if the words "warfare" and "guerrilla" mean what they are normally taken to mean, that is deadly violence with guns, explosives and other lethal weapons (and not just street fist-fights between rival political groups).

Those, who who would have had the most to fear from "urban-guerrilla warfare" would have not been ASIO or the authorities but, in fact, genuine left-wingers, anti-war activists and other progressives.

In fact, the democratic rights that we enjoyed back then -- our rights to protest, vote, to free speech, to join, participate in and campaign for political parties and to stand for elections ourselves -- made it possible to end the Vietnam War, end the loss of lives of Australian servicemen and the far greater loss of Vietnamese lives and throw out the Federal Liberal/Country Party Government that led us into that war as we did in 1972. (Of course, Australian democracy has taken many turns for the worse since 1972, but what happened then shows just what was possible and what may be possible again if we keep cool heads.)

If any group had actually started "urban guerrilla warfare" in the 1960's and 1970's, it would have provided the authorities an excuse to repress opponents with prison or worse, to take away their rights to free speech or possibly even to abolish democracy altogether.

Why would any right-minded Australian left-winger have taken that risk by engaging in "urban-guerrilla warfare"?

If a campaign of "urban guerrilla warfare" had actually been launched, it would have been safe to assume that those behind it would have been either deluded patsies or else agents consciously seeking to undermine the anti-war movement and democracy.

It is of concern that Jim has apparently been taken in by what could only have originated as deliberate disinformation. Let's hope that this mistake is quickly realised, acknowledged and explained and that his generally excellent writing contains no other pieces of harmful disinformation.

nimby

Sat, 2011-02-12 08:19

Melbourne and Sydney have the highest cost housing in the world. Our property market has opened up to international buyers so foreigners can build and buy new properties and be landlords, or have points towards immigration and live here. The outer urban fringes are where people could still buy almost "affordable" housing - or cheaper than normal - but (mainly) Chinese investors, and a smaller number of Indonesians, are being encouraged to buy and thus keep the housing industry afloat. Developers court overseas buyers amid fears of greater urban sprawl The Age Feb 7 MAJOR builders and developers on Melbourne's urban fringe are selling up to half of some new housing estates to overseas investors and those hoping to migrate to Australia. Australians are being priced out, but well-heeled foreigners can take their place and potential home-buyers be by-passed in their own country. Globalisation is economic treachery! Our biggest industries in Australia today relies on population growth. The fact that for most of us we are getting poorer and we are being priced out of home ownership/renting is a sign that our government cares little for the average people and families. Australia is on the downhill decline due to competition with outsiders, population growth and globalization. Being homeless is not about trivial "whinging". It's a basic human right. We still hear that "Aussies never had it so good"? These people must be very young! Australia used to be the Lucky Country with the highest level of home ownership in the world. Housing used to be cheap, and even working families could afford them - and even "holiday" houses - something unheard of now except for the wealthy. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Australia used to be wealthy. We "rode on the sheep's back". Poor leadership, globalisation, population growth, greed and destruction have all impacted on our way of life for the worst. "Homelessness is nothing new"? It used to be mainly marginal groups, but now families with children are the biggest group of homeless. The demand for public housing is escalating. This generation are mainly naively unaware of just how Australia has declined.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-02-11 23:16

Thanks, John Marlowe and Jim Saleam, I will be sure to read the documents Jim Saleam has linked to with interest and an open mind both ways. I certainly concur with John Marlowe's comments about the social welfare system. On at least two occasions in my life when I was out of work through no fault of my own I could not bring myself to face Centrelink, even tough I knew I was legally entitled to support. Instead, I lived on my savings on one occasion and money I had received for my share of equity in mortgaged house after a break-up on another. Astonishingly the daily Murdoch press still periodically tries to whip up public resentment of Centrelink benefit recipients. An article, in last Friday's Herald-Sun made the lying claim that unemployed could live comfortably in a share house when even those on professional incomes are struggling to meet the rent. Not long ago, married couple with a child in a half-house flat next to me broke up. The rent had been jacked up repeatedly in recent years. Whilst this may not have been the only cause of the break up it certainly would not have helped. During the 2008 Queensland elections, in which I stood as a candidate, I met a women on unemployment benefits who had recently lost her secretarial job. She was sharing not just a house, not just a flat, not just a room, but a bed with a person she was not even intimate with. No journalist covering this issue could be unaware that anyone receiving only the pittance of Centrelink entitlements, could not possibly be living in anything but poverty.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-02-11 23:04

Meanwhile the real drain on taxpayers is not the unemployed or pensioners, it is the property developers who drive up the cost of land and everything with us and make us all poorer in every way. We should demand much better treatment for the unemployed and ensure that their savings are not sacrificed and that their mortgages are frozen whilst they have no incomes.

Milly O (not verified)

Fri, 2011-02-11 18:24

The assets limits for Centrelink benefits, not including your own home, used to be over $400,000, but now it is now less than $200,000. Anyone who has savings, or investments, is being penalized. You are on your own. This means that unless the savings are put into an government approved superannuation fund - one that they can control - you must dip into your nest egg. Capital must be liquidised for running costs. It bars baby-boomers and anyone who has had the ability or salary to save. The only people who can get benefits now are refugees, the very poorest and marginalised, or the young. Family situation For Homeowners For Non-homeowners Single $181,750 $313,250 Couple (combined) $258,000 $389,500 Illness separated (couple combined) $258,000 $389,500 One partner eligible (combined assets) 258,000 $389,500 Going to Centrelink is invasive, and revealing every detail about your assets to the last detail, revealing every bit of income, lining up for appointments, checklists, and job agencies is one designed to humiliate the genuine unemployed or retrenched. Our society is being divided into a a disadvantaged, impoverished underclass by importing skilled workers from oversea. Poverty becomes a trap. It's about saving money on education and poaching the ready-skilled from oversea.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-02-10 14:50

Subject was: From Inky Stephensen - 1939 Issue of 50 Points for Australia

AUSTRALIAN CULTURE: Point 2, “for Australian culture; against imitativeness,” implies an obligation upon all Australian individuals, whether as private citizens or as components of the Government, to foster the growth of a distinctive National Australian culture in Australia, as a means of preventing intellectual and biological decline; for a nation without pride in its own traditions could not endure: and it is the distinctiveness of culture and custom which differentiates one nation from another, and thus creates National Unity, National Consciousness, the pre-requisite of National Survival. Lacking a distinctive Australian culture, Australians are nondescripts: and the utmost to which they could aspire would be to excel in imitation. By seeking to conform with cultural habits originated elsewhere, Australians brand themselves as uncreative mediocrities, despised by those they imitate. The opportunity to establish and maintain a distinctive Australian National Culture is thus the opportunity to establish and maintain a distinctive Australian Nation. If this opportunity is declined or shirked, the Australian community will vanish from history, without trace.

Editorial comment: Thanks for this. Related links I obtained from a crude 'Google' search include:

P. R. Stephensen by Kerry Bolton

'Their Ultimate Absorption': Assimilation in 1930s Australia by John Chesterman and Heather Douglas

Eras Journal - Georgina Fitzpatrick, Inky Stephensen's internment ... (PDF)

PERCY REGINALD STEPHENSEN (PDF)

Bandicoot

Thu, 2011-02-10 10:34

The NSW Government's $5.3 billion electricity sell-off was a News- Yahoo - "mad dash for cash" carried out with "appalling" timing, says a former director of a state-owned energy company. Overall the deal netted the state government $5.3 billion, an amount heavily criticised for being poor value by the state opposition.

Editor: The original article was published in the Australian here: "Chaos hits $5.3bn NSW power sell-off as directors on two boards quit in protest " therefore we cannot publish it on candobetter.net. I will put this ammended version of this comment on the front page as an article because it is important.

It goes on to say that the NSW Greens are going to "introduce legislation in the next parliament to return the electricity industry to public ownership and stop future governments selling assets without the approval of both houses of parliament, Greens MP John Kaye announced on Saturday 5th Feb.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8206806/nsw-greens-vow-to-reverse-electricity-sale

Wish the Victorian Greens and the Queensland Greens would stand up on their hindlegs over privatisation as well.
We have previously carried a few speeches by John Kaye on this issue.

Here is what John Kaye has published on his website:

Welcome to the website of Greens NSW MP John Kaye

John Kaye is a Greens member of the NSW Legislative Council

Stop the Power Sell-Off

  • All power privatisations are bad for the economy, employment, hoNSW not for sale_small.JPGusehold power bills and the environment.
  • This power sell-off is particularly bad: profits from the sale of electricity are being handed over to the private sector, but many of the financial risks remain with the public.
  • Reducing NSW's contribution to climate change will be much more difficult and expensive if the private sector has control of the generator outputs. The power industry creates 40% (60 million tonnes CO2 per year) of this state's greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Household power bills will increase as the gentraders seek to make more profit.
  • Jobs will be lost after the protection period expires. Call centre work will be sent overseas.
  • NSW is losing a valuable income stream worth much more than the $5.3 billion sale price. The assets that have been sold return $750 million a year which pays for teachers, nurses and hospitals. The structure of the sale (gentraders), uncertainty about the future of carbon prices and the brewing international economic storm have minimised the sale price.
  • Secret deals to subsidise coal prices for the gentraders mean that NSW taxpayers will be footing the bill for years to come.
  • The Keneally government has no mandate to sell the gentraders or the retailers. Privatisation was not mentioned during the last election.
  • Opinion polls show that the people of NSW oppose electricity privatisation. Parliament has an obligation to tell the government they should cancel the contracts and keep all of the power industry in public hands.

Some points about the transaction:

  • The resignation of the directors of the state-owned generators is a measure of how uneconomic the deal is for NSW.
  • Proroguing parliament and intimidating inquiry witnesses show that the Keneally government has much to hide.
  • The people of NSW have a right to know what Treasurer Roozendaal and the Keneally government have done to their power assets.

It's not too late to reverse the sell-off

The Keneally government has walked away from the mess they have created leaving NSW with a dysfunctional electricity industry.

The unsustainable mix of private gentraders at some power stations and public control at others can only be resolved by reversing the original sale.

The collapse of the second wave of sell-offs will make it easier to bring all of the state's coal-fired generators back under public control.

Take action! 

Send an email message to be sent to members of the NSW Legislative Council ('Upper House') to voice your opposition to the Treasurer's power sell-off and to call for the sale to be reversed.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-08 01:14

Subject was: The UK Today----And The UK To Come----Will It Be Our Fate Too?

Britain's Police State in all its grim unglory.

Things you wont see on the news;

UK SS (Social Services) kidnap one more child from his house

www.stateintervention.com

Editor's coment: Thanks, for the interesting links, but could I suggest that commenters also at least write short notes which provide some introduction to the material being linked to. In fact, the
About page of the web-site http://www.stateintervention.com linked to above provides what seems to be a clear, level-headed and reasonably succinct summary of the material on that site and behind the disturbing scene captured on the You Tube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JinZDKglVdQ&feature=related . However the video with a length of almost 15 minutes could have used a bit of editing and explanatory comments. It shows a father and his son, confronting in their own home, police and social workers trying to take the boy away, which happens at the end of the video. I would certainly be interested in hearing how the police and social workers in that video justify themselves. In the "about" page Mark McDougall concedes that "Sometimes, Government intervention is necessary in order to maintain order and the safety and security of children." He immediately adds:

However, all too often, the children who really need help from the Government are being left to rot in horrendous conditions. And all too often the Government over react in an inhumane and immoral manner and persecute innocent families who should be left to live in peace.

Milly O (not verified)

Mon, 2011-02-07 18:30

We are suffering from reverse-racism! The scheme to allow foreign investors to buy into the property development and build within two years is not in the interests of Australians, the voters who elect our governments. It's proof that they don't care one bit for the people of Australia. We are living in a faux democracy. Like the supposed "skills shortages" and the "ageing population", it is another insidious scam to drive up immigration and us hurtle towards a "big Australia". It ignores peak oil, environmental degradation and land clearing, climate change and more extreme weather, peak oil, pending food shortages, bulldozing of our food bowls, the blowout costs for potable water, and fails Australians trying to afford a roof over our heads. The outer suburbs were the last place families could almost afford to buy into the property market, and now well-heeled Chinese and other foreigners - denied home ownership in their own countries - will be able to lock young Australia into the same predicament. We are often accused of being racists in Australia, but we are actually being discriminated ourselves, due to being politically manipulated and silenced. Globalising our housing will mean more Aussie battlers, and more hardship, poverty and land-less-ness. We are not a sovereign nation any more but a province of China! Wake up Australia and do something about it before we all compete with the global community and simply be the trash of Asia-Pacific region.

Bandicoot

Mon, 2011-02-07 12:21

Major builders and developers on Melbourne's urban fringe are selling up to half of some new housing estates to overseas investors and those hoping to migrate to Australia. Developers court overseas buyers amid fears of greater urban sprawl Simonds Homes general manager of sales and marketing said foreign buyers were helping to create jobs in Victoria and boost new housing supply at a time when building activity had plummeted. The solution? Sell to foreigners and lure more immigrants here! For the sake of keeping developers' donations flowing to their election funds, politicians are selling our country to foreign landlords. So, you can now "buy" a visa; that's just how it is. Owning a property gives more points to PR. What about the problems we'll face in the future? The Australian govt appears to not give a damn about the citizens. A report recently showed that Australia has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world. Why is this? It's because we have high levels of immigration. House prices are out of control in this country and it's only a matter of time before they come crashing down or Australia becomes another province of China! Australia is not a sovereign country. It is merely an economy that must be fed no matter what the consequences. We are being sold out to the highest bidder. We are facing increasing homelessness and impossible demands for public housing. We've got so many citizens and residents who've already committed to this country and want to buy homes, they don't need any more competition from those who want may or may not at some stage in the future think about the possibility of moving to Australia. Immigration is good for politicians. Immigrants come from countries that have never had it as good as we did, so they don't realise how bad our politicians are. If you are not an Australian citizen you should not be able to buy any property or business. Just like what happens in other countries. Australia is a paradise but that is fast turning in a cesspit. How does selling houses for foreigners help us? Production and ideas are the power-house of a healthy economy, not urban sprawl! Once peak oil, food and water scarcity and climate change all hit us, Victorian will suffer.

nimby

Mon, 2011-02-07 11:38

Letter from DSE 12 Jan, 2011 The ATCW issued for the NMIT Eden Park campus considers the need to provide for a sustainable kangaroo population in the area, minimise the detrimental impacts on biodiversity values due to overgrazing and reduce impacts on NMIT's enterprises at the site. Surely if the NMIT have livestock and are advertising a "green" agenda, then how are kangaroos "detrimental" to the biodiversity? The "overgrazing" is a blatant lie. The grass was almost knee-high, when seen in December, and the grazing pressure of kangaroos is only a fraction of that of even a sheep! On the contrary, kangaroos help the management of native grasses and limit fire potential. Your concerns and comments are noted. Since your correspondence, the ATCW permit issued to NMIT has been re-examined. In doing so, there remains no other viable option for reducing the current population without simply displacing the problem to adjoining land owners, who have also expressed concern over the kangaroo numbers. No other viable option remains? Landowners want to benefits of living in a wildlife rural area in our urban reaches, yet don't want the "biodiversity values" that go with it. The feral rabbit plague is simply being ignored. What about fertility control, fences, public education on kangaroos and other wildlife, feral animal control? NMIT and DSE are using high calibre rifles to "manage" wildlife as the easy and cheap option.

Bandicoot

Sun, 2011-02-06 13:31

Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned Britain's long-standing policy of multiculturalism as a failure, calling for better integration of young Muslims to combat home-grown extremism. Multicultural policies need replacing, says Cameron He showed marked change in policy towards Britain's ethnic and religious minorities, saying the "hands-off tolerance" of those who reject Western values had failed. He urged a "more active, muscular liberalism" where equal rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and democracy were actively promoted to create a stronger national identity. While a healthy cultural diversity is stimulating and brings a sense of global identity, once minority groups comprise a large proportion of the mainstream population, fragmentation of society causes dis-unity. "Diversity" does not make a good social "glue". Starting from December, floodgates will open to muslims from Albania and Bosnia, undoubtedly flocking to the benefits-rich UK. EU to Open the Muslim Floodgates in December In another article Europe is dying , go to any children’s store in Amsterdam or Milan or Marseilles or Stockholm. Look at the Muslim women in headscarves. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life report, the total number of people who identify themselves as Muslims is currently about 1.6 billion. That figure is expected to rise to 2.2 billion by the year 2030. Some of the biggest increases in Europe’s Muslim population in absolute numbers over the next 20 years are expected to occur in the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany. The Muslim populations in Italy and Sweden are projected to “more than double in size”. European countries, including the UK , no longer have sovereignty. The politicians and leaders of Europe take their marching orders from the EU. Whenever the government makes rules for immigration/integration they are often overruled by the EU.

Mary (not verified)

Sat, 2011-02-05 17:45

Since the Millenium Development Goals were drawn up in 2000, the world's population has expanded from six to 7 billion, 95 percent of whom were born in poorer countries. By 2050, the total is likely to be more than nine billion, according to UN estimates.

At current growth rates, Kenya is projected to be one of Africa’s most populous countries, surpassing 50 million by 2025. Kenya’s Division of Reproductive Health (DRH) and partners recently launched mass media campaign. “Plan for Yourself a Good Life” focused on changing beliefs and behaviors among peri-urban and rural young men and women ages 25-35, and promoting child spacing and informed choice of modern contraceptives. The U.S. development agency, USAID, has awarded the funds to an international non-profit organization affiliated with Johns Hopkins University.

The overriding factors for rejection and fear are widespread myths and misconceptions about family planning for women and men. A majority of the males indicated that family planning made a woman cold in bed, while many others elicited fears that vasectomy would render them unable to have sex. They held that this would harm their standing in society, as well as cause their spouses to look for other partners.

Health care givers cite the need to dispel such rumours in order to increase uptake of family planning methods.

Kenya needs a Sh5.6 billion investment to meet the shortage of family planning services, ironically partly blamed for the high population growth. When the Millennium Development Goals were adopted, there was not a single target on population or family planning access.

By 2050, the total is likely to be more than nine billion, according to UN estimates.
Periodic progress reports show that many countries are not making progress towards the goals. Continued population growth is a major challenge. The Roman Catholic Church, politically powerful throughout the continent, continues its opposition to birth control and family planning.

Emphasis added. - Editor

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-02-04 07:26

To the contrary, I don't see why it should have been predictable at all. That any group is able to profit, and not lose, from making fellow members of its society society on average poorer, as increasing the population surely must in any country with finite resources, is a sign that the economy must be highly dysfunctional. Any economy which allows people, such as land speculators, who produce absolutely nothing of any use to any other member of society, to profit so greatly, cannot be healthy. The natural disasters that Australia has just endured has made a bad situation even worse. Those who, in the past lined the pockets of speculators and developers with their own wealth (if not the wealth they obtained from others) have lost doubly from the damage to their houses and other personal possessions that they put onto flood-prone land which they paid inflated prices for. It is past time that the laws were changed so that only those who contribute substantially to society are able to prosper. Those, who today profit from harming the welfare of others, should consider themselves lucky it the rest of society shows itself willing to support them with the equivalent of today's Centrelink unemployment benefits. If that were done, the pressure on our political leaders to impose population increases on the rest of us would no longer exist.

quark

Thu, 2011-02-03 23:55

When it is so obvious that people have settled in places that are flood prone, which usually means there is a shortage of more suitable places to settle which means overpopulation and then you hear these opportunists howling for more migrants, it is extremely predictable and annoying.

M Ginseng (not verified)

Thu, 2011-02-03 17:07

Our so-called "aging population" is a result of big families in the post-war era, and post war immigration. For every boost to population, there is inevitably a corresponding demographic result further down the track. Adding people now, through immigration, will cause the hump to continue, and thus we end up in an addiction cycle. Lack of skills, high number of aging, need economic stimulus, housing slump? Add more people! We get an addiction cycle and our fates become sealed by culture, economics and what habitually worked in the past. Probably the tipping point of famine, peak oil, overpopulation, climate change has already passed. Humanity's momentum will continue to drive the cycle to completion, and a new Age in our planet that will not include humans - or only a few.

nimby

Thu, 2011-02-03 09:06

Ban Ki-moon: World's economic model is 'environmental suicide' The world's current economic model is an environmental "global suicide pact" that will result in disaster if it isn't reformed, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, warned recently. He doesn't mention "capitalism" but criticizes growth. "We need a revolution," he told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on how best to make the global economy sustainable. "Climate change is also showing us that the old model is more than obsolete." Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general made global warming his personal mission, is ending his hands-on involvement with international climate change negotiations. Obviously, capitalistic nations like Australia are incapable of facing climate change. We are one of the greatest per capita emitters, but at the same time are intent on maximizing our population. He called the current economic model a recipe for "national disaster" and said: "We are running out of time. Time to tackle climate change, time to ensure sustainable … growth." Surely "growth" and "sustainable" are inherently contradictory? Bill Gates, said that "you cannot have a just world by telling people to use less energy than the average European". One way to cap the world's consumption and carbon emissions would be to invest in family planning said Gates, who has invested much of his fortune in health projects in the developing world. Ban said that political and business leaders need to embrace economic innovation in order to save the planet.

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2011-02-02 23:35

Thanks, Enne K, Tim and other contributors. The philosophy referred to as cornucopianism should be condemned totally. Beware, however, of accidentally giving cornucopians undeserved credibility whilst seeking to demonstrate their foolishness. They should be shown up as criminals, not fools. Cornucopianism is self-evidently even more intellectually and scientifically bankrupt than, for example, the literal upholding of the book of Genesis or the belief that the earth is flat. No scientifically literate and numerate person could believe that the planet could be better off, instead of worse off, if human population were to grow beyond the current 7 billion, when, for most of human history until barely more than 300 years ago, the number of humans inhabiting the planet was less than 500 million. To maintain that the earth today needs yet more people is barely less idiotic than to argue that in 1942 the 2,600,000 inhabitants of the city of Leningrad needed, above all else, more inhabitants to fight the besieging Germans. By the end of the 900 day Siege of Leningrad, an estimated 642,000 civilians had died, mostly through starvation. This was on top of the Red Army's staggering 1,017,881 starved, killed, captured or missing around Leningrad. If the Soviet authorities only had to use their common sense to know that adding more people to the population of Leningrad during those years would increase the humanitarian catastrophe, why are so many of today's world political and economic leaders determined to further increase planet Earth's already vast human population? If these 'modern' plans to keep on stimulating human numbers are not stopped, then all the horrific tragedies of the Twentieth Century, including the Siege of Leningrad, which, together, cost an order of 100 million human lives, will seem like school yard scuffles in comparison to the terrible fate that will inexorably overtake many billions of humans. Any educated and numerate person who seriously advocates further increasing human population is in my view, criminal. In practice, the outcome of what they are doing, if they are not stopped, will make the worst criminals of the 20th Century -- Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Franco, the Rwandan Genocidalists, etc. -- seem humanitarian, decent and civilised by comparison. Enough digital ink has been spent trying to show up the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of cornucopianism. It is time that we treated this as self-evident and instead focused more on naming the cornucopians and using their own words to show them up for the cynical criminals that they surely must be.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-01 19:07

Having female "bobby calves" would not stop the excess number of baby calves unwanted by the dairy industry. Not all of them could be accommodated into dairy herds. The cruelty of the dairy industry has been kept secret for too long, and the health risks of humans being unweaned even as adults. Dairy cows are forced to produce ten times the amount of milk they would naturally, due to genetic selection and high protein feed. People don't feel uneasy about eating veal, and the demand would still continue. Milk and dairy products are bad for humans too. They are linked to obesity, pimples, wind, diabetes and cancers including prostate, breast and ovarian cancers. The only natural milk for humans is human breast milk - something that is often substituted for cows milk.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-01 16:46

Dating back to 1868, US citizenship was provided to almost all babies born in the United States. (The children of foreign diplomats are excluded). In the terminology of proponents of tighter immigration rules, children born to illegal immigrants are "anchor babies," meant to ensure legal status for their parents and prevent their deportation. The phrase adds a toxic element to the immigration debate but it is misleading. Until such children reach the age of 21, they cannot sponsor their parents for legal immigration status. That has not stopped an anti-anchor baby movement from gathering momentum. Among developed western nations, as defined by the World Bank, only Canada and the United States still grant automatic citizenship at birth to anyone born on their soil. Earlier this month at Washington, D.C.'s National Press Club the State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of legislators from 40 states, unveiled its strategy to end the policy of giving automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States regardless of their parents' immigration status. According to Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken- "For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship". The result of that is that anchor babies immediately acquire the right to full benefits, everything from welfare to cheese, which increases the costs to the states. The basis for birthright citizenship is the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, which says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Time to change the 14th Amendment!

tim

Tue, 2011-02-01 14:40

Anonymous, Now, now. We can't talk about patriotism now. That is something that the smart set and the rootless cosmopilitans of the New Class regard as quaint at best and 'xenophobic, racist and nativist' at worst. In fact, two generations have now be taught to believe that like Socrates, they are not 'Athenians' but 'citizens of the world'. So to demonstrate that kind of global citizenship, we need to keep our doors wide open so that the world can help itself to our candy store. To turn them away would send out the wrong signals. We need their cooperation to fight global warming. And haven't the Green-Left told you? The 'workers' have no country. They belong to the working class of the world with whom they are enjoined to unite with. Loving the land that you were born in, gee, isn't that what the Nazis promoted? And as we all know, anything that the Nazis did or believed automatically makes it wrong. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Tim

tim

Tue, 2011-02-01 14:27

Bandicoot. Interesting. I have long referred to the environmental establishment as "The Green Pharisees" and their fixation of 'green living habits' as "straining out the ghnat but swallowing the camel" of runaway population growth. Moreover, the most damning characteristic of these Pharisees, both in Christ's time and ours, is their hypocrisy. Glad someone else sees it in precisely those terms. Tim M.

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-02-01 11:08

Many people find it difficult to understand why the dairy industry is cruel. After all, cows produce milk naturally and milking seems a relatively benign procedure.

Cows lactate for the same reason as all mammals, including humans – to feed their babies. To produce milk in profitable quantities a dairy cow must be made pregnant every twelve months. Cows and their calves form strong bonds and the separation causes intense distress to both.

Despite industry propaganda, cows’ milk is no more necessary to human health than is elephants’ milk or dogs’ milk. Did you know that humans are the only animals who drink the milk of another species, and the only animals who drink milk after weaning?

A high Calcium diet including a high intake of dairy products has been encouraged in conventional Osteoporosis programmes. However, some question this approach based upon concerns for the acid alkali imbalance hypothesised to occur with a high dairy diet. The argument is that the acidity in dairy and grain foods needs to be buffered in the body and the mechanism for this is the release of calcium carbonate from bones. Hence it is suggested that high dairy diets actually lead to a secretion of more calcium from the bones. There is a wide health industry in dealing with Osteoporosis, and a loss would not be in their interests.

For decades we have been bombarded by the milk co-operatives, large corporate milk farming enterprises, and milk producer associations to the effect that you must drink milk if you want to be strong and healthy…that cow’s milk is high in bone strengthening calcium and all those other good things.

Now they have multi-millions of people believing this lie.

Well, the truth is, the only milk that is really healthy, and does all those good things the milk producers claim and more, is breast milk. When an infant is weaned, it is time to get off breast milk, and to never have cow’s milk----period!

Professor Loren Cordain, PhD, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Colorado State University, says the latest bad news for cow’s milk is that it causes spiked insulin levels as well as increased prostate cancer risk. Drinking that glass of milk sent their insulin levels soaring. That’s bad stuff, especially if you are a diabetic, overweight or obese.

There are vegan cheeses too. Check out this page on the Vegetarian Network Victoria web-site (http://vnv.org.au).

Many people who try soy milk for the first time do not like the brand they try and from then on label all soy milk as disgusting and avoid it altogether. Rice milk is another readily available dairy milk alternative that is well worth a try. There are also other milk alternatives available including Oat Milk, Almond Milk, Hazelnut Milk, Walnut Milk, Quinoa Milk and even Grain Milks (made from combinations of wheat, soybeans, oats, rice, triticale, and barley). Again, these milks all have quite different flavours so try several types and brands to find one you like.

quark

Tue, 2011-02-01 10:12

Sex sorting of sperm should be used to ensure maximum number of female calves are born so that the veal industry can be eliminated.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2011-02-01 09:46

Subject was: For A United Front Thanks, anonymous contributor for pasting the Australia First Party Provisional Management Committee statement of 10th January 2011. As the Australia First Party does not seem to have a workable web-site at the moment, we have published the statement here, together with comments. Normally, it would be preferred if such lengthy documents could be put on the site of the Australia First Party with links from this site. Further comments are welcome.

AimeK (not verified)

Mon, 2011-01-31 15:54

Subject was: Milk susbtitute.

If one likes the taste of "sewing machine oil" then perhaps one might also substitute soy milk for the real stuff, but there are other fact to consider. There have been several reports of adverse reactions to soy and soy products, yet it's found in more and more produce, particularly bread and snack foods. Drinking soy milk has been reported as preventing vital nutrients from entering the gut (malnutrition via malabsorbtion). Many people are allergic to soy and struggle to find products that are free of it. These products are usually more expensive too, even a loaf of bread!!

Many people will argue that soy has been used by the Asian community for thousands of years and with no ill effect, but the soy they used was a fermented product. The soy in damned near everything you eat today is not of the fermented kind.

Anybody interested in the benefits or not of soy should do a bit of research before using it in quantity. This link to soy and thyroid problems should be enough to make you stop and think. The first few comments are well worth a read..........

thyroid.about.com/u/ua/soy/soy-thyroid-stories.htm

Bandicoot

Mon, 2011-01-31 10:36

As Jesus condemned the Pharisees of His day - the religious leaders - for their hypocrisy and their enjoyment of the deference of the public. Many "green" groups can be similarly accused. Pharisees would "strain out the gnats and swallow the camels". Matthew 23:24 In other words, they dissected the minute details of the laws of Moses, and caused hardships for the people by imposing impossible demands on everyday life, but at the same time ignored the "camels" - the woeful boulders of their wrong-doings such as ignoring their adherence to justice and mercy and faith. In other words, they make a big to-do out of the little things and let the big things escape. The climate change and environmental groups are easily as guilty. While they market the need for recycling, of reducing personal greenhouse gas emissions, of planting trees, riding bicycles, taking public transport, compost bins, florescent light globes - all good things in themselves - if they are going to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, we need to stop ignoring the elephant (or camel) in the room! Global population blow-out! ABC Online said on November 12 last year the Japanese government had announced that Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions hit a record high in the year ending March 2008. This is despite their declining population. Cuba’s example makes this same point, but for the inverse reason. From 1990 to 2004, the Cuban population grew by about 1 million or 8.5%. For the same period, total carbon dioxide emissions fell from 32 million tones to 25.8 million tones; a 19.4%. These tenuous examples mean the negative correlation between population growth and greenhouse gas emissions? It ignores another serious related environmental problem, which is that resources are being used up at an unsustainable rate. More than 70% of the world's population growth between 2010 and 2050 will occur in 24 of the world's poorest countries. This will mean more asylum seeders and economic immigration, and increased food aid demands. Australia, as one of the world's worse for consumption level and greenhouse gas emissions, also has the highest population growth rate in the developed world. The brilliant earth systems scientist James Lovelock claimed that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”

Pages

Click to read all comments.