Geraldine Doogue

"Your program and so many on the ABC ignore the real prospect of widespread social, economic and environmental breakdown consequent on a human population having exceeded the long term carrying capacity of Nature. The ABC in its general coverage assumes a continuation of Business as Usual. Climate change, if present trends continue leads to a world 3 – 4 degrees warmer at century’s end. (David Attenborough in his recent TV program on climate change used the figures 3 - 6 degrees.) Together with declines in soil quality, water availability, food shortages and massive biodiversity loss these things have many scientists foreshadowing an imminent reduction in the global human population and a world in chaos."

Dear Geraldine,

Your program re infrastructure on [16 August 2019] yesterday's 'Breakfast' program did a great disservice to your audience. It perpetuated myths not supported by facts and failed to mention the real alternative context in which matters like this must be considered.

As a former medical epidemiologist I am very familiar with statistical analysis. Among OECD industrialised countries there is no statistically significant correlation between rates of population growth and per capita growth of GDP. Among poor countries there is a significant and strong negative correlation between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. It is therefore misleading to claim that population growth is causing increases in per capita GDP, i.e. making the average Australian materially better off. This myth serves the interests of those who do benefit from population growth.

GDP and per capita GDP are themselves misleading indicators of real benefit. The costs, yes costs, borne by people as a consequence of growth of population and expenditure on infrastructure are added to GDP. Travel times are reported to have increased by 23% with increases in fuel costs, car maintenance, insurance etc. These are real costs but are added to GDP. The costs of a growing economy have exceeded the benefits for many years for ordinary people explaining why it is that so many feel worse off even while governments and programs like yours keep telling people they have never had it so good.

Your program and so many on the ABC ignore the real prospect of widespread social, economic and environmental breakdown consequent on a human population having exceeded the long term carrying capacity of Nature. The ABC in its general coverage assumes a continuation of Business as Usual. Climate change, if present trends continue leads to a world 3 – 4 degrees warmer at century’s end. (David Attenborough in his recent TV program on climate change used the figures 3 - 6 degrees.) Together with declines in soil quality, water availability, food shortages and massive biodiversity loss these things have many scientists foreshadowing an imminent reduction in the global human population and a world in chaos. Despite this evident danger every government in Australia and most around the world continue to make decisions based on an assumption of business as usual, that they can go on driving both population and economic growth, the two primary causes of our worsening situation. How do you reconcile that prospect with a continuation of unquestioned population growth in Australia. Climate change is likely to impact Australia's ability to grow food quite severely. We may have difficulty even feeding the present population let alone a much larger one before century's end.

Australia's ecological footprint has varied between 4 and 5.6 Earths over the last decade. Do you really think it morally right for us to go on increasing the total size of our demand on Nature by seeking both to increase our population and our per capita demand (growing GDP as our main goal)? I invite you to do the sums which show that we could achieve more human welfare by massively increasing our foreign aid and addressing that aid primarily toward education for girls, family planning and contraception than spend that some money on more infrastructure in Australia for the purpose of accommodating a much larger population.

Here is a much saner voice on the issue of infrastructure from a fellow journalist, Crispin Hull.

http://www.crispinhull.com.au/2019/08/16/treating-symptoms-no-help-to-australia/

John

In Geraldine Doogue's interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that Ms Doogue accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region. Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

27 May 2015

Dear Geraldine,

In your interview with war strategist David Kilcullen on ABC's Saturday Extra (Blood Year, 23 May 2015), there was every sign that you accepted his point of view without question despite his being someone who works closely with the deadly U.S. war machine in Iraq and the region.

Yes, Kilcullen is an ‘expert’ in that he has spent time in the ME and he has studied terrorism. He is eloquent. He is personable. He is an Aussie: he seems calm and reasonable. But in his work for the U.S. military, what truths does he omit, what ‘facts’ does he invent?

Can he represent the aspirations of Iraqi and Syrian people who want their countries to be united, stable, peaceful, prosperous and free of foreign interference?

Or do their aspirations inevitably clash with powerful interests in the United States? Would Kilcullen’s work with the U.S. and Australian armies compromise him in the eyes of most Iraqis and Syrians?

The fact that David Kilcullen can put on his CV, “In 2003, I did not support the war in Iraq” would be irrelevant to most Iraqis since he has effectively supported the American war machine ever since.

In 1991, American war planes strafed or bombed one to two thousand Iraqi military vehicles on a 60-mile stretch of highway. They killed thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers returning from the disastrous war in Kuwait. It was dubbed the “Highway of Death” and memories of it would be etched in the brains of Iraqis. One U.S. pilot is quoted as saying, “It was like shooting fish in a barrel”.

The fact that the people of Iraq and the region have no reason to honour the United States is a no-brainer.
As a spokesperson for the ME war plans of the American Administration, David Kilcullen will not, cannot, present events through the eyes of the ordinary people of Iraq or Syria, the people who are traumatised, terrified, maimed and killed. In Australia, those who stand up with strong and eloquent voices against war, sectarianism and division are not given a chance to challenge his views.

But who will present their stories and hopes and dreams to the Australian public? Unless we seek them out, we are diminished.

One hundred years ago, the Anzacs swore allegiance to their ‘Lord the King’ and so it was the Imperial plans of Britain they fought for. Today, in Australia, particularly in the media, there seems to be an unwritten, unspoken allegiance to the Imperial plans of the United States.

The Middle East was a world away in 1915. Today, there are many Australians who have an allegiance to one side or another in the wars there. The blood lost there is mourned here. The hatreds simmering there are simmering here, within our own communities.

It is not the time for allegiances to empires or caliphates. To be supreme, both must seek to divide, destroy and brutally kill. Instead, it is the time for pursuing our most precious of human values and for seeking the truth. Only by doing so can hatred, wars and terror be stopped.

How often must we be reminded that ‘No man is an island’?

The charm and sophistry of David Kilcullen, and his reliance on sectarian terms to describe the war in Iraq, are not a substitute for the voices of the people of Iraq and Syria who live in a hell the United States and its allies have engineered.

Iraqi and Syrian people who want to end the terror and war have spokespeople. Let’s not imagine they are unsophisticated natives. Let’s not ignore them. Let’s learn about their lives and hear their voices.

In a video interview in early 2014, Monsignor Jacques Behnan Hindo, Archbishop for Syriac Catholics stated,

There is always fear. There is always anxiety. We live with the same anxieties. We are waiting for salvation. Unfortunately Geneva (2 conference) has not yielded anything yet. And, even more unfortunately, the United States, France, yes, France – and England do nothing except add poison to things …by aiding these opposing … these factions, more than half of which have come from outside (Syria). And when one comes from outside (Syria), he/she does not want what is good for Syrians but rather massacring them. And then they want to declare an Islamic State. And we as Christians cannot accept that. I am not a masochist. I do not accept to get flogged. I cannot accept these people, purely and simply. And when I hear Kerry or Fabius, these people who take their fake humanitarian sentiment, I ask myself: “What are they doing?”…

(A political solution) is always possible. However, the first thing that must happen is for these terrorists to leave. This is an essential condition. And when they are out, we Syrians can come to an agreement. We had already several towns where the Army entered because residents had had enough, and they expelled the foreigners that were in their town. And now they live much more quietly. In our region, it is the same thing … in all the cities and villages of the north. Yes, there are people who oppose (the state). I myself am not that much for the government. However, when I compare what awaits me with these people to what I have today, I say to myself: “I am doing very well today.” And I wouldn’t want to put Fabius in my place... when these people come and occupy the country. I do not want to see Fabius, Kerry, or the others. But they are not supposed to understand that they will never be here. That is why they are screwing around. Excuse my expression. They are screwing all Syrians. I wrote a letter to Obama and I told him that, in his name Barack, there is the word Baraka (blessing). However, when he sent all his fleet, it was to declare war. It was a curse! Between a curse and a blessing, there is a huge difference.

(Question: Are you able to maintain hope?) I am, even physically, very optimistic. And then I always have the hope of Christ. I always believe that even Christ on the Cross had the light of resurrection behind him. Therefore it will come. The torment and the fear might extend for a while, but it will be over. And we shall live. I have a lot of hope. That’s why I tell my people not to immigrate, because we can turn our region, our country, into another Switzerland. There is absolutely everything to make it happen. There is intelligence, money, land… everything. Therefore nothing is missing in order to live a life much better than before, in 2 or 5 years from now.

Sami Ramadani, a political exile from Sadam Hussein’s regime wrote in The Guardian in June 2014,

The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history followed the 2003 US-led occupation, which faced massive popular opposition and resistance. The US had its own divide-and-rule policy, promoting Iraqi organisations founded on religion, ethnicity, nationality or sect rather than politics. Many senior officers in the newly formed Iraqi army came from these organisations and Saddam's army. This was exacerbated three years ago, when sectarian groups in Syria were backed by the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Geraldine, I implore you to challenge your guests, challenge your listeners, and search for other points of view besides those that only serve to indirectly promote more war and more terror in the Middle East.

Saturday Extra no longer allows comments to be submitted to its online page. All old comments have been removed. It is unfortunate Saturday Extra does not welcome dissenting voices from the community. I have created a page online with all my emails and letters to you as well as comments I submitted to your webpage. I will include this message above.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Susan
National Coordinator of "Australians for Musslaha (Reconciliation) in Syria"

CC: some of your colleagues in the ABC

Today, on Geraldine Doogue's "Saturday Extra" (ABC radio national), the wrong impression was given by a British-accented commentator that the GST had been brought in in Australian in a fair and reasonable manner. This is infamously untrue and misleading on election day. Wide-eyed talk of how people oddly resent 'change' ignores the fact that change initiated by the people is resisted adamantly by the press and the politicians.

Geraldine's Saturday Extra on Election day 2010

Today, on Geraldine Doogue's "Saturday Extra" (ABC radio national), the impression was given by a British-accented commentator that the GST had been brought in in Australian in a fair and reasonable manner. This is infamously untrue.

History of Howard's Goods and Services Tax (GST) whitewashed

Howard won the 1996 election promising that he would never never introduce the GST (which had rightly been made such poison by former prime minister, Keating.) After Howard was elected in 1996 he set up a sham parliamentary inquiry to look into supposedly reforming Australia's tax system. One person on the inquiry, Paul Zammit, resigned because he was interested in serious alternatives but found that Howard had planned for the inquiry to ram through a GST. Howard used this inquiry to pretend that an independent inquiry had recommended the GST, weeks prior to the 1999 elections. As a result of a confusing campaign, Howard clawed back into power in 1999, whilst losing the popular vote. On a two party preferred basis, the Liberal Party lost 49.02% to 50.98% [1]. Had more been understood about the GST, the loss would have been greater. Nevertheless, and in spite of a Senate majority opposed to the GST, Howard claimed a mandate to introduce the GST. He was able to get the Democrats leader, Meg Lees, to vote for the GST against the wishes of most Democrats and most of the Australian public. This history shows that the GST was introduced deceptively and against democratic objections.[2]

Change is good?

The election commentary this morning is full of how strong politicians supposedly inflict pain on the electorate for a greater good which the electorate is too stupid to understand. There is also wide-eyed talk of how people oddly resent 'change', but of course people resent change because they have no control over the results and they have adjusted, to their benefit, to what is. Change initiated by the people is resisted adamantly by the press and the politicians.

What a grab-bag of last-minute propaganda surfaces in these desultory election 'commentaries' on the ABC.

Footnotes

1. The two-party preferred vote was originally given as "48.5% to 51.5%". I have since discovered from these pages that that figure was wrong. It was in fact 49.02% to 50.98% - our apologies. 49.02% to 50.98% is still a substantial loss of the popular vote. That was a substantially larger margin than the 1990 two-party preferred margin of 50.10% to 40.90% against Labor. For having lost the 1990 election Howard was depicted a victim of injustice by the Australian newsmedia. - JS, 14 Oct 11

2. For discussion on the GST, see also comment to John Quiggin's article Core Promises of 8 May 2008. See also SMH article Let's have the honest truth, once and for all of 18 August 2004 by Alan Ramsey which was quoted in that discussion. Note that the evidence of John Howard's dishonesty was not challenged on that forum discussion by any Howard apologist.