Comments

(Although I am from Brisbane and not from either Kyogle and Tweed Shires) I agree there should be another rally against the Rally and a good many more until plans to stage this obscenity are abandoned.

However, it takes a good deal of time, effort and money to organise each rally. If you are in a position to lend a hand, as well as to attend the next rally, I am sure that the No Rally group would be more than happy to hear from you. Some contact details can be found in the No Rally Group's "What you can do" page.

You can phone the No Rally Group on 0438 357 452 or the Caldera Environment Centre on (02) 66-721-121.

The No Rally Group's e-mail address is no.rally[AT]yahoo.com

I don't give much for anyone's chances of being able to meet Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to discuss this issue.

Firstly, I think the chances of him wanting to help would be slim.

Secondly, as it is somewhat removed from his own direct responsibilities, it would be easy for him to fob you off.

In my opinion, efforts would be better directed towards people who are in a position to decide the outcome one way or the other, or who are likely to be sympathetic and who could use their public profile to win public support for your cause.

In the former category, I would include Peter Garrett, the Federal Minister for the Environment, any member of the NSW Parliament, and local councillors. In the latter category, I would include Independents and Greens in and, possibly, Liberal or National MPs in the NSW and federal Parliaments.

Hi. I’m Joan Webster, author of "The Complete Bushfire Safety Book" (RRP $34.95) (Random House) and "Essential Bushfire Safety Tips" (RRP AU$29.95) (CSIRO)

So much bunk has been talked about bunkers. One, faxed with fervour through all the media, was designed by a NSW solicitor. A flimsy timber trapdoor set in a timber verandah. An ember could ignite the verandah. If this happened before entry into the bunker, no-one could get in. If after, no-one could get out.

Commercially available concrete cylinders are advertised as being airtight when closed. Shelterers would suffocate. One is designed to be buried below 900mm of earth. How then could one enter it from the top? Is the 900 mm of earth to be shored up to keep the entrance clear? How? And how not create a perfect lodging place for tumbling, burning debris?

A refuge room of whatever kind needs to be well away from the house and reached by a vegetation-free path. It needs to be constructed with fire rated, insulated, reinforced concrete walls and floor, have a roof secured with cyclone clips, an outer metal-mesh screen protecting a fire-rated door and sheltered on 3 sides by a 2 m radiant heat shield, about 5 metres from
its exit.

Inside, it needs:

• a small reinforced spy-window
• pure wool blankets and drinking water
• ventilation

However, scientists have not yet discovered a system to provide both protection from smoke and spark entry and ventilation.

Probably the best use for a bunker is for emergency shelter of the aged, frail and very young, and for storage of precious possessions. Householders really wanting a bunker, should be advised to check the proposed design with the CSIRO Division of Building Research and check their site for suitability with a senior officer of the CFA’s Community Safety Department. Those who have enough money to construct a bunker would do much better to put it into protection for the house, into window shutters, eliminating the roof/ceiling space, building-in the sub-floor and installing low-flow roof sprinklers.

You must realise that while sheltering in a bunker, you cannot know what embers may be doing inside the house.

See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives", which disputes some of the content of this article and comments and "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end".

Joan Webster
A.F.P.A. Community Safety award 1990
Author of:
Essential Bushfire Safety Tips (Random House 2001, CSIRO 2008)
The Complete Bushfire Safety Book (Random House 2000)
In and About Parliament (Parliamentary Library of Victoria 2000)
The Complete Australian Bushfire Book (Thomas Nelson 1986 Penguin 1989)
Gate Crashed (MacMillan 1976)
Manuscript Assessment Service, Mentoring, Effective Writing courses.

Email: jwebster[AT]castlemaine.net

There's some incisive comment here.

There is no excuse for the application of wilful cruelty to any living creature.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

The following was posted here. As I noted in my last comment Professor John Quiggin has threatened to permanently ban me from his site for such 'meta-comments' as this which challenge his earlier deletion of my contributions. It would be interesting to see if quoting the words of President John F Kennedy were to result in my being banned.

Dear Professor Quiggin,

How do you respond to the following words of President John F Kennedy in his speech against secret societies given on 27 April 1961:

"Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy."

By rebuking me for making known to this discussion basic facts relating to the current ongoing war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, by having deleted my earlier post, and by not having responded to questions I put to you on another occasion, it seems to me that you are, indeed, shrinking from controversy.

What if, in response to allegations that North Vietnam was invading the sovereign democratic nation of South Vietnam in the 1960's, I pointed out that most of the 'invaders' were, in fact, Vietnamese independence fighters from the south, who had been duped into being repatriated to the north following the 1954 Peace Agreement, that the South Vietnamese Government was an unelected dictatorship and that even Australia's Foreign Minister Casey had acknowledged that the Viet Minh would have won overwhelmingly, in the South as well as in the North, if the elections scheduled for 1956 had not been cancelled? How is that different from what I contributed to this discussion in regard to the current war in Afghanistan?

My intention was not to hijack this discussion. I contribute to many disucssions on these conflicts and rarely these days do they go off on long tangents. To the contrary, it seems that the discussions are put back on track, usually with a minimum of fuss, because apologists for the Bush administration tend to desist from using 9/11 as a blank cheque to excuse each and every crime of Bush and his allies. If you like, I can show you where this has happened.

If you do decide to permanently ban me from posting to your site as a consequence of my having made this post, then please say so here, so that I can know whether or not to devote more of my time to contributing to forums on this site from now on.

A lot of what Sheila writes I emphatically agree with.

However, much of what Sheila writes is also beside the point.

I have also had to put up with unwanted noise, including dog barking as well as all those others described on many occasions in my own life so I know, from my own direct experience, how it can completely destroy one's concentration.

I can put a number of my own fail grades at University down to the fact that the noise of barking dogs as well as car horns prevented me from being able to study.

As Menkit pointed out, many, although not all, dog owners are irresponsible and have little concern at the misery that their own animals inflict on the lives of others. Sometimes they even go out of their way to make circumstances worse.

If we lived in less dysfunctional communities, we could find ways to curb dogs from barking as excessively as they often do in our increasingly crowded urban slums,

However, we don't and means to respect the rights of people bothered by excessive barking, including myself, need to be found, until such time as we do.

I believe it is possible, for owners with the will to do so, to curb excessive barking and they must be encouraged to do so with inducements, if possible, as I have argued before, or else made to do so.

I am not exactly sure why it is that Paul Scott expects that Tweed Shire residents who have strenuously objected to the Nightcap development will accede to his edict that they "live with" the decision of the Tweed Shire Council to ignore their wishes, but I sincerely hope that the Tweed Shire residents tell Paul Scott where to put his advice.

I wonder what Paul's understanding of the concept of 'democracy' is?

My understanding of democracy, to once again borrow US President Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, is 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'.

What has happened in Tweed Shire is clearly different.

Clearly, the Tweed Shire Councilors, the majority of which have been voted into office on the basis of being supposedly pro-environment and anti-developer, have been somehow got at behind the backs of those who voted them into office and been persuaded to disregard their wishes.

Paul Scott wrote:

It was not the developer who mentioned the work done to rehabilitate the land as assumed by James Sinnamon but by me who just happens to live and work in the immediate area.

This is completely beside the point. In fact, if it was not the developer that supposedly rehabilitated the land, then they would have even less moral right to build the housing estate. As I wrote earlier, many others in the region have also worked hard to rehabilitate the land, but have not presumed that this gives them the right to profit enormously at the expense of fellow residents by plonking a huge residential development in their midst.

So, Paul Scott, do you, or don't you have a direct financial stake in the development proceeding?

Paul Scott wrote:

"Did you know, that we employ up to 20 people for about 40 weeks each year right here in the valley."

But I thought that they were going to build 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 shops?

It seems like far more dwellings than are necessary to house those 20 people to me, even assuming that their work is socially useful, sustainable and will endure.

Paul Scott wrote:

"Surely if the people choose to live at the Nightcap Village they would become rate payers of the Tweed Shire and therefore contribute to the road costs. Also a sustantial part of the purchase price, known as road contribution, of these blocks goes to the council to cover the road costs."

In fact, it is well understood that population growth costs the local community and does not pay for itself. That is why council rates, water charges electricity charges, etc, are going up in South East Queensland as a consequence of the state Government's recklessly irresponsible policy of encouragement of population growth.

Property speculators openly gloat at how they will profit from improvements to land value made possible by the construction of infrastructure at the expense of taxpayers and local ratepayers, not to mention the Federal and State Government's policies to deliberately drive up population at the behest of the Growth Lobby.

Notwithstanding the supposed road contribution, it is unlikely that the situation with Nightcap will be fundamentally different.

Even if it can be shown that the costs can be fully recovered, it should still be the democratic right of local communities to preserve their way of life should they so choose.

If we are to hope to arrive at solutions that are acceptable to people of good will in both camps, then there needs to be some understanding of the needs of those in the other camp on the part of those in each of the respective camps.

What may make it difficult for many dog owners to train their dogs or desex them may be the lack of money and high price for the services.

The high price of many services is probably largely due to the excessive red tape needed by anyone who wants to set up a 'for profit' business. If people who are able to provide such services as dog walking or dog training were able to work directly for local councils and if the Federal Government were to waive the idiotic requirements of Professor Frederick Hilmer's Competition Policy imposed by the Keating 'Labor' Government in 1993, it would be possible for local governments to provide such services far cheaper than would be possible on a 'for profit' basis.

Whether the costs of providing such services should always be fully, or even partially recovered from those receiving the services should be a matter for rate payers as a whole to decide. The advantage of providing services for free and not requiring cost recovery is that the red tape and administrative costs could be reduced still further. Does anyone here remember how simple life was when doctor's properly bulk-billed?

If this helps create more harmonious and pleasant neighbourhoods, then perhaps the cost subsidy on the part of non-dog owners would be well worth the price.

Conversely those who do not take advantage of such services and thereby allow their dogs to bark excessively would get very little sympathy from the rest of the community when they are consequently fined.

We should not overlook that dogs communicate with their distant colleagues by barking. It's not always distress. They have conversations. I am not personally bothered by barking dogs unless they sound distressed, in which case I would go and knock on the door and ask what was going on and call the council if I thought something was wrong.

I do worry that dogs and their owners can be victimised by people who use the law to bully not to help.

That said, I agree with James that our population pressure makes life miserable for everyone - and was totally unnecessary. When I was a child dogs took themselves for walks and it was no big deal. Some do still in my street today, but they are the exception; most lack traffic sense.

We have neighbours on all sides who seem to like to know there are noisy dogs to discourage burglars.

And, give me a loud-mouth but happy dog any day over traffic noise and construction racket.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Some other discussion on the demise of the Tamil Tigers (aka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE) can be found at The end of the LTTE on John Quiggin's blog and Learning from the LTTE from the Indian Express of 20 May 09, which is linked to from the former. The following from within that article seems to confirm my own understanding of the conflict:

"The rise and fall of the Tigers, in fact, is a lesson for insurgent groups across the world. From a gang of 40 boys in 1975, the group rose to achieve a military prowess unknown for any insurgent group in the world. The discipline and determination of its cadre to lay down their lives for the Eelam cause was unprecedented. After 25 years of single-minded devotion and readiness to kill and die for the Tamil homeland, Tiger leader Prabhakaran seemed invincible. But the Tigers failed to understand that war alone is never enough. And at the height of their military success when they forced Colombo to enter into a peace process, Prabhakaran and his group didn’t understand the necessity of the transition from terror tactics to pure politics. History had given the Tigers a rare chance even in a post-9/11 world to sit at a negotiating table and ensure that the Tamil minority gets genuine political and constitutional rights in Sri Lanka. But like several other insurgencies, the Tigers too were blinded by their military success and a false sense of invincibility. Today, the Tamil minority, in whose name the Tigers killed and died, are at the mercy of a ruling alliance in Colombo which is dominated by a Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist discourse. In the process of the Tigers’ humiliating defeat, they took away any semblance of credibility from the moderate political forces from the Sinhalese majority too. The military success of Rajapakasha regime has effectively eclipsed Ranil Wickramasinghe and other political parties who had supported a historic truce with Tigers in 2002.

"Like the Tigers, the Kashmir insurgency also had several opportunities to understand the world’s changing political realities, halt violence and take a moral high ground on a negotiating table. But each time, the opportunity provided by a military success was lost with a complete underestimation of the power of the state."

It would interesting to contemplate whether the ransacking of Sri Lanka by disaster capitalists which followed the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami as described in "The Shock Doctrine" could have been resisted if the peace negotiations had been allowed to continue.

My understanding of the situation is that the Tamils were 19th and 20th C immigrant labour imported by British colonials to work colonial tea plantations. Some Tamil business immigrants also came. The local Sri Lankans resented the occupation by the British and the British stealing of their land for tea plantations. They certainly didn't appreciate the Tamil immigrants, many of whom were eventually repatriated in their thousands. The situation bears similarities to the problems caused by Colonial engineered mass immigration, with citizenship rights in question. I would like to know more about land-rights and citizenship there. My recent reference source is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Country_Tamils#Disenfranchisement

British imperialism sure has a lot to answer for, especially where mass immigration is concerned: Israel-Palestine; Sri-Lanka; Fiji; Australia; Canada; Africa; India.... Stuffing up land-rights and imposing new laws. And still it goes on, in the form of the economic shock doctrine and the Growth Lobby - right here. And it will get worse and worse.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page