You are here

Miscellaneous comments from 20 April 2012

If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed by other articles, please add your comments here.

Comments made on previous "Miscellaneous comments" page from 23 March 2012 can be found here.

This page of comments has been disabled. Please add further comments here. - Ed, 5 MayIf you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed by other articles, please add your comments here.

Comments made on previous "Miscellaneous comments" page from 23 March 2012 can be found here.

This page of comments has been disabled. Please add further comments here. - Ed, 5 May

Comments

Demonstration turns nasty in Perth as protesters march against fracking. The rally was organised by community group No Fracking WAy.

See Perth's first anti-fracking rally turns ugly

Fracking involves the high-pressure injection of chemicals into the earth to extract gas. It pollutes the water and soils. As such, it should be banned. As fossil fuels become less available, more desperate and more extreme and damaging methods will be used to extract the last bit of coal, gas and fuels. There's no long term social or economic benefits it the land and water is destroyed in the process. It's for short-term gain only. Miners and developers have far too much power in government and are cash-up with enough funds to bribe their way to get permits that override public welfare.

Protest spokesperson warned unconventional gas fracking ``threatens catastrophe for water supplies and quality, health, climate impacts and air and soil contamination''.

Why should these people have their communities destroyed, with land and water poisoned and wrecked for the economic benefit for mining companies? Polite protest emails, letters, rallies, talks with politicians are usually ineffective and ignored.

It's not pretty to riot, but eventually democracy has to be made to work when communities and protesters are desperate enough.

Over a quarter of Australia's medical staff are overseas-trained but is that proving detrimental to the developing countries some come from.

The head-hunting of foreign doctors has left some impoverished nations desperately short of medical personnel and Australia stands accused of having blood on its hands. Gelukspan Hospital in South Africa was built by Christian missionaries, but it's a dangerous shortage of medical personnel. There should be 11 doctors here, not two. The magnanimous generosity of past generations, and support for missionaries, has turned into a predatory stealing of the best and brightest medical graduates for our own benefit. It's a saving of costs in training, to the detriment of the sourcing countries. Across Africa, the continent is bleeding doctors faster than it can train them.

There are some African countries where there are only 60 or 70 medical practitioners in the whole country and more than half of them are working overseas. It's a question of morality overtaken by economic interests, just like the live cattle and sheep export trade.

No-one is arguing about the rights of doctors to decide where to work, but if doctors are trained a the expense of their nation of birth, they should be obliged to work in their own country for a minimal number of years before they can be lured away to Australia or other developed country.
Gavin Mooney, Health economists says its the fact that a rich country like Australia is at the moment dependent on taking, poaching, stealing - whatever word you want to use - doctors from sub-Saharan Africa, from South Africa is unethical.

According to South African Dr Bushy Bella, "You see, the state spends money, about six million - about half a million to subsidise you through schooling, and then somebody takes you. It's a loss. It's a loss on investment. So basically, we are just being robbed. And we get nothing in return".

Doctors need to be bonded to stay in their country some 10 years, or Australia should send and replace the lost doctors with our own trained ones. As a first world country, Australia should be at the fore-front in medical training and expertise and by sending out doctors, nurses and educators to the developing world, not poaching them here!

Australia stands accused of poaching African doctors ABC

Since 1959, Cuba has invested heavily in health care and now has twice as many physicians per capita as the United States and health indicators on a par with those in the most developed nations - despite the U.S. embargo that severely reduces the availability of medications and medical technology. Since 1998, 7150 Cuban doctors have worked in 27 countries - on a proportional basis this is the equivalent of the United States sending 175,000 physicians abroad.

Cuba has the highest doctor-to-population ratio in the world. Cuba has over 80,000 doctors, and has sent more than 30,000 Cuban doctors to work abroad, in 40 countries around the world, such as Haiti, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Australia is more concerned about using universities as businesses, as economic resources, by importing foreign money through international students!

Millions of French who voted for anti-immigrant, anti-European far right Marine Le Pen have been surprised. Marie Le Pen is the leader of the far-right National Front, whose anti-immigration, anti-EU rhetoric struck a surprisingly large chord with more than 18 per cent of the votes.

"...we have exploded the monopoly of the two parties" she said. That's what we need to do here in Australian elections. The Lib/Labs have a monopoly here for too long, and their sameness is boring.

We also share the "populist parties" in Europe with a debt crisis, anger over harsh austerity measures, joblessness and ailing economies. The stress of high economic immigration is causing rising costs of living, mortgage stress, homelessness and compromising our jobs market. Accusing parties of being "populist" is just about dismissing them as not being in the interests of those in power who have had their growth-based, open-border anti-"racist" agendas pandered too for too long.

The Washington Post said the (National Front) FN's strong showing had reflected "the extent of discontent at the increasingly visible presence of Muslim and other immigrants in France's Christian-rooted society."

She represents the hard-right party, supported by voters' sensitivities over France's Muslim population, estimated at up to six million.

Several EU nations, from Sweden to Finland and the Netherlands, are swinging to the far right, while others remain strong in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and Hungary.

The younger Le Pen appeals to the same fears about immigration, ethnic integration and crime by foreign-born youngsters but she also speaks more often than he did about jobs, education and school discipline.

This is taken from the Global Research article Economic Analysis: Neoliberalism in the Arab World, Rural-Urban Migration and the Destabilisation of Agriculture of 25 April by Professor Ali Kidri.

Between 1980 and 2010 the share of the rural to total population in the Arab world dropped significantly from about 60 percent to around 40 percent. In absolute terms, an estimated seventy million people left the countryside to urban centres at home.[1] This conservative estimate is nearly equivalent to the total number of rural-urban migrants since the beginning of the twentieth century until 1980. While this exodus was occurring, the regional rate of unemployment was rising and the share of labour in the form of wages fell to around a quarter of national income.[3] By 2007, the Arab League declared that more than half the Arab population was living at less than the two-dollar per day benchmark.[4] Basic food production was decreasing and food imports were rising in this high per capita food dependent and scarcest-water area globally. Around half the population in the Arab world was spending more than half of its income on purchasing food.[5]

...

Footnotes

[1] Summary of essay presented to workshop on ‘Agriculture & Food Production in the Shadow of the Arab Oil Economy,’ Amman, Jordan, 28 Jan., 2012

[2] These are very conservative estimates based on fixed coefficients of population growth and rates of rural-urban migration. These estimates do not include migration outside the Arab world. A middle range estimate would put this figure at around one hundred million. The rationale for my calculation has to do with the constancy of certain rural population characteristics. ‘In most Arab countries, there has been little change in rural fertility in the past and the prospects of its appreciable drop in the next 10 years are remote; despite a fall in infant mortality rates in rural areas, life expectancy is not projected to increase significantly in most rural populations of the region, and major declines in both fertility and mortality in Arab countries have been largely limited to urban areas; and in the absence of reliable data, the best and perhaps the safest course for making rural population projections by age is to assume a constant rural population age structure for the period 1980-2015.’ The Demographic profile of Arab Countries Ageing Rural Population, United Nations, 2008.(2 missing from text - GT.)

[3] KILM, ILO, various years.

[4] Unified Arab Report, League of Arab States, 2007.

[5] http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/05/27/000001843_20110601143246/Rendered/PDF/P126506000AWIFS000PID000Concept0Stage.pdf

...

On johnquiggin.com I have yet again found that my comments have been selectively subject to moderation, and their publication delayed long enough to prevent them from being linked to in the "recent comments" section at the top right hand side of the web page. So when Professor John Quiggin eventually approves their publication, very few visitors to his site are likely to get to read my posts. (See below, for apology by James Sinnamon for what could have been taken as an implication that Professor John Quiggin intentionally delays the posting of comments by some visitors to his site. - Ed)

Here are previous two posts which were subject to moderation. The first still hasn't been published by now at 7:27PM even though it was posted at 12:14 pm, over 7 hours ago:

How millions of lives were needlessly lost in the First and Second World Wars

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The truce of Christmas 1914 and the subsequent mutinies on both sides of no-man’s land after that is ample evidence that most soldiers on the ground did not want to fight and that the war was needlessly prolonged to serve the callous needs of the ruling elites in the countries conducting that war.

Whilst I consider much of the fighting of the Allied forces against Nazi Germany to have been necessary in the Second World War, that war should have ended no later than 1943 and was also prolonged needlessly resulting in the deaths of many millions more.

Evidence of this is to be found in “Trading with the Enemy” by Charles Higham. (Before I recently learned of Charles Higham’s book) I wrote of this in the article “Need 60 million have died to rid the world of Hitler?” adapted from a comment in response to a review of Max Hastings’ “All Hell Let Loose” in the UK Independent.

How Public Banking could end all our financial and monetary crises

Ikonoclast, I think you will find the interview of Ellen Brown from the US Public Banking Interest by James Corbett of last November most interesting. It contains a lot of interesting research into the early history of Banking in Australia in the late 19th Century and early 20th century by Ellen Brown. It can be found here on Global Research TV and is also embedded in the web-site I contribute to linked to above.

Professor Quiggin, It seems to me that the easiest solution to the monetary and finance crises we face is the re-establishment of proper Public Banking as advocated by the US Public Banking Institute. Can you see any flaws in their argument? (End of second contribution)

At Candobetter, we never censor any submitted posts, except for those which are plainly illegal or defamatory. Unlike the administrators of some other sites, we agree with the late President JFK and the ancient Athenian legislator Solon who both said that avoiding controversy should be considered a crime.

We are confident that all the claims made on this site can be defended with logic and evidence as past experience has shown.

Update: 8:30PM The brief comment linking back to this comment seems not to have been moderated!? However, the first comment shown above is still 'awaiting moderation'. - Ed (This has all been explained in the comment below, mentioned above in the first paragraph, - Ed)

Actually those with a reasonable IQ have worked out the reason for moderation messages at johnquiggin.com.

It is a feature of anti-spam rules, and as noted at johnquiggin there is a simple workaround.

To rant and rail over some censorship is just blogging stupidity.

You need to apologise.

It has been pointed out to me that what I had written in my previous post could be taken as an unjust implication that Professor John Quiggin deliberately delays posts which challenge his views until such time as they are no longer likely to be read by others. In fact there was a perfectly innocent explanation of why some of the posts I had submitted had their approval publication had been delayed. It is reproduced below in an explanation provided by another contributor:

@Malthusista

Anything at all with two hyperlinks goes to moderation. For the purpose of this calculation, a link to a prior post counts as one. This process takes no account of the content of the post and is automatically generated to preclude link spam.

Having read your contributions at “Candobetter” there is no reason that I can see why PrQ would have moderated. Occasionally, when he does, he makes this explicit and gives a reason.

I appreciate that it’s annoying when something goes into the mod bin. It happens to me occasionally. The other day my use of the word “g@mbling” {replace symbol with “a”} did it.

It’s regrettable that you’ve implied that he is engaged in some sort of political censorship. You should apologise and amend your comment, IMO.

As has been rightly asked above I do apologise to Professor Quiggin, who has shown himself to an exemplary upholder of free speech and informed critical thought on his web-site.

Koala discovered stranded on top of a 10m power pole in the middle of nowhere:

The top of a 10m-tall power pole in the middle of nowhere has been this koala's home for the past week.

Completely isolated from its family and natural habitat, it is stuck in the heart of flat farming area in northern NSW and is at least a 6km hike to the nearest eucalyptus tree.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/loneliest-koala-in-australia/story-e6frf7l6-1226341376819

This month Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke will decide the protection status of these much-loved native animals. Land clearing in Australia must end, and our native animals protected nation-wide.

Except for some in Gippsland, Victoria's koalas mainly came from a few remnant and saved animals from hunting, and they do not have the genetic diversity to be fully protected from disease and devastation.

It's suggested that koalas won't get consistent, nation-wide status, of protection from the main threats - logging and mining!!

Australia must care for it's wildlife, and respect that our nation is mega-diverse. Human encroachment is overwhelming our native animals and driving them to extinction.

When is the killing going to stop?? Not satisfied with sending koalas to their death in starvation fields DSE are now setting fire to their habitats! Six koalas were burnt in an "authorised burn off" in the Otways. Two were put down the others sent to shelters. Wildlife carers should be up in arms! Bloody atrocious!!!!

Report animal cruelty/abuse on free call 1800751770. Anonymity is assured. Duty of care to all creatures. There is no monopoly on animal cruelty. It belongs to all. In Victoria please call 0409144803.

This originated as a response to Classical economics and recession in many countries (wonkish)

My principle objection to neo-liberal economic dogma is that it has been used to take away from sovereign communities, at the local level, state and federal level, what should have been their democratic right: to own land and wealth-creating enterprises and to provide services to their members.

In 1983 the Federal Treasurer Paul Keating began to explicitly impose neoliberalism on this country without any electoral mandate whatsoever when he decided to remove the Government's right to set the exchange rate of the Australian dollar. In 1995 this was formally codified in the "National Competition Policy" written by Keating's hand-picked neoliberal "free market"[1] ideologue Professor Fred Hilmer, just in time for it to be used by Keating's successor Prime Minister John Howard as his own justification for the further cutting of services and further privatastion.

This policy was supported on both sides of parliament and so was never put to the public to decide either in Parliamentary elections nor in a referendum.

All the polls taken on privatisation, one of the principle components of the "National Competition Policy", show overwhelming opposition to privatisation comprising the order of more than two thirds of voters at the very least yet in this supposed democracy "of the people by the people for the people" governments continue to impose privatisation against popular will, the most infamous example being former Premier Anna Bligh's imposition of the fire sale in 2009 after an election in which she refused to answer a question I put to her even before the 2009 elections were called as to whether she had plans to continue with former Premier Peter Beattie's track record of privatisation.

As a consequence, her Government has suffered the (worst(?)) state electoral defeat in Australia's history holding on to only 7 seats. Treasurer Andrew Fraser who I stood against in 2009 also lost his seat.

Footnotes

[1] How can a neo-liberal market economy be 'free' if elected governments aren't free to participate in the economy in whatever ways their constituents wish them to?

I have just listened to a broadcast from the Corbett Report (mp3 file, 11 Mb) in which James Corbett and his invited guest, Marc Morano, claim to have resoundingly refuted the arguments put by Paul Ehrlich and others against population growth. An indication of the tone of the discussion can be gained by what has been written on the broadcast page:

Overpopulation fearmonger Paul Ehrlich is back on the press junket trying to drum up panic in the name of his depopulation obsession. Tonight on the program we listen to a 2010 interview with Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com refuting Ehrlich and his sky-is-falling pseudoscience.

I will soon post to James Corbett from his contact page, the letter included below:

Why was world human population less than
200 million for nearly all of its history?

Dear James Corbett,

I have admired your reporting against the profiteers and war-makers of the 21st century. I particularly liked your interview with Ellen Brown on Public Banking and have embedded it at http://candobetter.net/node/2861 .

That made me all the more troubled when I listened to your interview with Marc Morano purportedly debunking Paul Ehrlich and other population control advocates. I would have found that interview laughable if the ideas you put were not so harmful.

Just look at the graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg and ask yourself:

What kept human population numbers well below 100 million for 90% of the history of intelligent human life?

What caused human population numbers to rocket up from 500 million to 7 billion, that is 14-fold in only 400 years?

The answer is the massive increase in the use of humankind's finite bounty of fossil fuel. This has allowed us to artificially expand agricultural production to feed many more people than was previously possible.

So what happens when fossil fuels run out as they must in 300 years more at the very most!

I ask either you or Marc Morano to name one agricultural scientist who knows how we can hope to make our soil sufficiently more productive than it was for more than 90% of human history to enable it to feed more than a fraction of the world's current population of 7 billion, without fossil-fuel based fertilisers?

I could name a number of people, including population sociologists, who could, with little effort, shoot down in flames all that was claimed by yourself and Marc Morano. I could do it myself.

So, why not prove me wrong to your audience by asking a population stability advocate onto your program to debate you and Marco Morano?

I have already posted this letter, together with a link to your broadcast to http://candobetter.net/node/2854#comment-8251 . (With your permission I would like to also put a copy of the mp3 file there so that our visitors can still find it on our page after that broadcast is no longer current on your web-site.) We expect responses which are also critical of your broadcast from our site's visitors. Of course, feel free to post your own comments to show us all where we are wrong. Also, please feel welcome to ask Marc Morano or any of your audience to do the same.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon
Australia

Marc Morano is not a reliable or unbiased source of information for debate. He is the executive editor and chief correspondent for the award-winning Climate Depot, a global warming and eco-news center founded in 2009. Morano was named one of only five 'criminals against humanity, against planet Earth itself' in 2009 by the eco-magazine Grist. (Link to http://grist.org/article/Roy-Spencer-Inhofe-650-is-bogus/ found with Google broken, but here are two others which mention him. - Ed)

In December 2009. Newsweek called Climate Depot the "most popular denial site."
He is an anti- global warming campaigner whose denial of any sea-level rise were demolished by Rear Admiral David Titley, the chief oceanographer of the US Navy. Former senator Nick Minchin is also well known for his rejection of climate science and for opposing the medical fact that second-hand tobacco smoke is a health risk. Marc Morano is another "expert" on Minchin's side. He was the former communications director for a US senator who received more money from fossil fuel interests than any other senator. He has no relevant scientific training or any peer-reviewed publications.

As such, he has no credibility on population issues, or attacking Malthus or Paul Ehrlich.

Ten countries worldwide, including five African nations, are at 'extreme risk' because of limited access to clean, fresh water, according to a new global water security index. And the effects of climate change and population growth will exacerbate the stress on these water supplies, potentially threatening stability in many regions, according to the analysis by Maplecroft , a UK- based consulting group.

The planet is facing two "worlds" colliding - with climate change and an era of depletions together with record, exponential population growth.

Why not post this, or an adapted version, to corbettreport.com and let us know how James Corbett responds?- Ed

One historical leader, whom few have not felt free to condemn without fear of reproach for nearly a century now, is Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917 who is blamed by established world 'public opinion' for having made possible the horrific crimes committed by his successor, Stalin.

In response to yet another effort to drag Lenin's name through the mud, I made a post (see also below), which presented evidence that Lenin had attempted to remove Stalin from his post of General Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union as he lay in bed mortally ill in 1923 and compared the harsh measures, used by Lenin to keep his government in power during the Russian Civil War of 1918-1921, with the horrific violence that his international opponents as well as domestic opponents caused following Lenin's death throughout the rest of the twentieth century, and the start of the twenty-first century, including amongst other events, the Second World War in which as many as 70 million may have died.

So far, I been met with silence. The person to whom I responded to has ignored my post and instead briefly engaged in a debate over Japan's objection to Australia's White Australia Policy following the First World War on the same page. No-one else has responded to my heresy.

This is not to say that Lenin was without flaws and did not make mistakes -- In my view, signing the Brest-Litovsk Treaty[1] with Germany in 1918 was one. -- but when presented with evidence of the good that he did and tried to accomplish and a comparison of the violence that Lenin was himself responsible for while he was alive with the vastly greater scale for killing that followed his death, including by 'democratic' anti-communists as well as fascists and Stalinist 'communists', I am met with silence.

Lenin's record within the broader historical context

This is a corrected and slightly expanded version of the post referred to above.

Alan wrote:

Those Trostkyists tend to promote a good Lenin, evil Stalin theory of history that ignores Lenin’s own conduct as head of the Soviet government.

At least acknowledge that as as Lenin lay in bed mortally ill in 1923, he instructed Trotsky to remove Stalin from the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This is substantiated in many works including “Lenin’s Last Struggle” of 1968 by Moshe Lewin and “The Prophet Armed” of 1954 by Isaac Deutscher, the first of his three volume trilogy on the life of Leon Trotsky. Had Trotsky acted on Lenin’s instructions instead of largely sitting on his hands until 1927 (also documented by Deutscher) history would have turned out very differently.

Horrific world-wide death toll in the century following Lenin's death

Much of the terrible destruction and bloodshed that occurred through the remainder of the 20th century and the early 21st century:

Purges of both left and right wing opponents of Stalin, forced collectivisation, the bloody defeat of Chinese Communism in 1927, Nazi triumph in Germany in 1933, the triumph of Franco in Spain, the Second World War in which possibly as many as 70 million may have died, The Korean War in which 3 million North Koreans died, The Vietnam War in which as many as 5 million may have died, the murder of half a million communists by Suharto in 1965, the invasion of East Timor, the invasion of Yugoslavia, the invasions of Iraq in 1991 which may have killed as many as 2 million, the invasion on Libya in 2011, …

… may have been avoided.

As others pointed out, Lenin was faced with a savage civil war and an invasion by the troops over ten foreign nations, including Australia.

So is it fair to damn Lenin for having resorted to harsh measures to keep his government in power, especially given what his opponents, many professing to be for democracy, both outside the Soviet Union and within, have ‘achieved’ since his death and while he lived if we count the First World War?

Personally I think Marxism is a flawed philosophy (see Robert Heilbroner’s “The Worldly Philosophers” of 1953), but in spite of that I think the Russian Revolution of 1917 presented humanity with its best opportunity to date to establish a workable and humane global society.

Sadly, that opportunity was lost.

Footnotes

[1] Leon Trotsky initially opposed the signing of the treaty but later, wrongly in my view, concurred with Lenin's view and strongly defended Lenin's decision. See "The Prophet Armed" by Isaac Deutscher, referred to above.

A kangaroo was mutilated and stabbed several times and left in a car park in a trolley at Bendigo Coles Friday night How sickening!. Please if you can get the message out there for the general public, if anyone knows of the culprits or any information at all please inform the Bendigo police or, they want to remain anonymous call us and we will pass the evidence on Please help find these mongrels!!! Barrie

Animal cruelty is how Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant and NSW backpacker mass murderer Ivan Milat started out, respectively torturing animals as children.
Sounds like Bendigo has a budding psychopath.

Read more:
1. Animal abuse inculcates social deviance

2. Cruelty against animals is no minor misdemeanour by Kylie Lang, The Sunday Mail (Qld), April 03, 2011,
...'Excuses, excuses. It's time magistrates dismissed the feeble explanations for deliberate acts of animal cruelty and got tough on torturers.
You can't tell me that a father and son dragging a pony behind their car was an accident, as the court heard last month.

Or that Andrew Cook, 33, and his son Zachary, 17, believed that tethering the pony to the sedan and making it gallop behind the speeding vehicle was an acceptable way to transport the animal.

I don't buy the Dumb and Dumber defence, and neither should anyone else.

In recent weeks, we've had a children's pet cat drowned in a wheelie bin by an elderly neighbour who was sleep deprived and an ibis fatally stomped on by a law student because it startled him while he was eating lunch in a park.

The imbecile who took a video of himself driving down the emergency lane of a busy highway with his pet parrot clinging to the windscreen wiper is clearly no Rhodes scholar, but when he comes before the judiciary, as indeed he must, for tormenting this bird, he should be disciplined properly.

The public is sick of sadists receiving slaps on the wrist. Cruelty against animals is no minor misdemeanour.

The RSPCA knows it, the police service knows it, and the State Government knows it last month it announced a new serious animal cruelty offence, increasing the maximum jail sentence from the current two years to seven.

Premier Anna Bligh might win public admiration (read votes) by responding to justified community outrage, but tougher jail sentences won't fix the problem.
It's not because, as experience has shown, magistrates will refuse to impose the full seven years (they've never given the two years we have now).
And it's not because police, who will effectively take over from the RSPCA in apprehending these social menaces, already have their hands full or, as the RSCPA has suggested, are more concerned with collecting unpaid traffic fines than curbing animal cruelty.

The fundamental reason that more jail time won't work is that prison is no place for rehabilitation.
As with bullies on our roads, which I wrote about last week, tossing them in jail only fills their damaged brains with other ideas on how to be anti-social.

Perpetrators of animal cruelty certainly don't need any prompting to take the next step and mete out their aggression on humans. A litany of research shows that people who hurt animals exhibit the same psychopathic personality disorders as serial rapists and murderers.

Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people in the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, tortured animals as a child.

He also claimed he'd had sex with a horse, according to a former girlfriend.

Remember Jeffrey Dahmer, the American serial killer who raped, tortured and dismembered 17 men and boys between 1978 and 1991?

As a boy, he dissected dead animals at home and once put a dog's head on a stake.

As an adult, he put human heads in the fridge.

The RSPCA's affiliate in the US has a website specifically for children.

ASPCA Kids explains why people hurt animals this way: "These people have serious, psychological problems that will probably not go away on their own.

They often need the help of licensed professionals, such as a psychologist.

"We are not 100 per cent sure why people become like this most are probably born with their problems, but others can get their problems from brain damage, poisonous environments, or by being treated badly themselves."

Hard to think of a more poisonous environment than prison, except maybe a family circle defined by aggression, cruelty and fear.

Children who abuse animals have often seen it done by a parent (typically their father) or have been physically abused themselves. The bullied becomes the bully.
In the case of the pony, its abusers were ordered to pay vet bills of $7642.

The father, a role model of positive parenting if ever there was one, was sentenced to three months' jail wholly suspended for three years, while the son received two years' probation. No convictions were recorded. They walked free, a little poorer but not noticeably wiser. Where's the mandatory counselling? Where's the enforced stint in a psychiatric institution to teach these people how to act humanely?

This is how our government and our justice system can effect positive change and build a safer society for all by addressing the root of the problem, which is psychological.

Animal cruelty is no accident. As parents, we might bear this in mind if we see our kids pulling tails off lizards or playing backyard cricket using cane toads as cricket balls.'

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria
Australia

Tigerquoll wrote:

Martin Bryant, who killed 35 people in the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, tortured animals as a child.

He also claimed he'd had sex with a horse, according to a former girlfriend.

The second claim hardly bares repeating on a site like candobetter. What 'former girlfriend'? Are you referring to that mysterious woman (her name escapes me now) who befriended Martin shortly before the massacre and who has vanished from public view since?

As for the claim that Martyn Bryant "tortured animals as a child", could you be more specific? I know in my own confused

childhood, on at least one occasion I inflicted cruelty to other creatures.[1] As far as I am aware I was still able to turn out a caring and humane adult in spite of that. I am sure that any child with Martyn's low IQ would also have been capable of performing all kinds of foolish acts, some of which may well have harmed other creatures.

I think you should read my article Was Martin Bryant the Port Arthur killer? of 3 April 2010 and look at the linked articles, particularly that three part article by Carl Wernerhoff. My own article has so far attracted four favourable comments from other contributors visitors and not one critical of it.

Why not show me where I am wrong in a comment in response to that article?

Foonotes

[1] On a number of occasions, when I think I was aged 8 or 9 I think, I ran after hapless swarms of soldier crabs throwing sand balls down on them on the mudflats of Redland Bay to the north of Brisbane (although I was careful not to tread on them as others deliberately did).

James,

The issue raised by Barrie above is one of social deviance. That is the focus.

Your side question above asking for proof of evidence is:

1. I quoted from a news source (follow source link included)

2. Port Arthur evidence is as per the court case - R v Martin Bryant, Cox CJ 22 November 1996

If anyone disagrees with the finding of a court case, in Australia it is a matter of lodging an appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal, or else accept the verdict.
Otherwise, debating a court decision is all pontificating and conspiracy theorising. Free country and books are written on such.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria
Australia

Tigerquoll wrote:

Otherwise, debating a court decision is all pontificating and conspiracy theorising.

You are aware, of course that trial jury in America found in 1999 that Martin Luther King had been killed in 1968 as a result a conspiracy involving the US Army and police, aren't you?

Labeling a view contrary to the official view a 'conspiracy theory' but not explaining the evidence presented hardly disproves that alternative viewpoint.

So, why not address the facts in my article or, if not, admit that your claim as well as the Judge's ruling you linked to is not based on the evidence?

I would also be interested to know what discussion on candobetter or indeed any discussion forum you consider not to be 'pontification'.

In reply to James' side comment above, no.

The relevant topic here is Barrie's expressed concern (May 1st, 2012) in Bendigo about his reported kangaroo mutilation.

..."A kangaroo was mutilated and stabbed several times and left in a car park in a trolley at Bendigo Coles Friday night How sickening!. Please if you can get the message out there for the general public, if anyone knows of the culprits or any information at all please inform the Bendigo police or, they want to remain anonymous call us and we will pass the evidence on Please help find these mongrels!!!"
Barrie.

TQ

An example of a lie in the midst of words that I largely agree with are the following words taken from Professor Noam Chomsky's speech upon acceptance of the 2011 Sydney Peace Prize:

Right now happens to be the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s decision to escalate the conflict in South Vietnam from vicious repression, which had already killed tens of thousands of people and finally elicited a reaction that the client regime in Saigon could not control, to outright US invasion: bombing by the US Air Force, use of napalm, chemical warfare soon including crop destruction to deprive the resistance of food, and programs to send millions of South Vietnamese to virtual concentration camps where they could be “protected” from the guerrillas who, admittedly, they were supporting.[1] Taken from a 107 KB PDF file linked to from here.

Chomsky cannot be unaware that President Kennedy planned to end the Vietnam war after his re-election in 1964. This is thoroughly documented in "JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters" of 2008 by James Douglass. What Chomsky has done is to take a few public words and actions by Kennedy without regard to the difficult position that Kennedy found himself in and what he is known to have said to trusted confidantes.

I said as much on an ABC web page but the comment was not published.

It could possibly have been argued by the censoring ABC moderator that Kennedy's intentions towards Vietnam were not the 'focus' of what Chomsky was discussing or the 'relevant' topic. Nevertheless, the lie that Chomsky is promoting harmed America and the world in the 1960's and continues to to this day just as than another lie in 1996 gravely harmed Australia and the rest of the world.

In the 1960's the lie that Kennedy was a warmonger and a glove puppet of corporations and no better than any other US President was used by the phony left to help the Warren Commission cover up the conspiracy to murder JFK as the invisible US government was preparing to also murder JFK's brother, Robert and Martin Luther King.

In 1996, the lie of the Port Arthur massacre helped the newly elected Prime Minister John Howard to consolidate his power and so be able to mis-rule this country for 11 more long years. In that time John Howard, savagely cut spending, conspired to use mercenary strikebreakers break the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998, introduced the "never ever" Goods and Services Tax (GST), sent Australians to fight and die in Afghanistan on the pretext of on the lie of 9/11, sent Australians to fight in the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq on the pretext of the WMD lie, privatised Telstra, further emasculated services to the unemployed, imposed high immigration, introduced "Work Choices" with no electoral mandate whatsoever, etc.

Footnotes

[1] Striking omissions from a supposed anti-war campaigner's talk in November 2011 were Libya after that country had been devastated and invaded by NATO forces and Syria which was then and still is suffering from a NATO sponsored terrorist insurgency.

Qatar-based Hassad Foods, which is the agricultural arm of the Qatar government, recently agreed to pay about $35 million for more than 8000 hectares of sheep-grazing and cropping land in Victoria's Western District. As well as prized Kaladbro Estate in Western Victoria and Queensland’s Clover Downs, Hassad’s burgeoning portfolio also includes 6800 hectares of sheep grazing land in Canowindra in New South Wales.

An additional HUGE chunk of Victorian farmland - about 11 times the size of Melbourne's CBD - has also controversially fallen into foreign hands.

Qatar-owned Hassad Australia finalised its purchase last week of 10 properties at Telopea Downs, on the border of Victoria and South Australia.

See More farmland in foreign hands of 2 May by Terry Sim.

A report released by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences in January found 11 per cent of farmland, 9 per cent of water entitlements and 1 per cent of agricultural businesses were owned by foreign interests.

Australia is the driest continent with irregular weather and is subject to natural disasters such as droughts and fires. We also have little more than 6% arable land, threatened by urban sprawl. At same time, our mining wealth is largely be consumed by the "nation building" infrastructure for our swelling population instead of being invested into the future.

With shallow policies and grotesque short-termism from Canberra, the public should be very concerned about any more land being sold to foreign countries. Our sovereignty is under threat by stealth. We must end the deadlock of the mainstream Political parties and focus on Australia's food security and future as a nation.

Qatar, an arid country of some 1.8 million inhabitants jutting off Saudi Arabia into the Gulf, can only produce about 10% of its food needs and is desperately reliant on imports. Currently, only 1.6 % of Qatar is arable land and agriculture only contributes 0.1% to gross national product, according to the FAO.

Qatar’s population has more than doubled from around 614,000 in 2000 to 1.699 million at the end of 2010. Qatar's oil and natural gas industries account for 50 percent of GDP, 85 percent of export earnings and 70 percent of the government's revenue.

As well as food security, air, water, and land pollution are also significant environmental issues in Qatar. In addition to smog and acid rain, the nation has been affected by the air pollution generated during the Persian Gulf War. Pollution from the oil industry poses a threat to the nation's water.

There's nothing sustainable about Qatar's environmental/population growth record, so why should they bother with any such issues in Australia?

The following comment from the page linked to by NIMBY, puts it very well:

One wonders what the ANZACS suffered and fought for against Japan's attempted invasion during World War 2. Now, a foreign invader, an "investor", just has to have enough cash to buy up large swathes of land, and they have access to Australia's sovereignty and future. No warfare, no diplomatic debates, no weapons, no frontlines. Japan's invaders or any other foreign nation, if they came now with enough cash, could simply buy our farmland, businesses, property and even water. Globalization is wiping out Australia's patriotism. Australia is being chopped up into pieces for for the best offer. Australians wouldn't be able to buy in the same countries. Australia is FOR SALE on the international market.

Posted by: Pepe of Heidelberg Vic 7:39pm Wednesday

Those who have run Australia since the late 1970's could be likened to the rulers of France who made peace with Nazi Germany in 1940. In return for being allowed to rule the southern-western half of France from the town of Vichy and to retain control of France's colonies, the Vichy French government allowed Nazi Germany to conduct its war against the UK and America from the north-eastern part of France unhindered. That part of France included the Atlantic shore, from which, until 1944, U-boats, which almost prevented necessary supplies from reaching England by sea, were launched. More French soldiers killed and died fighting against the Allies, including Australia, in Syria, North Africa, Madagascar and elsewhere than did fighting against Nazi Germany.

Judging from what we are now witnessing in 2102, had the Japanese landed on Australia's shores in 1942, almost certainly a sizable section of Australia's ruling elite would have chosen to make deals with Japanese not dissimilar to the deals Vichy France made with Germany.

For preventing any chance of that eventuating, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the ANZACs and their American allies who stopped the Japanese in New Guinea, the Solomons and the Coral Sea and to the then Labor government of Labor Prime Minister John Curtin.

It seems that remnant fairdinkum Australians, have been programmed by the system out of any deference to the sacrifices of our fighting forces in the Pacific in WWII that ensured the survival of Australia.

Acceptance without a protesting shout of the label "non-indigenous Australian" drawn up by multiculturalist social engineers to replace our historical label of "Native Australian" used since the late 1800's says it all. No identity, and no debt to our Pacific fighters here!

The introduced practice of acknowledging so-called "traditional owners" in opening events is another multiculturalists ploy, readily taken up by the bourgeoisie, to ensure any Australian claim to sovereignty, bought and paid for in blood by our Pacific fighters is of no consequence. No ownership, and no debt here!

The Vichy comparison sums it up pretty well.

No subject given. Subject supplied by me. - Ed

I don't see any such comparison. Marshal Petain and the Vichy government were the legitimate rulers of France and given diplomatic recognition by the USA, USSR and other countries. At least they stayed behind and looked after their country - Charles de Gaulle took off with his tail between his legs. I would also point out that France declared war on Germany - not the other way around. On September 3 1939 because Germany invaded Poland. But when the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17 1939 in keeping with the Nazi-Soviet pact to divide that country France did not declare war on the USSR. I would also point out that France invaded German territory first - in 1939 French forces invaded the Saar.

The Australian politicians who have completely sold out the Australian people are in no way patriotic. They are all internationalists and globalists. You may disagree with the Vichy government and its methods but at least they thought what they were doing was for the good of France. The sell out politicians of Australia know very well that what they are doing is not for the good of this country.

No serious informed person of which I am aware has ever disputed that Nazi Germany started the Second World War when it invaded Poland without provocation on 1 September 1939. Of course, Britain and France were right to declare war on Germany on 3 September when it failed to end its invasion. If anything they stand condemned for failing to provide effective aid to Poland during the "Phony War" which ended with the start of the Nazi German blitzkrieg against France, Belgium and Holland on 10 May 1940. The Soviet Union behaved even more reprehensibly, when it invaded Poland from the east on 17 February. Sadly, after the Nazi German attack on the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, many millions of Russians were to pay with their lives for Stalin's unconscionable conduct in 1939.

Were the French 'invasion' of the Saar, referred to above, a serious attempt to fight Nazi Germany it should have been applauded, but, far from being that, it was a stunt which "did not result in any diversion of German troops" from Poland.

How anyone could see anything commendable in the anti-Semetic Vichy French regime, which sided with Nazi Germany is beyond me. The Vichy France of Petain may well have made the difference that would have resulted in the triumph of the industrialised savagery of Nazism in Europe. That could only have been even more terrible than 60 million having to pay with their lives to rid the world of Nazism (and Japanese colonialism).

Comments from 20 April 2012 have been closed. Please post further responses here. - Ed.

From Outrage over Anna Bay land clearing of 1 May on the ABC:

A Port Stephens community group is outraged that bulldozers have already moved into a coastal bushland site earmarked for housing at Anna Bay, before the project has been approved.

The Anna Bay Community Action Group says the developer, Landcom, has cleared large tracks of land through the 22-hectare site, which contains important koala habitat.

Group spokesman John McCauley says he is disgusted that endangered coastal vegetation has been destroyed.

"A very large section of it is what has been gazetted as an ecologically endangered community," he said.

"And it seems arrogance from this developer that they can come in unannounced without the proper consent and permissions and bulldoze this site.

"The bulldozers have actually gone right through it." ...

Map: Anna Bay

See also: Council to investigate claims of environmental vandalism in Anna Bay of 3 May by Matt Carr in the Newcastle Herald.

These Landcom people who did this should be jailed. If laws were made to protect our commonwealth then they would be jailed.

I was inclined to amend Anonymous's heading to 'Rogue developers should be jailed." Then I wondered if rogues are not the rule for development in Australia. Maybe ethical redevelopers who never clear bushland and who never intensify ecological footprints should be allowed to go free. But do such developers exist?

Does anyone know any? I mean 'development' is practically synonymous with intensification.

Dear Friends of Wildlife on land in the ocean

I urge all of you to please write the very brief message to Tony Burke (Tony.Burke.MP[ AT ]aph.gov.au www.tonyburke.com.au/get-in-touch/) asking him to protect ocean sea life from killer pollutants

Maryland Wilson

President of Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

This page of comments has been disabled. Please add further comments here. - Ed, 5 May