Miscellaneous comments from 31 August 2011

Thu, 2011-09-15 20:22 by admin

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 22 May can be found here.

Topic:

Comments

nimby (not verified)

Sat, 2011-09-17 08:03

PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy has been accused of opening the floodgates for development along the Victorian coast with a surprise decision to rezone seaside farmland for housing at Phillip Island. The Age 16th Sept. Mr Guy's rezoning of about 24 hectares of farmland on the outskirts of Ventnor for residential development is not only undemocratic but short-sighted and ill-advised. The Mayor of the Shire says the change is contrary to the council's structure plan developed with the local community, and the recommendations of an independent planning panel. Obviously the only people who would support it are the developer and the real estate agent who sells the land. With public opinion against such an outrageous and undemocratic planning proposal, this rezoning should have been shelved long before reaching the Planning Minister Mr Guy. Not only are these development plans contrary to democratic principles and processes, but it is set to destroy farming land at a time of food security and climate change threats. It's reckless and short-sighted-ness at its worst. There's no infrastructure in the area, and Council ridiculed the idea. Phillip Island has limited job opportunities, public transport and educational infrastructure. The increase in population will mean Council rates will rise, and retirees and holiday houses will be priced out of their area. Only one submission (from the owner) supported rezoning of the property - contrary to all the objections and the logic of it. "Development" has become a euphemism for an environmental disease causing degradation and sterility to sensitive coastal areas, farmland, natural wildlife habitats and the end of coastal recreational/retirement resorts.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-09-18 13:37

ABC Radio National's Background Briefing program of Sunday 18 September Don't trust the web was most interesting and informative. However, it did not cover the reverse side of the coin, that is, censorship, which is hardly less of a threat to free speech and democracy on the Internet.

A Truthseeker's Code of Conduct proposed here, if widely adopted, could make it much harder for web-site adminstrators, who refuse to publish opinions which demolish the views they are trying to uphold, to get away with their suppression of free speech. However, preventing astroturfing may pose a considerably greater technical challenge.

Below is a comment I posted today to the Background Briefing web page. This is, in part, a response to a contribution by TMA1 included below as well as to Megan also included below.

In fact, it seems to me that people's rightful objection to astroturfing and other less automated forms of Internet abuse has been used as pretext to prevent the expression of much truly original and insightful thought on the Internet.

If this is not so, then can someone tell me on what Australian web forum (let alone in the conventional mass media) can anyone find the case against NATO's bombing and invasion of Libya in recent months?

I haven't found any discussion anywhere (except on the site I contribute to) -- and it is not for want of attempts on my part to post material.

Check out for yourself Larvatus Prodeo, or Web Diary or John Quiggin's web site. Let me know on how many forum web-sites on the case against NATO's war against Libya (and soon Syria) has been fairly discussed in Australia.

The censorship, in so many places on the web of informed and insightful views by real people, makes the repetitive posting of the same dishonest ideas attributed to phony contributors by astroturfers doubly criminal.

TMA1 is right. It should be possible to end much of the harm done to free speech and democracy by astroturfers if the vast majority of Internet users with good intentions are sufficiently motivated and vigilant.

Appendix 1: Contribution by Megan

I find it hard to believe that Q & A use software to filter out astroturfing. Seems like what's being filtered out is genuine comment and all the dross is left in.

How else to explain the same talking heads and corporate media shills bobbing up every week on that annoying twitter feed?

Flight of the Conchords is now a much better option on Monday nights!

Appendix 2: Contribution by TMA1

While it is true that the Web is now virtually overrun with opportunists trying to fool, misinform or hoodwink the public in one way or another, there are ways to mitigate the risks. The onus is now on the public to ensure that these charlatans are exposed and removed from what still is the greatest tool for social integration ever devised.

I have been involved with online development and e-business since 1994 (when most people did not know the internet) and I have seen the parasites crawl out of the woodwork from that time on. There is only one approach that works with these types - exposure. I run a website for a special interest group (UAV systems developers) and even in a highly specialised area such as this one I have found opportunists attempting to set themselves up. Caveat Emptor

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-09-18 21:07

My previous comment and one other which raised, in passing, the media disinformation about Syria was apparently labelled 'astroturfing' by another contributor when he wrote:

Incredible! Now we have astroturfing about Syria on a message board about a program on astroturfing! It's all around us!

Below is another comment I posted to that forum in response. Further below, in Appendix 1, I include the other post seemingly labelled 'astroturf' which discusses how real astroturfing is being used to mislead word public opinion to justify NATO's planned invasion of Libya.

Two comments out of the eleven prior to yours so far on this forum, which mention Syria and which run counter to the lies peddled the mainstream media and astroturfers elsewhere, constitute 'astroturfing'?

Stop wasting our time!

---

Thanks Susan (18 Sep 2011 11:27:40am) for alerting me to the way real astroturfers are helping prepare world public opinion to accept NATO's planned invasion of Syria after it completes the installation of the TNC regime that will allow Libya's former coloniser, Italy as well as France, the UK and others to plunder Libya's oil wealth.

---

I think one lesson from this is that it is high time we began to evaluate the true worth of web services such as Twitter. Anything which which allows postings without human moderation and which can so easily abused and used to undermine free speech, democracy and peace as Twitter has done should be spurned by decent Internet users.

Nothing is posted to the site I contribute to (candobetter.net) that is not either posted by trusted account holders or moderated by human administrators. I am fairly certainly that very little, if anything, of what has been posted there is astroturf. Furthermore, the administrators have very rarely resorted to censorship. They will only refuse to publish posts which are illegal, personally abusive, obscene, not relevant to the topic at hand or overly verbose. Even then they will normally allow the intending poster to post a link back to the material if he/she has already posted it elsewhere so that any site visitor can form his/her own judgement.

If all web-sites with discussion forums were administered in similar fashions the problem of astroturfing would surely disappear overnight.

Appendix 1: Contribution by Susan

Thanks for a great program. My fear is that astroturfing is being used in the media war against the Syrian government. Tweets from "Syrian activists" are informing at least one ABC journalist and I guess, as a consequence, they are informing reporters and program presenters because it is very rare to hear balanced reporting on Syria, despite the efforts of people in the Syrian community to be heard face-to-face or on paper. I guess it has something to do with our attraction to simplistic narratives, and our wanting to be able to attach ourselves to the "goodies" in a voyeuristic sense. So in regard to Syria it is a battle between 'human rights activists' versus 'regime apologists'. Tweeter is the best possible ground for such a battle. But with the US and NATO fighting the 'regime apologists' it is a very uneven and complex battle for those of us deeply concerned about the future of a country of 23 million people.

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-09-20 08:38

On September 18, around 5,000 people rallied on the steps of Victoria’s Parliament House. Speaker after speaker took to the microphone to condemn puppy mills and factories.

Breeding dogs are kept in cages to churn out puppies for pet shops. The breeding animals live in poor conditions.

Once the thrill of the impulse purchase wears off, many young dogs find themselves at the local pound.

Regulation is poor, as authorities aren’t easily able to keep breeders in check. There's few regulations about bedding, shelter, maximum number of litters and staffing.

The RSPCA encourages Australians to consult the Smart Puppy Buyers Guide on the RSPCA website before purchasing a pooch. The guide outlines how to check whether a breeder is responsible. With shelters over-flowing and "death row" a sad reflection of society's throw-away mentality, it's better to go to a shelter to adopt your next pet.

The “law” is named in honour of Oscar who survived five years as a stud dog, and was rescued twice by Debra Tranter, the driving force behind Oscar’s Law.

The Spring Street steps were full of people, placards and paws calling for the end of inhumane puppy farms, where dogs are bred in often filthy and cramped conditions.

Video of the rally provided by Phil Wollen.

Matilda (not verified)

Wed, 2011-09-21 19:13

http://manningham-leader.whereilive.com.au/photos/gallery/doncaster-resi... Finally the tide of the "development" tsumami is being over-turned by protests and "nimbys". Unless we stop the flow of people - all of whom ultimately need housing - this basic need will continue to be exploited as a profit-making commodity until Victoria's livability and environment is destroyed. We can't have perpetual population growth, keep up the "green" facade, and reduce greenhouse gases while our economy largely depends on population growth and "developments".

Save our koalas (not verified)

Sun, 2011-09-25 08:51

Canberra Times by Rosslyn Beeby Calls for a $36 m for koalas' conservation A Senate inquiry has called for a $36million federal funding boost for koala disease research, and new ''koala friendly'' national guidelines for road upgrades and construction. It wants speed limits in koala habit zones, tougher controls to curb urban dog attacks, and government grants to help people protect koala trees on their property. In its 178-page report, the inquiry urges the Federal Government to take ''a much stronger leadership role'' in koala conservation, saying there appears to be ''little commitment'' at present. However, the driver of such horrific losses to our iconic and endemic animal is rampant human population growth and developer-driven profits from land acquisition and urban planning. People settle in new urban sprawl, meaning that trees and bushland must be bulldozed. They bring their pets, cars and heavy impacts. Koalas are collateral-damage as the result. Humans are doing what all species do - by trying to increase their territories and advance their own herd/group at the expense of others. However, humans just to it better. Koalas are not only slow-evolving animals but they are also slow movers. They don't have an evolutionary chance against the massive technology and rapid changes brought by the aggressive spread of human populations. Australians are not the clever country, or even the Lucky Country any more. We are the country with the highest mammal extinction rate of the modern world, and increasingly being known as the cruel country with an abysmal animal-rights record.

Enne K (not verified)

Tue, 2011-09-27 10:17

The whole educational export industry has become a rort. Under the Colombo plan, students were sponsored to study in Australia, and then ultimately had to return home so that they could contribute to their countries' welfare and economic development. "Students" should remain students and not be able to morph into residents. Students should not be able to bring non-student spouses. Students should not be able to use marriage with an Australian resident as a route to PR. With world poverty and numerous threats increasing, Australia will be targeted as an easy country to enter due to our permeable borders. While the "immigration" debate remains on asylums seekers, the other entrants are being safely and conveniently ignored. Universities should not be allowed to entice foreign students with quick visa approvals and the right to two years of work after graduation, as suggested as part of a reform package. Universities are about higher education, and should not be linked and confused with a back-door to residency and citizenship to Australia. Having international students in our universities is a fine as an export industry, and it also helps broaden our ideas and assist in the development of neighbouring countries. It strengthens cultural understandings and diplomatic ties. However, students should be here to study as their main aim, and not lured by the "carrot" of being able to settle here. Universities should be about higher learning, education, research and development, ethics and the promotion of ideas and innovation. Being linked to immigration is about selfishly enticing the best and brightest from developing nations to fill our own, but questionable, "skills shortages". The primary source of our future professionals should be our own domestic students - many of whom are struggling to find suitable jobs and positions.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2011-09-28 22:15

Many same sex couples desire “marriage equality” but what defines a “marriage” in our society? Many people consider the term ‘marriage’, as a legal term in Australia; is reserved for couples consisting of a male and female only. The word marriage appears in our constitution but when it appears there what does it mean? Does it hold the same meaning in general usage? Does our Government even have the power to change the marriage act to recognise same sex couples equally or does the issue firstly require amendment to the constitution to define marriage and consequently a referendum? This question was raised recently in the Bendigo Advertiser (see links below). Should same sex couples be permitted to “marry” or should they be afforded equality of rights with a different terminology? Disregarding the question of constitutional definition or possible need for amendment should these issues be put to the nation as a plebiscite for determination democratically in any case? I am interested to hear what others think. Links http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/opinion/letters/general/marriage-is-founded-on-principles-not-passions/2297026.aspx http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/opinion/letters/general/time-for-one-poll-to-settle-gay-marriage-issue/2303096.aspx Also related http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn17.htm

Protect Marriage (not verified)

Thu, 2011-09-29 10:02

Marriage by definition is the union between a husband and a wife, and the cornerstone of families. Such an age-old institution should not be meddled with by politicians. Some criticize it as being too exclusive and gay couples want to be included. We need to recognise the legality and rights of gay couples, but "marriage" should be reserved for what it is. Biology means that gay couples are excluded from having children together. While some heterosexual couples need a help from technology to conceive, due to their pathology, gay couples can never produce "their" children - whatever they claim. Allowing gay couples to claim "Marriage" as their legal union will impinge on its traditional meaning and change it forever. Marriage should remain as it is. We could later regret such changes. Gays should have their own legal union, and their own unique name for it. They shouldn't try to emulate traditional Marriage and dilute forever its meaning.

Leave Marriage Alone (not verified)

Thu, 2011-09-29 13:25

reply to Protect Marriage September 29th, 2011 I agree almost entirely with everything you have to say and I thank you for expressing it so succinctly. From what I have seen of this debate, gays and their supporters argue that x number of countries already recognise so called ‘Gay Marriage’, ‘Marriage equality’ and like terms. The trite arguments are also frequently put forth that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years, as long as marriage has, was practiced in ancient Greece and many other ancient cultures and I have seen a claim that it was practiced and culturally acceptable in some quarters of indigenous Australian culture before white settlement, though have not researched it’s validity. Frankly as a very proud Australian I care little what occurred in ancient Greece or what other countries have chosen to do currently in regard to this issue. We teach our children “ If Johnny jumped of a cliff, would you do it to?” so why should we Australians as a nation blindly follow trends of other countries. As to longevity and existence in ancient cultures, things such as cannibalism, human sacrifice, witch hunts, genocide and slavery have been omnipresent too but that does not necessarily make such practices right nor acceptable. It is evident that marriage holds different meanings to different people. For some it has deeply seated religious ties to others religion plays no part , but to all genuine participants it is a legally binding contract and expression of commitment and in our Australian culture since Federation and even prior as a British Colony has always been a union of one male and one female. I see no valid reason at all in the arguments I have encountered thus far to change the perception or meaning of “Marriage” in this country to be anything other than what it has been for so long, a union of one man and one woman. Even if an acceptable form of homosexual union was practiced in Australia by some indigenous peoples ( not saying it was or not) prior to white settlement/invasion call it what you will it is not recognised in our current law and has not been so since imposition of British rule. Like it or not our current society has moved substantially in that time from sole indigenous sovereignty and history cannot be rewritten. So long as our Australian nation can continue to repel invasion our current citizens should be afforded the right to choose how our society develops from this time forward. I support a plebiscite on this issue as I feel the matter far too important to leave in the hands of a bunch of politicians. I strongly support retention of “Marriage” of its current legal interpretation of a male/female union. If variations on that definition are to be legally recognised then ‘Unique Names’ should indeed be applied.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-09-30 08:04

Marriage by Gregory Corso Should I get married? Should I be Good? Astound the girl next door with my velvet suit and faustaus hood? Don't take her to movies but to cemeteries tell all about werewolf bathtubs and forked clarinets then desire her and kiss her and all the preliminaries and she going just so far and I understanding why not getting angry saying You must feel! It's beautiful to feel! Instead take her in my arms lean against an old crooked tombstone and woo her the entire night the constellations in the sky-- When she introduces me to her parents back straightened, hair finally combed, strangled by a tie, should I sit knees together on their 3rd degree sofa and not ask Where's the bathroom? How else to feel other than I am, often thinking Flash Gordon soap-- O how terrible it must be for a young man seated before a family and the family thinking We never saw him before! He wants our Mary Lou! After tea and homemade cookies they ask What do you do for a living? Should I tell them? Would they like me then? Say All right get married, we're losing a daughter but we're gaining a son-- And should I then ask Where's the bathroom? O God, and the wedding! All her family and her friends and only a handful of mine all scroungy and bearded just waiting to get at the drinks and food-- And the priest! He looking at me if I masturbated asking me Do you take this woman for your lawful wedded wife? And I trembling what to say say Pie Glue! I kiss the bride all those corny men slapping me on the back She's all yours, boy! Ha-ha-ha! And in their eyes you could see some obscene honeymoon going on-- then all that absurd rice and clanky cans and shoes Niagara Falls! Hordes of us! Husbands! Wives! Flowers! Chocolates! All streaming into cozy hotels All going to do the same thing tonight The indifferent clerk he knowing what was going to happen The lobby zombies they knowing what The whistling elevator man he knowing The winking bellboy knowing Everybody knowing! I'd be almost inclined not to do anything! Stay up all night! Stare that hotel clerk in the eye! Screaming: I deny honeymoon! I deny honeymoon! running rampant into those almost climatic suites yelling Radio belly! Cat shovel! O I'd live in Niagara forever! in a dark cave beneath the Falls I'd sit there the Mad Honeymooner devising ways to break marriages, a scourge of bigamy a saint of divorce-- But I should get married I should be good How nice it'd be to come home to her and sit by the fireplace and she in the kitchen aproned young and lovely wanting by baby and so happy about me she burns the roast beef and comes crying to me and I get up from my big papa chair saying Christmas teeth! Radiant brains! Apple deaf! God what a husband I'd make! Yes, I should get married! So much to do! like sneaking into Mr Jones' house late at night and cover his golf clubs with 1920 Norwegian books Like hanging a picture of Rimbaud on the lawnmower like pasting Tannu Tuva postage stamps all over the picket fence like when Mrs Kindhead comes to collect for the Community Chest grab her and tell her There are unfavorable omens in the sky! And when the mayor comes to get my vote tell him When are you going to stop people killing whales! And when the milkman comes leave him a note in the bottle Penguin dust, bring me penguin dust, I want penguin dust-- Yet if I should get married and it's Connecticut and snow and she gives birth to a child and I am sleepless, worn, up for nights, head bowed against a quiet window, the past behind me, finding myself in the most common of situations a trembling man knowledged with responsibility not twig-smear not Roman coin soup-- O what would that be like! Surely I'd give it for a nipple a rubber Tacitus For a rattle bag of broken Bach records Tack Della Francesca all over its crib Sew the Greek alphabet on its bib And build for its playpen a roofless Parthenon No, I doubt I'd be that kind of father not rural not snow no quiet window but hot smelly New York City seven flights up, roaches and rats in the walls a fat Reichian wife screeching over potatoes Get a job! And five nose running brats in love with Batman And the neighbors all toothless and dry haired like those hag masses of the 18th century all wanting to come in and watch TV The landlord wants his rent Grocery store Blue Cross Gas & Electric Knights of Columbus Impossible to lie back and dream Telephone snow, ghost parking-- No! I should not get married and I should never get married! But--imagine if I were to marry a beautiful sophisticated woman tall and pale wearing an elegant black dress and long black gloves holding a cigarette holder in one hand and highball in the other and we lived high up a penthouse with a huge window from which we could see all of New York and even farther on clearer days No I can't imagine myself married to that pleasant prison dream-- O but what about love? I forget love not that I am incapable of love it's just that I see love as odd as wearing shoes-- I never wanted to marry a girl who was like my mother And Ingrid Bergman was always impossible And there maybe a girl now but she's already married And I don't like men and-- but there's got to be somebody! Because what if I'm 60 years old and not married, all alone in furnished room with pee stains on my underwear and everybody else is married! All in the universe married but me! Ah, yet well I know that were a woman possible as I am possible then marriage would be possible-- Like SHE in her lonely alien gaud waiting her Egyptian lover so I wait--bereft of 2,000 years and the bath of life.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-10-01 11:04

Regarding Poem about marriage posted On September 30th, 2011 by Sheila Newman Yes it is a poem about marriage, Greg Corso’s expression from over 50 years ago. Whoopee! Though I fail to see any particular relevance or what if anything it contributes to the preceding discussion of whether Gay couples should be legally recognised in Australia as ‘married’ if they choose to, etc. The party posting the poem offers no more than simply posting the poem. Are we to assume the poem is wholly an expression of the contributor’s own viewpoint? Or perhaps a particular aspect within the poem the contributor identifies as particularly poignant. The poem’s author is long deceased. If another party wishes to reference it in expressing an opinion that is fine by me but please EXPRESS AN OPINION, any opinion, make A POINT, any point, by providing even a mere snippet of your own opinion to let us know what that may be, please don’t just post someone else’s work online and leave it at that. I don’t see the relevance of this post at all without further information from the contributor. If the contributor reads this please provide YOUR opinion and tie in the poem’s relevance if any, with a supplementary comment. Until then I consider this post a waste of bandwidth. Sincerely Anonymous • as OP of Marriage? Does Equality Need Constitutional Change? Posted 28-09-2011

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2011-10-01 11:43

I like the poem and it is about marriage. A point one might make about the poem (which I admit I didn't make) is that marriage is many things to different people and that marriage comes in many forms with many purposes and people have very varied expectations of it. The primary impact of marriage is the transmission of property to children or to spouses. In the Roman law system of continental Europe (with exception of Portugal), default is that property is mostly transmitted to children, parents, grandparents first, uncles and cousins before any spouse might get a look in. [Sarkosi unfortunately recently changed this to a part of the inheritance going to the spouse.] In Anglo-law default is that property transmits to most recent spouse often leaving children high and dry. Gays getting married in continental Europe doesn't make much difference, except the gay might get the right to remain in a house before his/her partner's children take it over. In Australia however, previous partners and children would lose out (as they do currently to second and subsequent wives) when a man marries another man. At the moment if a man lives with another man, when one of them dies the surviving parter is guaranteed nothing - to my knowledge. I personally think that Anglo-law should be reformed so that it becomes impossible to disinherit children. Then men and women would come to marriage each with their inheritance, and therefore much less reliant on getting property from a surviving spouse, at the expense of the children. There is a huge systemic problem with the anglo-system in that it causes the aggregation of large amounts of property in a few private hands and leaves a large body of people without property, having nothing but their labour to survive by, and at the mercy of the state and renters. You see, I am not in favour of default where property goes to the spouse, but I can see why a homosexual spouse would want that under our current rotten system. We would all be better off if our parents and the state provided for us rather than relying on our spouses. There would have to be laws requiring parents to leave their property to their children. Many of us might not marry then at all. Would that be so bad? So I am in favour of scrapping our current system and installing roman law with civil codes including prescriptive inheritance ones. My perspective is probably completely unfamiliar to most people in this discussion of homosexual marriage, but I think that we should all be far more aware of how our system starts out by impoverishing most of us and then gets us all fighting for scraps as adults.

Greg (not verified)

Sat, 2011-10-01 13:31

Sheila, I feel, sadly, that your position on this vexed issue of 'equal rights' marriage (equal rights to what exactly?) is far too dispassionate and practically sensible to allow for its perception within the popular spectrum. As with so many of the matters of prominence within popular political contention, the dominant narrative pivots upon fraught notions of sectoral identity and deservedness. Definition and degrees of acceptance of these identities variously enable or limit one's respective potential for advantage and (potentially fatal) dispossession within an enormous and cannibalistic socio-economic hierarchy. This grand social honeycomb has no capacity for humane intimacy or social security. Succeed individually or perish is the silent code embedded at the core of this insane social trajectory, now rapidly passing the zenith of it's 10,000 year ascendent trajectory. Once upon a time social clans evolved to nurture and protect the constituent members. Now a burgeoning social labyrinth exists to feed upon vast lower orders and pass the consumed energy upwards. The symptomatic pain of the myriad victims, expressed in divergently competitive voices, serves to obscure and distract due attention from the core problem. Your exceptional contemplation upon the conceptual and practical essences of the matter are unlikely to gain much traction within its vexed political stage-play. If only this were not so. We could then all deal with the matter swiftly and sensibly and thence free our concerted commitment toward the more genuinely pressing issue of per capita levels of remnant bio-diversity.

FCOL (not verified)

Sun, 2011-10-02 12:34

@ Greg Too sensible for an essentially emotional issue 01/10/11 My understanding of your comment in direct and plainer speak is that it is quite deliberately dismissive of the “'equal rights' marriage” issue and other” matters of prominence within popular political contention” quite overly simplistically as not worthy of discussion naming loss of ‘remnant bio-diversity’ as the only issue that matters in life. If my understanding is correct I regard your dismissive opinion as inanely unrealistic, an affront to common sense and quite offensive toward any individual possessing the intelligence to approach life realistically.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-10-02 14:44

FCOL, please feel free to say how you see the matter, in as much detail as you wish. All we know at the moment is that you don't have Greg's priorities. Let's hear what yours are and why.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-10-01 14:09

Thankyou Sheila for a far more meaningful comment and an interesting perspective on marriage and transition of property. That being said in my understanding property inheritance by default in our current system as a result of a marriage and a deceased partner is for the most part of greatest relevance when the person dies intestate. In the case of gay couples it is but one of many arguments put forth for the changes being sought. What really jumped off the page at me (in your second comment Oct 1st ) though nothing new to me is the fact that marriage is many different things to many different people. I wholly agree; this is factual and will never change. But is one reason why I lean toward retaining ‘marriage’ in this country to define a sole male & female union. Gay couples are fundamentally different and will always be so to hetero, so I fail to understand why they seek so strongly an identity that has always been a hetero term. Using your example of property inheritance between gay couples but also applicable to any other ‘benefits, rights or consequences’ attached to a marriage such aspects can undoubtedly be afforded to gay couples with a “marriageesque” style relationship but a distinctly different terminology by drafting appropriate legislation. If gays are openly so with nothing to hide and proud of themselves and their relationships I cannot understand why they would not accept a unique terminology and cherish it. Whilst it is not necessarily my opinion (still undecided) I have seen it proposed that gays seek legitimate use of the term “marriage” in preference to an alternate terminology because it may afford a greater ‘perception of acceptance’ in broader society of their homosexuality. I am sure there are gay people out there with views on this issue I would like to read their opinions as well. As to the poem, I didn’t like it, found it extremely hard work, tedious & extremely long, though the length assessment is closely linked to the enjoyment factor. But that is just my taste.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-09-30 14:23

This was first posted to Johnquiggin.com at 9.38am this morning, but is still awaiting approval as the episode of The Book Reading referred to in the comment is being broadcast. , It will be repeated tonight at 11.00PM. JS, 2:19pm, 30 Sep 

Episode 20, the final episode of 1984 is to be read today on ABC Radio National at 2.00PM today (and repeated tonight at 11.00pm). Those who have comprehended the news that the war, which we were told was launched against Libya in March in order to save the lives of Libyans from brutal oppression by Muammar Gaddafi and which has cost the lives of 20,000 Libyans so far, is to be further extended will, no doubt appreciate how well Orwell anticipated the future (if he was out in the date given by 25 years).

I would appreciate it, if a spokesperson for the Ministry of Truth were to be following this discussion, if he/she could substantiate and quantify the claims of Muammar Gaddafi's abuses of the human rights of Libyans which made the war against Libya necessary.

nimby

Sat, 2011-10-01 11:17

Dr Emerson said that we shouldn't be afraid of a growing population and of talking about where that population is needed! Our country's environmental sustainability should be the basis of our population size, not economics. On the contrary, we have every reason to be afraid of a growing population. Australia's ability to feed its growing population and the fate of the Murray-Darling are intertwining issues. Food security cannot be guaranteed without environmental sustainability, careful protection of our natural resources and biodiversity. Julia Gillard lied to the public when she said she didn't want to hurtle towards a "big Australia". Her declaration was nothing but political spin. We are heading towards a "big Australia". Dr Emerson is an economist, not an ecologists, agricultural scientist or a demographer. Norman Borlaug, the "father" of the green revolution, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech said: Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the population monster . His forty-year reprieve is over, global populations are reaching historical levels, and we need to become more preoccupied by the impending collapse of food-securing ecosystems. Central to his proposal is advocacy for increased permanent and temporary immigration directed to areas where it is needed -- including mining states and rural and regional areas that he believes have the potential to boost food production to serve growing Asian markets. Big Australia back on the agenda Dr Emerson was an advisor to former PM Bob Hawke. In an interview with Andrew Denton ENOUGH ROPE (14th July, 2008) he said: Population is exploding. We’ve got to do something about you know getting a sustainable population level and of course this gets back to poverty, it gets back to the education of women and so on. We’ve got the problems of food supply, of global warming, massive increases in the population. Now these are not the figments of Bob Hawke’s imagination. These are facts. Ah you’ve got you know over a billion people in the world of over six million now living in absolute poverty and half the world’s population living in very meagre situations. Bob Hawke as a Prime Minister was a strong advocate of high immigration and set a precedent for multiculturalism. Hindsight is an excessive luxury!

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-10-01 15:03

Pet food company Purina, producer of brands such as Purina One, Beneful, Ruffs, Supercoat and Bonnie, has come under fire for using kangaroo meat – a ‘product’ of the largest land based wildlife slaughter on the planet. Animals Australia campaign The industry is cruel. Spotlights are used to scare mobs of and shot at. Kangaroos are stress prone and have strong family bonds. Many of them are not hit outright and die slowly. The young and baby kangaroos are bludgeoned to death or left to die of starvation slowly. This is horrible and not a way to treat our wildlife. Up to one million joeys are considered acceptable collateral damage by tis industry. We do not want to support it. The public need clear labeling on pet food to avoid inadvertently supporting this shameful and cruel industry. Contact ACCC: ACCC online form OR phone: 1300 302 502

nimby

Mon, 2011-10-03 10:06

It's wrong to consider the ageing population in Europe as a "problem". Health is invested in to maintain good live spans, and then longevity is then considered an economic threat! Older people then are considered a drain on government resources for their healthcare'', according to RBS Morgans partner Simon Bond. This is a shallow and narrow, if not callous, regard for the elderly. One dimensional assessments of demographics is bound to be ill-informed and discriminatory. On the contrary, older people bring stability and wisdom. They help in child care, caring for the ill, and often do volunteer work. Vilifying the elderly for social unrest and economic pressure is unwarranted. Young people are actually a "drain on government resources" as they need much more investments and infrastructure. The modern-day economic threat of an "ageing population" is misconstrued, and unbalanced. A demographic "bulge" of older people is about heading towards sustainability, and offers a challenge for innovation and investment in knowledge-based industries. Rapid population growth means increased expediture, resulting in people tightening their belts to survive. Many Greek businessmen created factories in the Balkan countries and thousands of local businesses in Greece closed. The Greek shipping lines and the merchant fleet, that was once the most important industry of Greece, today flies under the so-called ‘cheap flags’ with 90% of the crew consisting of foreigners mainly from Asian countries. Farming, herding, fishing, seafaring, commerce, and crafts were the historical mainstays of the economy. Industrial manufacturing contributed 18 percent to the GDP in the 1990s and employed 19 percent of the labor force. The international balance of trade has long been negative. Greece’s imports now exceed its exports by more than 4 percent of its GDP, the largest trade deficit among eurozone member countries. No one mentions the true cause of its difficulties, the trade deficits with other euro countries, particularly Germany. It has to pay for its imports in euros. As a result of chronic trade deficits, countries have to deflate prices, including wages, to make their goods competitive in world markets and countries with surpluses like Germany are supposed to inflate their prices and wages to make their goods less competitive. Increased imports and less domestic production in a country slowly brings down the employment and in turn the gross domestic products also comes down. It's a cruel irony to blame the ageing population for a nation's woes when rapid population growth consumes excessive resources, social disruption and rising costs. Illegal immigration isn't slowing. Refugees don't care if Greece is in trouble, they only intend staying long enough to find a way to get to the "promised lands" of Germany, Britain or Scandinavia. It is an alarming situation that there are 2.5 million illegal immigrants living in Greece and another one million are in transit to enter the country. The "promised lands" should close their doors and batten-down against the tide of displacements and opportunism. Illegal immigrants have already been living from hand to mouth with the earnings available from occasional labour opportunities. Read more: The Age: Greek society unravels as despair deepens

nimby

Mon, 2011-10-03 18:20

Informa

2nd Annual Population Australia Summit

26th- 27th September, 2011
Rendezvous Hotel, Melbourne
Summary of some speeches - my comments in italics.

Dr Bob Birrell, Centre for Population and Urban research, Monash University

Building approvals for 2010-11 (9 months to March 2011) Melbourne - 35,128 Australia - 117,052 30.0 - Melbourne's share.
Melbourne is getting about 24% of net overseas migration to Australia but has 18% of our population, Why?
(only heard the last bit)
If people can't afford housing, no matter how many people are flowing in they won't buy.
Number of building approvals has expanded. Growth is heavily in 3 plus storey apartments. Expansion to 3 and 4 and 6 storeys is way ahead of demand. Are people adjusting? Consequence of investors/developers investing in growth will continue, in the CBD, Docklands etc. It's an overbuild situation, and a product of this boom.

Excessive houses and units on the market means the Bubble could implode. Investors are about 1/3 of purchases. With no capital gains, they must sell.
Young people think the prices will go up, and won't buy.
California – the pricking of the housing bubble and the fall in employment is serious. The human service industries will be very busy. Picking up the pieces of debris left by the growth-pushers and their Ponzi-economic style?

Prof Graeme Hugo, Director GISCA and Professor of Geography, University of Adelaide
Was on the panel for Minister of Population. There is a long history of population enquiries. We have no policy on population. 2010 there was a vigorous debate. There were 3 panels and 80 submissions. Published July 2011/
Graeme Hugo was on the panel: Demographic Change and Liveability.

A complex issue, and badly services. The challenge is to do something now. No “silver bullet”. There should be a policy that feeds into a wide range of other policies.
Population strategy needs to consider the implications and impacts of demographic changes across 4 domains.

  • Economic Growth and Productivity
  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Liveability
  • Social Inclusion .

Population policy must not stand alone – it must be integrated with economic, social, environmental and foreign policy and serve to facilitate and assist achievement of key national objectives such as enhancing prosperity, productivity, equity, sustainability and national
security.

Bulk of planning is for people already here, not for future populations.

The cost of not doing anything? We need behaviour changes for the whole population. There has been a substantial change in the use of water.
89% of Australians live in areas of declining rainfall.

There was little impact on the final report released by Minister Tony Burke that was influenced by the panels. No effort to discuss interventions to influence . Future population outcomes not resolved. Disappointing result. He still accepts that we must grow

Dr Katherine Betts, Adjunct Associate Professor, Sociology, Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology

Public opinion and the politics of immigration. Why continue with growth?
Policies aren't always popular. Some policies are made by governments on our behalf, even if it isn't in public interests, such as population growth.

Why do politicians insist on growth?
Why do they continue?
Shouldn't politicians do what the voters want? Few voters have the information. Client politics means that some groups benefit. They are a small number, but it pays off. It means more customers for businesses, cheaper labour, economic growth. The public get worse off, but it's thinly spread. (Freeman's Theory).

Most people worse off, a few people are better off. Forces for and against growth stack up. The spokespersons, lobby groups, are the commercial media and governments. Environmental groups are reluctant to speak out. Greens – nothing about numbers as they don't want to appear “racist”. SPA speaks out, but it's hard to promote stability. The only organised group. Most people are ill informed about asylum seekers. 90% of the migration debate is on the asylum seekers. 2050 numbers is not a useful strategy. Environmental and labour-marketing modeling need to be done together.
Complexity has to be accepted.

Minister Tony Burke's Population Strategy document : a massive disappointment. No articulation of submissions and panels. It just summarised existing government policy. There were ne discussion of migration, demographic issues and ageing.

Current document can't be a blueprint. It was badly served by tow sides of the population debate. Conclusion: we must accept growth?. A 30 year plan.
1980s, many voters were unhappy. We had high unemployment. Satisfaction on population growth relates to employment levels. 2009 - “too many” people.
Polarised attitudes. Large numbers don't want substantial growth. Bipartisan support for growth. Problem – new university graduates keep clear. Class, status and identity influence opinions. “new class” left wing. Progressive cosmopolitanism appeals to the Left. Debate leads swiftly and logically to Pauline Hanson. We have a North-South cultural dimension. Paul Kelly and progressive cosmopolitans= north, Social conservative, patriots in the South. There are few articulate spokespeople in the South. Conclusion: the growth-lobby is influential.

Mark O'Connor, Professional poet, Author of Overloading Australia.

At a growth rate of 1.6%, we will have 93 million people by 2010. We must get off the graph. Indonesia's growth is lower. Big businesses lobby for growth. More customers and cheaper labour. We have crippling house mortgages, divorce and congestion. Other species are going. It costs $250,000 per person for infrastructure and lasts 50 years. 1% more population adds 50% more for infrastructure. Social justice – it means the loss of jobs and training at about $34,000 for immigrants in the first 10 years over the benefits of immigrants. Rudd's “big Australia” went to free-fall. Strong inverse relationship between government stability and population growth. With 180,000 net migration, we are on course for a “big Australia”. Ken Henry questioned 35 million. It means loss of biodiversity. Doctors for the environment also speak out. Dick Smith – 36 million and then what?
I=PAT

Gormless Green equation. CSIRO – Australia's oil will by gone by 2010. common sense says we should lower immigration and stop paying baby bonuses. Norman Borlaug mentioned the population monster - no oil, no fertilisers etc. People are in denial. Growth can't go on forever. Shortage of labour considered more important than energy. Peak oil – our economy is in an oil-noose. Folly.

Anglo-Celtic countries based on growth. What do our cities produce in return? Dense cities have more car journeys. Dense cities can collapse in scarcity. They are sitting-ducks in war times. Nuclear? We have already seen the WW2 and tsunami in Japan. We can't reduce populations fast. We must never overshoot.
Planning – empty arguments. Vested interests collide with reality. They think that God or technology will “save” us.

Take -home message – of history – problems are always resolved? Empires and civilisations pass by. The Assyrian empire still doing well?
Optimism? – there are very powerful growth lobbies. Complex, and a cop-out. Growth is not inevitable. ABS – twice the deaths as births. Fertility at 1.9%. Our natural increase could go negative.
10 richest countries - balance with resources. Only riskier and shady businesses rely on growth. Urban Task force, Committee for Melbourne, UDIA - “authorities”, CEOs, (ie hidden growth pushers). Mark's speech was logical, supported by facts and data, and scary!

Kirsten Larsen, Policy Research Manager, Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab, University of Melbourne

FAO says that 70% more food will be needed by 2050. 42% more by 2032. Meat and dairy demands will grow. Up to 30-40% of the food produced sold and taken home by consumers in the UK and USA is thrown away. Land loss to urban development, and genetic and species losses to population growth.

90% of food comes from 4 food species.
Peak oil is denied. Nitrogen fertilisers are derived from natural gas. Big limiting factor. “Limits to Growth” 1972, by the Club of Rome. Dismissed.
Phosphate fertilizers are derived from phosphate rock, which is finite and expected to ‘peak’ in the near future. Peak oil is unavoidable. Availability of a nutritious diet must not be taken for granted .

CSIRO – limits to growth not addressed in 30 years.
Food security – access to food. At 36 million by 2050, we will have more refugees.
According to Kirsten, we have a moral obligation to “share our lifestyles” with those from overseas, contradictory if we don't have food security.

Prue Digby, Deputy Secretary Planning and Local Government, VIC Department of Planning and Community Development.

Volume of growth to remain growing. Planning is responsible for research and demographics. A reality analysis. Relationships between Councils and industry. Refinement of policies, regulation. NOM is important in Victoria. Historically, immigration responds to a strong demand for labour. We need an acceptable growth in the labour force.
3Ps
-Population
-Participation
-Productivity
86,000 new people in Victoria each year. Mixture of dwelling types:
Greenfield expansion
Redevelopment in each suburb
Infield – existing suburban block with townhouses
30% is infield
40% greenfield
25% redevelopment
40-50% of new houses in growth areas. “Released” land for housing. 30 years supply of land for housing as yet. Melbourne will expand 40 km north, 50 km east to Pakenham. Cost of infrastructure substantial. Grattan institute: 72% of people want a detached suburban house. Increased demand for apartment will continue.
“nimby” culture – reject all forms of change limits future generations.
Population and economy will growth. Refinement - continual improvements. We are also adaptive to new innovations. Regulation – planning reforms in more clarity. Key reforms will mean less red-tape. Councils need to reconfigure resources for strategic objectives. Anticipate and manage change is a mammoth task.

Nothing based on science, facts or data. Just about fulfilling government growth policy, under damage control and minimizing harm. Zero gain for the general public. Population growth is inevitable and not debatable. The “nimby culture” is more about democratic principles and social cohesion and community protection rather than a negative force.

The Hon. Tom Roper, President Australian Sustainable Built Environmental Council

Buildings are responsible for very high energy use. Carbon price will make a difference but not significant. Almost on difference to our current emissions. The Great Barrier Reef is dying. Number of days 30 degrees plus will increase, and effect liveability. New buildings won't cope by 2050. No longer use the past to predict the future.

We must design and build for future climates. I don't recall that he mentioned about how more people are "choosing" to live in high density apartments, with higher per capita emissions. How can greenhouse gas emissions be reduce while we have a contradictory growth-based economy? There are limits to energy efficiency.

Graham Woofe, Chief Executive, Housing Industry Association

Proposition – we are in an era of unprecedented change. Reason for affordability fall. Home ownership out of reach. Increase 2001 – 2008 very large. Baby boomers – result of a high fertility period. Children reached home-buying state. 70% of investors are mum and dad. House prices increased significantly. 1990 – 17% interest 2000 NSW was declared “full” by Bob Car. Higher prices for land and housing.
2008 – housing affordability a problem. Taxation played a major role.

Australian population growth – 2004 immigration lower. Costs of materials tracks CPI. Principle reason for growth of prices – inability to supply affordable houses. Governemnt inertial needed. Australia will require 1.6 more dwellings, 14 hotspots in NSW, 23 in Victoria. Areas at risk of housing shortages building at the current rate.

Melbourne will have a high oversupply. 6 groups of unprecedented change.

Horse-carriage manufacturers must have bemoaned the loss if their industry with the invention of motor vehicles. So with the housing industry boom times – they must end as limits to profits are faced.

Councilor Geoff Dobson, Mayor, Greater Shepparton City Council

Approximate population 62,000
Shepparton/Mooroopna growth 1.8% (2009-2010)

Council will next month consider adoption of the new ‘whole of Shepparton’ strategy to grow University education in this region . No limits to growth considered, high rise must be accepted in a rural area, and nothing about the fallouts of crime, and costs of growth.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2011-10-04 21:06

Denmark has just imposed a tax of 2.15 Euros per kilo on saturated fat in food. The aim is to prevent obesity. (French News report, France 2, October 3, 2011.)

Geoffrey Taylor

Wed, 2011-10-05 21:10

The following comment was posted to the forum discussion which followed SBS's Insight program of Tuesday 4 October Vote 4 What at 7.30PM:

I am homeless 3 years thanks to NSW Labor due to work place injury and being on 'work cover' being afforded little support and no protection from Star city casino rehabilitation scullbuggery and no thanks to Federal Coalition when in government as I had to let go of my mortgage as they wouldn't assist me in paying it as you would get 'rental assistance' renting when I on Centrelink payments, the Greens never return contact asking for assistance also, I will be just spoiling my ballots next elections.

nimby

Thu, 2011-10-06 13:37

While "boat people" consume the immigration debate, they contribute no more than 2% of our immigration numbers, and refugees less than 5 %. The rest of the 95% are ignored - "students", skilled, family reunion are conveniently clouded over with "racist" accusations. Social justice needs to start here, not focused so heavily on the overseas displaced. It is distorted to prevent society being too introspective, too analytical, too un-politically-correct. So many people are falling behind economically, and one accident like the above can be the tipping point when people are over-committed economically and time-wise. This is a tragedy and these silent social-injustices are being ignored by the main-stream media. India is vulnerable to sea-level rises that could devastate coastal communities and threaten an influx of millions of climate refugees from low-lying neighbour Bangladesh. Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Australia won't be able to ignore the "climate change" refugees from the Pacific. The Greens call upon the Pacific Island Forum at its 42nd meeting in Auckland next week to develop immediate plans to ameliorate the extent and effects of climate change, including: to map out a migration programme for those who, because of the effects of climate change, can no longer remain in their home countries in the Pacific. Social justice cannot over-ride domestic social justice issues, be used to over-burden us with ethical responses, or override or our own environmental/economic "carrying capacity" - and domestic social injustices. Overpopulation will take a heavy toll on humanity, and social justice should not be an excuse for inaction on climate change, or resort to the "we are a wealthy nation" so that we are forced to take on a disproportionate number of a coming and potential new category of refugees - climate change refugees!

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2011-10-07 12:13

Vivienne, I don't understand why, when much of our own population lives in low lying coastal areas which will be innundated, Australians are led to think that this country will be in a position to take climate change refugees from elswhere. Could someone explain to me this perception that Australians are somehow invulnerable to flooding? Imagine Brisbane as the sea rises, or Melbourne. Is any city safe from sea-level rise in Australia? Canberra maybe.

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-10-07 15:50

The "protected" whales in the Antarctic will be facing patrol boats with a speed of 46 knots, three gun housings, and surface-to-surface missiles. They will be facing a warship. Another class, the long-range Shikishima, carries a helicopter that could also be used to spot whale pods. Japan has accused Sea Shepherd of "violence" and "eco-terrorism" but now the conflict has gone past annoying tricks and rancid butter to the use of lethal weapons. There is a dark prospect of Japanese military action in Australian and New Zealand citizens in waters that we have declared an Australian whale sanctuary. The Antarctic has been the most peaceful place on the planet, but this will be changed forever. Despite the tragic tsunami and earthquakes devastating Japan, they will invest $400 million towards bogus whale "research" and an extra $25 million so the slaughter is not obstructed. 15,000 people died and over 125,000 buildings were destroyed or damaged in the March arthquake/tsunami. Others are still homeless, and landscapes dangerously wiped out. Sea Shepherd is a not-for-profit organization that receives no government funds. The Australian government donated $10 million to Japan's Red Cross and Pacific Disaster to support the victims. Massive donations were sent to the country, a first-world nation, to help with their recovery. Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd, said that Japan is financing its whale hunting for the most part with donation money it received after the earthquake and Tsunami disaster earlier this year. We should question giving aid to governments that obstruct justice and divert the funds.

Add comment