Miscellaneous comments from 3 December 2011

Sat, 2011-12-03 11:08 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 now closed on this form. Please add any new comments or comments in response to comments on this page on the new page here. - 5 Feb 12

Comments made on previous "Miscellaneous comments" page from 8 October can be found here.

Topic:

Comments

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-12-04 11:41

ABC Radio National's Background Briefing episode The great rural health challenge of this morning is well worth catching. It is repeated to on Tuesday at 7pm and can be listened to online or downloaded as an MP3 file.

The following comment has been adapted with minor corrections from the comments page of ABC Radio National:

If Australian medical graduates are unwilling to work in rural communities, then why won't the medical schools discriminate positively in favour of prospective students more likely to be willing to work in rural communities? Why not have quotas for students from the very regions now suffering from a lack of medical professionals?

If a poor country like Cuba has, for decades, been able to provide a medical service that can care for its own population and meet the needs of many in other countries, then why can't a much richer country like Australia?

This has happened because Australian Governments have been primarily interested in meeting the needs of selfish vested interests and not caring for ordinary Australians. That is why the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments so savagely cut back on education expenditure and have put the cost of medical study beyond the reach of ordinary Australians.

Rural Australians and overseas countries from which Australia has been seeking trained medical staff are now paying dearly for those choices. According to Kim Webber, CEO of the Rural Health Workforce since 2006, who was extensively interviewed on your program, Australia saved $350,000 per trained medical professional trained overseas. How she would reconcile her facilitation of Australia taking professionals, trained at such expense, from Third World countries with her responsibilities to the World Health Organisation for whom she also works, is difficult to imagine.

What a damning indictment of those governments and the 'free market' ideology that has brought us to this.

quark

Mon, 2011-12-05 12:20

In the 1960s, and possibly for longer, the Victorian government offered "studentships" to trainee primary teachers, school leavers embarking on a teaching career via a primary degree and supplementary teacher training, and to secondary art and craft trainee teachers. This meant that the students could be employees of the Education Department from the beginning of their studies. The catch was that they were "bonded" to the Education Department for 3 years after they completed their studies. This would normally bring them to the advanced age of 23 after which they would be free agents. The rationale for this was to provide teachers where they were needed so there was a high chance of being sent to a country town. As far as I know the scheme worked quite well.Many of the teachers enjoyed their experience and even stayed in the country after their bonds were completed. The studentships were an incentive to take on teaching as a career. This is both good and bad in that teaching is in my view almost a "calling" (another way of saying "vocation I suppose). and when there is is such an inducement , then there is a chance of unsuitable candidates being selected. This could be avoided by offering a studentship e.g. to doctors later n their courses with an undertaking that they would work say 2 years in the country.

Mary D. (not verified)

Sun, 2011-12-04 23:58

Bad news from Port Campbell. Huge plans for the Great Ocean Road by the Federal Government, the State government and the Tourism industry. And NO community consultation! What was Brain Welch of the Master Builders talking about ‘excessive democracy’? This is not democracy at all. Mega tourism developments without community consultation… http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/multimillion-dollar-plan-for-great-ocean-road-coast/2372122.aspx

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2011-12-05 20:57

The following was posted to the Australia Talks following a most forgettable discussion (mp3, 20M) about the state of Australian politics at the end of 2011, The political year ends.

I agree that Abbott represents no less serious a threat to our future than Howard proved to be after he defeated Keating in 1996. We must act urgently to prevent a repeat of that sorry experience, but this should not blind us to the gravely serious deficiencies of Gillard and Rudd or, for that matter, Keating and Hawke.

A point lost on all of the panel is that neither of the main parties, nor for that matter the Greens, stand for policies that this country needs and that Australians want.

What is needed is an end to the stranglehold that the ideology of "free market" has gained over Australian government policy at all levels since it was imposed upon us by Paul Keating in 1983 without any electoral mandate.

This dogma dictates that Government is no longer allowed to provide many of the services that they have in past nor to own wealth producing assets.

A most striking demonstration that this policy is opposed by the people that the politicians supposedly represent is the overwhelming opposition to privatisation. Polls have shown again and again, that the order of 70%, 80% and more of the Australians oppose the sale of their property to private corporations, yet Federal and state Governments of both major parties continue to do this.

A supposed democracy, in which its politicians are able to so flagrantly disregard the wishes and best interests of its electors, in this and in so many other regards, is just not good enough.

The above comment drew the following curious response:

Would you seriously like to return to the days of the monopoly of Telecom Australia with its "this is what we sell, like it or lump it" approach to customers? Or what about the domestic airline duopoly, Australian Airlines and Ansett, "these are our rates and terms, and the other's are pretty much the same". Or the banks who might give you a mortgage if that morning's coin flip had come up heads. Although it's a state matter, you might not have been bothered by the shops all closing at noon on Saturdays. You might never have been denied a job because you didn't want to join a union or the union had blackbanned you. John Howard was criticised for fondly remembering the "good old days" of the 1950s - you equally selectively remember the "good old days" of the Hawke/Keating era.

Without bothering to deal with all of the illogicality of the above post, the writer has clearly not properly read what was written. Where for, example did the post, he is supposedly responding to, refer to the "good old days" of the era of the 'Labor' 'free market' extremists Hawke and Keating?

Baby-boomer (not verified)

Tue, 2011-12-06 08:19

I will never vote Labor of the Greens again. One doesn't have to be too old- only a "baby boomer" - to remember when Victoria had the M.M.B.W and the Gas and Fuel, and the SEC. Public transport was run by Vic Rail all were owned by Victorians these were the public services where you could take up an apprenticeships, and young people could actually learn skills - instead of have "skills shortages" being used to ramp up economic immigration. As soon as they were privatized under the Kennett government, down went apprenticeships, along with skills training and opportunities. Tertiary education for some time was free, and students were paid a sufficient allowance (Studentship) to study. Housing was cheap, and actually "affordable". Water was cheap and we didn't need the blow-out cost of the desalination plant. It's assumed now that changes are necessary, and inevitable. However, with globalization of public services, industries, education and our population, Australia has declined financially, in livability and in level of services. It was also an attempt to disband the trade union movement and have a "free market" of casual/temporary employees. Decisions are made based on the Economic Principles, on global markets, and economic growth rather than on the interests of the voters, the welfare of the people, citizens of Australia.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-12-09 00:41

The following was adapted from a post I made to a forum discussion which followed from a recent ABC Radio National Auatralia Talks program.

The opportunity that "Australia Talks" has up until now, given ordinary Australians to challenge the mainstream orthodoxy that is fed to us by mot of the media, including much of the ABC, and which is being promoted on this page by some contributors, will no longer be there.

If we are to hope for any decent future it is urgent that people who have been using "Australia Talks" to promote democracy and human decency find other means to express their views. While we still have a free Internet, this opportunity still exists.

Use it!

If you have not already done so, establish your own blog and link to other resources on the web which promote truth and open dicussion. Go to forum discussion sites like onlineopinion.com.au, johnquiggin.com, larvatusprodeo.net, candobetter.net, webdiary.com.au to argue your case and hold to account our political and business rulers and the biased newsmedia ('alternative' as well as mainstream) as we are doing here now.

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-12-13 10:39

Our so-called anti-whaling government is not only failing to support Sea Shepherd's campaign, but they are actively obstructing their efforts. They are trying to delay plans to confront the Japanese whaling fleet. Chris Aultman, who has been their helicopter pilot annually since 2005, was denied a visa to Australia. He was not given a reason for this decision. Chris Aultman is veteran of the U.S. Marine Corp, a professional helicopter pilot, a star of Animal Planet’s Whale Wars series. He is a hero, a man who does not have a criminal record. It is his job to spot the whaling fleet, and report to the activists. There is obviously collaboration with Japan, to protect their interests. (reprinted from Sea Shepherd web site Captain Paul Watson spoke personally to Australian Environment Minister Tony Burke while attending the Australian Antarctic Expedition’s 100th year anniversary dinner in Hobart on December 1st. Captain Paul Watson: Mr. Burke will you be sending a ship to keep the peace this year? Tony Burke: That’s not going to happen. Captain Paul Watson: I think it would be the responsible thing for Australia to do considering the potential threat from the whalers who have indicated they intend to be far more aggressive this season. Tony Burke: Look, Japan requested that we send a ship to protect their ships from you. If we turned them down it’s only fair that we deny your request also. Captain Paul Watson: Well, except for one thing. Our ships carry Australian citizens on our crew and we will be in the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters and it is your duty to protect Australian waters and Australian citizens. Tony Burke: (shakes Captain Watson’s hand) It’s nice to meet you and stay safe down there. Captain Watson said after that conversation, “I wonder what the Minister will say if the Japanese injure any Australian citizens in Australian waters? I think this is grossly irresponsible of the government to refrain from due diligence in keeping the peace. Australia has stated that Japanese whaling is illegal and they recognize that it is being carried out in waters claimed by Australia. They know that Australian lives will be at risk and yet they refuse to get involved.” The denial of the visa for Chris Aultman is another indication of the Australian government’s hostility towards Sea Shepherd’s opposition to illegal whaling.

NIMBY (not verified)

Tue, 2011-12-27 12:20

There are recent reports of public hospitals locking out international students.
Politicians, bureaucrats and university administrators are ducking for cover. They come here and find themselves denied services taken for granted by domestic students, like transport concessions. International students, having been required to take out private health insurance, often find themselves no better off than uninsured locals. They can be denied public obstetrics services – something Australians enjoy automatically. Health industry workers tell stories of international students – sometimes innocently, sometimes not – adding pressure to a stretched public hospital system.

See Duck and weave by John Ross in The Australian of 2 Dec 11.

Sources also claim some students are subverting insurance rules by cancelling policies once they’re here and pocketing the unused portions of the premiums, but privacy laws protect them from being exposed.

Reports also reveal that medical specialists are losing thousands in unpaid fees because overseas student health insurance offers little gap fee coverage.

Health figures say that after GPs’ bills, maternity and termination services are the most commonly claimed insurance “items”. One in three abortions at the Women's and Children's Hospital is performed on international students, University of Adelaide research has found, predominantly carried out on Chinese students.

Opposition families and communities spokesman Stephen Wade says he has been told the figure could be as high as three out of four abortions being provided to international students.

International students are not cash cows, and we owe them support in return for the money, experiences and cultural diversity that they bring here. However, the reality is that they are here for their economic benefits, and as such, they should not burden our already stretched health-care system. They should have sufficient income and savings to ensure that they can continue their studies, allowing for health, accident and other issues, or else be sent home immediately.

Students come from countries who don’t extensively elaborate on sex education. Asian parents are known to be unwilling to speak about sexual health with their children. They start being sexually active in Australia, without traditional support and limitations.

David Zero (not verified)

Wed, 2011-12-28 16:45

China doesn't do sex education. D'uh.???????? Isn't China the only country with an effective one-child mostly population stabilisation program? International student education racket is not education -- never has been -- it's backdoor PR on the cheap. tHE REST OF USl pay to provide the roads, houses, hospitals, public transport, dams, pipes, power stations, poles and wires. Chattering class lefties employed in the unis on huge salaries, with huge holidays get richer and richer on this decades old, palpable spin. Melbourne Uni - [Candobetter Ed. Person's name deleted because needs three source verification] cannot name ONE international who has returned home. Contrast the Colombo Plan 40 years ago. Come on progressives, dont fall for the bullshit !!!!

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-12-30 14:53

According to a recent report, every Victorian now has a share of about $10,000 in the State Government's ballooning $56 billion debt. Auditor-General Des Pearson has warned the state's ability to service that debt is on the wane. Victoria sinking in an ocean of debt This puts pressure on the Baillieu Government's ability to fund core services such as schools, hospitals, roads, bushfire prevention and public transport. Government borrowings will total a whopping $46.9 billion by 2015, or $8108 for every man, woman and child in Victoria within four years. An economy based on perpetual growth is causes more problem than it solves. It means a continual cycle of debt and growth to service the debt. According to Kim Wells MP, Shadow Treasurer, Victoria should have been in a good financial position over the Budget estimates period to benefit from expected world economic growth post the crisis. However, on this point, the Brumby Government has failed Victorians. The reasons – 1. Labor’s financial mismanagement, characterised by waste and incompetent project management; 2. Steeply increasing state debt; and 3. A failure to properly plan for Victoria’s high population growth. However, if population growth outstrips available funding, housing, public services and infrastructure, who really benefits? He also said that the Victorian economy has been increasingly reliant on the housing sector and population increases to drive growth. Obviously, this can't continue indefinitely. Kim Wells has the benefit of hindsight, but kept silent during the Brumby era. Access Economics in its September Quarter 2009 report described population growth as “underpinning” the State’s economic growth. Our economy is thus on very weak footing as it can't be maintained for the long term. Future State governments have further to fall financially, with more people to support without little manufacturing and sustainable economic foundations. Hundreds of thousands of Victorians are waiting too long for care in the state's hospitals, and waiting times in emergency departments are dangerously high. We are being choked by queues, congestion, housing, nurse, and teacher shortages, and even potential food shortages. Our government continues to advertise "skills shortages" in Victoria and immigration to meet demands. Live in Victoria - visas and immigration Rather than "shortages", what we have is a surplus of people! Our government still prefers roads and freeways over public transport upgrades. There is a myth that freeways relieve traffic congestion. In fact, they may provide some short-term relief, but within a short time the extra road capacity generates more traffic than there was before. In the long term freeways just allow congestion to grow further rather than reduce it. Public Transport Users Association It promotes more car usage, and urban sprawl. Also, those who hold the purse-strings and back-room political power prefer roads and freeways to service the mega-stores, big businesses and supply chains. They pull the strings for perpetual growth. Public transport is begrudgingly supported as it's basically only for the public. We have a big shortage of common-sense in the Victorian government. We need an investment of who and what we have in Victoria, not an obsession with expensive and destructive growth. We are drowning in debt with a noose of "shortages" around our necks.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-12-30 22:44

ARGENTINA has imposed new limits on foreign ownership of farm land.
The move will give the government greater control over agriculture.

Non-Argentines will be banned from owning more than 1000 hectares.

And no more than 15 per cent of Argentina's farm land can be sold to foreigners.

There will also be a limit of 30 percent of foreign-owned land that can be held by people of the same nationality.

A national land registry will also be etablished to enable the government to determine who actually owns land.

The move has come amid growing concern in Australia over foreign buy-ups of farmland, and the lack of monitoring of land ownership.

The current Australian control of approval of sales over $231 million has come under heavy fire from farm groups in 2011.

Argentina president Cristina Fernandez is believed to want to have greater control over farms, which deliver a large chunk of tax revenue for the Government.

See Argentina limits foreign farm ownership of 24 Dec 11 at
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2011/12/24/423391_latest-news.html

NIMBY (not verified)

Sat, 2012-01-07 09:28

"Human population growth has caused significant habitat degradation across the globe, typically in support of agriculture and urban development," lead researcher Chrystal Mantyka-Pringle from University of Queensland said in a statement. Governments need to select which animals can be saved, as species losses are inevitable. The combination of habitat loss and climate change is "catastrophic". Human population growth is causing climate change, and habitat losses. Population growth alone is impacting on species. Current management is inadequate against the massive tide of human growth. "More proactive management strategies such as moving species, engineering habitat, and even abandoning our efforts to save certain species in one area in favour of other areas may be more effective." The most important determinant of habitat loss and fragmentation effects, averaged across species and geographic regions, was current maximum temperature, with mean precipitation change over the last 100 years of secondary importance. Habitat loss and fragmentation effects were greatest in areas with high maximum temperatures. Conversely, they were lowest in areas where average rainfall has increased over time. A recent study suggests that, despite 250 years of taxonomic effort, a mere 14% of the world’s species are recognised by scientists. Worryingly, anthropogenic effects, including habitat loss, climate change, and invasive species, threaten to exterminate thousands of species before they are even described. ESA listing (Endangered Species Act) decisions often become political because listings have the power to stop development projects that impact listed species. The polar bear has emerged as a powerful image in the debate about climate change, with environmentalists arguing that the fate of the largest land predator on earth is a dramatic indication of what is at stake. However, silently species are disappearing and being threatened in our back yards. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/australian-scientists-create-world-...

Lorna Salzman (not verified)

Sun, 2012-01-08 07:16

Evo Morales is a cut above the rest of the Latin American neoliberal phony leftists but his plan to build a major superhighway through the
northern part of Bolivia, right through the Beni rainforest area, is no better than what Exxon and agribusiness and multinational corporations are
planning as they conspire with Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Peru and Venezuela to despoil indigenous areas in the rainforest and Andes. Naomi Klein has lent her
leftist credentials, for whatever they are worth, to that fraud named Bill McKibben, who has no ideas or plans whatsoever to counteract global warming, is funded by the Rockefellers, reaches out to corporations telling them how they can make more profits by "going green" and eschews political organizing completely. Global Research director Michel Chossudovsky is the most notorious and least trustworthy of all the snake oil salesmen alive, promoting conspiracy theories and
other spurious scientific and political twaddle. But you did get it right by putting Noam Chomsky on the Dark Side. Now add all these others to that category.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2012-01-08 12:54

It's hard to know how to respond, when Lorna has yet to substantiate some of her claims either here or in any resource linked to from here

If, as Lorna claims, explicitly or implicitly, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Naomi Klein and others are "neoliberal phony leftists", then what political leader or intellectual of any consequence is not?

A trap I fell into in the past was acceptance of the "far left" schema which presumes that anyone who attains any political stature whatsoever in a capitalist world could only have done so by compromising his/her principles.

An obvious exception to this is former President John F Kennedy, who selflessly stood up to the military-industrial complex to prevent wars including, on at least three occasions, the horror of nuclear war. In spite of this, the "far left" have used this schema to imply that Kennedy could not have been any better than any of the other Democrat or Republican leaders, corrupted by money from vested interests. This has been used in turn by them to help the Warren Commission's cover up of the conspiracy to murder him.

The evidence I have seen, including their demonisation by the corporate newsmedia, suggests to me that those labeled by Lorna as "neoliberal phony leftists" are, to the contrary, leaders who are acting for their people against vested interests and will stand by that assumption until I see evidence to the contrary. This is not to say that all of these people are without flaws, but it still seems to me that they are people with good intentions. If more leaders were like them we would have a much better world.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2012-01-08 14:44

Hi Lorna, I hope you will actually argue your case against Chussudovsky and the others instead of reiterating the mainstream slur and leaving it at that. You must have some evidence. As you would be aware, history is chockerblock with conspiracies (where there is power there are always conspiracies from the Little Princes in the Tower to faction formation and leadership coups in political parties to advertising messages and mainstream media designation of what is 'news') so to say something is just a conspiracy theory and therefore should not be considered isn't enough. You have to argue with it. I hope you will try. Much of Stalin's political manoevering against other members of the communist party involved conspiracy. Military conspiracies are arguably necessary for military manoevers to go ahead, such as the one where Rosevelt authorised getting the Japanese to make the first move at Pearl Harbour which US army high-ups knew of 3 or 4 days in advance. But the media presented the Pearl Harbour attack as a big surprise, which most people retain as the truth to this day. Here's another you can work out logically: the privatisation of public assets and services, like telecommunications and banks has been justified with obviously false arguments about the economic and social benefits to wider society. There must have been powerful motivators to get governments to privatise, but these real reasons are never provided to the public. Yet privatisation continues against every objection and political parties and the press collude to ensure that it never becomes a factor at election time, despite some impressive ostensible attempts to stop it and other unworthy activities: John-Paul Langbroek and why the Liberal National Party won't survive unless Labor Governments reform Some other big ones: the Enron scandal; Weapons of mass destruction and the government persecution of a CIA agent who tried to alert it to the evidence (dramatised in the film Fair Game); Health Insurance in the United States as exposed by Michael Moore in Sicko, where senators were receiving money to vote down reform - it might be legal, but it sure was covert; Watergate; the Benign Demographic Transition ideology as an excuse for colonisation and corporatisation. How could the global banking industry and sharemarketeers continue to dominate in favour of the interests of a few without continuing conspiracy with lawmakers - politicians and lawyers - to legalise what they are doing? The concept of 'willful blindness' which seems to be often a necessary component of conspiracies is explored in a great book by Margaret Heffernan, who gives some amazing examples of conspiracy where 'wilful blindness' helped it along. She writes about collusion by beneficiaries of X-Ray technology suppressing for several decades until the mid 1980s scientific evidence that use of X-rays on pregnant women was causing many childhood cancers. Heffernan also gives the example of a whole town suppressing evidence of the link between asbestos mining and mesothelioma despite a huge local death rate. Part of this 'wilful blindness' was the reluctance of the public to see themselves as victims or to believe that the town and industry authorities would treat them with such contempt. Turning away from the recognition of your own powerlessness is also a reason for wilful blindness. Why acknowledge persistent powerlessness? - it is too painful. This blindness in the asbestos town was considerably helped by the kind of denial that accompanies unavoidable danger as well. So then it could be exploited by those who benefited from continuing to mine asbestos or from continuing to pretend - continuing to conspire - that asbestos did not cause cancer etc. And how about the conspiracy by industry beneficiaries to downplay the dangers of fracking for gas? France has totally outlawed fracking, yet some countries - mine and yours - continue to defend it. And it seems to me that in Australia, half the laws are the results of conspiracies by vested interest with politicians to defraud the rest of us. Laws reducing our land-rights are particularly rife at the moment. Here there is also a conspiracy to confuse the public about what the immigration numbers are, to increase immigration and to open Australian land-purchase to anyone in the world simply in order to increase the demand for housing and thus the profits to be got from developers. This is really systemic fraud and conspiracy. We have some interesting related scandals which you could read about here: Australian Labor Governments or Commercial Corporations? And some really unusual long-running associations that inexplicably draw international money and patronage: My own feeling is that the success of the ideology that "it's usually a stuff-up rather than a conspiracy" and that people who question mainstream opinion are 'conspiracy theorists' in a derogatory sense may come from that sense of powerlessness many citizens may feel as they recognise the hollowness of their so-called democratic rights. And 'conspiracies' are made to seem so difficult to prove. As a sociologist, however, I found a very useful political theory about how vested interest can organise much better than those larger masses it exploits. The theory comes from James Q Wilson, ed., The Politics of Regulation, Harper, New York, 1980. Wilson puts forward a framework derived from four types of politics classified according to whether the benefits and costs of policies are concentrated or diffuse: client (cb,dc), interest group (cb,cc), majoritarian (db,dc), and entrepreneurial (db,cc). Narrowly focused benefits mean that those benefiting from something are consciously aware of this and are able to recognise each other and organise to keep those benefits flowing. [Those in receipt of narrowly focused benefits may organises to keep those benefits flowing overtly or covertly. Where costs are diffuse and fall upon a disparate population at many different points in many different ways, they are difficult to identify and there are no obvious political rallying points for the public to organise a protest around. The organising by the focused beneficiaries is often conspiratorial because they do not want to make the connection between their 'upstream' activities and the 'downstream' impacts obvious because that would engender protest. From this theory comes a methadology of looking for activities that will reveal the focused and diffuse costs and benefits of unpopular processes or activites and then to look at media, laws and other activities, to see who is promoting those processes and activities. It's like throwing an ultraviolet light on a murder scene - all the evidence lights up. Also, my own experience of NGOs shows them to be a hot-bed of conspiracy; they are like small towns with office bearers and other influentials fighting to maintain their hegemony and their footing in what has become their society and identity in a world where so much is disconnected. And NGOs are involved in terrifically important work, which usually goes unrecognised, so the internal struggles can be titanic, with life and death principles at stake. So, in conclusion, conspiracies are everywhere, IMHO, but it is easier to call them covert or unrecognised or unofficial social adaptations, since it is very hard to establish motive unless there is a clear money trail. I look forward to some debate!

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2012-01-08 14:55

The owner of this site has evolved an excellent conspiracy rating system and some very good analysis: http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/ Saturday, March 10, 2007 Conspiracy Theory Rating Scale This is just an idea of mine that's been bouncing around in my head for awhile: I've never seen any sort of objective rating system whereby a current conspiracy theory could be rated as to it's validity or possible truth. The hardest part in doing this would be setting up the criterion to apply for the rating. The actual ranking would go something like this: 5 = An event that has essentially been proven true, but initially was considered conspiracy theory (See the post "List of Proven Conspiracies" on the second page of this blog - I'd consider most of those a "5") 4 = An event that has a large body of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a strong liklihood that it is true, and that an "official version" of the story is probably not entirely true. 3 = An event that could go either way, something that has a lot of troubling unanswered questions, a lot of "loose ends" that haven't been adequately explained, but the "official version" could be just as valid - just a lot of unanswered questions. An event that in all liklihood needs "filling in the blanks". Many theories fall into this category - there just hasn't been enough research to tie everything together or adequately explain everything. 2 = An event that can, through use of such techniques as Occam's Razor, investigative reporting, a specialist's knowledge of science and/or engineering & physics, usually be successfully de-bunked. Usually scenarios in this category involved plots that seem a little too complicated or logically unlikely, and are sometimes based on assumptions that are false to begin with. 1 = An event or belief in something that can be very easily dismissed, even by those who have no more knowledge than the average person, using commonly held knowledge and common sense. Using this scale, most of the conspiracies listed in the "List of Proven Conspiracies" would in my opinion be rated a "5". An example of a "4" would be the conspiracy theory that the JFK assassination involved more than a single bullet, and possibly more than one shooter from different locations, and that it was the product of an elaborate conspiracy rather than a lone deranged nut firing a single shot from one location. The conspiracy theory that states that the moon landings were staged and faked might get a 3 - some things have been debunked, but not others. The mysterious "disappearance" of the original videos of the landing is troubling too - they didn't disappear until lately when computerized digital video enhancement techniques became available. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Buzz Aldrin leaving a question and answer meeting in tears when asked to describe what it felt like to walk on the moon.... What was up with that anyway? Example of a 2 would be something like the standard tinfoil hat thing, because we are supposedly the target of mind control - things like that..... 1's?? The Flat Earth Society, etc. Will continue working on this to develop it..... Later......... Posted by the Curmudgeon at 2:14 AM 0 comments More here

nimby

Mon, 2012-01-09 08:18

The Gillard government is grappling with a diplomatic crisis over three Australian anti-whaling activists being held on board a Japanese whaling fleet ship and facing possible criminal charges in Japan. Of course, boarding a ship is illegal, but these activists are trying to draw attention to their illegal and criminal commercial whaling, and complete disregard for international environmental sanctions against the poaching of whales in a whale sanctuary. The protesters climbed aboard the security ship Shonan Maru No. 2 in darkness on Saturday night off the south coast of Western Australia. They are not just "environmental activists" but concerned that protected whales are being harpooned illegally, and their lives are in danger - so that Japan can assess their ages from their inner ears? The Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has repeatedly rejected calls to send the Ocean Protector south this summer, saying the government had ''no plans'' to do so. He is blatantly abrogating his duty to our nation, and lazily shrugging off our anti-whaling status. Our government ministers are paid, with tax-payers' funds, to have policies that represent the interests of the people of Australia, and implement them. With the whalers also calling for a patrol ship from Australia, it's obvious that our policies on whaling are ambiguous, despite years of diplomatic pressure on Japan to end their "research". Our government's inaction is actually aiding and abetting Southern Ocean commercial whaling operations, We are in a strategic position to uphold international environmental laws and policies. As the Minister for the Environment of a democratically elected government, Tony Burke is not in a position so simply dismiss the use of the Ocean Protector as a means of ending the peace-threatening conflicts. It's time Tony Burke ended his holidays, got back on duty and made some "plans" according to his role as an accountable Minister of a democratically-elected Federal government.

Bandicoot

Tue, 2012-01-10 12:29

The Environmental Protect Biodiversity Conservation Act 1990, among other things, prohibits actions that, both directly and indirectly, are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. The Act also establishes the Australian Whale Sanctuary, which includes waters of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory. The Australian Whale Sanctuary corresponds to Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. On Saturday, Sea Shepherd helped three members of the environment group Forest Rescue board the Shonan Maru 2 near the Western Australian coast. The boarding took place in an area of waters where Australia’s Contiguous Zone (CZ) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) overlap. Australia can only police the customs, fiscal, immigration and quarantine laws that apply in Australian territory and Territorial Sea (which reaches to 12 nautical miles from the coast). In the EEZ Australia can regulate fishing (and whaling), other resource activities (such as mining), and can take action to control pollution. But it cannot extend Australian law generally or exercise jurisdiction over foreign ships for any reason it pleases. The EPBC Act also establishes the Australian Whale Sanctuary, which includes waters of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone adjacent to the AAT, and Regulations under the Act specify approach distances and appropriate behaviour for aircraft and vessels in the vicinity of cetaceans. Japan's whaling is under the smoke-screen of being "scientific research" which they and we know is not valid. It's phoney as whales can better be studied without being lethal. Japan’s whaling activities are contrary to its international obligations, in particular, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Despite Australia repeatedly calling on Japan to cease its illegal whaling activities, Japan has refused to do so. That is why the Australian Government has taken this case in the International Court of Justice. The Gillard government has slammed the actions of three anti-whaling protesters as "unacceptable" and warned that others who carry out similar protests will be "charged and convicted". However, the government should be preventing crimes in our near oceans, and illegal whaling, not condemning the actions of law-enforcers trying to do what they should be doing!

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2012-01-10 17:41

Whaling is a sport. It is not scientific. It is not a primary industry because there is stuff all market for whale meat and the only way it is sold is because the Japanese Government subsidises the cost. Whaling is a cultural sport only and a backward cultural one at that. It is all about game.

The Japanese are traditionally a patriarchal society. Japanese males violating Australian waters for foreign whales for sport is consistent with Japanese male cultural history of violating foreign women they euphemistically called 'comfort women'.

Such Japanese culture is backward and foreign and has no place in Australian waters and the Australia Whale Sanctuaries that Australia is custodian for.

Check map of: Australia Whale Sanctuaries

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

nimby (not verified)

Fri, 2012-01-27 10:48

Now that Australia Day has passed, there have been some targeted condemnation of Australia as a very "racist" country. However, it's all social engineering to keep democratic debate off the agenda. Of course, there are some red-necks who are racist in the original meaning of the term, but the newest definition is about shutting down debate of our high, mostly Asian, immigration rate and foreign asset acquisition. All species of animals protect their herds or communities from outsiders. It's about protecting limited resources, territories and their gene pool. Australia is an extraordinarily tolerant nation. Due to globalization, Australia as we knew it hardly exists. While cultural diversity is stimulating, and some foreign imports and exports are beneficial and healthy, Australia is being sold off to reap the benefits of being part of the "Asian Century". Economic growth is the main aim of governments now, even at the detriment of the Australian public, our own industries and our identity. Australia is being eaten away for foreign imports, and our own manufacturing is going offshore. China lacks human rights, or trade unions. Thus, they have billions of willing cheap and available workers to undercut local produce such as foods. "Made in Australia" is not an ideal being encouraged by our Federal government. They prefer to defer to China's powers and cooperate with APEC. Indigenous peoples, the traditional owners of our land, have not been consulted about selling off our land to foreigners, about mining, wildlife managment and exploitation, about our influx if immigrants, or our population growth. They have been given lip-service treatment. No wonder they were angry on Australia Day!

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2012-01-27 19:13

More more traditionally one is Australian, the more one is shunned
Australian Prime Minister Gillard's Australia Day speech yesterday at the nation's capital spoke of modern Australia’s greatest story of inclusion and belonging, but she was referring to new comers to Australia, to immigration..."this your home for you and your descendents forever". No mention or recognition was made to Australia's traditional people...inclusion? and belonging?
No mention was made of traditional Australians of colonial ancestry. No mention is made of struggling and forgotten rural and regional Australia. No mention is made of the many Australian families struggling due to recent corporate retrenchments and offshoring - such as by Qantas, Toyota ACL, Suncorp, BlueScope, Heinz, Westpac, Pacific Brands, etc. The Labor Party support base is increasing looking to the immigration base. Perhaps this is why Bob Katter has decided to offer an alternative party in The Australian Party.

Much of Labor's investment and expenditure focus is celebrating the immigrant ahead of all other peoples of this nation. Whitlam-Fraser's multiculturalism remains all about accepting and tolerating and embracing foreign cultures. No clarity or interest is provided to Australian traditional culture(s) and what Australian core values may entail. So the silent majority remain silent for fear of being branded racist and it is the most successful censorship campaign over public opinion and free speech since the Whitlam years. Most government employees are now immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. Rudd still wants his 'Big Australia'.

[Read Prime Minister Gillard's official Australia Day Speech of 2012].

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2012-01-28 03:42

Even Bob Katter's "The Australian Party" supports high immigration.

"Australia needs to increase its population to achieve acceptable levels of economic, scientific, strategic and personal development. Government must develop immigration and birth rate policies consistent with these principles. In addition, the population growth needs to be distributed widely throughout Australia and especially into northern Australia".

It's a red-neck group:

"Australians must have the freedom to pursue outdoor recreational activities of their choice including hunting, shooting, fishing, boating, camping, 4-wheel driving, horse riding, rock climbing, and bushwalking without unnecessary limitations and restrictions".

They also support the cruel and indefensible live animal exports for its economic value.

Tigerquoll

Sun, 2012-01-29 14:27

RE The Australian Party not recommended comment above

Yes, Katter's big Australia mandate for more foreign labour sux, as does unresticted bush bashing and cattle bashing.
I should have read the red print.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

bilbie (not verified)

Sat, 2012-01-28 17:17

With Australia Day has come a barrage of "racist" accusations against Australians. Various news websites all report that people who fly Australian flags on their cars have been found to be more racist than those who don't. Of 513 people at last year's Australia Day fireworks in Perth, it was found that one in five had attached the flags to their car, and 88per cent surveyed thought it was a patriotic step. But at least the flag-flyers aren't overtly racist. Those ''speak english'', ''love it or leave it'' and ''f--- off, we're full'' bumper stickers. This is not about ugly racist hate, eugenetics, segregation, vilification, separations, physical attacks, apartheid, or genocide against specific racial groups. It's about attitudes, a fear that excess patriotism will divide a nation and compromise our government's multicultural and population growth agendas. It's to manipulate the public into silence about immigration, population debate and any criticisms about how successfully integrated we are. Surgeon Charlie Teo condemned Australia as racist and said "when I left Australia, I knew that it was racist towards Asians, and when I went to America there was virtually no racism towards Asians". Yet, he admitted that Chinese are very racist, and that his mother used to be quite racist against "you whities", and the Japanese are quite racist against Chinese, Chinese against Japanese. That's a lot of racism! Given the huge number of nationalities that make up this country, which nationality does he actually accuse of being 'racist'? The Chinese? Vietnamese? Africans? Afghans? Irish? Americans? English? Spanish? It's usually targeted toward "white" people and build up guilt for our "white Australia" colonial past. Former governor-general Peter Hollingworth has branded Australia Day an excuse for a booze-up, adding we are all racist deep down. Australia Day is now about controlling and mellowing down patriotism so that those who remember Australia as the wealthy "Lucky Country" will focus on welcoming new arrivals and celebrate the all the various ethnic groups who arrive here to share our hospitality. It's a a ploy by the media and politicians, with the help of celebrities, to create a collective guilt, and stop debate on our immigration policies, to stifle any questioning of the success of our multiculturalism and of our high immigration numbers - one of the biggest of the developed nations. Australia Day has become a not so much a time to recognise and appreciate our forefathers, our fledgling culture, our indigenous peoples, our cultural and natural heritage, our history, our flora and fauna, but toned down to focus on the benefits of immigration, "diversity", and the prosperity population growth is supposed to bring us!

nimby

Wed, 2012-02-01 10:58

The Australian government has generously made a commitment to promoting food security in Africa, including $142 million in aid for the current crises in East and West Africa. (October 11 2011) According to the press release, Africa holds 60 per cent of the world’s uncultivated farmable land however one in three people still go hungry there every day. Under-investment in agricultural research and innovation, along with a decline in agricultural productivity, are key factors affecting Africa’s ability to bring about food security. Australia has unique agricultural and scientific expertise and world class teaching and research institutions that are well-suited to African agriculture and food security. This expertise includes dry-land and tropical farming, climate change adaptation, commercialisation of agricultural research and water and soil management. Press office - Australia strengthens food security in Africa Australia’s total funding in response to the drought and famine in the Horn of Africa now stands at $128 million - including $98 million in humanitarian assistance and $30 million for the region’s long-term food security. However, nothing has been recommended for funding family planning, or reproductive health for women. Africa is a Malthusian nightmare, and there are limits to how Nature can be expected to be as generous as our government, and deny its limits to feed more hungry people. More than 13 million people in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia are in urgent need of food and humanitarian aid because of consecutive droughts, following two poor rain seasons. The United Nations has launched a $2.48 billion international emergency appeal in response to the crisis. The warnings from the environment are obvious, and need to be heeded. The elephant in the room is that food production over the last decades has increased arithmetically, but population growth has increased geometrically, outstripping food supplies. The Australia government's International Food Security Centre should a study how to stablilze global populations, ensure our own food security, and promote a steady-state economic model. Unfortunately, the harsh reality is that Nature has her own unemotional way of enforcing equilibrium on the planet. If there are too many people at any moment, there will be a tragic shift to more appropriate numbers. Throwing money at corrupt regimes won't help, and there is a limit to how agricultural science can cajole and extort natural ecological systems to produce more food! By 2031 our projections indicate that 95% of possible population outcomes for Australia will put the population between 27 and 33 million. Twenty years later in 2051, it spans 29 to 43 million. The proportion of the population aged 65 years and above will lie between 21% and 28%. Our present economic growth model is contradictory and hypocritical as it forces us to ignore all Nature's warnings on the limits to growth in deference to a bigger GDP, and a bigger Australian population. We need to end being an "immigration nation" and become a vibrant, mature and stable nation guided by common-sense and strategically balanced policies, not based on sacrificing long term survival, amenities and food security for the short-term cash grabs of population growth. Australia's population growth, security and food security should also be holistically addressed, along with a consuming economic model that demands perpetual growth!

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2012-02-02 01:03

http://brimbank-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dont-destroy-our-keilor-village/

Keilor folk have asked for help so I have posted a comment on this article in the Brimbank Leader. Do help them by taking a minute to add a few words of support for retaining their village atmosphere.

We have a fight on our hands with the possible destruction of our beautiful village.Please feel free to have your say on this article supporting our cause .

http://brimbank-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/dont-destroy-our-keilor-village/

Comments now closed on this form. Please add any comments in respose to comments on this page or any new comments on the new page here. - 5 Feb 12