If we have massive and chronic skills shortages, why are so many foreign students lured here? Surely it means we have a world class standard of education, in TAFES and universities?
If our educational standards are so high and attractive, why do we have "skills shortages"? It's not lack of universities, but lack of support and high costs of study.
Institutions have become dependent on foreign income, and the ideals of education have been corrupted by fees.
Surely it's an irony that we have "skills shortages" yet at the same we time attract students from all over the world for our presumably high standard of education? It's a contradiction due to having our resources globalized.
Comments
The P increasing will negate any common efforts to reduce I
Climate change is a human overpopulation problem. Populations soared with cheap energy and fuel, and with decline, we are left with the side effects to deal with. "Climate change" is often used to explain extinctions, land degradation. the death of our oceans, shortages of water and soils. If we deal with the P in IPAT, the change in technology and affluence from easy energy will look after themselves.
The "green" hypocrites want to ignore the P, and force us to reduce the I by reducing the Affluence, and changing T the technology that produces carbon emissions.
I = environmental impact
P = population
A = affluence interpreted as consumption per person, and
T = technology
I = P•A•T
Decreasing I while we keep increasing the P means a massive amount of decrease to both A, and T.
While our population increases, the decreases we might force ourselves to accept, for the greater good, will be negated by an increasing P. Wartime rations were bearable because everyone was united in the common good, and survival. Having rationing forced upon us due to a Ponzi population scheme, by our leaders, to make some elite rich while other bear the costs is not something that will be easily adopted.
Immigration are the students; we don't need more people here!
This article is in depth and covers the neglect as well as the aid that overseas students receive, where applicable.
Bandicoot, you're right about the media not mentioning enough about international students - now that the numbers of them are so high and the industry is so big, there might be less in the news about them, which is suspect... But go back say five years ago, there were features in the paper(s) about how they might feel targeting and items about how oh, they're really not that rich at all and with a bit of bias, how they're 'good for our economy'. But to be more to the point - the immigration 'debate' and mentions in the media ONLY cover re: asylum seekers and the immigration department's dealings in that area. It is a perfect and strategic SMOKESCREEN for the REAL immigration coming into the state and the country, which is of the overseas students! Ha! Yep. One would have to be daft as well as dumb to believe that immigration numbers are coming from 'boat people'... No way. Economic migrants make up the unnatural population growth that is causing stress to so many aspects of our lives i.e childcare places, school places, parking spots, our human right to housing. If anything pop' growth is broken down and reported like it's a good thing while, yeah, students who later apply for residence pass easily through the immigration application.
But the frightening facts of their visa fine print - which might cause some relief for some foreign students - of not being encouraged to hold onto their supposed AU$75,000 their meant to have on them when they apply for the visa and not even having to present a return air ticket has and can, as you've experienced, backfire - big time - to the point where the Imm' Dept and even hospitals wash their hands of a foreign visa holder, and so does an Embassy or Consulate! There could be a lot of this happening, what with agencies here and abroad promoting the work hours they're allowed to have while enrolled in a full-time course, implying that it's easy to earn money here, but for those not used to even working, let alone managing grocery shopping and cooking and dealing with housemates, all this could be super super stressful. How many say Asian nationals end up completely destitute and vagrant, while still being 'legal', in the country, while too 'sick' or even too homeless to contribute labour in the workforce... We don't need more homeless in Australia, especially any that are still legals in the country with student visas that don't have much tied to studying or to the course institution itself, if one hasn't paid the fees they need to pay. Of course, the media don't relay these facts and figures to its audience. It might be charities/groups like the one you've listed that would have experience with foreign visa holders as they encounter huge financial stresses and other, stresses.
A lot comes down to the support to our own universities and State-run Tafes which has had funds denied to them. The overseas student industry should be 90% canned and where they are allowed here, they should be expected to return home and not allowed to work here, meaning they are genuine about the course they are studying while the visas given to them being harder to get, requiring a ticket home and sufficient funds in an Australian bank account. The main scam, I suppose, is that the industry goes hand in hand with the immigration State governments rely upon, as we have the highest immigration rate in the developed world! We don't need either (or the same) group in this country. We have enough people who want qualifications and people in general here; we in Vic just need to have other viable industries, and not property development and the lust for cheap labour across many sectors that new residents bring. Our hospitals aren't being expanded and more resources being offered to them to even keep up with the demand on them, so we do have enough work just with our own young people and their needs in terms of health, accomodation and social support, let alone foreigners with family problems! It's not for us to be helping them here, really, but they are being scammed.
Massive new development in outer SE of Melbourne
THE City of Casey is to get a new suburb with a population the size of Wangaratta after Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved a plan for a community 5km south of Berwick.
Clyde North will have a population of more than 18,000 people when its 6000 homes along Cardinia Creek are finished.
Mr Guy is quite happy to "paint ourselves into a corner" by covering fertile soils with housing, concrete and lawns. Once covered, it's dead and gone forever. The soils die, and in a country with less than 8% arable land, our food security is being compromised. We can't eat houses.
The farmers and scientists are warning us not to take our food security for granted in the driest continent on Earth, but "developments" are obviously more lucrative! With 1300 new residents flooding into Victoria each week, jobs for builders and developments are assured.
A Bus Association study last month showed that in the past seven years about 160,000 people had moved to homes on Melbourne's fringe that are still not within walking distance of public transport.
Developments always outstrip public transport and infrastructure, adding to State "shortages".
Myopic policies mean that our precious and prime agricultural land is to be sacrificed for short-term economic benefits, under the smoke-screen of needing "affordable housing".
Urban sprawl means the objectors, the "nimbys" are pitted against those needing homes to live in, and the developers. This diffused attention from the real source of the problem - unsustainable and unrealistic population growth.
Voluntary Austerity Won't Happen
The theme you hear from the green left is that more people is good, but we can reduce our environmental footprint at the same time as increasing the population if we keep cutting back our consumption.
I've spoken to some people who remember the post-WWII rationing in Britain. Very mild austerity measures, nobody was denied the essentials. Yet they caused immense resentment and people could hardly wait to get rid of them. People will not tolerate any kind of voluntary austerity measures, it seems to go against human nature. They will not voluntarily cut back their consumption. And do you see the trendy green left making anything more than token measures to reduce their consumption?
Involuntary austerity though is another matter, and may be coming as resource depletion kicks in.
CO2 research at Stanford
Have you got a link for that, Nimby?
Hang in there James
I agree with Sheila re: the JFK doco on SBS last night. Sifting through the raw footage and commentary from the time and broadcasting it exactly as it was originally shown makes for interesting stuff. I actually saw this doco 12 months ago when SBS showed it for the first time and back then they showed both parts back to back (by memory). It is understandable that James found Part 1 frustrating just by itself but Part 2 does cover the Zapruder film, the Warren Commission etc etc. The makers are intentionally showing things in the chronological order the public would have seen them and as you know the public didn't see the Zapruder film for quite some time.
Shame Faine and Keating
Naked all-out selling the idea that we have no right to control our borders. Normalisation of overpopulation. He is an apologist and a promoter of the Growth Lobby. No doubt that is why the ABC and Jon Faine asked him on the program. He is just so disingenuous. He has betrayed Australian human and civil rights for native and immigrant-born alike.
Keating speaks for corporate colonisation of Australia
"Keating is incredible. Just a voice for colonising Australia."
Remark heard in response to Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne interviewing Paul Keating ex-PM of Australia.
Excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide detrimental to plant growth
"Without carbon there would be no life and the more carbon the more life flourishes, especially flora." No, you are wrong Menkit. Carbon emissions, according to research, means the excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is detrimental to plant productivity. An unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about the long-held assumption that more carbon dioxide will increase plant nutrition.
CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
Some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.
Overpopulation and over-consumption are massive problems, and climate change is a by-product.
Mankind has certainly contributed to the fact that the Earth's "natural sweater" has become "thicker" during the last 150 years. This indeed could possibly make us or our descendants sweat more than previous human generations have experienced.
Water vapor not only holds a pole position concerning the natural greenhouse effect, but also participates in the additional absorption of heat in the atmosphere which is exclusively caused by human activities. As the planet heats, one of the feed-backs is that more water vapor will get into the air, and this additional abundance of water vapor will also absorb more heat.
Livestock are being ignored because of the massive economic and political power of the industry.
Kennedy, Oswald, Zapruda and the JFK series on SBS
I found the various footage of Oswald's comments to cameras about not having legal representation, having been hit by a policeman, and his denial of shooting Kennedy, as he was dragged in and out of interview rooms by detectives quite chilling. He seemed to be deprived of his rights.
The other footage, presented without commentary (except the commentary of the time) was most revealing, IMHO. It gave us the opportunity to make inferences independently.
Zapruda was shown being interviewed in one clip, saying that he could not be sure how many shots, but leaving room for a fourth.
I personally like getting raw documentation and sifting through it myself.
The series has not made me think that the official explanation was the correct one. To the contrary. It gave me the impression of a corrupt system that relied on presentation to convince in the absence of accessible data.
I found "JFK: 3 Shots that Changed America" a waste of time
My apologies. Although one person I know, who watched "JFK: 3 Shots that Changed America" found it interesting, I did not. It essentially consisted of one and a half hours of selected film footage and live commentary made at the time and nothing else. Inexplicably, while it covered the time before the assassination and after the assassination it skipped over the actual assassination itself. Just possibly the assassination, including the Zapruder film. will feature in part 2, but I won't be watching it.
It's hard to believe that, given the vast amount of evidence that exists which shows that Oswald, acting alone, could not have murdered Kennedy, that so little was captured on film. I suspect that more was captured on film, but that the producers chose not to include it.
Certainly the title should have made me more wary. It has been conclusively shown, for example in Oliver Stone's JFK of 1991 that at least four shots were fired.
Suzuki also MIA on impact of livestock
Well said Tim. Suzuki has been MIA on the subject of how the livestock industry impacts climate and the environment as well.
For sure he would lose followers and donors if he dared tell the truth for a change.
Instead he promotes the scam that carbon dioxide causes climate change, when there is a plethora of proof that it has not the slightest impact on climate compared to the Sun, the biggest driver. Besides 97% of all GHG is water vapour, do you think that the 3% of the remaining 3% GHG is such a big deal? Without carbon there would be no life and the more carbon the more life flourishes, especially flora.
Overpopulation AND unsustainable consumption are massive problems we need to deal with but he fails to acknowledge the former, which is the pink elephant in the room.
Menkit
Don't miss "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" tonight 9:30PM
Originally mentioned here on 31 October
This Sunday evening (6 November) at 9.30PM will be shown as a follow-up to the excellent Virtual JFK: Vietnam If JFK Had Lived of last Sunday night. Below is the outline description from the SBS program guide:
JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America
Although the famous Zapruder film is the most complete visual recording of JFK’s assassination, it is just part of a vast record of sights and sounds captured on camera that day. This two-part documentary uses some unique and rarely seen footage to document the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath. Home movies from eyewitnesses, Dallas police dispatch radio recordings, and raw news footage provide a shocking, unflinching look at the assassination of the president and the days that followed. (From the US) (Documentary) (Part 1 of 2) (Rpt) Part 2 is to be shown on Sunday 13 November.
Doubtless, ABC local radio Melbourne 774's Jon Faine, who is well practised at baiting those who publicly question the official account of 9/11 would, if he thought he could get away with it, be no less savage towards those from a previous generation, who questioned the claim that President John F Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.
Agent Provocateur says: Yes
Agent Provocateur says:
Yes the really inconvenient truth is that a biological urge prevents the commonsense necessary for humanity to rectify matters.
It would take a huge shift in consciousness - a grand marketing scheme - to get women to see a bigger picture - one of survival of a species - not just the 'Jones' Genes'.
I implore everyone to listen to the sound file linked below from the most recent program of Hindsight on Radio National: Malthus and the New World at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/hindsight/stories/2011/3349279.htm
In it, historian Alison Bashford reveals the full breadth of Malthus' work. Pertinent to the quote above is his deep interest toward the population constraints traditionally employed by various cultures, and his recognition of the vital nexus between these population constraints and the maintenance of a viable balance between local human demand and local subsistence yields.
Furthermore, Malthus articulated very detailed concerns regarding the aggressive application of colonial population growth toward the rapid increase of colonial economic output as well as toward the displacement of traditional owners.
It appears it was these profoundly spectacular rates of colonial population growth that stimulated the base of his concern for future maintenance of adequate land and food supply. However it would also appear that these huge growth rates very soon found their way back to the homelands in concert with the bounteous importation of natural resources and the escalation of urbanised industrial process.
It is imperative to note that Malthus saw rampant population growth as a concern that was NEW to his time, and thus one that urgently needed to be newly understood, lest starvation and pestilence possibly soon follow. He did not perceive it as a natural or an historical legacy. Neither should we.
Accounts of this 'modernity', and historical peculiarity, of widespread population growth by Malthus, and by various others, have been broadly obscured and distorted. In this and other ways we have been led into the belief that human population growth is, and always has been, a completely normal, inevitable function of society. This view is fatally debilitating to the effective pursuit of necessary and achievable reform.
Widespread misunderstanding of Malthus sees him largely as a misanthrope and an ideologue rather than as a person of fundamental goodwill and incisive perception and insight. This is most directly a product of the huge size of his comprehensive 1803 published work. Due to the sheer costs of its production, this work has most often been re-published in abbreviated form. Even 'complete' versions have commonly had 10 chapters abridged. The full work is extremely rare.
Many scholars, let alone lay commentators, are unaware that they've never fully read nor considered the extent of what Malthus was actually on about. The 'Malthus was wrong!' acolytes that shallowly overpopulate most internet forums suddenly take on an even more vacantly derivative appearance.
Men contribute 50% to every child and more to population policy
Dear Agent Provocateur,
With due respect, it cannot be just to get women to see the bigger picture. We need to get men to see it. My own experience is that it is men who push population growth policies and who stand in the way of women getting contraceptives and that they make it look as if women want lots of children by pushing this message in male dominated media. Who dominates the world? Men. Who dominates population policy world wide? Men. Children have two parents. A man is always involved in producing any child - yet we talk almost exclusively about the responsibility of women.
Highly suspicious.
What do you think?
Prominent thinkers need to do better.
Hi again Richard
It might be useful at this point to say that my concerns on this particular matter cause me immensely deep frustration. Public discourse upon base reality, to the extent it occurs at all, is fraught with conceptual disconnects. The opportunity cost of this, at this stage of global 'progress', is absolutely unaffordable. Monbiot's contribution to this state of disconnect is simply not tolerable. A desperate need exists for him, and other similarly prominent people, to boldly join the dots regarding the true nature of events underway. We do not need him to help maintain a pointillised and misleading view of its image.
Relatively very few prominent identities actively speak on behalf of sustainability, in its genuine rather than its corporate construct. Those who do, or who might seem to, attract the disaffected to their broadcast views like moths to a sentinel streetlight. Those thus attracted most often simply accept and reflect the illuminations provided by the popular identity. They tend not to investigate or challenge the underlying wavelengths. They are content to congregate, somewhat faithfully, in the 'light' provided. Accordingly, if these sentinel speakers do sincerely care for ecologically viable outcomes, they have a grave responsibility to seek, and to duly account for, ALL of the vitally applicable facts.
Monbiot presents himself within this field as a genuine thinker, not a cult leader or an apologist. It is terribly disheartening then when he fails to connect elements that are utterly basic to the argument, and then also maintains an advantaged offensive toward those who do. Thereby he assists ongoing refraction within the debate and the attendant marginalisation of those few who are able to challenge their personal 'reality' with the application of very simple arithmetic. Whether intentional or not, he helps to preserve the status quo by wrongly refracting its opposition and their arguments.
Monbiot's statements reveal a stunning, and apparently a stubborn, ignorance toward the vital relationship between energy, population and consumption. These are the base elements of the primary sustainability equation. His discordant summations upon these factors, which he obtusely keeps in separation from each other, serve directly to support continuing growth in both population and consumption.
Your quote of Monbiot ("Yes, population growth contributes to environmental problems. No, it is not the decisive factor. etc.") displays this disconnection perfectly. Quite evidently grain availability drives population increase, which must then drive consumption and the demand for more livestock and thus more grain, and so on. Economic growth. Hallelujah! Monbiot's dismemberment of such basic reality sequencing is astonishingly stupid, if it is not disingenuous.
His nuclear advocacy is an expansion of this basic stupidity, which must be borne of wilful ignorance as Monbiot is essentially not stupid. The actual nature of this will is unknown.
This advocacy for power 'generation' to be pursued via 'clean' nuclear rather than 'dirty' fossil means is premised upon current demand being too great to be plausibly transitioned to renewables. So Monbiot is underwriting current consumption levels. Without an explicit disclaimer, which I've not heard him make as he spouts this line, his deference to the status quo also implies an expansion of 'generation'.
Continuing, let alone expanding, current levels of energy consumption is a destructive nonsense. It is grossly debilitating in terms of any critical indicator one might choose - consumption, population, natural system depletion, deployment of renewable production systems etc. - no matter what the means of its provision. To be ecologically credible he should in fact be arguing strenuously and unequivocally FOR system wide powerdown.
Socio-economic powerdown can be easily construed to fit in neatly with Monbiot's recognised need for better economic re-distribution, and with his attendant concerns regarding over-consumption. No discernible conflict exists except against the currently over-riding political weight of a status quo that is largely informed and directed by elite resource owners and their highly paid managers. However undue concern for this elite interest creates an ultimately worthless dilemma. No successful revolution has ever been endorsed by the outgoing elite. Why bother with any activism if this endorsement is a benchmark for identifying necessary change? To predicate necessary change upon its support by elites, one must be either feeble-minded, frightened or fed by them.
As an aside, Monbiot's position on nuclear power is an evident example of how people's minds are addled by the climate change issue. It occupies their consciousness as a discrete and predominate monster to be shot dead with specially fabricated silver bullets. In fact it is a pervasive symptom of our dysfunctional socio-economic structure. The enemy is us and we must fundamentally change what we do and how much we do of it. We cannot continue to do these exact same things even faster, whilst merely seeking to execute them in notionally 'cleaner' ways.
Campaigning for 'clean', 'sustainable' energy futures devoid of any meaningful power-down is akin to calling for rape to be legitimised on the condition that perpetrators must wear condoms. It supposes that our generally violent and degrading acts of energetic excess are permissable, just as long as our carbon ejaculates are, more or less, contained. This is errant bunkum. We have to acknowledge the the landscape and cultural rape inherent within our socio-economic form, and attend diligently to the necessary elements of reform.
Our excess energy consumption is probably THE key element. It drives the growth process. More essentially it upsets our metaphysical health and balance. Excessive power makes us overly full of ourselves and thence fatally self-indulgent. No evidence exists anywhere that we can respond otherwise.
Accordingly I find Monbiot's commentary maddeningly facile. In the very considerable time that he has to think about things, he could do much better. I have to wonder why he doesn't.
Xstrate coal mining threatens rare dolphins
An Xstrata coal port is being planned for Balaclava Island at the mouth of the Fitzroy River. A pod of some seventy snubfun dolphins currently call these clear waters home. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says that this pod could be completely eradicated in ten to twenty years if the proposed coal port moves forward.
Researchers believe the 70-strong snubfin dolphin population at the mouth of the Fitzroy River, 40 kilometres north of Gladstone, is genetically distinct from other Australian snubfins.
"The unfortunate situation is that the habitat they rely on is exactly the type of habitat that's likely to be destroyed or significantly damaged by the Balaclava Island development," said a WWF spokesperson.
Coal Port could wipe out dolphin pod
Minister Tony Burke, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities must not sacrifice allow yet another species, struggling to survive, be killed off by the economic drive of mining giants.
This anthropocentric drive for energy and power can't be a the expense of other species. It assumes that their lives are no more than unavoidable damage as a means to an end!
Sign the petition
... The World Sleepwalks to Catastrophe.. A Sad depiction...
Let's Get This Party Started!
* T Shirts - with the above motif - worn by as many as possible - a concerted campaign to raise awareness.
* Social engineering on a GRAND Scale.
... * A well defined movement
"Are we still a primitive organism driven by unconscionable drives no different from alley cats or drain-rats, or a rational, intelligent species, capable of creating great and noble civilizations?"
On Ockham's Razor on ABC Australia, today, 30 October 2011, hundreds of thousands of people would have heard 24 year old Fiona Heinrichs blast the mainstream media's failure to provide a voice for the younger generation and its promotion of of an ideology of unending growth. Fiona also delivered a blistering critique of Bernard Salt's unscientific promotion of population growth and his failure to respond to her challenge to debate him...
Inconvenient.. Urge: You Can't Beat Biology~ Mum's The Word!
... For several decades there has been a willful blindness in recognising that relentless human population growth is one of the pre-eminent problems we face.
A problem that is driving the astonishing growth of fossil fuel use and its depletion, climate warming, bio-diversity loss and species extinction, the growing shortage of fresh water to meet human needs - and as a consequence of these changes – the prospect that agriculture will be unable to produce enough food to feed us...
According to WWF UK and most other environmental organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, it is demand from wealthy nations that is the real problem and the world’s unsustainable population growth is not a fundamental concern, merely something to ignore, because it is an ‘inconvenient truth’.
... Hmnn ... Well, I think that the truly inconvenient truth is that no one wants to be the one to tell women that they are producing way in excess of demand.
And you just can't beat biology.
The survival of the planet may depend on a re-think on the supposed 'God - Given Right' to produce indiscriminate amounts of people who are totally dependent for their survival on what this planet can provide and sustain them with - in an appropriate ratio of people to produce; (the nourishing kind.)
Yes wealthy nations are caught up in a never ending drive for more - all senseless and ill thought out for long term strategies; a culture that dreamt up the term 110% - (when did 100% stop being good enough?) - cannot be brought to heel.
It is up to individuals - 'ordinary people' to recognise their own worth - here's the thing: What makes a 'commodity valuable?
Scarcity; rarity.
Yes the really inconvenient truth is that a biological urge prevents the commonsense necessary for humanity to rectify matters.
It would take a huge shift in consciousness - a grand marketing scheme - to get women to see a bigger picture - one of survival of a species - not just the 'Jones' Genes'.
Conspiracy theory on the disposal of Australia
Michael Ball and his business partner sold their property in NSW, but they never suspected a South Korean steel giant was buying it. The firm that bought the farm was registered less than two months ago as Aurelius Rural, which has also bought a property of about 90ha. After the settlement, they found out the vendors were acting on behalf of a coal firm more than 70 per cent owned by South Korea's POSCO.
Land, housing, industries, businesses, manufacturing, mining, and prime agricultural properties are all up for grabs!
There's a conspiracy theory that Australia is to be denuded as a global resource. That's why there's no long-term planning, and "sustainable" is just a throw-away word with no meaning. We as a nation are disposable, with a use-by-date. If our population blows out to unsustainable numbers, the fall will be dismissed as unfortunate, due to "natural" disasters.
There's no future in Australia as it has been known. We are becoming international land, and a global natural resource to plunder and eventually be abandoned. The "winners" will be the economic giants of China, Arabic nations and India. It's about global predation on weak governments like we have in Australia. Our sovereignty and food chains are being dissolved by foreign investors. Patriotism doesn't exist now, except in small (but retro) pockets of the older population.
Good news for Frankston Reservoir Nature Conservation!
Legislation has been introduced to Parliament to upgrade Frankston Reservoir's designation to that of Nature Conservation Reserve! There will be parliamentary debate in the next few weeks, however Cabinet have accepted the recommendations of local MP Geoff Shaw and Minister for the Environment Ryan Smith of the upgrade to the designation.
This is a monumental step forward in the conservation of this Reserve.
Also, please set aside 27th November as the date for Friends of Frankston Reservoir Friends AGM.
The real Malthus
The program available at the link below is an absolute must for anyone interested in the population debate.
Podcast
Historian Alison Bashford reveals that Malthus' very large 1803 work has most often been published with about 10 chapters deleted to minimise production costs. This has caused his work, and his concerns generally, to be very substantively misunderstood. The negative scorn so regularly, and often so conveniently, heaped upon him is a direct product of this incomplete view of his work.
There is no BALANCE between native animals and logging
There is never any BALANCE when it become a choice between protecting endangered species or profits from timber logging, land clearing for agriculture and housing "developments". That's why species are endangered in the first place. Humans always give themselves the highest priority, not for survival but for promotion of profits and income.
What weight do native species get on the scales that determine what BALANCE there is between timber harvesting and possums, koalas, and potaroos, not to mention the vast array of biodiversity beyond mammals?
The DSE are meant to be the protectors and legislators to protect our native forests and animals from clearing, destruction and profiteering, not be partners with the perpetrators. There is no balance!
It's the proverbial FOX in charge of the CHICKENS!
Victoria is going backwards, by driving endangered species further towards extinction in the country with the highest mammal extinction rate in the world.
We have Baillieu's support for coal seam mining, cattle in the Alpine national park, abandonment of greenhouse gas reduction targets to "aspirations", freeways and roads, mining, and pushing more people into energy-dependent and energy -guzzling lifestyles in high rise housing.
State PLANNING is about enforcing higher density housing, population growth, rather than a balance between environmental values, food and climate security, and economic growth.
The State government is using their power to overcome forest protectors and the Supreme Court that is holding up logging in Toolangi old growth forests where some of the last Leadbeaters Possums are hiding. They are trashing our policies and laws to protect native animals, and making mockery of our environmental Acts by undemocratically by-passing them.
They MUST be voted out in the next State elections!
No peak oil contingency plans
Maribyrnong City Council is the only one in Australia that has a peak oil contingency plan.
See Maribyrnong Oeak Oil Contingency Plan
"Our team worked closely with council staff to assess council’s operations and vulnerability to oil supply constraints. This process led to the identification of ten service areas considered most vulnerable to either a short or long term reduction in available fuel supplies".
With local councils being forced to accommodate population growth rather that any real future planning, they are preoccupied with ensuring profits for developers and bankers, not with the "inconvenience truths" of reality.
On a Federal level, there is more concern about "skills shortages" than food, fertilizer and oil shortages. Releasing land for housing, over fertile land in the driest continent on the planet, is being given priority.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is also part of the great denialist movement. Businesses and corporations are running our government, for ransom. The warped and fatalistic policies and ignorance coming from our governments is mind-boggling and they are prepared to sacrifice our long term welfare for short-term profits and economic benefits.
You're right! But it won't happen...
Brian, I cannot find much to criticise in your article. Nuclear power is not a great substitute for liquid fuels and the food problem associated with reduced availability of fossil fuels is going to be very grave, I think. That's about it. The real problem here is that people like you and I (Campbell, LaHerrere and a few dozen others) have been saying it in one way or another since the early 90s - at least 15 years now. Has it made a great deal of difference? No, I don't think so. Governments ("politicians"), bureaucracies and the world of big business (probably the former two in the pocket of the latter) have most studiously ignored all the forecasts made by honest and conscientious (I believe) people in favour of those who have told them what they wanted to hear. And money talks, doesn't it? Money occupies large areas of newsprint and hogs the time on TV, while other issues are shunted aside as if they were of lesser 'worth,' but the 'reality' is that money is a figment of our imagination and resources + human labour is what are needed to run the real economy. We know the problem. We know most of the 'solutions.' We just can't get by those people who don't want to know because it affects their (personal or corporate) bottom line. Do you think only "the inevitable crash" is going to make these people wake up?
Greens never had any credibility
I supported the Greens last election but unfortunately I think this was a mistake now. Has the green party ever been in favor of population stabilization? There's a 1998 policy statement in which they proudly stated they rejected the concept of zero net immigration. Their latest policy statements on the subject have backed away from that a little, but nowhere can I find any serious consideration of population stabilization. The greens, labor and liberals may make vague allusions to the end of population growth, but none of them actually believe its ever going to happen.
The Greens are losing all credibility
Up to 20 asylum seekers are believed to be drowned, presumably coming to Australia. The deaths were in Indonesia waters, thus, their border security should be watching for asylum seekers leaving and stopping the boats. Our hands are tied by the UN Refugee Convention that encourages displaced people to, instead of finding temporary refuge and safety from conflict, to make dangerous voyages to developed countries. We are not obliged under the convention to give permanent residence to asylum seekers. They are being lured here with this hope.
Ultimately they should return home and rebuild their own nation.
The UN Refugee Convention is outdated and encourages asylum seekers to seek our shores, even more now due to having on-shore processing.
The Greens are losing all credibility as a serious party. Sarah Hanson-Young want to make it easier for them to come here. We should have a fixed yearly quota of refugees, selected off-shore, and no more. The boats would stop coming, and with a population policy from the Greens, our economic immigration rate would be addressed accordingly and not ignored in the "immigration" debate - 100% about asylum seekers when they make up less than 5%!
Monbiot as a popular influence
Hi Richard
sorry I've not yet replied to your initial comment. I've had insufficient time to do so which remains the case. A short summary response in lieu of a longer one which will hopefully be possible before too long.
You will note that my article stated, "Monbiot's view (on Nuclear power) reeks similarly of evidence that he is, in fact, a closet growthist." I'm suggesting that a case can be made for him being, somewhat covertly but very effectively, a growthist. I did not say that he definitely is one.
The basic problem I have with him is that the fundamental contradictions apparent within his published viewpoints are simply too great to be easily accepted from someone as intelligent as he quite clearly is. However it may be that he isn't so smart after all. I'm willing to accept that possibility.
It is also likely that, as smart as he is, he doesn't think all that deeply about things. Perhaps the very considerable pressures of media market-place convention and critical popularity keep him overly close to the conceptual surface.
Neither should we ever underestimate the intellect's subliminal action toward constructing rational supports for those things we take for granted within our lives. Social and physical mobility are held as sacramental rights by the 'green ' intelligentsia. They are energy intensive sacred cows to be preserved at nearly any cost.
Sorry that this is not as definitive or as illustrative as it could/should be. Hopefully I can manage that better a bit later.
world sleepwalks to catastrophe
Fiona,
Congratulations on getting on the air and blasting the growthists in general and one of the worst offenders and hypocrites in particular. It won't comfort you to know that the media in Canada are no better. My sympathies to the Gen Y-ers. My two sons are 24 and 22 and I worry about the job struggles they might encounter. Keep up the good work.
Madeline Weld (president of Population Institute of Canada)
Link for list of charities
Link for list of charities including some that contribute to population control: http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/globalpovertygiving.htm
Help Animals Australia fight cruelty to calves
Bobby is one of thousands of calves who are considered 'waste products' of the Australian dairy industry. Bobby's story must be told. Watch Bobby's video and make an urgent donation in the form below to help us place this eye-catching ad (see pdf file) in major metro newspapers next week.
The video embedded on this page can also be found on the Animals Australia web-site.
As the video shows, dairy cattle are forced to give birth to one calf a year in order to enable the to produce milk. Calves like Bobby are not fed for a whole day before their murder. Please give generously to stop this cruelty.
Monbiot/population
"nothing can be gained by denying it as part of any equation of human impact on the environment or on humans themselves." - I don't think Monbiot does that Quark, in his article he states ;
"Yes, population growth contributes to environmental problems. No, it is not the decisive factor. Even the availability of grain is affected more by rising livestock numbers and the use of biofuels – driven, again by consumption – than by human population growth."
Whilst he agrees that population causes environmental problems I think he is being very politically correct, too politically correct. Whereas he has in the past advocated a Steady State Economy, he has never elucidated one of the core factors of SSE, which Herman Daly has no problems doing. Daly's article in "Solutions" magazine of Feb 2010 (http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/556) - called "From a Failed-Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy sets out 10 principles to gradually move towards SSE. "The goal of a steady state is to sustain a constant, sufficient stock of real wealth and people for a long time."
There is a very basic flaw in the Ecological Footprint method - it does not allow 1 square metre of land anywhere on the planet for species other than human beings. So even that "formula" is destined to fail, other growthist reasoning destined to fail are explained by Daly ; "Without growth, the only way to cure poverty is through sharing. But redistribution is anathema. Without growth to push the hoped-for demographic transition, the only way to cure overpopulation is by population control. A second anathema. And without growth, the only way to increase funds to invest in environmental repair is by reducing current consumption. Anathema number three. Three anathemas and you’re out!"
Monbiot's recent acceptance of a Steady State appears to show a big gap in his usual flawless analysis, because perhaps, as Daly states, they are mainly regarded as anathema, and as he opens his article ;
"The level of physical wealth that the biosphere can sustain in a steady state may well be below the present level.", somewhat contradicting Dick Cheney and his famous quote that "The American way of life is non negotiable". However, as many people have since stated, nature does not negotiate, perhaps another issue Monbiot has not "absorbed".
I have no way of knowing this, and in no way want to be an apologist for Monbiot, but his stance could be taken from a point of view of what is acceptable to the masses, and accepting of the fact that people will want to take their "trinkets" into any future that is proposed, i.e. we must provide nuclear energy so that we can still watch our flatscreens.
I fully agree that population is being manipulated as a "lever" to allow rising GDP to continue, being pushed by lobbyists from the growth industry, this is where I think Monbiot is naive and he is overcautious by blanking his otherwise energetic mind to perhaps some politically incorrect solutions and proposing democratically popular (at this time) answers. To me it is no surprise that those countries who maintained high migration levels, U.S.A. U.K. and Europe are now economic basket cases, based as they are on growth and energy consumption.
This growth lobby is, as Daly states in his article, merely advocating for more of the same, more bubbles, more environmental destruction, more economic collapse. It is not viable for humanity to consider themselves, in biblical terms, masters of all they see. In fact we are just one of millions of species who all have a sacred, if you like, right to occupy this Earth. For too long this "equity" has been totally ignored, whilst concerning ourselves with only financial equity. I would offer Daly's response on population as a reasonable response to the global population issue, and yes, if birth control is to be included then the Catholic Church has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the issue.
"9/ Stabilize Population. We should be working toward a balance in which births plus in-migrants equals deaths plus out-migrants. This is controversial and difficult, but, as a start, contraception should be made available for voluntary use everywhere. And while each nation can debate whether it should accept many or few immigrants, and who should get priority, such a debate is rendered moot if immigration laws are not enforced. We should support voluntary family planning and enforcement of reasonable immigration laws, democratically enacted. A lot of the pro-natalist and open-borders rhetoric claims to be motivated by generosity, but it is “generosity” at the expense of the U.S. working class—a cheap labor policy. Progressives have been slow to understand this. The environmental movement began with a focus on population but has frequently given in to political correctness."
Don't miss "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" Sunday on SBS
Next Sunday evening (6 November) at 9.00PM will be shown as a follow-up to the excellent Virtual JFK: Vietnam If JFK Had Lived of last night. Below is the outline description from the SBS program guide:
JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America
Although the famous Zapruder film is the most complete visual recording of JFK’s assassination, it is just part of a vast record of sights and sounds captured on camera that day. This two-part documentary uses some unique and rarely seen footage to document the Kennedy assassination and its aftermath. Home movies from eyewitnesses, Dallas police dispatch radio recordings, and raw news footage provide a shocking, unflinching look at the assassination of the president and the days that followed. (From the US) (Documentary) (Part 1 of 2) (Rpt)
H.R.H
HRH Prince Philip was the first UK president of W.W.F.in 1961 and from 1981-96 he was the International president and it seems he may be still active in the organization. In a film recorded interview for his 90th birthday his involvement with W.W.F. is detailed. In answer to a question as what is the most serious challenge in conservation, he answered unhesitatingly "the growing human population" In answer to the next question "what do you think can be done about it he said said "voluntary family limitation" You can view the interview on the 2nd of 2 YouTube items "The Duke at 90" mid way through. One would think that holding such an unequivocal view that he might have had some influence in the organization but apparently not.
Update on Murdoch media moves from AVAAZ
"Right now, Communications Minister Conroy is deciding whether to hand Murdoch a $223 million TV contract -- expanding Murdoch’s influence and weakening the ABC. To stop Murdoch’s power grab we need a massive public outcry -- send a message to Conroy telling him Murdoch's takeover bid can't stand:
Send a message now!
In hours, Murdoch could secure his stranglehold on the Australian media by acquiring our public international TV news network -- and rob a struggling ABC of $223 million in funding. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is under pressure to give control over the network to Murdoch instead of the ABC -- but together we can stop the deal.
Just last week, we called on you to help save the media inquiry from Murdoch's meddling -- and thousands of you responded. Now, we desperately need to come together again. Murdoch’s mouthpiece The Australian has been leaking details of insider support for Murdoch in a blatant attempt to force Labor into backing his bid. Conroy knows that giving the network to Murdoch would greatly increase the media mogul’s corrupting influence and hurt the ABC, and is looking for a way out.
Together, we can give Conroy the public mandate he needs to reject Murdoch’s power grab and award the contract to the ABC. Send a message to Conroy telling him that Australians don't want this dodgy deal -- click on the link below and then forward to everyone:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdochs_secret_abc_attack/?vl
Rupert Murdoch already owns 70 percent of Australia’s newspapers. Now he’s on the hunt for more media control, and he’s hoping we won’t notice. Through his stake in Australian News Channel, he’s been pushing hard to take over the crucial but low-key ‘Australia Network’: an Australian international public broadcaster that’s available in 44 countries. Murdoch has shown that his empire ruthlessly puts profits above all else -- even hacking a murdered school girl’s phone to increase sales. With this extra network, Murdoch would vastly increase his power and take control of Australia’s public image abroad.
The move is also a key part of his strategy to destroy public broadcasting and silence independent voices. Murdoch knows that the loss of $223 million in funding would severely weaken an already stretched ABC. It would mean the loss of many ABC journalists, and potential closures of overseas news offices. If we let Murdoch win, Australia will become the first country in the world to privatise its international news service.
Insiders say Communications Minister Stephen Conroy doesn’t want this outcome. He’s looking for a way to keep the money with the ABC and stop Murdoch from further increasing his corrupting influence. If huge numbers of Australians send messages, Conroy will receive the public backing he needs to decide against Murdoch’s bid. Send your message now and forward this note to your friends and family:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdochs_secret_abc_attack/?vl
Earlier this year, Avaaz members in the UK forced Murdoch to drop his bid for a complete takeover of British broadcaster BSkyB, and last month we won the media inquiry here despite Murdoch’s fierce opposition. Now we have a chance to win again. With massive public support, we can rid the world of Murdoch’s corrupting influence for good. Something that would have been unthinkable even 12 months ago is now within our grasp, if we keep working together.
With hope,
Emma, Ben, Ari, Luis, Ricken, Alice and the rest of the Avaaz team
SOURCES:
Tensions rise over Australia Network bid
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/tensions-rise-over-australia-network-bid-20111017-1ltfy.html
ABC staff hang on tender result
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-staff-hang-on-tender-result/story-e6frg996-1226177744169
Murdoch's only real interest is No.1
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/murdochs-only-real-interest-is-no1-20110711-1hal8.html
Will Australia’s satellite TV service head Skywards
http://inside.org.au/will-australia%E2%80%99s-satellite-tv-service-head-skywards/
NotW scandal: Conroy must play probity card in Oz Network contract
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/05/notw-scandal-conroy-must-play-probity-card-in-oz-network-contract/
James Murdoch hits out at BBC and regulators at Edinburgh TV festival
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival
ZPG is the norm
Yes zero population growth (or very, very slow growth) has actually been the norm throughout history. You would think from the growthist propaganda that rapid population growth is normal but this isn't so. My eyes were opened to this when I read that when Napoleon invaded Egypt the estimated population was 3 million. The estimated population during Roman times was about the same. For almost two thousand years the population of Egypt had remained essentially unchanged, despite a culture emphasizing early marriage and despite being staunchly Muslim for much of that time.
After some more reading the main reason for this stability was not due to very high mortality. It was certainly higher than the average now, but not that high. The main reason was that every culture evolved a set of cultural practices to regulate fertility. Later marriage in some cases, strict taboos against extra-marital sex, sexual taboos inside marriage, rudimentary contraception, and I must mention the unfortunate but apparently widespread practice of infanticide (female infanticide in particular). Humans intrinsically tend towards ZPG. After all the disruptions of the past two centuries it seems things are finally returning to normal. Hopefully not too late.
Population, land, stability & self-government
Anthropologists (and well-educated sociologists) used to know how human beings kept populations stable. The information has been buried under academic trends of only looking at the latest literature which focuses on microscopic details and follows the dictates of funding, which respond to vested interests in Development Aid, foreign aid etc. Population stability for any animal including humans depends on animals having stable environments and limited exogamy. Modern economics is all about destabilising this and multiplying exogamy. I just pulled a book out of publication on this, pending the writing of an introduction because I realise that, without an introduction that first canvasses the wider misconceptions, most readers could not see the need for a new theory. So, I am not going to propound the new theory here until I am able to publish my book with a useful introduction.
If Montbiot believes that populations will continue to grow out of control until every woman is educated and every society is industrialised (leaving aside petroleum depletion) then he reveals himself to be merely a part of that vast crowd of incurious sleepwalkers unable to ask the relevant questions about what happens to people who lose access to land and self-government at local level.
There is no point in me articulating here what I have to say at greater length in my book because it requires a paradigm shift and literature reviews.
Look a bit deeper into population subject
George Monbiot says "Population is the issue you blame if you can’t admit to your own impacts"
I meet very few (if any) people who talk about population numbers without talking about "our" environmental impact. Monbiot is the one who seems to want to omit one of the factors which multiplied together give us this product (impact).
His argument seems to go like this -it's not population because a baby born in the US will have many times the environmental footprint of a child born in a developing country-
He might then swivel his focus to the negative effects of high population growth on the actual people in these countries rather than stick to the environmental footprint idea but he doesn’t really go there in the article under discussion. And at what point would he move into a global perspective on this? People can move country after all!
The fact that population growth rates are affected by the population growth that happened decades before is not really news. In Australia, despite quite a “respectable” fertility rate (just under 2 children per woman) we gallop ahead in population (with a heavy environmental footprint in our case) with births at double the rate of deaths because the very of “demographic momentum” from previous generations. (for Australia then roughly double the increase again from immigration)
Universally,bringing human population numbers back in balance with the our environment and fellow species is a huge "task" and maybe attempts to face it realistically and deal with it will come to nothing. However, it is for certain that nothing can be gained by denying it as part of any equation of human impact on the environment or on humans themselves.
George Monbiot asks ".... even if all the measures I’ve mentioned here – education, contraception, rights, redistribution – were widely deployed today, there will still be a population bulge, as a result of the momentum generated 60 years ago. So what do they propose? Compulsory sterilization? Mass killing? If not, they had better explain their programme" and "....Of course we should demand that governments help women regain control over their bodies. But beyond that there’s little that can be done. We must instead decide how best to accommodate human numbers which will, at least for the next four decades, continue to rise..."
er yes... they will be accommodated on the planet as it is most unlikely that they will be sent off to outer space but they may not live under a roof!
Monbiot implies that the solutions he puts forward to reduce the birth rate are exhaustive. I think a number of sociologists who are expert in the area could throw enormous light on this subject on which so many commentators appear utterly sure of their “knowledge” and in Monbiot’s article, apparently certain that no other knowledge is available!
Ecolo
According to Victoria's Ecological Footprint, DSE 2008, the average Victorian requires 6.8 productive hectares to support their lifestyle. However, there are only 1.8 productive hectares available per person. Since 2008, we have thousands more people in Victoria, and thus even less than 1.8 hectares.
Victoria’s Footprint is more than three times higher than the world average of 2.2 productive hectares per person.
This level of consumption is unsustainable and places significant pressure on the natural environment.
With present population growth of 1.5%, although a seemingly benign number, it hides incredible growth. The media and politicians refuse to discuss and write about the obvious crash when natural resources fail to meet human demands.
There's an absurd and unrealistic faith in science and technology to provide. The Wonthaggi desalination plant builders say "cyclonic" weather and union go-slows will delay its completion by up to four months. Aquasure must pay $1.6 million dollars a day after the June deadline. The amount of money being thrown at the desal plant will see our water prices soar, while the workers are being hampered by rain and cyclones!
We often hear about "sustainable" growth, and "sustainable" living, through recycling, reuse and renewable energy, but while populations continue upwards exponentially, we will fall into the ecological overshoot.
Koalas on the decline
There is a report in Queensland Times that wildlife carer Marilyn Spletter has little hope for the survival of koalas in SE Queensland.
She is a Hattonvale resident and vice president of the Ipswich Koala Protection Society.
There are diseases such as cystitis and conjunctivitis, but Mrs Spletter said the main danger for koalas was loss of their habitat through development.
These "developments" are the most forceful and formidable environmental threat wildlife have to contend with now. It means slashing trees and vegetation and covering the ground with concrete and lawns.
"Developments" is a polite and politically-correct world to hide the unpopular "population growth".
"Eventually there's going to be no koalas in the wild in south-east Queensland," she said.
SE Queensland is one of the places where they were prevalent.
Queensland Times
All populations of all species subject to the Couttsian Growth Model (and Couttsian Shrinkage) at all times. Nature pits these populations in a struggle for existence, a struggle of endless, powerful exponential forces restrained within limits to growth. Often these forces balance out and may not approach the limits to growth, or rise and fall in dynamic equilibrium. However, koalas have few defences against human technology, introduced animals and strong political and economic growth forces.
Animals have an extraordinary boom-bust population cycle, with periods of "plagues" followed by years of very low density. The human plague will inevitably follow the same predictable pattern, but for slow-evolving species like our Australian marsupials, the "bust" of human decline may not come soon enough to save our dear and iconic Koalas.
Couttsian Growth Model - An Exponentialist Glossary
Monbiot - a closet growthist ???
My perception flickers between this glimpsed view of living wholeness and the steady extrusion of deadness that is crushing around and upon me. The shifting, variously composite view between the two states poses a variously decorated, essentially lonely and potentially crazed schizophrenia. I wonder how many other people see this? Greg Wood - Zombie Culture.
The battle among environmentalists over how or whether our future energy is supplied is a cipher for something much bigger: who we are, who we want to be, how we want society to evolve.......For example, the Zero Carbon Britain report published by the Centre for Alternative Technology urges a 55% cut in overall energy demand by 2030: a goal I strongly support.........But even if we can accept an expansion of infrastructure, the technocentric, carbon-counting vision I’ve favoured runs into trouble. The problem. is that it seeks to accommodate a system that cannot be accommodated: a system which demands perpetual economic growth...... Accommodation makes sense only if the economy is reaching a steady state....A steady state economy will be politically possible only if we can be persuaded to stop grabbing. This in turn will be feasible only if we feel more secure. But the global race to the bottom and its destruction of pensions, welfare, public services and stable employment make people less secure, encouraging us to grasp as much for ourselves as we can. Monbiot - The Lost World May 2011.
Well Greg, I don't support your view that Monbiot is a "closet growthist", I doubt anyone who advocates a Steady State Economy (which I certainly support), could be called that, and you seem to feel that he opposes a reduction of energy consumption, which is refuted in his May article. Having lived in Australia for 40 years and getting sick from and of the miasma that the consumerism of Australia is dependent on I moved to Spain, basically because the carbon footprint in Cataluna is 4 tonnes per capita as opposed to the 20 + tonnes per capita in Melbourne.
As you may know, recent financial crisis all over Europe have caused millions to get out in the street, to sit, to talk, to think and spend time with people they would not otherwise have met. How has this happened ? Simply put, they are denied the economic benefits which only Asia now enjoys from "growth" economies. Financial systems around the world are tumbling because people have woken up (painfully) to the giant ponzi schemes which governments globally have adopted. In Spain 48,5% of the young between 18 & 25 are now unemployed, 21.5% of the workforce in total. Millions i.e. the 99% have been badly burned by the growth system, and it is no surprise that 250,000 people turned out in Barcelona on October 15th to support the global "Occupy" movement that began here in mid May, 2 days after I arrived. It too was met with the fascist bully boy tactics the police so readily fall into, but they returned to re-occupy the plazas all over Spain.
It may be a truth that the only way out of the capitalist growth system is economic collapse, and many people such as Prof Tim Garret (Thermodynamics of Civilisation Growth ) - A heap of others are now saying this is what will happen, environmentally, economically or both - but I doubt it would be something anyone wishes for. I am also sure that everywhere the Occupy "movement" is looking at the alternative options to the bondage of growth, getting burned hurts.
Monbiot took a long time to come round to accepting a Steady State, and it is no surprise that the center for the Degrowth movement is in Europe, their 3rd conference is in Venice next year ; as you said in your post, we do have existential options.
Don't miss documentary on JFK, tonight 9.30 on SBS
(Sorry about the very short notice , but) tonight (in 17 minutes time) there is a documentary which explores how the Vietnam War would have turned out if President Kennedy had not been murdered on 22 November 1963, Virtual JFK: Vietnam If JFK Had Lived.
Don't miss it!
Having already made myself familiar with the story of JFK from Oliver Stone's 1991 movie of the same name and subsequently from the books JFK and the Unspeakable - Why he died and why it matters by James W. Douglass and Brothers by David Talbot, the answer that the documentary should provide is clear to me. JFK would have ended the war - a fact which has been largely concealed by mainstream opinion moulders and, surprisingly, even many on the so-called 'left' which supposedly campaigned to end the Vietnam War after Kennedy's death.
E-mail posted to SBS after I had finished watching the program
Subject: Than you so much for having broadcast documentary about JFK tonight
Dear SBS program managers,
The documentary was every bit as good as I could have hoped.
It would be difficult for a writer of fiction to come up with a character with such charisma, selfless courage and good intentions as President John F Kennedy. Yet he lived and, by amazing good fortune for all humanity, he got elected to the highest most powerful political office in the world and literally saved the whole world from nuclear devastation on at least three occasions.
Any doubt that JFK acted throughout his life for anything but the best possible motives can be dispelled by studying his record in war where he courageously put his own life at risk to save the lives of members of the crew of the boat PT109 after it had been sunk by the Japanese in 1943. The account of this can be found in the movie also named 'PT109'. We are so lucky that he lived through that.
I think it would be difficult to broadcast too many programs about JFK. Please keep them coming.
Also, please consider broadcasting docos about the other great leaders of the 1960's who were also murdered - JFK's brother Robert, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.
yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Look to the money
I misquoted our national anthem in an earlier comment. I said it said "we've boundless soil" when it says "golden soil". But like you said it contains the line "For those who've come across the seas, we've boundless plains to share," which is just as bad. We really need a new national anthem. You can put a reference to god in there, just get rid of the cornucopian claptrap.
But in any case our current population growth rate is absurdly high. By doing all they can to drive it to such high levels the government has created an immense problem for future governments. When population stabilization comes around, as it must, such rapid growth leads to an aging population problem far worse than if you had allowed the population to stabilize naturally.
So immigration driven rapid population growth isn't in our long term interest, but it is in the short term interest of big business. "Skilled labour shortages" are a furphy, they are not the main reason for this growth. Mining is a capital, not labor intensive industry. But these 100,000s of middle class or wealthy immigrants moving to Australia, bringing their life savings - this is a massive ongoing injection of foreign currency into the Australian economy. It drives up the cost of housing, leads to constant demand for new development, and keeps consumption high. Local governments trying desperately to keep up with the demand for new infrastructure when the population is doubling every ~50 years provides employment to construction companies.
This is just my intuition, but I strongly suspect the Australian economy is now completely addicted to this, and successive federal governments are going to keep this going as long as they possibly can. In a way it is to the credit of the Australian public that we can tolerate this immigration. But in many ways it is completely unsustainable. In the long run, it is going to cause huge problems.
The welfare of our common vessel - our planet- must come first
"Demographic pressure" is the UN's politically-correct term for human overpopulation. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) warned that it posed "mighty challenges for easing poverty and conserving the environment". At the same time, the UN and other aid organisations are reluctant to impinge on individual and family human rights to have as many children as they want. Many countries are lagging behind in providing facilities for family planning.
Our planet's well-being and long-term ability to provide the resources and "carrying capacity" relies on intact ecosystems and biodiversity - the engine room of soils, vegetation, and the diverse species needed for food and water production.
Human needs and desires must be subservient to the overall health of our planet or populations will continue to outstrip ecological limits.
The developed "rich" nations top-heavy with "ageing populations" are heading towards self-sufficient population sizes. This is due to greater education, access to knowledge and the ability to plan. They are not obliged to absorb the world's excessive numbers of people. This will only spread the overpopulation problem. Each nation must take responsibility for their own territories. We need to give aid, but it must not exclude assistance with family planning and contraception.
There's too much lip-service being played to being "sustainable", but it's usually inadequate band-aid, or short-term solutions. The biggest threat to sustainability is our own human population growth - out of control in developing nations and deliberately being promoted in developed countries for the economic benefits.
Instead of Australia being obliged to contribute between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion a year by 2020 to meet international commitments to help poor countries cope with climate change, we should be addressing the source of the problem - rampant population growth.
With the 7 billionth baby to be born this month, climate change will be a convenient scape-goat to blame the planet's problems on, instead of the source. Anthropogenic climate change can be more easily dealt with if our global population is contained to sustainable levels.
The UN and other aid agencies are tip-toeing around the issue of family planning, for fears of offending cultural and religious freedoms.
The well-being of the vessel carrying us all, our small blue planet, transcends our desires, rights, politics, economics and other human whims.
We need a "big picture" view of our future, and accept that an "ageing population" is a stepping stone to self sufficiency.
Throwing money towards climate change in developing nations while populations continue to explode will be a waste of resources. We need a global policy of family planning, and Australia must end our own hypocritical excessive drive for economic growth on the back of unsustainable population growth.
Addiction to growth - the easy route to economic benefits
It seems that the human race has a moral and logical blind-spot when it comes to their own population numbers, and its impacts on the planet. The herding instinct fails to see outside the "herd" or group. There's instinctive safety in numbers, and even though there are millions suffering from lack of food, water, soils, jobs and the ravages of a declining planet, those in developing countries, safely in the centre of the herd, are in denial.
The "ageing population" excuse for increasing immigration numbers defies any logic. The solution to the problem can't also be the cause - a bulge in population growth in the "baby-boomer" period. It will blow out to an even bigger "ageing population" further down the track, and there will be less resources and more people for future generations to cope with it.
It often escapes logic, the population growth actually ends up giving us a bigger population!!! While the benefits of population growth are evident in immediate cash flows, the costs of providing for a larger swelling population means that more people must be added to provide for the infrastructure demands. It's a cycle of addiction.
While developing countries are suffering from overpopulation and increasing discontent, Australia is still paying people to have limitless babies!
Relying on population growth for economic growth ends up compounding the addiction. It's the lazy, dodgy, easy route to cash flows and higher tax base.
Save Hays Paddock - Meeting Sat 29 October
Save Hays Paddock - Meeting at 2 pm Saturday 29 October 2011 at Hays Paddock Pavilion
Time: Gather at 2 pm
Date: Saturday 29 October 2011
Place: At main Pavilion near carpark Hays Paddock East Kew (Melways Map 45 J 1)
Why Meet: The City of Boroondara threatens to destroy this magnificent park with open woodland, creek and billabong used by people from all over Melbourne chiefly for passive recreation, dog walking and bird watching plus by some sports groups. The natural playground for children fits with the Park. Council plans to "develop" the Park i.e. load it up with infrastructure (1) Construct a new Pavilion more than double the size of the existing building apparently for use as club rooms - obviously the liquor licence will follow - for sports groups mainly an old boys soccer club (2) Construction of a commuter cycle path (3) Fencing of the billabong (4) Construction of a new toilet block - no one has requested this. (5) Provision of more carparking. We plan to discuss action plans
Council Fast-tracking Development: Last week Council pulled a "swifty" on us. Over the last year, Council staff stated that construction of the redeveloped Pavilion would come to $1.55 million. (Projects over $1 million are subject to a planning permit.) We discovered, however, that unbeknown to us the Project Officer had revised the cost of the Pavilion down to $1 million and had advertised the tenders. Submissions closed on 25 October 2011. Thus the public's rights to object to the Pavilion development has been removed. We are extremely concerned that the take over of parkland for expensive sports facilities for special interests groups including private schools is proceeding in Boroondara, not only in Hays Paddock in East Kew but in the Gordon Barnard Reserve in Balwyn and possibly in the HG Smith Reserve in Hawthorn (opposite Scotch College.)
Contact: : Ian Hundley Mobile: 0466 977 957 Email: ianhundley[AT]hotmail.com and Julianne Bell Mobile: 0408022408 Email: jbell5[AT]bigpond.com
The coin of supporting high immigration has another side
I think if we had a closer look at the track record of many groups who support population growth and are helping to turn the plight of the boat people into a smokescreen for high immigration it would be clear that it could not be for reasons of compassion for the plight of their fellow human beings. Since NATO's illegal war against Libya began in March 2011, Australia's "far left" political parties have been astonishingly quiet.
Challenge of organising
The apparent unwillingness of Occupy Melbourne to even include a comment on population on their blog spot highlights the difficulty of organising on a grand scale against the hopeless overpopulated future which is being laid down for us.
Occupy Melbourne protesters would have much in common with those who care about the environment and who can see that unending population growth and development are undermining democracy, creating scarcity of resources and will make it impossible to preserve our heritage. If Occupy Melbourne is blinkered on or intimidated by the subject of population they will be very limited in scope . This is a huge stumbling block in opposing the forces that are stealing our future .
Cruel murder of Muammar Gaddafi celebrated on ABC radio
The following is what I posted to the web page of ABC local Melbourne Radio presenter Jon Fain this morning:
How Jon Faine, of all people, with his legal qualifications, failed to grasp that the cruel cold-blooded murder of the surrendered combatant Muammar Gaddafi was a violation of the Geneva Convention is beyond me.
On Monday Morning, either knowing the circumstances of Gaddafi's cruel murder, or having failed to inform himself of them, he celebrated Gaddafi's death.
Either way, he has shown himself unfit to broadcast for the ABC or to hold legal qualifications.
This is only one example of Jon Faine's violation of basic journalistic ethics in his one-sided reporting of international events, including of the illegal NATO invasion of Libya, in recent months. Please expect a formal complaint to the ABC from me.
In the "Your web page" field of the submission form, I included a link to an International Clearing House Story story which shows images of one of Gaddafi's captors thrusting a knife up his rear shortly before his murder. Please don't follow the link unless you have a strong stomach.
Update, Sunday, 30 Oct : I have posted a formal complaint here. I will advise how they respond. (To see that I am also capable of praising broadcasters when they do a goo job, please view this comment which thanks SBS for broadcasting an excellent documentary about JFK earlier tonight.)
Occupy Melbourne CENSORS population comment
Okay, it seems that our internationally-linked movement that is supposed to represent democracy, really is refusing to deal with the one topic that affects everything and unites most Australians. They will deal with refugees, but not with the massive imposition of recolonisation by economic immigrants which is undermining our industrial conditions and housing, and which drives the unsustainable population growth that is removing our ecological envelope. Who is dominating this discussion? How are they getting away with it?
If this is correct, this Occupy Melbourne movement is only toeing the government line - so we still need a real Occupy Melbourne movement. Articles please.
They took the comment off!
Some of the topic of the Occupy Melbourne are:
Money, Banking & Economics
Internet Security for Activists
Indigenous Communities & Mining
Environment discussion group
Renewable Energy forum
Refugees & Australian politics
Economic Inequality
Legal information
Education discussion group
Becoming a Conscious Co-Creator
Unions and Social Change
(not population growth)
They did print my comment, after a delay, then TOOK IT OFF! They are obviously feeling uncomfortable about the topic of population growth!
Surely a few of the above topics can't be discussed without relating them to the impacts of our boosted population growth rate?
Occupy melb comment on population
Well, that's a relief!
What was the remark?
"Occupy Vancouver" calls on Govt. to arrest war criminal Bush
Embedded below is a speech also broadcast from YouTube and Global Watch TV (also includes longer article by speaker, "Is an Attempted Citizen's Arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush 'a Criminal Act'? ") in which journalist and scholar Joshua Blakeney addresses Occupy Vancouver rally. He points out the Canadian Government is obliged under its own law passed in 2000 to arrest and prosecute any war criminals and torturers on Canadian soil. Amnesty International had also requested of the Canadian Government that it arrest George Bush for crimes he has committed against humanity. Although some on the stage including the saxophone player tried to disrupt his talk, Blakeney was cheered by the crowd and his motion put to the crowd was carried.
Occupy Melbourne PUBLISHED ME
The authour of this post is actually nimby but for some curious reason the Drupal content management system (cms) in use by this site prevents me from being able to set the author to 'nimby', even though nimby originally posted this elsewhere as 'nimby'. This has been reposted from where it was originally posted as a comment to the story Occupy Melbourne, Sydney ... movements may be real chance for democracy . A flaw in the (outdated) version of Drupal cms in use by this site prevents it from properly handling more than 30 comments to the page. I intend to rectify this problem by upgrading Drupal to a more current version (6.* or 7.*). Please make further posts here about Occupy Melbourne. My apologies, nimby, for the delay from 7.34AM in re-posting. - Ed, 7:21PM AEDT, 24 Oct 11.
Nimby has now advised me; "... they actually DID post the comment on the Occupy Melbourne website after all." That's why the title of this post has been changed from "Occupy Melbourne CENSORED ME on Population Growth - Ed, 25 Oct
Update (10:05PM AEDT, 26 Oct): As we have learnt from nimby below, her comment has been unpublished from Occupy Melbourne after all., so we republish below, nimby's original post, which complained of the earlier removal of her post. - Ed, 25 Oct
Nimby's original post on this page
This was originally posted at 6:12PM on 24 October and was unpublished at nimby's request after she learnt that her post on Occupy Melbourne have been published after all. Now that nimby's post on Occupy Melbourne has been removed again, I am now republishing nimby's original post. - Ed, 26 Oct
I put up a comment on population growth displacing young people and causing financial woes, but it was not published. Unless the Occupy Melbourne face up to the un-politically correct but obvious, courageously, ie the fallout from our boosted population growth rate, then they will be another ineffectual group, tinkering around the edges of issues. Developers and other influential big businesses have access to governments due to political donations, and economic power.
NIABYs and NIMBYs will save democracy
WELL I AM A NIMBY AND PROUD OF IT. AND I HAVE YET TO FIND ANYONE WHO IS NOT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT. Face it, if you like where you live you have a right to look after it. Actually I am worse I am a NIABY - Not in anybody's back yard and if they don’t want it I will help them fight it.
[Ed. Mary Drost wrote this comment in response to the biased and contrived article in the Age (see link below) which reported on some planning modeling which, of course, ruled out the democratic option of stopping accelerated population growth and targeted so-called NIMBYs for standing up for the peoples' rights. The article pretended that developers (the ones who push for population growth, were defending some kind of planning process for affordable housing. They are not and the article is very dishonest.)
The true cost of NIMBYism of 19 Oct 11 by Jessica Irvine at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-true-cost-of-nimbyism-2011...
Mary Drost
Important news
Congratulations on this exclusive! It was a prominent topic on ABC "talk back" the other day but no-one seemed to know what had gone on below head level. This clarifies the situation.
Middle aged and middle class need to be seen
I would like to see some of the rank and file "grown ups" and more senior citizens from the suburbs with the young people but which is harder- to persuade young people that older middle class people share their concern and their fate or to persuade older middle class people that they have much in common with the concerns of these protesters? The main difference between the 2 groups is that many or most of the older group will have experienced financial security but will lose it and the young people will never have it.
The critical mass
All of what quark says is spot in. It is also only a microcosm of the full extent of crimes being committed by a ravenous few against social and ecological equity.
The police can deal with 100 protesters. That has been established. What though will they do with 5,000? 10,000?
What does it take to get 5,000 or 10,000 into the street? The essential problem in doing so is twofold.
- The bulk of those who are most severely disenfranchised are consequently neither adequately aware of the immediate opportunity nor are they robust enough for the conflict.
- Most of those about to slip from their relatively comfortable middle order positions are unaware of the true nature of their precariousness. They reflexively, even cravenly, conform to orthodoxy as a protection within their growing difficulties and uncertainty. They are utterly unaware of the lack of real substance in this orthodoxy.
Anyone who is not thus encumbered should be on the street, adding to a tangible mass of growing dissent. If, and only if, the elite's successive repressions generate even greater groundswells in response to each excess, will they begin to doubt and to falter upon their next move.
With such faltering, and a steadily growing popular mass, will come a gradual succession into active support from the two groups noted above. If you can add yourself to this transitional mass, you are doing the work of angels. Even more so if you can encourage others to also do so, especially if they exhibit a more diverse demographic than the current 'protester' norm.
Themes running through interviews
Referring back to Greg's comment I must preface this by saying that I went to the protest in Melbourne but not today. I have been listening to the interviews recorded in Melbourne which can be viewed on IndyMedia. Themes that I identified from about 8 interviews are as follows- inequality, greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1%, escalating rich/poor divide, debt based monetary system, the way banks capitalise profits and socialise losses, coporatocracy and legal treatment of the corporation as though it is a person. At the end of one of the films it says "if you are viewing this , you are one of the 99%" Since it expressly claims to represent 99% of the population , Occupy Melbourne very much includes the fast disappearing middle classes. I would see it as representing those who used to be materially comfortable but are being stripped of the life they are used to and persuaded to enjoy this for the sake of a greater good (e.g. population growth ) as well as through the themes identified by the protesters. It seems to me that if you are not benefiting from the current system, then you are losing. You are losing insidiously and you will not be able to identify what it is you have lost. Yes you may still have your house but you will pay more and more to live in it and use the services we have come to see as essential- water and power. Your bank accounts will look the same but you will not be able to get ahead and your money is constantly losing buying power. Very soon if you divide what you have in the bank by 10 it will give you an indication of its buying power compared with 10 years ago. I refer to real estate rather than ephemera like coffee tables and lamp shades of which most of us can probably still buy what we want thanks to cheap overseas labour and the inroads into our own environment to enable endless large container ships to dump this stuff in our ports.
Global forces against the public
With the melting of national borders and sovereignties, due to globalization, there are some big winners. The UN's one-world agenda means pressure on developed nations to accept the poor, the displaced, and those from struggling overpopulated countries.
Globalization has created opportunities for global corporations to develop with massive territories and markets. Even national businesses have been able to expand and export, and take over national iconic brands in Australia.
Land, farms, forests, housing, iconic-commodity brands and mines are all up for grabs in Australia. The Government overseas registry merely "records" the sales over $250 million, but does nothing to stop it.
Global land, businesses, government etc means that each person, each individual, each voter, is being deprived of power. They just become economic-fodder for these giant lobby-groups.
The live export industry is one example. There was a massive grass-roots groundswell to end the horrifically cruel trade, exposed by Animals Australia. All the letters, lobbying, phone calls, emails, demonstrations came to nothing - just more control over the supply-chain! (window-dressing)
Many farms in the NT are foreign owned, and the government was not going to let them down - and the public were powerless!
While the costs of education soars, and the cost of housing and expenses increase, foreigners are allowed to access jobs, universities and housing - displacing the citizens of Australia.
We need more protests - against global governments and their global interests!
Don't over-think it
If massing in the street at this point in time, at this spectacularly relevant opportunity, isn't a sound political action, then what is? Sitting at home by the evening TV news whilst muttering under our breath? Making umpteen submissions to enquiries designed for unaccountability?
The human mind is a labyrinth of rational delusion that can make any possibility seem plausible or otherwise. Don't overcomplicate your thinking. Take it down to the most vital basics. Will we achieve anything differently by ultimately doing nothing? No. The key factor in taking action is critical mass. This can only be accumulated by beginning at the right time and then progressing in an adequate manner.
The effort has begun. It would seem to be the right time. The issue at its heart is clearly understood, widely accepted and incisively valid.
If you truly care about things, stop jumping at shadows and get your arse out into the street at the most appropriate moments. Then come back in between and write how you feel about it.
Murdoch's Australian unfeeling towards other species
Interesting. I have found The Australian to be quite uninterested in humane treatment of other species. I seem to recall that at the time people first became aware of the treatment of Chinese bears for bile, the Australian had almost nothing to say about it.
Its happening the world
Its happening the world over, street riots and protests that have been engineered to happen by the puppets and their masters...
Its so simple...Problem , Reaction , solution....
A problem is created by the puppets and their masters and there are plenty of those.
Reaction - the public reacts to these problems by staging mass protests and riots.
Solution - the puppets and their leaders bring on a solution by tightening the net on our freedom and to have more control over us, which is their
ultimate goal..
Rupert Murdock confronted on live export trade
On Friday, October 21, 2011, Chris DeRose, president and founder of Last Chance for Animals (LCA), was the only guest (non-shareholder or media), invited by Rupert Murdoch himself, to attend the News Corporation's annual general meeting.
DeRose was given almost five after which Murdoch replied "yes" to all three of the following questions.
-Will you publicly condemn Australia's live animal export?
-Will News Corporation allow a forum for a fair and impartial voice through your media outlets?
-Can I have a contact person to talk to so that we can get that kind of dialog going in Australia?
DeRose also added, "You're the one single individual who can make a difference on the issue."
LCA's position is that some of the papers owned by News Corporation print defamatory and inaccurate stories that are anti-animal and anti-activist, particularly on the issue of live animal export. Murdoch is a powerful man whose voice could end the unnecessary suffering of millions of animals.
Last Chance for Animals website:
http://www.lcanimal.org/
Global Researcher critical of "Occupy Wall St" inspired groups
One person, who is harshly critical of the global movement inspired by the original Occupy Wall Street protest and whose views cannot be lightly dismissed, is Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research. This Global Research TV interview about Libya concludes with him being asked his views on the global movement inspired by the Occupy Wall Street protest. He sees the movement as being manipulated to suit the selfish interests wealthy people including Warren Buffet and Al Gore (who some, including me, have viewed as rich people with conscience). I would be interested to know if Michel Chossudovsky would consider what he says of the "Occupy Wall Street" inspired movement to be applicable to the Occupy Melbourne, Occupy Sydney, Occupy Perth, etc. groups here in Australia.
Big families unsustainable
I agree with you 100%. It's clear that large commercial enterprises encourage policy makers to promote reproduction in order to sell more consumer goods.
They claim we must have Economic Growth which means we must have more children who will need more food, clothing, health insurance, educational materials, and when they marry must have a house (and a Bank Loan), a car, a fridge, a tv etc etc.
And if civilized inhabitants of first world countries won't breed enough children to keep corporate sales and profits up; then they will simply offer incentives to Government officials to increase immigration from backward, third world countries who will breed as many children as they can.
Of course, we will be asked to support them through increased taxes.
I for one have had enough!
David Anning.
How should future protesters respond to police brutality?
David C wrote:
... I wouldn't bet that they will be so peaceful next time.
Our best hope of preventing police brutality against peaceful protesters and to make future protest actions more effective is to show up the actions of the tactical response teams to the broader public through whatever access we have to the media and through the World Wide Web (including, of course, candobetter and occupymelbourne.org) and by using whatever legal recourse is available that is affordable.
Participants at future protests would be poorly advised, if as a consequence of having their possessions tossed into a garbage truck and then being trampled by horses, savaged by dogs, pepper-sprayed and manhandled into vans, etc., they preemptively acted violently at the next protest.
In all likelihood, that would only give the tactical response teams an excuse to attack protesters even more savagely than they were attacked yesterday.
No doubt, the mainstream newsmedia would play up for all it is worth any acts of violence by protesters and overlook the premeditated violence by police at yesterday's protests. Some readers' comments re-posted from the Herald Sun in Appendix 1, below, show how, in future, acts of violence by some protesters could be twisted into a justification for reducing our right to protest.
Appendix 1: Evidence of police brutality & counter-claims
Witness statements about police violence at the "Occupy Melbourne" protest, yesterday, (as well as what was posted by Davic C, above) include:
From the Herald Sun: "... it is hard to see why police used such force in both the eviction, and the step by step movement of the crowd up Swanston St. I witnessed unnecessary punching, shoving, and general cowardice from the police and frankly it left me feeling rather ill. The fact that 2/3's of the cops on the front line seemed to forget it was the law to be wearing identification also added to the general indecency of the police response. ... 100's of people were witnessed being hit, eye gouged, pepper sprayed and punched in the face unnecessarily ..." (by liam)
The police were totally heavy handed, choke holding innocent people engaging in a peaceful protest is sickening, what ever happened to free speech in Victoria?" (by john)
"Police were heavy-handed. I saw 8 horses charge into a group of people chanting. The horses were clearly not behaving as expected and the officers riding them were panicked by their own lack of control and screaming back and forth at each other. I saw them empty personal property into rubbish trucks, including books. I saw a kid, barely 18, flee the centre of the crowd screaming after he'd be pepper-sprayed. I saw them push an old man to the ground (he looked about 70). They shoved countless people, all of whom (that I saw) were attempting to get out of the way of a wall of angry riot police. I wasn't involved in the camp and wasn't intending to stay yesterday, but after I saw such aggressive gang-mentality from the police I think I'll go back today too. ... (Lord Mayor Robert) Doyle said yesterday it was time to give City Square back to the people. Think I can go sit in there today? Or tomorrow?" (Adam of Melbourne)
One who posted in response to the Herald Sun article mentioned above claimed that police were restrained: "The police were well disciplined and used force as required. ..."(Franky of Melb)
Also from the Herald Sun: "They were so heavy-handed. I was pushed onto the ground with brutal force. So many people were pepper-sprayed; it has been awful." (James Gibson, 22)
"As a member of the public I was appalled by this. It seemed worse with Mayor Doyle standing up on the balcony of the town hall looking like some dictator. The protesters don't have my support BUT the way this was handled they do have my sympathy. Doyle is one of the worst Lord Mayors and it will be a good thing when he goes. Very heavy handed and very un Australian. I felt sorry for some of the Police too who should be out doing other things then breaking up what was till then a peaceful protest. Shame on you Doyle and you too Mr Bailleu." (Bystander of Melbourne)
"The photo at the top of this article is proof, clear evidence that some police removed their identification badges. The officer in the hat and glasses using a grappling method that is not taught at Vic Pol, should be severely reprimanded for it as well as for removing his ID. Disgraceful!" (Believer in Civil Liberty of Melbourne)
A number who posted to the second Sun Herald article mentioned here, opposed the protesters and approved of police brutality towards protesters, but few of those made claims of protester violence:
"James, I hope it isn't over. I was enjoying seeing your type get what you deserved after being asked to leave peacefully. Bring on another day of entertainment." (Scott)
"I'm angry at these protestors, because I have never in my life seen people fight so hard for nothing at all. These left-wing extremists ask for democracy and the death of corporate greed, despite the fact we pay taxes and receive more benefits than most." (Gaetano)
The person who posted the following claimed ambivalently to against outlawing protests, but came out in favour of such laws that would ban protests if that proved to be the only way to prevent claimed protester violence:
" ... If these protests keep occurring, I can see that sometime soon the government is going to take unforeseen measures to avoid trouble. By this it could mean that the powers that be will ban all gatherings of more than 20 people in a public area through out the State. I must say that I am against that move, however if it means that is the only way that the violence is stopped, then so be it." (Roy).
Comment on previous comment: As I noted above this kind of spurious logic demonstrates how politicians and the newsmedia could turn violence by some protesters into an excuse to take away our right to protest. It is not without a reason that those in charge of many political protest movements take so much trouble to point out that they will only support peaceful protest.
Support Occupy Melbourne
James,
I think you are right to advise caution and I apologise if I sounded as if I was jumping to unfair conclusions. I hope however that I have redressed any imbalance by soliciting far and wide for discussion of the Occupy Melbourne movement and its treatment by the authorities. I think the result has been overwhelmingly on the side of Occupy Melbourne, which is a movement that I support.
Lord Mayor has a lot to answer for
I just got another comment via email:
"Hi- I didn’t see any violence but I saw absolute overkill with police numbers. As I was watching from the west side of Swanston I saw one young man with a cut knee and a paramedics helping him – but it looked very minor and Im not sure what caused it. What I saw on TV was awful- people being dragged away and one young man looking dazed as his face had been injured. I think the Lord Mayor has a lot to answer for – he was hell bent on getting them off the city square (public land) (I thought they were at Fed square) and most likely so that it will all look nice for the queen. On TV I saw him walking “portlily” around the balcony at the Town hall as though it was job well done."
City Square Public, Federation Square Private
I got it wrong. I just began listening to this podcast from Joe Toscano on Anarchist World, where he explains the difference:
http://podcast.3cr.org.au/pod/3CRCast-2011-10-19-88156.mp3
Camping is illegal under Council By-laws and this is one of the pretexts to remove the protesters.
High population density on the City Square
If you look at the short video of yesterday's events on the website of The Age, the police officer says that it was time for the protesters to give back the square to the "citizens of Melbourne". Well the citizens of Melbourne could have still used the square all week but there was a much higher population density than we are used to. We are supposed not to worry about and in fact to welcome continued increased density of population in Melbourne so why should anyone be worried about increased population density on the city square?
Should not leap to conclusions
Sheila, Agent Provocateur, I don't think we should jump to making the worst conclusions, when events don't turn out as we expect and hope. Certainly, I was put out when Nick was not able to talk to me when I phoned back as I had arranged, but the explanation Nick gave may well have been the honest truth and I saw no need to conclude otherwise.
I had intended to attend that protest, but didn't, because I had no printed material to give to people I met, so I judged that my time would have been better spent attending to other tasks. In hindsight, I regret not making the effort to attend.
When did 'our' govt. decide to sell Melbourne's public space?
The pretext used by the Police for the removal of protestors and placing their tents, and other possessions including guitars into garbage trucks was that they were occupying private land?!?!
So, when was the decision make by "our" government to sell of what was surely once public space to private vested interests?
If the people don't have their own space in the centre of Melbourne as they once did, where they could meet and discuss issues of concern to them, then when was it taken off them and what elected council/government made that decision and how did it obtain a popular mandate to do so?
A study of the historical records will almost certainly reveal that the sell-off of public spaces in Melbourne from which "Occupy Melbourne" protestors have been evicted, was done in the same sneaky dishonest way that so much other publicly owned property -- Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the Port of Brisbane Authority, Power Generators, Public Transport, etc. -- have been sold off in recent decades.
I still question how so much discussion here is not focused on positive aspects of the protest particularly when protestors have been so unfairly and so harshly dealt with by the police. As an example, Agent Provocateur wrote, "It could also be that some of them are working for the Police/ASIO/ASIS/CIA/Mossad, ..." Of course the political police can be expected to attend such events, pretending to be supporters, and do what they can to undermine public support for that protest. In what significant protest movement has this not occurred?
EMBARGO! UN Occupy Melbourne different TACTIC
I've just had a look at the Herald Sun's video:
http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2157605312/Time-to-go?area=videohighlights1
There's an old fashioned tactic which, after seeing the Police ( on WHO's Orders?!) Stampeding the Public!
might have some effect: Placing an Embargo in the shopping precinct of Melbourne to include 'all goods & services' ... have we come to that?
After seeing an online video of police treatment of apparently peaceful demonstration (on WHO's Orders?!) - it may be time to hit them back
... and where it will surely hurt! Refuse to consume, protestors! No GST for a Day!
embargo ?[em-bahr-goh]
Definition: prohibition, restriction
Synonyms: ban, bar, barrier, blockage, check, hindrance, impediment, interdict, interdiction, proscription, restraint, stoppage
Notes: a boycottis an organized popular protest, while an embargo is usually imposed by a government it may be applied by population
to express displeasure.
Mounted police were using horses to trample seated protestors!!
O. K! ... Sounds like this Occupy Melbourne - the 'organised protest' [ and ..."3 tactical response teams (I didn't know we had that many in Melbourne)" ] - are a Farce!
I smell a rat. A dirty, BIG Rat!
Sounds like a set up to me.
I smell something ominous.
'Something/Some 'Organisation' - wants to make a point - Melbourne: Put up and Shut Up
I repeat: Research & Examine this whole Shebang very, very closely!
Occupy Melbourne (not returning James' call)Sounds a bit 'Sus' !
Hi Sheila ~ I got your email regarding Occupy Melbourne this evening - I'm working at The Footbridge (St V's Group) CCU tonight:
James Sinnamon had a conversation on the phone with one of the organisers - Nick- on the evening of October 10th. He was told to ring back later, up until midnight and that Nick would be happy to talk to him. When he rang back, before midnight, he was told that Nick was not able to talk to him. Hmmn...
and from you, Sheila...
I certainly continue to find it odd that Occupy Melbourne knocked back help twice from candobetter.net if it was really interested in representing the people of Melbourne, which is what we do.
Indeed! Why would Occupy Melbourne knock back help from an 'organisation' which purports to support them?
Some serious research into this organisation is called for! Dig Deep! ... Any ( reliable) media contacts to call on, Sheila?
Headline:
Discover the Hidden Agenda - What Occupy Melbourne 's Sinister Campaign Really Intends for Melbournians! You Need To Know!
Send them THAT Sheila - *snigger* - see if that gets their arses into gear!
Keep those emails rolling in!
With Thanks
Agent Provocateur
; )
Sad to see
It is really sad to watch and anticipate the incremental and continued destruction of the natural environment around Melbourne. To think that 200 years ago it was a pristine paradise with waterways and wetlands full of bird life. In 1803 James Tucky described it "The face of the country bordering the port is beautifully picturesque, swelling into gentle elevations of the brightest verdure and dotted with trees as if planted by the hand of taste, while the ground is covered with a profusion of of flowers of every colour, in short the external appearance of the country flattered us into the most delusive dreams of fruitfulness and plenty...Aquatic birds are found in abundance in the lagoons and are black swans , ducks, teal ,black and pied shags, pelicans,gulls, red bills (a beach bird) herons, curlews, and sand larks. The land birds are eagles, crows, ravens,quail, bronze winged pigeons, and many beautiful varieties of the parrot tribe, particularly the black cockatoo ; the emu is also a native of this part of the country..." *
Now we have a huge city in which there is very little room for any of these birds to exist. I see black swans at Albert Park Lake but they all have uncomfortable looking bands around their necks and heaven knows where they find refuge during the Melbourne Grand Prix motor race run every year on the shores of the lake.
*Quotation is from "The Birth of Melbourne"- first hand accounts of early Melbourne edited by Tim Flannery- highly recommended.
Occupy Melbourne occupied all police attention today
I passed by the city square at lunch time, so I took a look.
The tents were gone. Pulled down and loaded into a garbage truck (along with sleeping bags, guitars and other personal items.) I didn't see any TV cameras - I guess they left after the tents were pulled down.
The mounted police were using horses to trample seated protestors when I arrived. I went and had lunch at my favorite cafe on Collins St. (I'm not terribly political).
When I passed by again the dog squad were savaging the surviving protestors (down to less than a hundred by my estimate).
I counted 3 tactical response teams (I didn't know we had that many in Melbourne) 1 MICA Paramedic team, 3 ambulances and (at an estimate) several hundred cops.
If you want to commit a crime in Melbourne, today's the day - every cop we have is standing in the city square.
If this is what is happenning in Melbourne (we aren't really hurting here), I wonder how things are going in New York and Athens?
>From the little I observed, the protestors didn't put up a fight.... but given that they had their stuff tossed into a garbage truck, then they were trampled by horses, savaged by dogs and manhandled into vans, I wouldn't bet that they will be so peaceful next time.
Interesting times. I will be going passed again on my way home - I will take a look.
David C.
Occupy Melbourne - malcontents not random?
> “... a group of random malcontents who don't understand the issues ...”
It could just be that the malcontents are not a random group,
and understand the real issues a lot better than
those who think that population is the critical issue in 2011.
It could also be that some of them are working for the Police/ASIO/ASIS/CIA/Mossad,
but that some are true revolutionaries,
and some that are something else now, but will be revolutionaries in the future.
When the Police/ASIO infiltrators meet up afterwards for debriefing
and report that the protesters were peacefully running tutorials on The Fractional Reserve Banking System
they will conclude that the Government-Armed Forces-Judicial-Banking-Corporate Greed-MSM complex is safe,
and everything is BAU.
Dave
problems inherent in reserve banking system
"Constitutionality of the Reserve Banking System" in the Australian context would be a pretty brief tutorial - there is nothing
unconstitutional about it in Australia. The issue isn't whether it is legal or not, the issue is its inherent problems.
Occupy Melbourne: Quite well run
I walked through the "Occupy Melbourne" area yesterday. Very friendly people despite my "establishment" appearance (I was in a suit).
Quite well run considering it is a self-organising movement with no clear leadership. I saw a First Aid tent, a Media tent and an Information tent as well as many other signs of self-organisation.
Quite well informed - they are running tutorials on subjects like "The Fractional Reserve System" and "Constitutionality of the Reserve Banking Sysem".
There may be a group of random malcontents who don't understand the issues and whose only agenda is mindless opposition - but if so, I didn't see them.
David C.
"Occupy Melbourne" today
I arrived at the "City Square' today at about mid day. Wire fences surrounded the whole area and from the south end I could only see the protesters at a distance of about 60 metres..They were encircled by police or security dressed in bright green vests. There were a lot of onlookers taking photos. Police cars were parked all along Swanston Street. A police woman kept telling the people around me to move back from the fence and stand behind an arbitrarily chosen groove on the pavement. I could hear chanting in the distance but could not hear what it was about. After about an hour of learning nothing I started to walk towards Collins Street along the other side of Swanston Street as it was not possible to do this on the same side as the square. The pavement on the other side was uncharacteristically crowded and people were getting very impatient. I suddenly became conscious of my hand bag as though I were a tourist. A young man was pacing up and down Swanston Street with a sign around his neck saying "We are the 99%" This was my first and only opportunity to talk to a participant in the protest. The young man spoke with quite a heavy European accent in answering my question which was "what is the main concern?" He said that he could not be "over there" pointing to the (still occupied) square and I took that to mean that he could not afford to come in contact with the police for immigration reasons. He said that the protest was in sympathy with the protests on Wall Street and that it is because 1% of the people own most of the wealth in the world. I asked what specifically they would like to see happen in Australia or was it only a global protest. He said that to him it was the latter. I asked if the protesters had had good treatment from the media. He said the media had been "marvelous". I asked if that meant he was happy with the coverage of the protest in the media. He said that he had seen nothing as he had been living on the square for a whole week. (I'm not sure why he could not see a newspaper) At this point about 10 young people were escorted by police across Swanston Street away from the square. They offered a modicum of resistance shouting that they had a right to protest peacefully. They then marched up the street chanting something that I still couldn't get but part of it was "Occupy Melbourne". It would have been useless trying to talk to any of them as they were following each other in a determined fashion and I don't think would have liked to be picked off from the group. At this stage there were several police on horses on our side of the road . The horses' faces were protected with hard transparent masks. I then walked towards Collins Street then crossed to the north east corner and watched proceedings from there for about half an hour. The street was very crowded and protesters were still on the square. 3 young people climbed up on the Bourke and Wills monument. Then I clearly heard a familiar chant "Always was, always will be Aboriginal land!" I walked away over the pavement on the stolen land, returning at 4.50pm. By this time all the protesters had gone and the square was still fenced off with notices inside to say this was for maintenance. I picked up a copy of the free newspaper, MX and read that $15,000 worth of damage had been done but I could see no damage at all. I understand from news coverages that the scene later turned violent and people were hurt.
Policies for the benefit of the elite -
Too many government decisions and policies are being made for the benefit of the elite, at the disadvantage of the majority. Massive corporations with their financial power are able to hold governments captive due to their political and economic powers. More and more capital is going to feed rich corporations, while the general public continue to fare worse. Costs continue to increase, and living standards decline. People feel powerless in the face of large monolithic lobby groups. We are plagued with "shortages" and cutbacks to funding for education and training, for example, and more people find themselves homeless in what used to be the "Lucky Country". Land, farms, manufacturing and properties are being sold off to foreign powers. The people are becoming the economic "fodder", "fillers" for real estate, or packed-in consumers, for the benefit of the elite. As global powers and markets increase, the normal rate-payer, tax-payer becomes distanced from policy making, and from democratic processes.
World Vegan Week Oct 24 - 31
The 5th annual World Go Vegan Week is taking place this year from October 24th through 31st. (with In Defense of Animals)
The vegan lifestyle is picking up steam; celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Alicia Silverstone, Lea Michele, Carrie Underwood, Emily Deschanel, Tobey Maguire, and Bill Clinton, among many others, have all made this compassionate and healthy lifestyle choice.
Give it a try for at least one week. The animals, the environment, and your health can only benefit from your compassionate choice.
Click here for more information on the vegan lifestyle.
Veganism enables people to live in balance with all of Earth's creatures and promote freedom from exploitation for animals as part of their everyday lives. Modern animal agriculture is cruel and violent toward the chickens, cows, pigs and other creatures used to make meat, milk and eggs.
Occupy Melb: Is City Square private or public
We are very happy to focus on the positive elements of Occupy Melbourne. As I wrote, we are happy to publish comments, articles, anything from them. We are calling for this from them. We yearn to assist democracy in any way we can and therefore to assist Occupy Melbourne in any constructive move to shore up democracy. On the issue of Free Speech; our rights there need to be clear. At the moment they are not. Neither are our rights to free association. We don't have a right to this. And I believe that City Square is privately owned or privately managed, so is not a peoples' square. If I am correct, what is Our square? Do the people have a place in Melbourne?
Let's focus on offering constructive suggestions
I am also suspicious of far left groups who have clearly acted in recent decades as a prop for the ruling elites. They have been a prop by consuming the time, money and energy of people who would have made much better use of their time and been far more effective, even as individuals, let alone as members of genuine groups for the betterment of society. Nevertheless, I think that too much profile has been given to those groups in this article. I think a few well researched articles which document their track record, together with links from articles like this, would be sufficient. Certainly, those groups should be watched closely by those who understand them and candobetter should draw the attention of readers to any actions they take which may undermine "Occupy Melbourne", but, in the meantime, candobetter should focus on the positive aspects of this movement and on offering constructive suggestions as to how they can better go about achieving their goals.
Jon Fain and Occupy Melbourne and Population
I heard a lady ring Jon Fain today from the Occupy Melbourne site. She said that she was protesting about the "mainstream media" not giving people like her a voice. Jon argued that she had a voice because she was on the phone to him. This completely defused her and it seemed unfair to me. Of course we don't have a voice on the media! Nearly everyone there is a paid talking head for big business. Real people are exceptional there. You have to be famous or "important".
For instance, yesterday morning the local ABC was talking about Melbourne’s population growth and was it “sustainable”? Jill Quirk, the Victorian President of Sustainable Population Australia, rang in. She told them that she was the branch president of SPA in Vic. I heard that she waited about 40 minutes - a long time at any rate to get on air when she was introduced as simply as “Jill of name of suburb". She said that current population growth was not sustainable, to which Jon Faine the presenter said “oh why Melbourne is the least dense of any comparable city in the world!” Jill said that this was what people enjoyed about Melbourne” to which he replied “oh but you can enjoy other cities, have you ever lived in one of the larger cities of the world?” Jill said that she had but that she had not rung in to talk about how she may have enjoyed living in London and made the point that Melbourne's population growth is at the expense of the environment and that the 2008 State of the Environment report had shown that nearly all of the environmental indicators in Victoria are declining as a result of population pressure. To this JF said …”Well I've gotta move on….”
What he 'moved on to' was an interminable discussion of the Queen's visit to Australia. I noticed that he was still talking about this when he interrupted today to 'cover' Occupy Melbourne.
Anyway my point is that we don't have proper representation in our media or in our government. This ability that the Queen has to take over the airwaves in ridiculous discussions aboutwhether to curtsey or not is a great example of this.
So I feel that Jon Fain is just misrepresenting the way the ABC treats the people of Melbourne. They are really just interested in giving the powerful air with a little sprinkle of pretend democracy in tiny sound-grabs from the greater 'unwashed'.
More on Occupy Melbourne
Thank you, Jenny T. I would also like to know whether Occupy Melbourne is for real. As soon as we heard (October 10th, 2011) about plans for an Occupy Melbourne, I contacted the site and told them that I would like to represent the case of people protesting against infilling and overpopulation, as we represent the case on candobetter.net. I made some references to articles including a cartoon about the role of land costs in driving up wages and making businesses uncompetitive - especially relevant given the financial context of the protest. My comment remained 'under moderation' all night and all day. I registered to receive comments by email and when these finally came through, they were sparse and the two comments I had made (the second one being a query as to why the first one remained in moderation) were not published, did not come through on email. See below in square brackets the record I kept of my inquiry; if you click on the link now, it will take you nowhere.
[http://occupymelbourne.org/workshops/#comment-31
Sheila Newman says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 10, 2011 at 1:25 am
I have registered to receive correspondence. I made a post myself but it has not appeared and there have been very few items of correspondence made available. What is going on?
Reply ]
James Sinnamon had a conversation on the phone with one of the organisers - Nick- on the evening of October 10th. He was told to ring back later, up until midnight and that Nick would be happy to talk to him. When he rang back, before midnight, he was told that Nick was not able to talk to him.
These responses, plus the very light-on correspondence I received by email, which I stopped reading after a while - so maybe I should go back and look - made me seriously question whether the whole movement had been captured by the establishment who would be managing it to make it ineffective by pushing relatively unfocused individuals into the positions of 'leaders', whilst the establishment led from behind. If this were the case then I would anticipate that the event, if it gained enough momentum to attract people to participate of their own volition, would be broken up by the introduction of violence. The violence would also be organised by the establishment, who typically use agent provocateurs posing as 'anarchists', 'socialists' or 'communists'. (Note that I have nothing against anarchists, socialists and communists.) My own experience has been that the Refugee Action Collective and the so-called Socialist Alliance (which both have heavily infiltrated the Greens and Friends of the Earth) often harbour such agent provocateurs on a long-term basis. I suspect that those people are paid by external organisations which the rank and file know nothing about. I looked up Nick Carson and found that he had been a Greens candidate previously. We know that members of the Socialist Alliance shouted down people in the Greens last year when they tried to present an updated Greens population policy, leading at least one person to simply leave and go away, saying they were disgusted and depressed by the bullying.
I certainly continue to find it odd that Occupy Melbourne knocked back help twice from candobetter.net if it was really interested in representing the people of Melbourne, which is what we do.
I would be very grateful to hear some reassurance from people at Occupy Melbourne that my concerns are unjustified. They should note that we went ahead and wrote an article (on the basis of almost nil feedback) in support of this potentially very important movement. We would be happy to publish articles and comments by Nick Carson and any other organisers and participants in the Occupy Melbourne movement. We are not in the business of knocking down real democracy and will go out of our way to represent Occupy Melbourne if it shows it is for real.
Occupy Melbourne has been peaceful
I had a bit to do with Occupy Melbourne. The Socialist Alliance had been present on the fringes of Occupy Melbourne but organisers seemed to keep the protests peaceful by keeping them out of the main activities. I don't know what has gone wrong now. The police said some new people who wanted to cause trouble had moved in in City Square. I don't know if it was the socialist alliance.
Occupy Melbourne impression
My impression - 'nouveau hippies' without much idea of how things work, just feeling pushed around. As we all are.
Is Occupy Melbourne for real?
Is Occupy Melbourne just another Greens and Socialist Alliance pretend demonstration? Can anyone tell me? Is there anything happening there representing peoples' anger about forced urban densification and overpopulation? Because I hear nothing of these important subjects I assume that people with real complaints and serious solutions aren't welcome. Am I wrong?
Not impressed
I have heard the news today that the deposed Libyan leader has been killed by the rebels in his country, it appears as he was hiding in a drainpipe. If this is true , why could he not have been captured and put on trial for crimes he is accused of ? It is unseemly that Barak Obama should rejoice over this event however it is akin to the alleged unceremonious disposal of Osama Bin Laden and of Saddam Hussein. These events are hardly hallmarks of an enlightened world that supposedly has civilized options
Solutions to rampant population growth
- Contact your politicians on the topics of growth, and how it is impacting on our green wedges, our environment and on our cities.
- read population policies for the political parties before you vote
- vote for parties or independents with a population cap, such as the STABLE POPULATION PARTY OF AUSTRALIA
- don't be intimidated into ignoring the issue, due to political-correctness. It's NOT racism, but about numbers
- "Green"/environmental groups need to stop avoiding the source greenhouse gases, and loss of environmental integrity
- write to the papers. All the "shortages" are about population outstripping resources
- Population growth is a political policy, not natural. As such, it can and must be changed.
Curious silence on Australian forums about Libya, Syria
I attempted to post he following in response to John Quiggin's article, MLK and non-violent protest, but my comment vanished without trace after I hit the "Submit Comment" button. I didn't even see the usual "Your comment is awaiting moderation" notice. I will try again to submit this comment at a later point. John Quiggin had posted at least three articles in support of NATO's war against Libya: All necessary measures of 18 March, The end of tyranny of 23 August and The just fight not fought of 14 September. Some posters challenged John Quiggin's support for the invasion of Libya. There was debate in which John Quiggin's logic did not seem to stand up. He certainly failed to produce the evidence that he was asked for in support of his claims. After that debate John Quiggin has fallen silent on these questions in a fashion similar to larvatusprode.net and WebDiary which have not even mentioned those conflicts. Webdiary has a stated policy of not conducting further discussions on the causes of the 2003 Iraq War or (unofficial) "9/11 conspiracy theories". That policy now seems to embrace discussion of any war that Australia is involved in or which the Australian Government supports.
Martin Luther King once said: "There comes a time, when silence is betrayal."
Whilst silence is preferable to publishing misleading articles, I don't think Martin Luther King would be too impressed with the curious silence that has descended over Australian political discussion forums concerning the ongoing crimes which are being committed against Libya and the crimes which are being threatened against Syria, if he were alive today.
civil trial in 1999 found that James Earl Ray had been framed for King's murder and that King had been killed as a result of a conspiracy by the US Army and the Memphis Police Department.
Update: non-publication appears to be intentional censorship
(12:03PM, 21 October 2011) My second attempt to post the comment to the above forum page similarly failed. How this could have happened unless John Quiggin was intentionally blocking posts by me is beyond me.[1]
I preceded that post with the following:
Ikonoclast (@19) wrote:
Paradoxically, advocates of non-violent protest can also play a role in causing deaths; deaths of their own followers. That too is a kind of collateral damage.
Even the most extremely doctrinaire and naive practitioners of "non-violence" are unlikely to have caused nearly as much harm to their followers as those who advocate violent tactics in a society such as our own so easily could.
Although Australia's formal democracy only rarely translates into "Government ... for the people by the people" as, for example, the privatisation of Telstra and Australia's participation in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., etc. show, our circumstances could easily be a lot worse.
We still have the right to vote out governments we don't like, and (in practice, if we don't read the fine print of the legislation too closely) the right to free speech and to protest.
Committing illegal acts of violence, when we still have those rights could well give our secret government the excuse it needs to take away those rights. So, I think it is safe to assume that anyone who advocates violent tactics in support of progressive causes in Australia is either an agent provocateur or stupid.
Footnotes
1. What you can do: Consider posting to that page a complaint against apparent censorship on that site. Include in that complaint the full text of the post I attempted to make and a link back to this page. Also, be sure to advise us here on this page of your complaint.
Ok... what do you propose then?
How we fix it...
Bimblebox major nature reserve threat by Waratah coal-mine
"Waratah Coal's Environmental Impact Statement says 52 per cent of the refuge would become an open-cut mine and the remaining 48 per cent could be affected by subsidence from long-wall mining."
For full article go to: http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Anger-Palmer-threatens-nature-abc-2134511312.html?x=0
A massive coal mining project in central Queensland has set off a debate about the future of one of the nation's land conservation schemes.
If approved, Clive Palmer's Galilee Basin proposal would be the first mine to be allowed in a nature refuge.
Half of it will become an open cut mine, while the other half will be significantly affected by long-wall mining.
[...]
Standing in the mine's way is the Bimblebox Nature Refuge, set up by local landowner Paolo Cassoni.
The prospect of the Waratah mine has horrified Mr Cassoni, who signed the land over as a refuge in the belief it would be protected forever.
"We've seen a lot of land clearing and probably central-west and central Queensland had the worst land-clearing right of Australia, and so we decided to buy a property and to secure it from land clearing.
That property was Bimblebox," he said.
A nature refuge is a voluntary but legally binding agreement between the State Government and a landholder to preserve land with significant conservation values.
[...]
Queensland's Department of Environment website states that the intent of a nature refuge agreement is permanent protection, and termination can only be enacted under exceptional circumstances.
Mr Cassoni is concerned the mine will create a precedent [...]
"Mine is the first to go under the chop if you like.
There's another 54, I think, for exploration, flash mining lease for coal and 54 other minerals," he said.[...]
[...]
A spokesman for Mr Palmer declined the ABC's request for an interview.
Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke issued a statement saying: "I understand there is some community concern around the proposed development.
The proposal is now open for public comment.
[...]Queensland Environment Minister Vicky Darling was not available for comment.
China - good or bad
I very much agree with your sentiments regarding the switching of charity funding. But you had China at the top of your "worst offenders " list of countries.
This is a mistake - China has done more to reduce it's population than any other country in history. If it hadn't , there would be many more millions of starving families in the world today.
Coal mining threat at Bacchus Marsh
The mining protest in Bacchus Marsh is not only a case of not-in-my-backyard, but should be not-in-anyone's-backyard.
About 120 people have attended a meeting at Bacchus Marsh west of Melbourne (Tuesday 18th Oct) to try to stop a mining company from taking over their land for an open-cut coalmine.
Residents now fear Mantle will apply for a full mining licence to exploit the coal, which it would export to India.
West Australian company Mantle Mining has said it's discovered a huge seam of brown coal under a farming community in Parwan, just outside Bacchus Marsh. This is supposed to be an age of "clean" energy?
How can Mantle Mining be in the early stages of exploration in the area, with plans to begin mining? Even if they have legal mining rights to coal under private property, it is impossible and unethical to access it without permission from the owners. No financial compensation to owners would be adequate if they lose their peace, lifestyles, and the food-producing potential of the area.
But West Australian company Mantle Mining could have a fight on its hands, with the local community bitterly opposed to its plans for an open-cut mine.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/not-in-our-backyard-locals-tell-upbeat...
Under the Brumby government, Victoria’s Minister for Energy and Resources Peter Batchelor ruled out an Exergen plan of exporting up to 12 million tonnes of Latrobe Valley brown coal to India. Now the Baillieu is considering the retrograde step of opening the door to the export of greenhouse gas emissions.
Premier Baillieu condescendingly sympathised with the land-owners, but apparently personal rights to protect rural businesses and fertile farming land should "not at the expense of the state's economic interests"!
Victoria's "economic interests" should be based on much-needed 21st century innovation, knowledge-based investments, food production, well-managed investments in natural resources, and clean renewable energy. Our State's economy shouldn't rely on extreme and counterproductive industries that sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gain.
The Coalition went to the Victorian elections without an environmental policy - and their retrograde policies are evidence of it.
Naturam expellas furca,