Comments

Agent Provocateur

Sun, 2010-01-31 03:13

FYI The population debate: do you want 'a big Australia'?? - generated by the 7.30 Report on the ABC... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/29/2804926.htm Sheila's final paragraph here brought to mind the recent debate of Australia's burgeoning population - (and the resultant extra water use - unsustainable, etc) All Australian Governments, now & in the future, must be brought to account! ... Arable land (maintained - not used for building) ... crops which work with Australian conditions - not against them (like dairy farming ..& rice!)

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2010-01-31 00:31

I have to admit, I have not been able to entirely work out where right or wrong may lie in the argument between, "Search for Truth" on the one hand and Vivienne, Menkit and Tigerquoll on the other.

I do think it is important that we always argue the facts and be able to cite sources when discussing such contentious issues. (Of course, this need not apply to common knowledge, such as the obvious fact that Brisbane's roads are badly congested these days, thanks to Rudd's, Howard's Keating's Hawke's Beattie's and Bligh's irresponsible promotion of population growth.)

Sometimes, some of the facts may not be entirely convenient to the case we are trying to put. Examples include:

  • The seemingly very cold winters in parts of Europe if you accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as I do; or
  • The blistering hot summer faced in Australia just now, if you dispute AGW.

Nevertheless, I think in an honest debate between people of good will on all sides, it is important that all sides acknowledge all the facts. In the longer term, basing even a worthy cause on false arguments will most likely prove to be counterproductive.

In my experience, some of us do occasionally fall short of that ideal practice in the course of arguing to save our environment and endangered wildlife, or arguing, in general against injustice. I know that I, myself, have been guilty of that in the past. If that has happened here -- and I am not necessarily conceding that anyone here has done that -- we should, by all means point that out, but we should also not be too judgemental about people who may have transgressed that principle out of the best of intentions.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2010-01-30 23:53

This is poor practice, but my guess is that this may be symptomatic of such journals as Crikey cutting corners in order to stay financially afloat. My intuitive guess is that subscriptions and advertising revenue are not completely sufficient to provide such journals with funds suffiecient to allow them to do everything properly. If we think about it, every Internet user may visit dozens or hundreds, or even thousands of sites over the course of a year. It would be financially impossible, as well as very time consuming, to contribute to all of them or, indeed even a reasonable proportion of them. Where a user does dip into his/her pocket to pay a subscription to a site like Crikey, they can easily fail to get the full value from that subscription, whilst many other sites that that user continues to make use of get nothing. He/she may subsequently find that the site he/she has subscribed to, for a while, fails to hold his/her, or he/she will simply forget to visit it for maybe three to six months. Before he/she realises it the subscription will be almost used up before he/she realises it. He/she and will have to gamble on paying another year's subscription not knowing in advance whether he/she will get reasonable value. Something like this happened to me a few years ago although I can't remember the name of the site, now. What is needed are alternative less cumbersome means of obtaining revenue from appreciative users for the vast number of sites used by a typical user that he/she would be happy to financially contribute to. Perhaps an intermediate body could accumulate whatever sums of money that user was willing and able to pay. That money could be paid intermittently, regularly or possibly even not at all. However, say a user pays in roughly $50 a quarter. The money could be divided up amongst sites depending on the appreciation indicated by that user for the content of those sites. That could be indicated by that user simply clicking on a button included with the article. Sites participating in this scheme would be resposnible for seeing that such buttons are included on each page for which authors hope to be remunerated for. Every click on such a button would cause the account name and site name to be communicated to the intermediary body. At the point when a user pays money into the scheme, that could be immediately divided up according to the relative number of button clicks received from each site and pooled into that site's accounte and paid out either after a specified period of time or as soon as worthwhile threshold of money, say $200 was reached. When the money is paid out by the interediary body to participating sites, the money could be split according to the number of times buttons from each site has been clicked by that user. Even if it were to result in a site getting as little as, say, 20c from a given user out of that $50 and an individual author recieving say 4c for all the articles he/she has contributed, it is still possible to envision how, if thousands, tens of thousands or even millions were to participate in this scheme, then there would easily be sufficient funds to at least adequately pay all contributors who write content that people find useful. A vast number of creative hardworking people, who are paid nothing or a pittance for their efforts would find themselves able to earn a decetn living instead. This could be set up by a private entity, but I see no reason why our own federal Government should not be prepared to provide such a service. The public good that would flow would easily justify the expense necessary to set it up and run it. My own preferred option would simply be for the Government to provide the necessary funds to distribute to authors from general revenue. We would then all be paying for Internet content, but we would be paying for it through our taxes. Whether such a system was set up by a private entity, the Government and whether or not payments to authors were funded by the Government of by voluntary contributions from members of the public, it would have to work better than the current system.

Search for Truth (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-30 22:24

Your last two posts set a fine example of concise direct and relevant comment. An absolute pleasure to read and respond to, when not laced with reams of irrelevant rhetoric, repetition and personal attacks. No less effective in getting your point across in two short posts you have earned my respect and demanded nothing from me well done.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2010-01-30 20:07

The keystroke efforts put to this website are only to encourage respect for Australia's nature and society and challenge the harm to either or both. No point targeting any author; they come and go. Participating in Australia's debate is valuable to the future of Australia. I move on. No worries. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Search for Truth (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-30 15:32

I assure you Tigerquoll, I am genuine but beware Menkit evidently despises pseudonyms and evidently people who use them. So Beware. You maybe be targeted and headed for the endangered species list yourself. For the record I am not suggesting, nor advocating the apartheid you mention. Take care.

Search for Truth (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-30 15:24

I may well be a tad pedantic or even radically so, I care not how you view it, the frame of reference is entirely subjective and entirely irrelevant to the issue of my initial comment (10-01-10) For Menkit’s benefit I will clarify that I am not employed by the kangaroo industry and would not want to be associated with it in any way and I am certainly not defending it or those that promote it. Also I have no intimate relationship with any particular kangaroo I consider the interests of the kangaroo is best served by preserving them as WILDlife not as pets, zoo exhibits or bottle fed orphans, etc. Label me pedantic if you like, it is your prerogative. I expected this would be thrown in sooner or later as it is quite a commonly used tactic by persons without sound argument to launch attacks upon the messenger. This is but one reason why I choose to use a nom de plume for my posts hoping that the focus remains more upon the merits of the argument I present rather than any aspects of the messenger. Menkit considers her contributions “very important”, which they might be if they weren't containing so many flawed arguments, flaws which I consider not to be matters of minutiae nor pedantry but flaws of significant proportion. I did not raise the issue of honesty and integrity lightly. I have raised this issue firstly because I do not like to see the strenuous credible efforts of honest and sincere people undermined by thoughtless ill considered actions and diatribe of reckless minorities(or majorities, as the case maybe), and secondly because I have no desire to be associated (nor labelled guilty by) with lies deceit or purveyors thereof. I have been extremely careful not to enter a comparative slanging match pitching research I find against research others put forth as I consider such argument rarely solves anything. Menkit says “It's not like I made the figure up, at least I quoted a valid government website and valid scientific studies from CSIRO.” If I applied Menkit’s logic I could say that ‘CSIRO studies clearly show that Kangaroos exert a grazing pressure of 40%.’ (Source Kangaroos: Fact And Fiction), then if I went to Seasonal Changes in Diet Preferences of Free-Ranging Red Kangaroos, Euros and Sheep in Western New South Wales the competition issue becomes even more confusing. I do not subscribe to the notion that just because it is written it must be true. I have no notion of whether the research of Dr Freudenberger is credible, valid or otherwise but the summary appears on a CSIRO website. Now all I need do is sit and wait for Menkit or some other individual with a chip on their shoulder to attempt to discredit Dr Freudenberger's research if they can provide a valid legitimate criticism or argument then by all means bring it on healthy relevant debate is often the way to the best most appropriate outcome, but if ad hominem diatribe is the best you have please do us all a favour and consign it directly to the recycle bin or do the planet a favour and don’t dredge it up in the first place. Please do us all a favour Menkit before you run off at the mouth (or the keyboard, please excuse my humble pedantricities) again, please consider the analogy of the molehill you accuse me of exploiting in the context of a potential melanoma of potentially lethal consequence and consider whether small is identical to non existent. At this point I could embark upon the proverbial rotten apple in the barrel or the lying with dogs and picking up fleas analogy but I won’t. I have no intention of undermining arguments that have firm and accurate foundations because doing so would be an exercise in futility which I have no time for. Menkit attacks my anonymity and casts aspersions on my integrity because I choose a nom de plume, please tell us all, is Menkit your real name (the one your parents bestowed upon you) or is it one you have chosen to use later in life for some reason? Is the name used by the messenger a legitimate reason to ignore the merit of an argument? I consider highly selective reporting is extremely deceitful especially in the context of your attempted 1%/8% ruse as your prior posts on the internet indicate your full awareness of the 8% estimation and it’s relevance. If the deceitful cap fits, Menkit, by all means wear it; with pride, if your conscience allows, I care not but the measure of your integrity will be measured and judged by the merits of your actions and posts from this point forth not just by me but by all who read your comments. In addition to the ‘deceitful’ head covering another style which may well fit you could include the propagandist variety. My Oxford Dictionary defines propaganda as “an organised programme of publicity, SELECTED INFORMATION, etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc.” the terms Propaganda and Myth are frequently and often very carelessly (or perhaps very selectively) tossed around by both proponents of Kangaroo culls and those against, this then raises the proverbial analogy of pots and kettles but I would rather not go there. Finally Menkit you accuse me of that most unfavourable act to “harp on and on.” Perhaps the most affective hat you could choose to ward off those potentially ugly damaging, even lethal, molehill melanomas would be an extremely broad brimmed style of the hypocrite genre, I am all but sure you will find at least one hat (or cap, curse my pedanticy) in your size. On Jan 10th I raised but a single issue of truthful reporting of “alleged” research showing a single and particular issue. Your response was not to clearly identify the alleged research (which I suspect you will never be able to do) and let it be; no, your response was to climb aboard your soapbox and seize upon an opportunity to express (yet again) your viewpoint on issues of kangaroo culling, “……the commercial kangaroo industry, government and farmers……”, “….drought, bushfires, flooding, habitat loss, illegal killing, roadkill and so on…..” none of which did I mention nor are even remotely relevant as to whether kangaroos and domestic livestock share a food source or whether there is any credible published research in existence which demonstrates this claim. I was of the understanding that candobetter.org was an opinion forum that welcomed meritorious comment (even though some views expressed may conflict), that supported free speech and democracy, supported activism to bring about democratic change, hopefully for the better of all. But I will not accede to accepting or being associated with blatantly false propaganda or deliberately deceitful efforts regardless of who presents it and subsequently have my reputation tarnished by association with those that engage in such, yet another reason which I consider valid for use of a nom de plume. Re. that big unanswered question, the real pest is the humans undoubtedly, that is how and why changes must be sought.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2010-01-30 14:25

If 'Search for Truth' (comment above) is genuine, then...if Australian graziers think their greatest profit threats are not wool prices, not reliable water, not reliable feed, not interests rates or the Aussie dollar, but kangaroos competing with their livestock for grass, then where is the evidence? Is wildlife apartheid the only option to protect wildlife? If Australian graziers want to separate livestock from kangaroos, well we should work out how much land and where all Australian kangaroos need to sustain original pre-1788 numbers, to respect ecology. A good start would be to federally assign all state forests and Crown Land to the National Park estate, so Australia's rural tenure becomes either National Park or private freehold. If private rural lands cannot be maintained to a healthy standard (no erosion, no salinity, no runoff, topsoil removal), then a private rural landholder must show cause to keep it. Then graziers can use the land that is left for primary production and fence the kangaroos out (taller fences). Rebates for DEH approved wildlife fencing should be provided by the federal government, because the grazier would effectively be doing part of the Feds job of preserving wildlife. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Menkit (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-29 21:29

My, Search for Truth, we really are being a tad pedantic, aren't we? All the points that have been raised about how TINY the competition between kangaroo and livestock grazing is and all the DEMERITS of the livestock industry yet still you harp on and on. Focussing on minutiae such as the use of words 'small' versus 'no' in no way minimises our very important contributions to the argument. Vivienne and I both qualified that the research we quoted says kangaroos' grazing pressure is small - not non-existent. Why do you keep on about this when we have clarified this point? Shall I repeat myself? THE IMPACT OF KANGAROOS ON THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IS MINIMAL. Vivienne quoted research showing that even in drought the competition is 'small' and only in extreme conditions will kangaroos eat the food of sheep and cows and thereby pose a threat to them (and to the kangaroos detriment). Irrespective of whether I quote 1% or 1-8% or 8%, the fact remains, kangaroos have small pressure on the entire industry. It's true that I quoted the lower end of kangaroo grazing pressure that doesn't make me deceitful. It's not like I made the figure up, at least I quoted a valid government website and valid scientific studies from CSIRO. It's also true that I said that there is no grazing competition between sheep and kangaroos, which I corrected as meaning no 'substantial' competition. Frankly I don't think this is a big deal. You accuse me of being deceitful and without integrity (even though I quoted highly credible government sources) in a futile attempt to dismiss the issue which revolves around the potential extinction of our national icon. I can't help but wonder, why are you so protective of this industry? Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? The far more important issues such as "why are we experiencing drought - could it be somehow related to the livestock industry, thanks to deforestation, desertification, excess water use, soil erosion and so on?" - are lost in the argument. Also lost in the argument is the far bigger unanswered question of 'WHO IS THE REAL PEST? MAN, SHEEP, COW OR KANGAROO? Who has done the most damage to the land in the last 200 years? So what is the big deal 'Search for Truth' who appears to be so intent on undermining our arguments? Is this a diversionary tactic and are you really employed by the kangaroo industry (hence the secrecy of your real name - so much for truth and integrity!)? It certainly doesn't look like you are any kind of friend of the kangaroos.

Search for Truth (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-29 19:39

A rather unnecessary diversion into history this time, Vivienne. I am no more in need of a history lesson than you are of a thick juicy steak. However if you wish to digress into history then OK, please consider the following quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln; “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” You are currently in an uncomfortable position because evidently you cannot verify this no competition rubbish that you pedal here and in other forums. Integrity and credibility is still THE ISSUE. If you had any measure of integrity at all you would make prompt specific reference, chapter and verse to the research you claim shows that kangaroos and livestock do not compete for food, or alternately acknowledge that the claim has no substance. To acknowledge you were wrong would at least demonstrate a degree of integrity on your part. I reiterate that you may “have been duped or failed to check sources” in historical context “to err is human…..” You request that I read the references? The fact is I had read the majority of them long before your provision, which really wasn't necessary or helpful as the facts remain unchanged. It does seem apparent that you have a problem with comprehension as it is “Search for Truth” not “Search the Truth”. I fully appreciate that as a city dwelling vegan you may have a very limited understanding of dry sheep equivalents. Respectfully I suggest you reread (very carefully) my previous posts which will further reveal; • I am NOT denying kangaroos an existence or food. • I am not requesting or demanding their eradication. Like it or not Vivienne history cannot be changed. Australia became part of the European Rangeland more than 200 years ago, a legacy we all have to live with. I share your obvious concern about overpopulation of this country with perhaps our most limited resources being soil and water, but I do not condone nor wish to be associated with those that falsify information or knowingly distribute inherently false information. In response to your closing paragraph I respectfully suggest that the question you should be concentrating on at present is the title of my comment (10-01-10) What Research? When you have addressed that question in an appropriate manner and with the results in context you may have a far better grasp of reality. Do livestock consume pastures and water, trample native grasses and soils? Of course they do but so do kangaroos. Livestock do not consciously set out with an agenda of deforestation; I have never seen a sheep driving a bulldozer or a cow wielding a chainsaw. This is a matter of management, the responsibility of another genus entirely. Are livestock polluting rivers? Well yes, but so are birds, fish, humans, kangaroos; well, any dead animal that has the misfortune to fall in before or after death and any animal that leaves its faecal waste atop the ground, drops it from the air or directly in the water. Pollution is such a generalist word of wide ranging connotations and therefore highly subjective.

John Marlowe

Thu, 2010-01-28 23:19

"The word "economics" is based on Greek roots, but that is a bit of a humbug, since the Greeks didn't have a field of study anything like economics.

The two Greek roots of the word "economics" are oikos -- meaning more or less the household or family estate -- and nomos, which can mean rules, natural laws or laws made by the government, but which in this case primarily means "wise saws" or "rules of thumb."

Thus the book Oikonomia, by the Greek author Xenophon, is probably best translated as "rules of thumb for estate management."

So economics means guessing property values - up there with real estate agents - with vested interests in profiting.

Check: http://faculty.lebow.drexel.edu/mccainr/top/prin/txt/Intro/Eco111h.html

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-28 18:56

Kangaroos are original Australian animals. They have existed in Australia for at least 16 million years and have co-evolved and co-existed with their ecology and other species to live in perfect harmony the Australian context. "Search the Truth", please read the references provided. We should not have to justify the existence of kangaroos, our iconic native animals, or justify their food and water consumption! This is their ancient home, their rangelands are here, and they are perfect Aussie animals! Why deny them food? The problem is the enormous number of livestock, irrigation, over population of non-indigenous humans, our drought and then climate change. Kangaroos are becoming more visible as food dries up and then they come into towns. It is a sad reflection on 220 years of European settlement that such well adjusted native, frugal consumers and soft-footed gentle animals, are suffering and being blamed for environmental damage and for eating pasture! They can't be denied food or a living, surely! Maybe the question should be reversed - are livestock consuming pasture and drying up our waterways, trampling our native grasses and soils, causing deforestation and polluting rivers? I think the answer is obvious!

Search for Truth (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-28 09:44

The issue I raised in my comment (10-1-10) was in relation to truth and factual reporting, not about comparative populations of species, merits of kangaroos nor did I provide any argument for or against kangaroo culls.

The comments from Menkit (11-1-10) and Vivienne (12-1-10) both frequent contributors to candobetter do not in any way validate claims that kangaroos do not compete with livestock for food much less identify ANY published research that does so. At best their references indicate a possible small level of competition.

I assume both provide diversionary arguments, to avoid the issue. I expect both have the capacity to recognise that use of absolute and definitive terms like ‘no’ and ‘not’( in the context of grazing competition) is far more persuasive than highly subjective terms such as ‘small’ or ‘some’, but despite knowing this and the lack of merit use the terms anyway.

In yet another departure from the truth Menkit writes, “Then this website shows that grazing pressure of kangaroos is only 1%.......” but the website in question shows nothing of the sort, the kangaroo grazing pressure of 1% that she mentions, in its true context represents the lowest end of an estimated range with the higher end an estimated 8% of a national average, I have no doubt Menkit is aware of this fact.

Whilst some may argue that the end justifies the means, I consider the desired ending is far more frequently compromised when the means employed is to flagrantly misrepresent fact.

I am interested in many topics discussed on candobetter.org but have no interest in lies or deceit. The mission statement of candobetter.org begins “To encourage ordinary people…….”, if this encouragement is to be instigated through deceit then evidently candobetter.org is not an appropriate place to seek truth.

In my opinion the time has never been more appropriate for purveyors of this ‘no competition’ crap to put up or shut up.

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-27 20:16

Billionaire property developer Harry Triguboff believes Australia's population will soar to 55 million by 2050, but hopes it will reach 100 million. Obviously he will not be responsible for the mess, and will be living comfortably and with privileges on one his secluded palatial properties while the rest of us grovel for mortgages for the last apartments in outer city sprawl! Mr Triguboff believes that the figure of 35 million by 2050 is too conservative. "I don't think there will be 35 million but about 55 million," he said on The 7.30 Report. Most people do not understand exponential growth at a rate of 2.1 % growth. However his arithmetic is correct! The (inevitable?) 35 million by 2050 is being touted to soften us up! Any concerns are just brushed aside: "Our agriculture has to be huge. Our desalination must be fantastic. Our rivers must flow the right way. It will all have to be developed." Yeah, he and he and his cronies will be those benefiting and will give support to our major political parties. Who will pay the cost for all this infrastructure and increasing costs as each person has less share of natural resources? Us of course. This man and others like him are simply parasites and social psychopaths!

Milly (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-27 13:51

Mark Coulton says "Australian roos are culled in a humane way, and fears any move to stop the cull will hurt regional employment". Typical of a red-neck, shadowy parliamentary secretary for regional development to be concerned for "regional employment" above concerns for our wildlife and the environment they contribute towards in keeping it intact. The Federal Member for Parkes says he hopes the meeting with Tony Burke will fast-track the application for exceptional circumstances drought relief for farmers. Mr Coulton says it is important Tony Burke hears first-hand that recent rain has not been enough for farmers to recover from years of drought. Maybe the livestock industries are just not sustainable and have sucked the lifeblood out of the area! Lack of "regional employment" now is supposed to be supported not only be tax-payer handouts but by further denuding of our landscapes of native animals. When will the desecration of our ancient land stop? Employment, economic and population growth cannot be endlessly supported while we keep extracting anything that moves and lives out of our fragile landscapes. "Quite a few people" are employed in the kangaroo killing industry, he says, but they are also employed in prostitution, pornography, drug smuggling, illegal logging, child trafficking, whaling, fur industries, sweat-shops, the tobacco and cocaine industries too! The means does not justify the end, and regulation can't change what is morally wrong to one that is honest and correct.

Your ABC (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-27 00:26

Resistance is futile so don't try to argue logically Vivienne, we are not interested.

Unemployed Cana... (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-27 00:22

I don't know about that. Have you noticed that, since Brigitte Bardot got the EU to ban seal products the seal population has exploded in Canada and Alaska and the harp seal is seeking revenge. There are hardly any humans left. The streets are full of barking seals and the smell of rotting fish. The seals are making their way as we speak towards Washington and the Whitehouse. The airports are paralysed with people trying to get away - to Haiti or anywhere It will be the end of civilisation as we know it. Can you help us here, Mr Coutron? Forget the kangaroos. It's the seals that are the real threat. Ahgghhh! And they're wearing white coats.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2010-01-26 23:55

Mark Coultron, the Federal member for Parkes, and the opposition has reacted to the EU campaign, declaring that if the kangaroo industry stops, there will be a population explosion of kangaroos. How can he or any government in Australia make such pronouncements when it is common knowledge that the state and federal governments in Australia simply lack statistical data of sufficient standard to know what the kangaroo population is or does? What we do know is that humans are overpopulating this country and the governments are all encouraging that, yet we are running out of water. Mr Coultron is in a rural electorate and NSW appears to be going broke, so his constituents are probably desperate and so is he. It is a pity that we are in an economy where the cost of everything basic, but particularly land for housing is so high that it drives the cost of doing business beyond the ability of the small entrepreneur or family farmer. We can't blame kangaroos for that. Mark also wants to promote tourism in rural areas. Good idea, but most of the tourists would like to see kangaroos, and there aren't many around. And most tourists would like to think that the kangaroos were well treated. If farmers were not so under the gun from ridiculous global competition policy, they would not be overstocking their paddocks with neglected sheep and cattle and would not therefore get so hysterical about their stock sharing a bit of pasture with kangaroos. Face it Mark, the kangaroos got along perfectly well in this land before a bunch of desperados decided to shoot them for not much more meat than rabbits. They are not the ones that need to control their population. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-26 21:06

We went to Wonthaggi on the weekend and saw the protest signs, the wonderful Bass beaches and the start of the construction of the desal plant. We visited the pristine ocean beach that will be polluted by the output and the brine. There are 6 wind-generators, tokens to our government's "offset" for the amount of electricity that this monster will use. It is pure tokenism and absurd that these few wind generators could possibly compensate for the energy used! The desalination plant will lock us into a high impact and expensive future and pull us further away from renewable energy and into high emissions. Wonthaggi region doesn't need the water - it is for Melbourne! According to a local, the desal plant will use the mains electricity grid, then use coal-powered generation which will only last for about 28 years. This supply will finish and then it will be powered by a nuclear power plant! Mr Brumby has admitted that our water bills are likely to double in 5 years. This is our nuclear future, something our governments are quiet on! Desalination plants are not a sustainable water solutions for Victoria or Australia, but our government's effort to sustain endless population growth - the infrastructure for which we will all be paying for.

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-26 20:48

The media are touting the 35 million by 2050 as if it were a fact, a foregone conclusion, an unavoidable consequence of our existing population, something that is inevitable! They fail to mention, on the program or in the media, that it is orchestrated by our government's immigration program and is not "natural"! Even our so-called "natural" growth is a least 60% due to immigration. With all the arguments and consequences CONTRARY to our land and natural resources being able to cope with these numbers, why are we still on the road to eco-cide ? We are being softened up to the 35 million figure, but the reality is that unless we curb our growth numbers, we will have at least 50 million people by then. Our high-density future is not suitable for families, and children will suffer more as they depend on technology for entertainment and education instead of exploring and playing in their backyards. Those who benefit from this malignant growth, our governments and the growth industries they have an unhealthy relationship with, are those making the decision towards our "inevitable" numbers. We need to break this pact and force population growth as an election issue.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2010-01-26 15:59

Oh, I don't know that it would be so hard, Quark. What if, instead of marching down Swanston Street about global warming, next time the thousands of Climate Change activists come down and stopped the bulldozers. That would make them sit up in Spring Street. Two hundred people would do it and would be hard to arrest, but better one thousand people working for Jill Redwood than Al Gore. One thousand Global Warming Activists in the forests could stop logging in Victoria forever. Aim for 10,000 people working on roster and we would finally have a functioning environmental movement and something for Australia to be proud of, rather than a handful of weary, stretched to the limit people fighting for all the rest of us 600km away. Such a movement could lead a complete environmental reworking of our economy. WE cannot rely on the Greens or anyone else - and certainly not on the government. We have to rely on OURSELVES. Get in touch with Jill Redwood via the EEG website and volunteer your bodies as Avatars for a series of final showdowns with the woodchipping vandals who partly run the Victorian government. Save a place for me! Sheila Newman, population sociologist

quark

Tue, 2010-01-26 14:59

I have for years been in absolute awe of those who put their own bodies on the line to protect our forest and wildlife heritage by standing in front of bulldozers or sleeping atop trees. Of course their actions are not exaggerated when we see what is at stake and the pictures of the destruction. Ideally we'd all occupy these places and stand in the way of the destruction but the sacrifice is too great for most of us. Rod Quantock's contribution to preserving our environment through his talents is also awesome.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2010-01-26 14:54

Rod Quantock is holding his “Bugger the Polar Bears – this is serious” show at Warrandyte on Sat 20th Feb 7.30. Bless him! Half the profits he raises will be donated to EEG to help with our costs. Tickets $30. Ph: Ingrid 9870 8378 for details. (will send more details soon).

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2010-01-26 13:23

The tiny island of Lampedusa, recently closed down the refugee housing centers there. Marisa Cohen wrote an article on August 4, 2008 about how the island was being overwhelmed by boatloads of immigrants. A policy of sending uninvited immigrants onwards when they arrived in ships means that from housing thousands of immigrants, not a single one remains on Lampedusa. My source is an article on France2 news 3 December 2009, Berlusconi ferme le camp de Lampedusa. Click here for the video You don't need to understand French or Italian to understand the video. The commentary is that the boats are being sent back to their source, Libya. At the end the man in charge of the empty camp is saying sadly that he has nothing to do now and that there is no longer any work in Lampedusa and they are unable to help people they could have helped. Unfortunately that source of work in Libya was at enormous social and environmental cost to Italy and simply wasn't sustainable. Libya needs help with its problems but taking a trickle of asylum seekers causes more problems than it fixes and doesn't fix the situation for the millions who remain behind. The question is always, where do you draw the line. Ironically, millions of lines have been written about drawing the line. Who is responsible for Libya's overpopulation? Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Michael Q. (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-26 11:15

I hope you are right but I think people listen to people like Harry- they think that his good fortune will also be theirs. Especially if they identify with the wealthy.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2010-01-26 11:10

Someone has commented elsewhere that Harry Triguboff isn't a good promotion vehicle for extreme growthist views. He just didn't make them look good. In fact growth is a pretty ugly concept in a land running out of water and with a constantly rising cost of land for housing, no matter how much you try to market it. It can only be disguised as inevitable and, once you rip off that disguise, the naked emperor of growth just looks like what it is, a cruel and lonely monster.

Michael Q. (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-26 11:02

I find it outrageous that the ABC gives someone like Harry Triguboff any time at all. I think he got about twice the amount of airspace that Bob Birrell did. Harry is not any sort of expert whilst Bob Birrell undeniably is. Harry's utterances on population are short sighted and self interested. It is as though someone who makes money out of population growth is treated as a community leader. While he makes money, for most of us, life is getting more difficult and less pleasant. Winner take all. Harry is no leader. He is an exploiter. He is a bad example. Why does the ABC promote him?

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2010-01-25 22:09

At least Dick Smith was allowed to say how wrong the Sydney person who wanted lots more people was. Smith has been against a big population for years, although you don't hear it much - probably because the press have screened such views out to date. Personally I am heartily sick of the so-called experts they trot out. Most of the public seem to be against this profligate expansion that is driving the country to the wall and uglifying and crueling all our natural places and creatures. Democracy is the expert - not a bunch of used-car salesmen type demographers and greedy developers. The real dependency ratio in this country is the one where the rest of us have to carry the developers and their hangers-on by working ever increasing hours to pay for less land and housing space, less freedom, less nature, less water, less democracy. The developers and the housing industry and the demographers and their friends in government should go out and get real jobs or stay home and grow their own food instead of battening on to the rest of us like tics on a dog.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2010-01-25 21:19

The demographers - those jumped up little mathematicians with no idea of what those numbers actually mean - talk of population increase as if it were an inevitability, instead of the immediate result of state and federal government policy. Better than the 'professionals' were the comments on the program. There were more than 320. Most were sensible and totally against population growth. Will the ABC stop the propaganda and report on what the people need and want instead of acting for the real-estate development mob in the next few days? I'm not holding my breath. Keep on reporting the truth, Candobetter! Maybe you can replace the ABC.

Forwarding (not verified)

Sun, 2010-01-24 11:46

Apparently Tony Abbott was actually misreported, and what he actually said was “It’s not surprising that people worry about immigration when our cities seem to be bursting at the seams and when existing and planned infrastructure can hardly cope with the present population let alone the additional 14 million (almost entirely due to immigration) that the Prime Minister expects by 2050. An alternative to discouraging immigrants, as the former NSW Premier Bob Carr tried to do, is to ensure that the facilities exist to cope with current and forecast numbers.” The full text of what he said can be found at http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=3908

quark

Sat, 2010-01-23 23:56

Tony Abbott's recipe for immigration is even worse than Mr. Rudd's. It seems the future choices for the voting public are now for the 2 main parties to outdo one another in terrible approaches to population and immigration as they alternate as the ruling parties in Canberra.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-23 12:18

"Freedom and benefits of life in Australia" ? Abbott should focus on clearing up the rapidly disintegrating social environment being endured by existing Aussies, before pontificating about freedom and benefits for outsiders. Populate and perish, Abbott. The Mad Monk achieves a 2% increased public approval rating, so quickly proceeds to shoot himself in the foot. One more example of exactly what dinkum Australians are up against.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-23 09:18

Mr Rudd said earlier this week that Australia needs to boost productivity to cope with an ageing population. An intergenerational report, expected out before Easter, is understood to show that the population will hit 36 million by the middle of the century. Our nation does not have to "hit" 36 million, and exponential arithmetic would tell us, that unless our unsustainable growth rate is stemmed, our population will be closer to 50 million by 2050! Kevin Rudd warned that an "ageing population" would "drag down" our growth rate over the next 40 years. How disgusting that Kevin Rudd could consider ageing a threat! Older people may not add to the GDP but if they worked most of their lives they have contributed to the economy. Many retirees are self-supporting now. They often care for the elderly and children, and do volunteer work. Nothing grows forever, and people don't value only when they are "growing" family incomes. People are being denigrated to merely economic units in our government's economically-driven growth agenda. If we hadn't had our post-war immigration levels, 40 plus years ago, we wouldn't have the ageing population we have now. Now Kevin Rudd is doing the same thing, an immigration boost that will mean even more older people in 40 years time. His off-setting of older people by importing young people and "students" will mean that our numbers will continue to blow-out!

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-23 08:38

Surgery was unable to save Doug the koala and he died. “Vets operated on Doug’s chest first following X-rays that were taken today, which revealed the pellet was sitting in his chest cavity,” a wildlife hospital spokesperson said. “Vets had to remove hair that was found in Doug’s chest as a result of the impact of the pellet. “It has also been revealed that half of one of Doug’s lungs had to be removed.” His mother, Meryl, was also shot during the attack but is expected to make a full recovery after earlier surgery.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-23 00:17

Tony Abbott appears to support a growing population based on migration for Australia "The immigration rate should depend upon the strength of Australia's economy, the confidence of our society and the readiness of potential migrants to make a commitment to their new country," he said. Australia did not have a "fixed carrying capacity". "My instinct is to extend to as many people as possible the freedom and benefits of life in Australia," Mr Abbott said. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1177737/Some-immigrants-resist-equali...

Biorealist (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-23 00:06

Recent research shows the importance of cognitive ability to macroeconomic outcomes. Populations show different average levels, which robustly predict economic performance. 'The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development' (PDF 418K) Rindermann et al Talent Development & Excellence Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 3-25 Geoffrey Miller noted recently in the Economist that gene research may identify reasons for this: "We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in "The 10,000 Year Explosion" that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination. If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species-including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world's different economies." ("The looming crisis in human genetics -- Some awkward news ahead" by Geoffrey Miller in the Economist of 13 Nov 09.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-22 23:16

Wednesday 10 February, from 5.30pm ­ 7.00pm at the Freehills offices, Level 42, 101 Collins St, Melbourne, Victoria. There is a second chance to attend this Seminar on the Planning Act Review. Although it is really bad the Victorian Government is trying to convince us that it isn't. The name of the seminar is "Modernising Victoria's Planning System". Yes, ridiculous gloss on the brutal bulldozing and carbon-intensive process of making money out of immigrants and allowing commercial organisations to administer our laws. However, learning about this organised implement of tyranny in this way is relatively painless and useful. Contact leanne.cahill[AT]freehills.com. Phone +61 3 9288 1321 "Modernising Victoria’s Planning System. Out with the old and in with the new? An update and discussion on proposed reforms to Victoria’s planning system Freehills and the Planning Institute of Australia would like to invite you to a free seminar and panel discussion on the proposed reforms to Victoria’s planning system contained in the Planning and Environment Amendment (General) Bill 2009, which was recently released for public comment. Among the proposals are: a new procedure for the assessment and approval of ‘state significant developments’, which may include renewable energy, port, tourism and other major capital expenditure projects changes to the planning scheme amendment process which (among other things) will allow private entities to be authorised to prepare amendments code-assessable permit applications, and a host of other changes, including the arrangements for section 173 agreements."

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-22 13:24

Average minimum temperatures along Peru's north coast increased 3.5 o F (2 o C) from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature in the high plateau region in extreme southeastern Peru has also risen 3.5 o F (2 o C). In the Andes mountains, the edge of the Qori Kalis glacier was retreating 13 ft (4.0 m) annually between 1963 and 1978. By 1995, the rate had stepped up to 99 ft (30.1 m) per year. The combination of rising levels of carbon dioxide and increasing deforestation could reduce biodiversity in the tropical forests of Northern South America. A warming process in Peru’s Cordillera Blanca – the Andean country’s most important glacier system – is causing ice and snow to melt at an accelerated rate, jeopardizing ecosystems, water supplies and the safety of Peruvians in the region, the country’s main water authority reiterated this week. The new century may bring hundreds or even thousands of plant and animal extinctions to the Andes Mountains of Peru according to new research by Florida Institute of Technology Paleo-Ecologist Mark Bush. The Andes region of Peru is one of the most biologically diverse areas on the planet. "According to the International Panel on Climate Change, we can expect a minimum of one to two degrees Celsius increase in temperature in the Andes by the end of this century," Bush said. Farmers in Cusco are reporting irregular rains and intense heat. This is affecting their potato and corn crops: in recent years, production has fallen by at least half. Livestock farmers also report that new diseases are affecting their animals. Local residents in rural Piura report that changing rainfall patterns are damaging their mango and cassava crops. They also have noticed public’s health problems, specifically the emergence of diseases such as dengue fever (spread my mosquitos) and leishmaniasis (spread by sand fleas). Water levels on the world’s highest navigable lake have dropped 81 cm (2.6 ft) in just seven months, since April this year, according to the Binational Lake Titicaca Authority. Climate change continues to wreck havoc in Peru’s southern Altiplano, where the arrival of freezing temperatures since March — almost three months earlier than usual — have killed at least 20,000 alpaca, reported Peru’s National Agriculture and Sanitation Service. Government figures for Amazonian deforestation suggest 150,000 hectares were cut down in Peru in 2005, although other organisations put the average figure in recent years higher at around 250,000 hectares annually. This is much less than Brazil for example, which released figures last week showing an annual rate of nearly 12 million hectares. Now countries in South America and seeking international funds to preserve their rainforests. Fires and climate change are having a dramatic impact on the Amazon. Recent studies suggest that the Amazon rainforest may be losing its ability to stay green all year long as forest degradation and drought make it dangerously flammable. New research (2007) confirms that avoiding deforestation can play a key role in reducing future greenhouse gas concentrations. Scientists report in the journal Science that tropical deforestation releases 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon each year into the atmosphere. Reducing deforestation is just one of a portfolio of mitigation options needed to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A case for anthropogenic climate change is a hard one to refute as we humans have changed the surface of our planet so significantly and impacted so profoundly that any denial is almost almost criminal and totally negligence.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2010-01-22 11:45

The British colonists were ruled by a caste that owned most of the land and treated the Irish and the non-land-owning English in the same way that they treated the Aborigines. The British built Australia on the backs of political prisoners - people who mostly had no land and therefore could not vote in their country of birth. Other ruling cultures have performed similarly, but the British colonial movement was boosted by coal and later by petroleum, which gave it incredible powers to destroy entire cultures and people. Everywhere it changed the land-use planning laws to advantage land-aggregation, destroying stable societies which had had limited opportunities for marriage and children due to incest avoidance laws and non-mixing with adjacent cultures. So we got India and Africa - with their populations out of control and a land-owning class with no allegiance to anyone else. What most people still cannot see is that Australia, Canada and the USA have the same futures. And the British diaspora (along with Irish, Scottish and Welsh) continues! Unless we change our land-tenure and inheritance system to one more like the Napoleonic, Roman-based one, which trends control of land and resources to the government and guarantees a code of rights to the people which makes it difficult to dispossess them and to inundate them. However, as long as the British and the US are able to exert much influence on the EU that good system is at risk of erosion. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Milly (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-22 08:59

"Human value of life is quite relative... and quite cultural". Our Colonial for-bearers were guilty of shocking and horrific crimes against humanity. The value of these lives were denigrated as to be no more than the wildlife of Australia - and we all know how little status they have! The culture, colour of the skin, and the fact that they were not European were the prime attributes that gave them little value, not the fact that they were humans too. There are some very irrational values out in society, such as the mentality that humans can't be an "over-abundant" or "pest" species like feral, or even native, animals. There is a narcissism about just how society values humans so highly above animals, and violent people are called "animals". Animals will be violent to protect their territory, their families, and for food. However, humans will be violent purely for entertainment and sadism! There are millions of animals captured, confined, experimented on, tortured and killed in laboratories around the world, but there are religious groups that object to stem cells from human embryos, a few cells, being used to end crippling degenerative diseases. No words against the animals suffering and dying, but they take the moral-high-ground because the cells they use are human, and "sacred"! Doesn't make sense.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2010-01-22 00:41

International Women's Day in Victoria, Australia is on the 8th of March, at 3 Lyon's Street Rye at the Women's house - that 'Purple Place'. (03) 59855955 [email protected]
Women will have the microphone all day and there will be lots to eat and lots of speakers. There will be the usual ceremony at the end of the Rye pier with a period of silence and respect for women who have died in war and through other crimes of violence against women. I think that after I send them this article, they will be talking a lot about the poor women of Haiti, who, in addition to sharing the horrors of an earthquake, must bear the injuries and indignities of Catholic Church anti-women ideology.

trawlerboy (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-21 22:20

Haitians cannot afford to eat, let alone contraceptives. "Unintended pregnancies are also a common problem for many Haitian families. Pregnancies are common in Haiti because there is not adequate resources in order to offer proper birth control methods. As I stated earlier, Haiti is lacking many necessary health care benefits. Birth Control is one of them. Although, if these resources are offered, many of the Haitian families can not afford to pay for them. These poor families are living in poverty and can not afford food let alone birth control. There are on average 39 births in a population size of 1,000. But without the proper health care, many of these babies don’t make it out of the hospital alive. Because of the enormous population the infant mortality rate is rather large. In turn many of these unintended pregnancies are causing more problems for the families in Haiti." Low wages are to blame "Many families only own a small-scale portion of land, and because of this, the families do not receive an adequate amount of money to help supply for the family. Instead of farming for income, many other Haitians turn to factory work. In fact, many Haitians work for a popular company called Walt Disney. This famous company employs many people, but mainly teenage girls. The average employee is a young girl ranging from age 15 on up. Not only is this working situation violating the law by using child labor, but also the working conditions are dirty, cold, and abusive for all employees. For a company that is known throughout the world, you would think that the labor conditions would be more advanced and healthier for all employees. These employees are putting their lives at risk to produce clothing and other Disney products. There are toxic fumes that are released in the production process and no protective gear is supplied to eliminate harm to employees. After all, employees are a key factor in making a company successful. In Haiti, the working conditions for producing Disney products isn’t the only downfall. Wages for these Haitian workers is unbelievably low. These families can barely supply food for their family on a daily basis. On the average, a Haitian worker makes "10 to 25 cents and hour, which in turn equals an average of $1.80 a day. (Disney Fantasy)" Minimum wage in the United States can be as much as 50 times the wage rate that Haitian Disney workers earn. If Disney would increase the hourly wages to at least $1.00 an hour, more Haitians would be able to help supply their family with more food and more security. With the income level that the Walt Disney company receives, this idea of increasing wages for Haitians would not cause Disney any financial problems. In the long run, Disney may find improvements because of this change in many areas. The employees would be much more happier, and in turn the products would be produced faster and have better quality. At this point in time Disney is fighting many legal battles in dealing with the cruelty and underpaid employees in Haiti. If Disney would increase the wages for these poor people they would find these legal instances diminishing rather quickly. Because the wages in Haiti are so low, the poverty level in Haiti is now up to 1.3 billion people. With this vast amount of poverty stricken people in Haiti, this country is more susceptible to "domestic violence, illegal drug use, and unintended pregnancies (Population and Poverty)." Source: "Chapter Twelve:Haiti" by Heather Hewitt, Dr. Jamal Nassar, Political Science, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61790-4600 USA

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2010-01-21 20:47

We may stamp on a snail because it is a pest that our ancestors introduced, despite it about to eat our introduced exotic garden plants - so we feel justified. But it is only a bug, so who cares how it dies? We may shoot, poison or trap a fox in a cruel jaw trap because it is a pest that our ancestors introduced, despite one assuming it could kill our own introduced chickens and lambs. But it is only vermin, so who cares how it dies? We may shoot a native kangaroo because it is in the way (holding up tram even). But it is only native wildlife, it shouldn't have been there, and there are plenty of kangaroos anyway, so who cares how it dies? No Australian government monitors anyway. Back in early colonially-minded Australia [1770-1970] after annexing it and declaring it 'terra nullius' and ruthlessly taking possession of it as 'British territory', then labelling stolen land as ‘peaceable settlement', colonists shot native Aboriginals because they existed on colonial land. The following historical excerp elaborates this reality somewhat: "The British invasion claimed at least 600,000 Aboriginal lives (66). Live babies were buried in a line up to their necks in sand and their heads kicked off in a contest to see who could kick a head the fur¬thest. Men had their testicles cut off and were left to run around screaming. (67) Women had their throats slashed, they ran until they collapsed and were then thrown, alive, onto a fire. (68) Live children were thrown onto fires. (69) ‘Sport' was the shooting of blacks, men, women and children, on sight. (70) Staving blacks were invited to a feast, then shot as they came in for food. (71) Whole family groups were poisoned by strychnine in the flour or water. (72) Children were stolen. Many never saw their families again. Over 5000 children in living memory have been removed from their group. (73) Whole tribes/groups have been forced to live in exile alongside incom¬patible tribes at close quarters. Punishments of 21 days solitary confinement were given to those speak¬ing their own language. Women were kept im¬prisoned for prostitution. Men were tortured, (74) etc. etc.. The litany rolls on." [Source: AIATSIS] In colonial Australia, Aborigines were valued only as savages and almost vermin. Australia's colonists didn't care how they suffered and died? Australian governments still ignore the genocide and refuse to acknowledge Aboriginal genocide as the first war on this continent at the Australian War Memorial. Despite colonial culture perpetuating in 2010, lest we forget the colonial genocide of Australia's indigenous! Today, if a man loses his temper and shoots a child playing on tram tracks, despite any sense of him feeling 'justified', how many years goal would our culture assign to the man? Human value of life is quite relative...and quite cultural Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

MK (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-21 20:08

Kangaroo shot in Plenty Road Preston by police? for holding up trams On 3AW breakfast this morning, a man rang up and said a kangaroo had been shot in Plenty Road Preston because it was holding up trams. Don't know if it was already injured.perhaps it was..............but this culture of callousness and cruelty to our wildlife which we exploit as a national symbol yet treat with such contempt has got to stop. And the displacement of the kangaroos by the dreadful invasion of humans into their habitat must cease. In the Age "Good Weekend" Sunday 10th Jan, there was a huge, many paged article written by Greg Bearup about someone who went out specifically to kill a kangaroo to cook and present to his friends. He wrote , and I am not quoting exactly: How did I feel? I felt like I did when I was spotlighting at 15. I felt excited.I had killed something. He referred to the body as somethig like the steaming carcass. He also described how the muscles were still flexing when he was butchering it. A demand must be made for an article of equal length detailing the nature of kangaroos. He killed some one, not some thing. That he had been blooded as a child. How we are taught to disconnect from empathy by regarding animals as a low life form. Experiences of people who deal with kangaroos. Stories of the kindness of kangaroos. The Age must grant some space as so much of its Epicure etc is dripping with blood. Sincerely, M K.

Maryland (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-21 20:02

I read - in The Age I think - an article about 'plagues of kangaroos' by Ellen Whinett, the girlfriend of Water Minister Tim Holding. Surely Ellen Whinett has a duty and a responsibility to tell you truth as a journalist but NO she simply THINKS that kangaroos are in plague proportions so she writes it. ...they have NO idea but a mindset and they run with it. Tim and Ellen seem to me to epitomise such callous disregard. Your article here PROVES that the so-called authorities have no statistics to go on. It's all made up - by the government and by the newspapers. Meanwhile our poor poor wildlife suffer in ways that most humans could not even begin to imagine. How dare DSE give out a single permit to cull. Surely they have lost that legal right because they simply can no longer claim to be 'experts' who know what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2010-01-21 16:50

Kangaroos considered as 'vermin' harks to an Australian colonial 19th Century mindset. The Australian Federal Government website on the environment contains a chapter on 'THE KANGAROO INDUSTRY PAST AND PRESENT', which includes the following account on 19th Century slaughter: "In the latter part of the 19th century, kangaroos were considered vermin and legislation encouraged their destruction partly through a system of bounties. Hrdina (1997) reported that, during 1877-1907, almost eight million kangaroos and wallaroos were presented for bounty payments in Queensland. At the same time, commercial trade in kangaroo skins increased dramatically. In Western Australia, where pastoral settlement proceeded more slowly, the skin trade appears to have been the prime motivation for the taking of kangaroos. In 1935-36, 1.25 million red kangaroo skins from Western Australia entered the market in Sydney (Poole 1984; Prince 1984a)." In another anecdote, Rosslyn Beeby says of the Canberra Times, " BETWEEN 1883 and 1920, about three million bettongs and potoroos were shot for bounties in NSW, under anti-vermin laws which put prices from one shilling to threepence on the head "of each grass-eating marsupial". SOURCE: Kangaroo Protection Coalition. NB. This site is worth visiting for insight into the recent State-sanctioned poaching-slaughter at Majura and Belconnen in the ACT. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-21 14:25

The wave of compassion and concern for Doug, the young koala that was sadistically and cruelly attacked, is heart-warming. A full recovery will be good news for Australia and overseas. However, it is only a small light in the darkness of species loss in Australia and the rising number of attacks being reported. Already we are culpable for almost 40% of the world's mammal extinctions in the last 200 years, and koalas, a flagship species, are rapidly diminishing in NSW and Queensland. This is mainly because they are becoming vulnerable through loss of habitat. Attempts by the Australian Koala Foundation to have the animal listed as endangered have been stalled by the federal government. Unfortunately, there is confusion about the status of our wildlife. Officially they are protected, but for people of low morals and/or social comprehension, the contradiction comes from the ambiguous way our government leaders treat wildlife. Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc has been monitoring wildlife incidents since 1997, and notes that the illegal killings of wildlife have increased dramatically during the last 12 years. Wombats in some parts of Victoria can be killed without a permit by landholders as "pests", and so can kangaroos. Millions are killed or injured on our roads each year because they are constructed without environmental impact studies or wildlife crossings. About 4 million kangaroos are "managed" each year for their meat and skins. Shooters want to be able to kill native animals in national parks in NSW. Native waterbirds can be shot for entertainment in Victoria and Tasmania. All these "protected" animals are killed daily all over Australia, so some low-lives don't know the difference between killing for economic inconvenience, accident, blood-sport, profits or sadistic entertainment. Saving one baby koala is a feel-good and encouraging news story, but the media should not forget the sad plight of our native animals, suffering immensely from loss of habitat, human expansion and introduced species.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2010-01-21 02:02

Oh no! I was afraid of this. Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine is an incredible expose of this terrible phenomenon. It is a really indispensable read for our times on the all-engulfing practice of the commercial exploitation of disaster in order to recolonise entire countries. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Peter Bright

Wed, 2010-01-20 22:18

As expected, and as I mentioned above, the real reason the US military is "helping" Haiti is to set it up for more ruthless exploitation by American corporations. From http://www.alternet.org/world/145279/us_corporations%2C_private_mercenar... we read .. "In the midst of a colossal human disaster, Washington is promoting unpopular economic policies and extending military and economic control over the Haitian people. "US corporations, private mercenaries, Washington and the International Monetary Fund are using the crisis in Haiti to make a profit, promote unpopular neoliberal policies, and extend military and economic control over the Haitian people."

John Marlowe

Wed, 2010-01-20 20:01

Why is Kelvin Thomson MP the only Australian politician prepared to challenge Chairman Rudd on the social mess being caused by negligent mass immigration? Rudd has the Lodge and so seems to have no concept of the restrictions of overpriced housing and the burden of mortgage stress on many ordinary Australians. Before Rudd became PM his obsession with China was evident - having studied Chinese at school then university, having become fluent in Mandarin and spent considerable time in the Middle Kingdom both as student and later as Australia's diplomat before he turned to politics. Sinophile Rudd's manifesto for Australia to bend over into an Asia-Pacific community by 2020 is an invitation for a Greater China downunder, or does he have visions for a redefined 'Asian subcontinent' here? Rudd is sure to achieve 'free-trade' ideals...but at Chinese wages. Just ask the Chinese union officials (in torture prisons with Tibetan political prisoners). Rudd in his favourite persona as global stateman, having done his diplomatic tours of duty, considers the EU model applicable for a 'bigger' Australia. Rudd needs to recognise the difference between chalk and cheese and do remedial study in European History 101 and Australian History 101, then list the comparisons, if any. Rudd welcomes Australia's population forecast of 35 million by 2050. By that time the age old 'spot the Aussie' will only be playable in remote outback towns with our displaced Aboriginal folk. Where did Chairman Rudd get his concept of a mandate for his unAustralian decolonisation concept? His personal allegiance to any culture non-Australian and his meglomanic determination to displace Australian culture points to him working for an overseas power. Rudd's behaviour is more akin to being an agent for China than being an agent for Australia.

Elsie. (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-20 12:13

Thanks Moondance for the important, subtle detail that kept-in-the-dark, or less than politically aware Australians, rarely get to read. Rudd and his side-kicks knew decades ago about Australians’ population and cultural displacement concerns, but we let the few of them ride collectively roughshod over us. We were made to shut up, wrongly labelled as "racists" (when the correct word is "culturalists") so we were subtly forced to restrain our minds and think according to political directive, or be driven through the courts. That’s mind control of an entire population. The fashionable word "racism" is conveniently applied in a dramatically accusative context, for political control purposes. As a result, the wishes (and fears) of Australian people, in relation to population numbers and make-up, have been thoroughly trampled upon under the deliberate title of "racism". Anyone who resists cultural disintegration is cleverly embarrassed and quickly shut down under the "racist" label. We saw all this in The Netherlands, the UK and in other places where societies have irretrievably broken down as their prevailing cultures disintegrated, yet the plan is to do it here, regardless. Election issues and campaigns are electronically entwined. We complain about politicians: "they are only after our votes". Well, that is democracy. Candidates will reflect in their campaign literature the goals that they estimate to be the wishes of the majority. They gear their promises to local population social research. Simple and fast, utilising collected statistics with convenient, fast electronic measuring techniques. Australian culture should always have prevailed over and above any other political self-serving logic: "Australianism" in preference to the divisive "multi-culturalism". Our political masters are now hurtling all of us towards "globalisation" – code for surrender of national autonomy, national economy, national identity, national culture, trans-border ownership of resources, unrestricted immigration. When world politicians get globalisation into full thrust, we'll see the biggest war of all - which ego is to be appointed King of the Globe? What are we leaving for our children? Asiatralia? The rush to displace Australian culture through Rudd's highly questionable push towards another Asia Pacific regional outfit is to further guarantee the Labor immigrant gratitude vote, thus over time and with more “gratefuls” over-populating our previously unique and harmonious society, Labor governments will tighten their grip on all of us. Social cohesion? It no longer exists. Some fringe areas of Melbourne and Sydney are "outsider" no-go zones where it is neither welcoming nor safe for outsiders like myself. Our family no longer attends Victorian sporting venues because of frighteningly unsocial behaviour, the sale and consumption of alcohol in the immediate vicinity of kids, and in recent years, repeat events of unpalatable ethnic violence. I don't believe that Australians are “racist” in terms of judging others by skin colour or features. It’s more to do with cultural unease and the uncomfortable, unwanted division that results from forced diversity. If we were all culturally one, then we would all be living inside one huge circus tent, sharing our food, habits and facilities. Would that work? How long before our differing family values would cause one big war inside that one big tent? Families presently need to live in separate houses for well understood reasons of social cohesion, and as society recommends: take care about who we invite into our homes. Something that can be compared with the present Australian leadership's carelessness on the matter of border control. On the many occasions when I have frequently been overwhelmed and outnumbered by large groups of different appearance and language, an uneasy "displacement" effect sets in. This feeling regularly occurs on public transport where it is often difficult to see anyone who looks like me, let alone sounds like me. I feel like part of an endangered culture, an outsider. What I am grieving is the result of careless political encouragement of an exponentially devalued Australian culture. There’s been a noticeable absence at decision-making level of the socially calming notion that our previously harmonious culture was not only worth preservation and development, but that newcomers are no longer expected to survive within it, but rather are not discouraged from forcing their previous allegiances and cultures above ours. Like so many others, I am grieving comparatively recent offensive disregard for the culture of Australianism that our elders, in their wisdom, believed was a value worth dying for. So thank you, Moon Dance.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2010-01-20 11:32

Yes, the geese represent the Oz public, as targeted by Rudd. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2010-01-20 10:43

In the EU population densities and sizes are much more comparable to each other than between Australia and Asia. It was wrong for colonisation to force up population numbers in Asia and it is wrong for it to force up population numbers in Australia. We do not have democracy and neither does the rest of Asia. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

moondance (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-19 20:14

If the ABC does interview Candobetter then I hope you feed this little soundbite to the Australian public. Joel Butler: "Free trade means free movement. Kevin Rudd's proposal to implement an European Union-like organisation in the Asia-Pacific region is nothing short of insane... One of the basic structural processes operative in the EU is the free movement of people within the EU's member countries. In this day and age, free movement of people is a necessary underpinning for "free trade" ... A European Union based model in the Asia Pacific region that allows free trade by allowing the free movement of people between member states would mean the end of Australia as we know it. It would be completely and utterly unworkable because it would see mass-migration of overseas workers into Australia at a level so completely unmanageable as to lead to the breakdown of the economy and the social infrastructure ... Using the very crude equivalent measure of Poles moving to the UK after its accession to the EU with these figures, an EU-type organisation that included Australia and these three Asian countries (leaving aside all the other proposed members) would see a migration to Australia of about 21.256 million people." http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7488 You heard that right: 20 million Asians/Indians headed this way. Rudd is paving the way for the free movement of labour across our border. That's why Rudd welcomed the population forecast of 35 million by 2050: "I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that". And that's why: "Senator Evans says Australia's immigration policy needs to be more responsive to Australia's skills needs. He's predicting a 'great debate' on the idea of bringing in more unskilled migrants." That's why Rudd is not concerned with the comparatively piddly number of boat arrivals. That's why, when Rudd announced his Asia Pacific Community dystopia, he said: "In the 1950s, sceptics saw European integration as unrealistic. But most people would now agree that the goal of the visionaries in Europe ... has been achieved. It is that spirit we need to capture in our hemisphere. Our special challenge is that we face a region with greater diversity ... But that should not stop us from thinking big..." Rudd is a big thinker. He is potentially the most radical prime minister we have ever seen. Right at a time when our environment and social cohesion are broken, he ignores all the warning signs, and thinks big. That's the sign of a blinkered ideologue: a radical globalist. Essentially, he's of the same cloth as the EU visionaries who's modus operandi is to subvert democracy and nationalism with their every waking breath. 20 million sounds too crazy to be true, but the European experience is that the open-borders/regionalisation movement has a momentum all of it's own. Once Rudd starts the movement, it will snowball. Sure, I can't see China opening up their borders. But I can see Rudd martyring our borders to build his dystopia as wide as possible. In Europe, they're now talking about broadening the EU into a Euro-Mediterranean partnership with the importation of 50 million Africans to solve a projected "labour shortage". This is nothing short of a cult of globalisation. The cult of one-worldness. But diversity and the environment have limits, and we have already exceeded both. There is an urgent need for a political party that values both social cohesion and the environment. I don't see Labor or Liberal as fitting the bill. Abbott may be less radical than Rudd, but really we need a third position to vote for.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2010-01-19 17:01

Whilst I accept what Tigerquoll has written, my essential point remains that a conflict such as this is unlikely to be resolved fairly if one side or the other are implicitly held to be wholly to blame for the conflict. In the few years when, relatively speaking, the LTTE had the upper hand in the conflict they did not behave wholly commendably, and were this situation were to occur again there is no guarantee that they would behave any better. I believe that any international campaign to uphold the human rights of the Tamil people has to acknowledge that problem and propose a solution to that problem if it is to hope to succeed. Of course the scale of the crimes committed by the LTTE were vastly less than those since committed by the Sri Lankan military and the LTTE did not deserve to be singled out to be effectively equated with Islamist extremists (falsely) blamed by the Bush Administration for 9/11 and other atrocities and, accordingly cut off from aid and diplomatic support whilst at least one major superpower -- ironically 'communist' China and not the US --- ganged up with the Sri Lankan military against the LTTE. I am not sure of the value of putting so much of the spotlight on our own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over this, rather than those more directly responsible -- namely the Sri Lankan Government, the US, China and Pakistan. His silence is, of course, typical of the moral cowardice we have come to expect of him, but it may actually prove to be preferable than such a Government playing a more proactive role in these kinds of conflicts.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2010-01-19 16:02

Subject was: "John Marlowe's comment" - JS John you have hit the nail on the head that is exactly what's happening and exactly how I and many others feel - like we are being pushed out of our homes and isolated. This is not the way for society to assimilate. Isn't this why many people came here in the first place - for a better life - quite ironic isn't it.

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2010-01-19 14:42

Australia should have then and should now play a leadership role as an influential first world democracy which stands by human rights. Sri Lanka is a regional neighbour of Australia. Both countries are part of the Commonwealth. Australia in many regional forums has had ample opportunity to raise and support a peacekeeping effort for the civil conflict and to provide humanitarian support.

When Sri Lankan president Rajapksa rejected international monitoring, and barred international humanitarian agencies and journalists, the alarm bells were ringing. Yet Australia did nothing.

In the end it was immoral China that was critical in allowing the Sinhalese to exterminate the Tamils, as the following account reveals:

'China helping 'Sri Lanka in battle against Tamil Tigers' by The Tehran Times’s South Asia correspondent, Jeremy Page:

China has strategic shipping interests in Sri Lanka and has been investing over $1 billion at the southern coast town of Hambantota in Sri Lanka, building a large for China "to use as a refueling and docking station for its navy, as it patrols the Indian Ocean and protects China’s supplies of Saudi oil.

Ever since Sri Lanka agreed to the plan, in March 2007, China has given it all the aid, arms and diplomatic support it needs to defeat the Tigers.

China has cultivated ties with Sri Lanka for decades and became its biggest arms supplier in the 1990s, when India and Western governments refused to sell weapons to Colombo for use in the civil war. Beijing appears to have increased arms sales significantly to Sri Lanka since 2007, when the U.S. suspended military aid over human rights issues.

Many of the arms have been bought through Lanka Logistics & Technologies, co-headed by Gotabhaya Rajapksa, the Defense Secretary, who is also the President’s brother.

In April 2007 Sri Lanka signed a classified $37.6 million (£25 million) deal to buy Chinese ammunition and ordnance for its army and navy, according to Jane’s Defence Weekly.

China gave Sri Lanka — apparently free of charge — six F7 jet fighters last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, after a daring raid by the Tigers’ air wing destroyed ten military aircraft in 2007. One of the Chinese fighters shot down one of the Tigers’ aircraft a year later.

“China’s arms sales have been the decisive factor in ending the military stalemate,” Brahma Chellaney, of the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, said. “There seems to have been a deal linked to Hambantota.”

Since 2007 China has encouraged Pakistan to sell weapons to Sri Lanka and to train Sri Lankan pilots to fly the Chinese fighters, according to Indian security sources.

China has also provided crucial diplomatic support in the UN Security Council, blocking efforts to put Sri Lanka on the agenda. It has also boosted financial aid to Sri Lanka, even as Western countries have reduced their contributions.

China’s aid to Sri Lanka jumped from a few million dollars in 2005 to almost $1 billion last year, replacing Japan as the biggest foreign donor. By comparison, the United States gave $7.4 million last year, and Britain just £1.25 million.

“That’s why Sri Lanka has been so dismissive of international criticism,” said B. Raman of the Chennai Centre for China Studies. “It knows it can rely on support from China.”


But the core issue is the mass slaughter of Tamil civilians and the prospect that these war crimes by the Sinhalese regime and military will go unpunished. Again Australia is silent on this.

I refer you to the recent account of the slaughter of surrendering Tamils by Fairfax Media's Asia-Pacific editor, Hamish McDonald dated 9 January 2010, entitled:'Dangerous politics of betrayal':

"About 7am on May 18 two senior leaders of the beleaguered Tamil Tigers and a dozen family members walked out of their last stronghold on a sliver of beach and walked towards the front line of the besieging Sri Lankan Army, waving large white flags.

The surrender of the senior cadres - Balasingham Mahendran, alias Nadesan, and Seevaratham Prabhakaran, alias Pulidevan - came after hectic calls by satellite telephones the previous night to Sri Lankan officials and politicians, foreign diplomats, United Nations and International Red Cross officials and a British journalist.

Through the phone calls, the Tiger cadres had been passed assurances from Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa that they would be safely received by the army if they advanced under white flags held high. For the foreign parties, it seemed a last hope of saving thousands of trapped civilians from slaughter by Government artillery in the collapsing Tiger perimeter.

According to a meticulous reconstruction by the well-connected Colombo journalist D.B.S. Jeyaraj what happened was this:

After daybreak Nadesan and Pulidevan walked out holding two white flags with 10 or 12 others, including women and children. A second group followed about 100 metres behind. The first group were surrounded by soldiers of a special forces unit, and brought back to meet special forces officers. The two cadres identified themselves and said they had been guaranteed safety by the President.

The army officers made Nadesan and Pulidevan kneel down and began interrogating them. The others were taken to one side and also made to kneel. Nadesan's wife, a Sinhalese, understood the threats being made by the officers and began screaming pleas in Sinhala. The two cadres then fell dead in a burst of firing, and guns were turned on the other group, killing Nadesan's wife and several others. As they fired, the soldiers called her a ''bitch'' and ''prostitute'' for marrying a Tiger.

Until recently the story from the Government has been that while last-minute surrender negotiations had started, its frontline troops were unaware of any such attempt to surrender; if Nadesan and Pulidevan were killed in no-man's land making such an attempt, they were shot in the back by their own side, which had made a practice of shooting those trying to flee.

The Tigers' resistance collapsed completely a day later, and their leader, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, died with family members in an effort to break through Government lines. No bodies were kept for forensic examination. Rajapaksa went on to claim the political rewards of finishing a 25-year insurgency, which had been expected to culminate with a sweeping victory in the new presidential election on January 26.

Unfortunately for Rajapaksa, hubris may be bringing an early nemesis.

His triumph was shared by the army chief, General Sarath Fonseka, a Sinhalese nationalist who wanted to keep the army on its strong war footing and expand it. The President sidelined him to a less powerful combined services command. The slighted Fonseka decided to stand for the presidency himself and, over the last month, has dropped some bombshells.

On December 13 Colombo's Sunday Leader ran an interview with Fonseka in which he claimed that Rajapaksa, via a related adviser and the Defence Secretary (and his brother), Gothabaya Rajapaksa, had ordered Brigadier Shavendra Silva, commander of the Army's 58th Division in the sector where the surrenders occurred, not to accept any Tiger leaders attempting surrender and that "they must all be killed".

The claim has created a furore in Sri Lanka and beyond. Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has written to ask for clarification.

The President and all parties named have issued denials, and Fonseka, perhaps realising that his statement might damage his vote among veterans, has ''corrected'' his story to say that while the illegal order was given by the Rajapaksa clan, the soldiers rightly ignored it."

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

Peter Bright

Tue, 2010-01-19 14:42

As I perceive our shonky-wonky system, capitalism, wherever it occurs on a medium, large or huge scale, is always artificially propped up. It cannot survive without contrived supports and that's why it's so important for the wickedly greedy to get their grubby, unprincipled hands on the levers of government by fair means or foul - usually foul. Through this means the laws can be rigged to suit the exploiters, as they are in Tasmania where our so-called Labor government changes environmental law to suit a rapacious timber company bent on widespread destruction of our natural resources for private profit. The welfare of the state's citizens is not a consideration by either party. This is why the USA is always invading other countries - one at a time, two at a time, or even three at a time - on the pretext of "restoring democracy" or "bringing you freedom" or somesuch deceit-ridden codswallop. Knowing this modus operandi, we can predict that the real reason the US military is "helping" Haiti is to set it up for even more ruthless exploitation by American corporations. It's The American Way. They arrogantly see it as their right. Capitalism's rigged supports are provided by unsuspecting, honest-toiling workforces whose taxes, always artificially high, are recycled to the already wealthy via capitalism's many lurks and rip-offs. It's the Road to Nowhere. It's also the Road to Wipeout - and we'll be on it until we wake up and hold up the "HALT" sign. The planet agrees with me. Climate Change is its silent voice.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2010-01-19 13:58

I disagree. The whole premise of throwing taxpayers around is the dogma that it is somehow more efficient for Governments to stimulate the private sector into economic activity than to just create the economic activity itself by spending the money directly on worthwhile well-planned Government programs. If the Government had simply spent the money directly rebuilding a vast range of services that the previous Government had slashed, the economic benefit would have been far more enduring and it would have been cheaper. I consider the stimulus program to have been a reckless waste of money (and that may well have been the Government's brief from its corporate puppetmasters). Further down the track, we will be expected to pay dearly for today's supposed generosity with what was our own money in the first place with more slash and burn budgets and privatisation. Indeed, it could be argued that Queensland's $15 billion asset fire sale is the direct result of the $42billion stimulus. Early on, in May 2009, I recall the Federal Government pleading that it didn't have any additional funds to help the Queensland state Government overcome its financial crisis said to be the result of the floods. I think Queenslanders would have preferred to have been given the choice before Rudd so recklessly committed all our money to the stimulus package.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2010-01-19 11:25

Firstly, my earlier comment was written rather hastily in the early hours of the morning when I was tired, so they were not well put and may seem simplistic.

Whilst I think it is critical to know of human rights abuses up to and including genocide -- if that can accurately describe what is happening there -- it's important that what we write helps to show the way to an eventual solution to the problem at hand rather than appearing to imply that all the fault for the conflict lies on one side and not the other.

Whilst measures to prevent the shocking abuses of human rights by the victorious Sinhalese are urgently necessary, we need to think beyond that and be able to suggest how this would not merely lay the groundwork for a future resumption of the conflict.

My basis for accusing the LTTE of unilaterally withdrawing from the peace negotiations was my own recollection of the news reporting at the time, reading more recent articles giving historical overviews of the conflict and an article on John Quiggin's web site, which I quoted from in my comment on your earlier article.

Whilst the exclusion of the Tamil Tigers from the meeting on 14 April 2003 (and not 2002, sorry) by Washington was an unjustified provocation, was it an appropriate response by the LTTE to withdraw from the peace process?

It appears that within Sri Lanka that action played into the hands of the hard-line Sinhalese nationalists and undermined those in the Sinhalese community who wanted a negotiated settlement. The Wikipedia article states:

On October 31 [2003], the LTTE issued its own peace proposal, calling for an Interim Self Governing Authority (ISGA). The ISGA would be fully controlled by the LTTE and would have broad powers in the North and East. (see the Full text of the proposals) This provoked a strong backlash among the hardline elements in the South, who accused Prime Minister Wickremasinghe of handing the North and East to the LTTE. Under pressure from within her own party to take action, Kumaratunga declared a state of emergency and took three key government ministries, the Ministry of Mass Media, the Interior Ministry and the crucial Defense Ministry.[69] She then formed an alliance with the JVP, called the United People's Freedom Alliance, opposed to the ISGA and advocating a harder line on the LTTE, and called for fresh elections. The elections, held on April 8, 2004, resulted in victory for the UPFA with Mahinda Rajapakse appointed as Prime Minister.

The article continues:

Initial fears of a resumption of the conflict were proved unfounded when the new government expressed its desire to continue the peace process and find a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the dynamic that led to the military annihilation of the LTTE and the subsequent humanitarian disaster had been set in train.

In fact, I think it could be fairly argued that by withdrawing from the negotiations, the LTTE actually played into the hands of the US.

I am not convinced that the LTTE were left with no other choice but to withdraw from the negotiations.

It seems to me that this was as much a continuation of its own narrow nationalist agenda, which excluded concerns about Muslims as well as Sinhalese in the Tamil majority areas, as it was a response to the provocation by the US.

In the past the LTTE had been guilty of its own ethnic cleansing in Tamil controlled areas and other human rights violatition as I wrote in my comment on your earlier article.

Of course, instead of strengthening its own hand, its withdrawal from the negotiations appears to have led to its own destruction.

I think it is problematic trying to say what our Government should and should not do.

In the 1960's it was open and shut. Australia should have sent soldiers to prop up the South Vietnamese dicatatorship.

In 2003, Australia should not have particapted in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

In regard to the Sinhalese/Tamil conflict the complete answer is not altogether obvious.

Clearly Australian as an international citzen has an obligation to raise its voice to see that basic principles of human rights are adhered to.

It should also not take the side of the Sinahalese in the conflict as the US clearly has done.

But that should cut both ways.

It is not inconceivable that effective international intervention to prevent the humanitarian disaster of 2008 could also have given the LTTE the necessary breathing space to resume the conflict at a later point.

So the international intervention should also have comprised strong diplomatic pressure on the LTTE as well as the Sri Lankan Government to resume negotiations in good faith.

Of course it's unlikely that this Australian Government, being the sycophantic servant of international corporations that it is, will ever play any constructive role towards helping find just and equitable solutions to any of the world's armed conflicts.

Nevertheless, we should still try to put forward realistic and complete proposals for what it should be doing if that were not the case.

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2010-01-19 07:49

James,

You raise two points, to which I reply:

(1) On the issue of "negotiations", according to Dr Brian Senewiratne (quoted above) stated "In the face of increasing international concern at the civilian casualties, the Tamil Tigers declared a unilateral cease-fire. The GoSL [Sinhalese-dominated Government of Sri Lanka] refused to reciprocate saying that the offer was a "joke".

On May 21, 2008 Sri Lanka was tossed out of the UN Human Rights Council on account of its outrageous human rights record."

It is important to obtain the facts, else the risk is that misinformation enables criminals to justify atrocities and escape prosecution. From what source do you claim "those negotiations were unilaterally ended by the Tamil Tigers."?

Look at one source SRI LANKAN TIMELINE':

2003
"By February, Berlin becomes the venue for talks, and Tokyo in mid-March. By the sixth round of talks in Japan, both teams are seasoned in confronting politically sensitive issues, such as moving an army camp in Sri Lanka's north and reports of LTTE shipping arms to Sri Lanka. Also discussed are human rights problems, such as reports of the LTTE’s continued child conscription.

On Apr. 14, the U.S. government hosts a meeting of donor countries and organisations for reconstruction in Sri Lanka. Colombo is present but the Tamil Tigers are not invited, because they remain on Washington’s banned list of terrorist groups.

On Apr. 21, the Tigers tell Wickmeresinghe that it is suspending participation in the peace talks, due to their exclusion from the Washington meeting. The LTTE also announces it is not attending a donors’ meeting Japan is hosting in June."

Comment: One could conclude here that the US action on 14-Apr-03 to exclude the Tamils from the peace talks was a provocative catalyst for the demise of the peace talks and the return to civil conflict.

(2) To conclude that the "Tamil Tigers are culpable for the tragedy which has befallen their people" implies that poorly employed strategies and tactics by the Tigers meant that the Tamil people were part responsible for their own genocide. It is akin to claiming that a victim of rape deserved it.

'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' In any conflict, no amount of violence by either side ever justifies perpetuating further violence. No people deserve mass murder or genocide. In a civil war neither side is right or wrong. Both are perpetrators in perpetuating conflict.

In Sri Lanka, one side obtained massive military advantage since 2005 from international support (UK, USA) and then shut out international monitoring so it could obliterate the other side. The core issue in this article is that the Sinhalese were allowed to do escalate the conflict and indeed supported and encouraged. The international community was complicit by:

(1) Establishing in 1948 a political framework that legislated one ethnic group having more power than the other (like Palestine). The Ceylon Citizenship Act, effectively decitizenized ethnic Tamils;

(2) Supplying arms and intelligence to one side;

(3) Doing nothing when shut out of monitoring;

(4) Turning a blind eye when the violence escalated into Genocide (just like it did with Rwanda in 1994);

(5) Doing nothing to stem the suffering of Tamil civilians now;

(6) Allowing the perpetrators of war crimes (on both sides) to go unpunished.

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2010-01-19 02:18

Certainly the brutal mass killings of Tamils appears to be amongst the worst possible solutions to the conflict, but it is difficult to know if any solution to this conflict would have been a wholly right solution. The alternative almost certainly would have been years more of bloody conflict. The closest that the Tamil and Sinhalese communities appeared to have gotten towards arriving at a solution was in 2002 where there were there were peace negotiations between the Tamil Tigers on the one hand and the Sri Lankan Government on the other. Those negotiations were unilaterally ended by the Tamil Tigers. So, to some extent, the Tamil Tigers themselves are culpable, together with the Sri Lankan Govenrment for the tragedy which has befallen their people. My comments posted to Tigerquoll's earlier article on the issue of the slaughter of the Tamils may also be of interest.

cisco ccna (not verified)

Mon, 2010-01-18 18:02

combine “natural media” with "man made media Its always beautiful and heart touching to observe the fun experiments and to see how it is possible to combine “natural media” with "man made media" while linking together ecology, human bodies and other gadgets to devise ingenious methods of communication inspired by nature's own systems of signals, warnings and imprints and it would definitely help us to recognize the creator of this universe. So i would like to thank you for sharing this post.This is a very helpful and informative material. Good post and keep it up. Websites are always helpful in one way or the other, that’s cool stuff, anyways, cisco ccna a good way to get started to renovate your dreams into the world of reality. Thanks Micheal, Ed. This post also contains an ad, and it isn't congruent with the above article, although the stuff about communication is congruent with the site, so I am letting it pass.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2010-01-18 11:44

This needs to happen in Australia. Balanced Migration com * Declaration by Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration signed by 20 leading Parliamentarians including Baroness Boothroyd and Lord Carey * Declaration calls for manifesto commitments to reduce net immigration to the levels of the early 1990s – less than 40k compared to 163k in 2008 The Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration today publishes a ground-breaking Declaration on Immigration, calling on the major parties to make manifesto commitments to take action to prevent the UK population reaching 70 million in under 20 years, as is officially projected. 70 MILLION IS TOO MANY 1. We are gravely concerned about the rapid increase in the population of England that is now forecast. We note that the official projections show the population of the UK will increase from 61.4 million in 2008 to exceed 70 million by 2029. Over the next 25 years the population will increase by 10 million, nearly all of the increase being in England. 70% – 7 million – will be due to immigration. We believe that immigration on such a scale will have a significant impact on our public services, our quality of life and on the nature of our society. 2. We welcome the considerable benefits that immigration has brought to British life. However, we note that over the last decade immigration has reached unprecedented levels. Furthermore, we note that a major enquiry by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords found no evidence that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population. We note also that the latest household projections show that nearly 40% of new households to be formed by 2031 will be the result of immigration – approximately one every five minutes. 3. Accordingly, we call on the major parties to make clear commitments in their General Election manifestos to reduce net immigration to the levels of the early 1990s – that is less than 40,000 a year compared to 163,000 in 2008 – in such a way as to ensure that the population of the UK will not reach 70 million. 4. We recognise that this will not be easy to achieve. Over the last decade or so we have lost control of immigration. It will take several years to put this right. But the first requirement is a clear political decision to put in hand the measures required to restore control over our borders, to break the present almost automatic link between coming to Britain and later gaining citizenship, and thus take a range of further measures to limit the growth in our population. 5. We are convinced that failure to take action would be seriously damaging to the future harmony of our society. Nearly a million votes by our fellow citizens for an extremist party amount to a danger sign which must not be ignored. For too long the major political parties have failed to address these issues and the intense, if largely private, concern that they generate throughout our country. If politicians want to rebuild the public’s trust in the political system, they cannot continue to ignore this issue which matters so much to so many people. The time has come for action. Signatories to the Declaration on Population 1. Rt Hon. Frank Field MP 2. The Hon. Nicholas Soames MP 3. The Lord Jordan CBE 4. Daniel Kawczynski MP 5. Rt Hon. Michael Ancram QC MP 6. Peter Bottomley MP 7. Christopher Chope MP 8. Roger Godsiff MP 9. John Horam MP 10. Robert Key MP 11. Peter Kilfoyle MP 12. Rt Hon. the Lord Anderson of Swansea 13. Rt Hon. the Baroness Boothroyd OM 14. Rt Rev. and Rt Hon. the Lord Carey of Clifton 15. The Baroness Cox 16. Rt Hon. the Earl Ferrers DL 17. The Lord Leach of Fairford 18. Professor the Lord Skidelsky 19. The Lord Vinson LVO DL 20. Hazhir Teimourian

quark

Mon, 2010-01-18 11:21

If the current government were governing in the interests of Australians it would not import 230,000 more people from overseas in the coming year (all needing houses) when housing affordablity in our country is said to be near crisis. The government is in fact thereby exacerbating a severe social ill. (article in The Australian today- "AUSTRALIA'S housing undersupply is at risk of becoming an entrenched economic and social problem, according to BIS Shrapnel senior economist Jason Anderson.") Of course the government response will be to throw (our) money at the private housing sector rather than rein in population growth. It would appear from the information in the above article that disclosure of all donations to political parties would not make transparent the donations to Labor Holding and Labor resources.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2010-01-17 23:39

Be fair? Okay. Here's what I perceive. The PM is forcing population growth on Australians and thereby depriving them of secure and affordable futures through driving resource scarcity. We have not been consulted. Not unrelated is the fact that he and Wayne Swann were also involved in the initial creation of Labor Holdings P/L and Labor Resources P/L see "Expert discusses 'deliberately confusing' Labor donations" in Queensland (when they were working for Wayne Goss in the opposition). These ALP-owned companies helped build up massive property holdings and insurance and development investments for the ALP. The ALP governments, state and Federal, now resemble huge corporations, far richer than the other parties in Australia and richer than many others in the world. Labor Holdings and Labor Resources are used by the ALP to hold donations and other payments so that those moneys will not have to be declared as ALP donations from their original sources; they are declared as donations or 'other receipts' from Labor Holdings or Labor Resources. You can, however, look up income tax declarations for Labor Holdings and Labor Resources here and see where their income comes from. Then, in the same site, you can look for the ALP's income tax declarations and see where the money goes to. One must suspect that the laws that the State Parliaments make to privilege property development (e.g. Major Transports Facilitation Bill; DACS) also privilege the ALP's investments or those of their friends. The ruthless pushing of laws to override democratic objections is an indication of where the state and Federal governments' loyalty really lies. The growing presence of property lobby professionals in government and as the major options in elections should raise alarm bells. See, for instance, the participation of candidates from or backed by the Property Council of Australia in elections here and here. The Federal Government's pushing of population growth through high immigration is a way of keeping property and infrastructure development going (at great cost to the rest of us) - and that seems to be a major business of Labor Party investments in Queensland where Labor Resources and Labor Holdings started, although they go way beyond that state now. The Federal Government's nearly successful attempts to finance private development through taxpayer funding in RuddBank is another indicator of the sick state of our parliaments. The relationship between the Labor Party's friends in private Lobby Groups, their people in government, and the staff in State investment companies (such as Queensland Investment Company) has been the subject of damning journalistic investigations. See, for instance: "In the murky world of lobbying ..." and It is now so blurry that I think you would have to be naive or not to have been aware of these vested interests to believe that our governments were in government rather than in business for themselves. But maybe it is hard for most people to figure out what this all means unless they already know the picture in the jigsaw. I must say that, when looking at our high profile politicians, my mind drifts to these proverbs: "Love of money is the root of all evil" and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven." There must be some other proverb to cover the coincidence of ostentatious church attendence and crookedness, but I cannot think of it. As far as I can see, Australia's state and Federal governments have become the kinds of governments that Australians tend to think of as more typically the corrupt kind found in Indonesia and Malaysia. Candobetter.org articles also have shown the role of the Australian media - commercial and ABC in advocating for, propping up and marketing this system. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2010-01-17 18:36

Peter Bright, whilst I strongly disagree with what you have written, I think it is good that you have brought out into the open one unstated reason why some sectors of Australian public are most likely convinced to excuse our Government's cowardice on such a clear straightforward question of justice, environmental protection, national sovereignty and law.

That unstated reason is the fear of economic and diplomatic reprisals from Japan.

However, I believe that if the choice were put to ordinary Australians: either back down in order to retain some perceived economic advantage granted to some Australians by Japan or stand up and face whatever consequences may ensue, in order to maintain our self-respect, I think most would choose the latter.

In any case the latter is what Australians implicitly voted for when they voted for the Labor party with its promises to take a strong stance against whaling in 2007. If Kevin Rudd wants to back away from that commitment, at least he should consult the Australian public first.

Other examples of our Government's equivalently cowardly responses to similar injustices against Australian citizens, include:

  • The imprisonment of the clearly innocent Schapelle Corby in the hellish prison of Kerokoban for 20 years to cover the tracks of those who planted the cannabis as an obvious political stunt to justify more funding for Balinese police;
  • The Australian Federal Police allowing the Bali 9 to be arrested in Indonesia with drugs, where they face the death penalty when they could have instead been arrested in Australia and dealth wit by our justice system, without having to face the death penalty;
  • The deliberate cold-blooded murder by members of the Indonesian Coastguard in the 1980's of two Australians who had been intercepted on a yacht;
  • The murder of the Balibo 5 and Roger East in 1975;

In at least one case New Zealand's own record of defending its own citizens is equally lamentable. This was, when in 1985, it allowed the apprehended French terrorists Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur who were guilty of the bombing and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the resultant drowning of Dutch citizen Fernando Pereira to flee New Zealand to France, where they were predictably treated leniently by French Courts.

Years after the bombing -- my best guess is the mid 1990's -- I heard in the news of how a diligent and, probably, courageous Interpol policemen arrested one of the terrorists, still wanted for the attack, on Swiss soil and advised the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Government expressed no interest in having the terrorist extradited to New Zealand and so Interpol was forced to release him.

Australia's own role was apparently equally shameful. According to Wikipedia:

Three other agents, Chief Petty Officer Roland Verge, Petty Officer Bartelo and Petty Officer Gérard Andries, who sailed to New Zealand on the yacht Ouvéa, were captured by Australian police on Norfolk Island, but released as Australian law did not allow them to be held until the results of forensic tests came back. Expecting the tests would show they had transported the bombs to New Zealand, the crew was picked up by the French submarine Rubis, which scuttled the Ouvéa. They were never punished.

Some years later I witnessed Fernando Pereira's daughter, Marelle, who was only 8 at the time confront former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, on 60 Minutes as I seem to recall, over his Government's cowardice before the French.

Lange's excuse proferred to Marelle Pereira, was that if they had put Mafart and Prieur face trial for murder in New Zealand then New Zealand would have faced economic reprisals from France.

I believe any self-respecting Kiwi would have hung their heads in shame and disgust at the words of their former Prime Minister.

At the very least this blackmail by France should have been brought out in the open and New Zealanders should have been given some say over whether to back down or stand up to France.

Had the French attempted to punish New Zealand simply for bringing murderers to trial, then it seems more than likely that France, in turn, would have suffered consequences in the eyes of international public opinion.

Were the Japanese to retailiate against Australia in 2010, whether openly or more covertly, we could also ensure that it would be far from cost-free to them even in narrow economic terms. Furthermore, Australia would be in a position, not altogether dissimilar to that of New Zealand in 1985, to fight Japan before international public opinion and possibly through legal avenues as well and Japan's reputation could certainly be made to suffer a lot more as a result.

This also brings to mind a few years ago when world public opinion rallied behind Canada, when ships from their Navy confronted Spanish fishing ships who were fishing in Canadian territorial waters in the Atlantic Ocean when Canada itself was not fishing in the area in the hope of allowing depleted fish stocks to rebuild.

Even if it were to turn out that we were not able to win and we were to suffer economic or diplomatic retaliation, then my view is that, as a society, we should be prepared to pay that price as the price necessary for being a sovereign self-respecting nation.

As a society we would do what we could to make sure that no-one pays a disproportionate cost as a consequence of Japanese economic reprisals.

If that were to be put openly to the Australian people, I think that most would be in support of standing up to Japan. We could could also find ways, as a society, to ensure that no-one amongst us were made to pay a disproportionate cost as a consequence.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sun, 2010-01-17 14:46

Trade with Japan is a different topic. Our economic relationship with Japan should not depend on their being allowed to audaciously break International and domestic laws and treaties. According the the Federal Court, 2008, we would be quite within our rights to stop Japan's illegal whaling. Whether they are arrested and impounded should not depend on the economic power of the law-breaking nation. Setting a precedent that allows powerful nations to break the laws in our economic zones is dangerous and unfair. Kevin Rudd is morally obliged to complete his pre-election promises and force Japan to respect our sovereignty. Anything else maligns us to being nothing but cowardly. "Protected" whales are not political or economic pawns to be traded or betrayed so cruelly.

Peter Bright

Sun, 2010-01-17 14:17

The Prime Minister has to overview the whole picture in the national interest, long term as well as short term. Although a Green, I believe that he and his government are being unfairly critised and insultingly abused with insufficient cause. A better understanding of any problem may sometimes be gleaned by putting oneself in the position of one's despised target and considering matters from his point of view. To protect the welfare of this nation Mr Rudd has to very carefully consider the reciprocal benefits of trade between Australia and Japan, as well as a whole lot of other factors and subterranean international innuendos the likes of which we could only guess at. Mr Rudd surely realises this, and so do his advisors. In Mr Rudd's position, with his huge and numerous responsibilities, I would not expect to last even a minute. Personally, I'm grateful he's there. Because of trade matters, and in the interests of keeping the peace, I suspect that the Japanese whalers down south could ram half the Australian navy without provoking Mr Rudd into showing retaliatory muscle. Of course if I was the commander of an Australian naval ship that had just been rammed down there, I would, um, deal with the problem there and then. It's likely that my response would be something less than one fully loaded with diplomatic tact and courtesy.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2010-01-17 12:21

On France2 News last night concerns were raised that the US is taking control of the only airport in Haiti and is preventing other national aid planes from landing. ???? jt.france2.fr/20h More information would be welcome. Editorial Comment: The article "The Militarization of Emergency Aid to Haiti: Is it a Humanitarian Operation or an Invasion? of 15 Jan 10 by Michel Chossudovsky of globalresearch.ca may be helpful. - JS Sur les Nouvelles France2 la nuit dernière les inquiétudes ont été levées que les Etats-Unis prennent le contrôle du seul aéroport en Haïti et empêchent d'autres avions d'aide nationaux d'atterrir. plus d'infos seraient bienvenus Sheila Newman, population sociologist Editorial Comment: One French language article is "Haïti: la « malédiction » n’existe pas" of 15 Jan 10 by Michel Chossudovsky of www.mondialisation.ca. - JS

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2010-01-17 09:16

How is it that whaling authorities, or 'spies', were allowed to hire Australian planes to spy on anti-whaling protest ships! Where are our border controls, our security forces? Australia is a sovereign nation, one to be proud of and patriotic towards. However, we have leaders cowering to Japan's superior powers, and all their rhetoric about "legal options" and "diplomatic pressure" are just forms of procrastination, a smoke-screen for the public.

It is becoming clear that some agreement has been made between Japan and Australia to prevent any "interference" to their whale slaughter.

Head of the Australian whaling envoy, Sandy Holloway, is set to receive up to $200,000 for 100 days work. Costs could escalate to one million dollars as bureaucrats travel the globe in a futile effort to stop Japan killing whales.

Mr Holloway's 'formal representations' to Japan, on a $1,800 a day retainer, were designed to fail and are really an expensive smokescreen to fool the Australian public. Such was the ambiguity of diplomatic pressure that Japan even asked Australia for help against the "eco-terrorists" upholding the laws in the Antarctic!

Public money is being wasted. Australia's Antarctic Territory, a $300 million whale-watching industry, domestic and international laws and Treaties are being abandoned in an effort to secure economic agreements with Japan.

Our government's "anti-whaling" stance, despite pre-election pledges, is a charade.

It is time we see some leadership from our Federal government and have Japan's illegal whaling fleet permanently removed from the Antarctic.

We urgently need leadership at this time, but clearly we won't be getting it from our present government!

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2010-01-16 22:42

In 2006/07, Australians consumed an average of 104 litres of milk and 12 kilograms of cheese each. With the increasing demand for dairy products, and increasing prices, the public should consider the alternatives. Cows have to give birth to a calf every year in order to produce milk. Mother cows are known to have highly developed maternal instincts and can bellow for days for their stolen babies! We kill over one million new-born calves each year. The dairy industry is a high water consumer, and must take a lot of responsibility for the demise of the Murray-Darling food basin! We are also heavy exporters of dairy products. According to ABS, in 2005-06, the agricultural commodities that used the most water in the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) were dairy farming - 1,287 GL or 17% and pasture for other livestock. The dairy industry accounted for 39% of the total irrigated area of pasture in the MDB. About 45% of Australian milk is exported (2007/2008), mainly as milk powders, cheese and butter. The growing middle-classes in China and India are aspiring to our high red-meat and dairy and lifestyle in general, and Australian industries are constantly pushing for growth in these exports. European style dairy products can be replaced by more humane and sustainable plant-based ones such as soy, rice and oat milks. Dairy products have naturally high levels of saturated fat which raises blood cholesterol and will increase vascular disease risk in many people. The traditional cuisines of many countries are dairy-free. Recently, the largest ongoing European study found that just 35 g per day of dairy protein increased the risk of prostate cancer by 32%. (N E. Allen, T J. Key, P N. Appleby, 2008) Other scientists point to high levels of animal protein which increase the acid load on our body which is fought by pulling calcium out of our bones. ( T. Colin Campbell. The China Study 2005) The reality is that we don't need dairy products! The amount of water used to make a litre of milk is between 320 and 1000 litres. Soymilk requires about half the amount water of dairy milk. Soymilk is high in protein without the water consumption, the environmental impact of livestock, without the deaths of calves and cruelty to cows, and is healthier! www.rspca.org.au/campaign/dairyindustry.asp www.dairycruelty.com.au

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2010-01-16 21:33

Joni Mitchell's words seem prophetic in her Big Yellow Taxi song from 1967:

"They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot..."
[Source]

Back then Mitchell was responding to deep sorrow in witnessing the wanton killing of Hawaiian rainforests, but what has changed? Here in Australia we continue with an anthropocentric car-centric infrastructure fettish, ignorant of the value of the natural assets we've still got left.

Colonists of Australia in the 18th and 19th centuries regarded native animals as vermin and fair game. Back then the numbers of rock wallabies, dingo, Tasmanian tigers and marsupials were naturally prolific.

Roo shooters and Australian governments perpetuate this barbaric colonial exploitative practice with kangaroos because their numbers are prolific. But these days they try to justify their poaching on the basis that the numbers are unnatural.

Like the Thylacine, with many Australian native animals Australian mainstream society (i.e. those sloths who rote read mainstream media and rote vote for mainstream politicians) are comatose in a mindset of not knowing what they've got naturally got until its gone, just like the Tasmanian Tiger surviving only as a symbolic legend on Cascade beer bottles.

Australian governments cry Thylacine tears over the loss of Australia's wildlife, while doing squat to protect Australia's threatened species habitat, while condoning wildlife poaching in exclusive legislation and while encouraging the human pathogen rights to destroy nature.

Traditional Chinese culture believes in the superstition that slaughtering tigers for their body parts gives Chinese men better libido. In 2010 are Australian governments any less barbaric in their superstitions that encourage wildlife poaching and the human pathogen to destroy natural environments?

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

quark

Sat, 2010-01-16 18:52

As the Thylacine disappeared from the countryside of Tasmania, hunted to oblivion , one individual was kept in poor conditions in the Hobart Zoo. It died in captivity in 1936 and has provided us with the last image of this creature. We see it as a few seconds of grainy film of the animal pacing inside a cage. The quality of the black and white footage further convinces us that it is a thing from the past. The Thylacine was declared extinct in the 1980s. The letter from the ACT auditor general will fill us with as much despair, shame and frustration as this old film footage does when there are no kangaroos left in the ACT.

quark

Sat, 2010-01-16 14:30

Apart from this earthquake (which appears to have killed more than 1% of the human population) and its sad history, Haiti currently suffers from excessive human impact on its landscape and natural resources. The rate of deforestation, species loss and soil loss through agriculture is leading to an environmental disaster. The dead from the earthquake will be buried, homes, offices and hospitals will be re-built. The pain of loss will eventually fade, but it seems the Haitians will be left with a situation heading towards environmental and societal collapse. What can be done? What can they do? The problem is a microcosm of what is happening else where in the world but we are focused on this place right now because of the disaster of the earthquake.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2010-01-15 15:01

Perhaps I missed something, but I actually thought that the Background Briefing show "Housing for millions" was good. It did allow some dubious opinions to be put by dubious people, but I also think that it allowed the facts of the insanity of population growth to be abundantly obvious. I think they did about as good a job as one could expect from a program expected to give both sides of the story. Of course, this is not true of the rest of the ABC. Anyhow the transcript and podcast can be found here.

John Marlowe

Fri, 2010-01-15 11:32

A sense of home is where one feels one belongs, safe, with others of shared values. Harmony in a community develops over time after individuals get acquainted through trial and error learning likes and dislikes, social mores, taboos, preferred behaviour and the idiosyncracies that make up the character of a neighbourhood. It takes time. But changes such as a new neighbour and a new construction take time to re-establish the social harmony. When others arrive with different values, a natural sense of unease is felt by the locals, simply initially due to the change itself and the uncertainty. When a new neighbour moves in to the community, one feels obliged to make that person feel welcome. It takes time to get to know strangers and to each they are respectively strangers. It takes years sometimes. Gradually, as contact is repeated and ideas exchanged, the strangeness and the uncertainty erodes and assimilation restores the harmony. The greater the discernable difference a newcomer is to the locals, the more difficult and longer it takes to assimilate. It takes time. But when many newcomers arrive in a short space of time, the change is too much too soon. Insufficient time has been made to enable locals and the newcomers to meet, get acquainted and for the newcomers to learn about the social mores - i.e. assimilate. Locals observe changes occurring to their surrounds and to their way of life. These changes are occurring without local consultation. Humans, like all mammals are instinctively territorial and when that territory is taken by strangers, humans feel threatened. Locals naturally feel threatened when many strangers turn up in the local patch. The greater the difference the strangers are to the locals the more the sense of threat. Many strangers of the same type can feel like a pack invasion. If thirty men wearing the same team shirt walked toward a couple of locals in the street, those locals would naturally feel threatened. If they had different shirts, the threat would be less. It isn't the place of origin of the new arrivals per se, but the sheer volume. Compounding the change is the lack of assimilation. Newcomers by habit continue to do what they did in their place of origin. If no-one tells them any different, newcomers continue to consolidate their original culture in the new place. They speak their original language, follow the same customs and keep to themselves because it is easier, more comfortable and less threatening to mix with one's own kind. When their numbers gain a level of inertia, they feel comfortable perpetuating their customs and get a sense of righteousness in doing so. All the while, such newcomers are rejecting a sense of respect for the status quo rights of the incumbent residents. Newcomers start off as guests. Guests have rights and obligations which should be tempered. The timeless idiom 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do' applies to visitors in a new place. When one is visiting a new place, one ought try to do as the people do who are from the place. This implies trying to speak the local language, eat the local foods, conduct oneself as the locals do. Western women in Saudi Arabia should respect Islamic custom by wearing a head scarf (called 'hijab'). Similarly, Islamic custom requires all men to cover themselves 'from the navel to the knees.' Western visitors could try not doing so but wouldn't last 5 minutes on the streets. It is not to say the custom is right or wrong, but it is the local custom and warrants respect. People from different places have different ways of acting, so it is important to try to do things the way people do who are from the place that you are visiting. As the numbers of newcomers grow the start to dominate and eventually outnumber the local population. It leads to the locals feeling justifiably that their home has been changed, their familiar environment is altered, strangers speaking strange languages have taken over, and a sense of disenfranchisement emerges. Once the numbers of newcomers outnumber the locals and start buying up real estate and replacing local businesses, many locals will reach a sense of isolation and move out. With the sheer numbers of new arrivals, demand for property exceeds supply driving up property prices. The property industry benefits and communicates their pleasure to the government so the government responds with more immigration. This is what is being repeated across the inner suburbs of Australian capital cities. It is Australian displacement. It is why Melbourne's Mornington Peninsula has seen translocation of locals from inner suburbs of Melbourne 'taken over' by one or two ethnic new arrivals. It is why many locals in Sydney's western suburbs have translocated to the Central Coast and even beyond into Queensland. Outnumbering causes displacement. It is what is happening in Parramatta.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2010-01-15 11:28

Well said, Quark! And, no amount of design can compensate for the loss of democracy either. I think that such experts are truly deluded about the importance of their particular discipline and their personal importance. They obviously consider that their opinions are so much more valid than anyone else's - even if that means ignoring thousands or millions of people. Being an overpaid professional in a suit, with microphones in front of you tends to reinforce that delusion. The ABC has a responsibility which it is miserably failing. It is propping up and legitimizing a dictatorship. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

quark

Fri, 2010-01-15 09:28

My car radio is always on one or other of the ABC stations. Last night around 10.30pm I flicked it on as I started driving and caught part of a program where guest of Night Life, Peter Davidson- architect responsible for Federation Square in Melbourne was being interviewed on modern Australian cities. A caller was questioning Australia's population growth trajectory or more exactly speaking against it. He had just dismissed the argument that Australia had to increase population because of structural aging and was in mid sentence when Peter Davidson cut in saying that aging of the population was immensely complex-(far more complex of course than any of the callers or listeners would be able understand? ) The city of Dubai was mentioned and the guest said he thought it would be terribly exciting to live there (obviously loves artificial environments) I caught bits of the rest of it interrupted by putting petrol in my car. A man from Perth rang in praise of Hobart where his delight was to be able to go to anywhere in the city on foot when he was visiting for business recently. The presenter asked what could Mr. Davidson take from Hobart and inject into other cities. The reply was that it was the "diversity"- that lots of different things were "still" accessible close to one another in Hobart and that larger cities had lost that- so by implication we have been going in the wrong direction Then a woman rang in with a very sensibly thought out question and concern re lack of space for children to play in cities that were progressively being "infilled" She was answered with a couple of minutes of patter about "diversity" and integrated spaces and how there was no problem about allowing land for children as long as developments were big enough and that those in Australia are too "piecemeal" One concern the woman expressed was about older children and teenagers hanging round shopping precincts and getting into trouble because they had really nowhere to play and they needed space at home and near home. Answer- no they don't need to be at home - they need to explore and places for this need to be designated and planned for. (which summons to mind engineered predictable spaces which are not generally exciting or diverting for children unless they can heighten the interest with an activity like skate boarding.) The program concluded with a recommendation from the guest for more centralised planning - by implication an end to the role of local councils. (a recipe for uniformity of the urban environment rather than diversity?) The essential ingredient Mr. Davidson said was "aesthetic input " which I understood him to say we do not have now because planning authorities knew planning law but had no special understanding of aesthetics. It was obvious from the discussion that our cities are being ruined through relentless growth and that this man knew it but he kept plugging on with his nonsense sounding more and more like a robot. Having listened to many such programs on the ABC which include experts in design- it is always a matter of "could-a , would-a , should-a". i.e. "If we did it this way or applied this principle we would grow in a really sustainable, aesthetic, way and when our city has twice the population- if we did things properly we would be even better off than we are now." Then the guests go off into their ivory towers of design and presumably make models of pretend cities. Meanwhile the rest of us are left to accommodate unwanted population growth in our real cities losing those aspects that truly make them beautiful- those parts that have grown more organically in keeping with their immediate surrounds and which retain vestiges of the natural environment. No amount of design can compensate for loss of natural amenity.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2010-01-15 00:29

I live in Merrylands in Sydney. On any trip to the shops in Parramatta or Merrylands groups of people speaking in their native language and it is unusual to hear people speaking English. I have no idea what these people are saying and could be saying anything about me or my family - it makes me feel like a stranger in the country I was born in. My son has been teased because he is so "white" which is not considered racist but if he teased someone because of the colour of their skin he would be labeled as racist. This does cause problems as people feel they have no rights and have to be constantly politically correct. Racism occurs in every society and quite often the ones who complain the most are the most racist themselves and feel they should have special treatment.

Milly (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-14 20:20

You don't have to go to Africa or the Middle East to see how much the planet is running dry. Just go to California, where, after three years of drought, dozens of towns and cities have imposed mandatory water rationing and a half million acres in the country's agricultural breadbasket are lying fallow.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the action hero governor, has thrust himself into the fray by requiring towns and cities across the state to reduce their water use by 20 percent over ten years. That means less water to drink, to bathe in, and to water the lawn.

Governor Schwarzenegger only has a year left in office, and he's well aware of the old saying Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting.

Schwarzenegger says his state is in crisis. We've been in crisis for quite some time because we're now 38 million people and not anymore 18 million people like we were in the late 60s.

He blames the environmentalists who sued under the Endangered Species Act to protect a tiny little fish, the Delta smelt, that was being killed off by California's main water pumps - not unsustainable population growth!

Everybody knows that California is a mess. The budget is an ongoing catastrophe, and public approval of the leadership of the governor and the legislature are at historic lows. The state university system is tottering, and the social safety net is collapsing.

The water crisis in China and California, already severe, is sure to grow worse. Drought, population growth, urbanization, pollution, and inadequate infrastructure have brought water systems to the breaking point in China and California (and much of the US West).

Jeffrey Mount, founder of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California says that three quarters of the water shortages are caused by the drought, not the fish, and he has a message for the farmers: Don't plant crops that have to have water every year. No mention of livestock, population growth, unsustainable agriculture!

Farm hands who used to work in the nation's breadbasket are now standing in breadlines. Some of the vegetables have been sent from, of all places, China.

Why California is Running Dry - 60 Minutes

Arnold Schwarzenegger comes from a sports background, from pumping iron, and now he wants to be famous for pumping water! Unfortunately he must be high on brawn but low on brain!

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2010-01-14 08:02

Queensland's economy is fifth against other states and territories. CommSec's State of the States report, released 11 January, ranked Australia's best performing economies according to eight key indicators. It awarded a joint first place to the ACT, then WA, SA and then Queensland.

The company's latest state and territory economic rankings show New South Wales continues to be the poorest performer. Its unemployment rate of 5.9 per cent sitting almost 9 per cent above the decade-average of 5.4 per cent.
The survey found economic growth has slowed in Queensland in the last 12 months, due to companies mothballing new projects. Interesting, consider Queensland's growth in population!

Three months ago, Tasmania was judged the best performing economy in Australia, from South Australia and Western Australia. In Tasmania annual population growth stands at 1.0 per cent, the fastest in four years. Tasmania and SA have been called "stagnant" in the past due to slower population growth.

The smaller states and territories are the major winners in the job stakes.
Mining-related construction and investments have driven Western Australia up to the top ranking in CommSec's quarterly report.

Population growth is fastest in Western Australia (3.0 per cent) followed by Queensland (2.6 per cent). But both states have been consistently leading the rest of the nation, especially over the past three years.

According to the report: The ACT and Tasmania have been insulated from the US financial crisis, but momentum has returned to Western Australia in response to the strong recovery of the Chinese economy.

See article in SMH:
"Reality check on growth" by Bob Birrell.
Projections of 35 million people by 2050 deflate under closer analysis.
My opinion is that it will be damaging on both fronts. (quality of life and environmental damage). A more interesting question is: where does the 35 million projection come from and why is there such widespread acceptance within government and business circles that it is inevitable?

As a result, some 85 per cent of the projected growth from 22 million today to 35 million will derive from net overseas migration (including children born to migrants once in Australia).

The top ten nations in the world for GDP, with the exception of the USA, all have smaller populations than Australia.

Why the drive for population growth when economic statistics, environmental implications and costs, and public opinion, don't support it?

Animal lover (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 22:37

I was discussing animals with a Catholic friend many years ago. He would have always been kind to animals but he saw animals as clones of one another in a way. He did not use the word clone -- but he meant that they were a job lot whereas to him humans were crafted individually.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2010-01-13 19:47

Animal Rights are anathema to the teachings of the Catholic Church. How come? Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches its 'flock': #2415 “The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.” and... #2417 “God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image." SO CATHOLIC LORE: If God is the centre of someone's universe and that someone knows god enough to be close, everything else like animals must be subordinate in rights. Pol Pot probably felt the same way. PS. Religion is a deceptive substitute for morality by someone with ulterior motives. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Hmmm. (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 19:47

Subject was "Response to JS January 11th," - JS Response to JS January 11th, 2010 - Why shouldn't we show our emotion, when we write to politicians? James, I read and understood Vicki’s letter perfectly well and it presents no evidence whatsoever to support her assumptive concern of kangaroos or wildlife being hunted, much less any barbarity occurring in her locality. Without any evidence it is therefore illogical to complain to politicians. As to what action police did or did not take, this maybe a legitimate and logical reason to write to a State pollie, ombudsman or similar but is not a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Feeling emotion can be an excellent motivator and displaying a reasonable degree of emotion to express an opinion can indeed be beneficial. Excessive emotions tend to impair good judgement, sometimes quite dramatically; you might ponder for a moment the root cause behind some vengeful crimes even violent ones like assault and murder as but one example of emotion ruling outcome. Allowing excessive emotion to control actions and dominate arguments rarely achieves desirable results (Vicki’s need for medication is a case in point) and frequently leads to long periods of lament in the aftermath. Hard factual irrefutable evidence carries far more weight with politicians, as it does with most adults, than emotional rants ever would.

Karl (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 10:29

RE: Editorial comment: Yes, Sarah Palin. Seems to me like two soul-mates. I can just imagine Angela Shanahan prowl the ACT bush with a scoped rifle in hand looking for kangaroos so she can feed her large dogs and growing mega-family. You can see it too, yes? Remember how Angela Shanahan baldly claim large families have less impact on the environment. Well, most children would know that these days you actually don't need to shoot to kill off God's life completely. In her own way Angela Shanahan is a ruthless environmental future killer.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2010-01-13 10:19

Garrett should then resign. As Australia's Federal Environment et al Minister he is complicit in Rudd's hypocritical shenanigans. His pre-ministerial lobbying of governments to protect whales and wildlife has been demonstrated in government as hollow hyperbole. Australians voted Garrett from popstar to polly in trust that he would live up to his public convictions. But since he gained office, his credibility has eroded. Garrett's only saving grace would be to resign in protest, then seek re-election as an independent or Green. Why he chose to sell his soul for politican power and influence then succumb to Rudd decision-castration will be one for the Australia's political history books when Garrett ultimately steps down. I still have time for Midnight Oil, but not a castrated Rudd puppet. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Animal lover (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 10:10

The interview with Christopher Cook is excellent -- pity it's just a talking head although an opportunity to listen whilst doing something else. The Meatrix cartoon is is a compact and great reminder of the evil of factory farming which appears to be on the rise. Scary when you think that as it takes over and annihilates more human scale enterprises we all become increasingly dependent on it. Eating meat is optional and eating dairy is optional but to omit both from one's diet is not for everyone-only a minority can stick to veganism Humans are omnivores. We need to take back control from these monsters and then decide how we are going to eat .

Karl (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 08:27

Back in the 70's I laughed at a London-based Flat-Earth Society, but when I realised it was all for good fun, I laughed with them instead. However, a loony propagandist like Mrs Angela Shanahan is just plain scary in her blind support for fundamentalist Catholic dogma. Being as reasonable as an automatic answering machine in Rome, I wonder what on earth possessed The Australian management to let this shrill "Voice of Papa" in on their pages. Her arguments are so false and hysterical she can hardly lend even religious Future Fatalists much succour while awaiting The Rapture. Her thinking just leaves me shivering cold and maybe a little curious if she is like a famous conservative female USA mega-family-politician who also likes to go rifle hunting for bush-meat around her home state. Editorial comment: I take it, you were referring to Sarah Palin? - JS

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 07:48

Head of the Australian whaling envoy, Sandy Holloway, is set to receive up to $200,000 for 100 days work, while a further $342,000 has already been spent on international travel by the former bureaucrat and his team as they travel the globe. Mr Holloway's 'formal representations' to Japan, on a $1,800 a day retainer, were designed to fail and is really an expensive smokescreen to fool the Australian public. Such was the ambiguity of diplomatic pressure that Japan even asked Australia for help against the "eco-terrorists" upholding the laws in the Antarctic! Public money is being wasted. Australia's Antarctic Territory, promises, policies, a $300 million whale-watching industry and domestic and international laws and Treaties are being abandoned in the face of Japan's economic powers. It is becoming clear that some agreement has been made between Japan and Australia to prevent any "interference" in their whale slaughter. This whale "research" is not about the need for the meat, but about securing their interests in the region, an open territory from their perspective.

123Jim (not verified)

Wed, 2010-01-13 07:09

Hi, I hope you remember the picture of the elk/animal crossing near Banff, Canada. Referencing that picture the truck in the background is on the same bridge pylons (sic?) the animal crossing was, to me, a very nice, equitable option the people there decided to do for the animals. To me it looks like a ferro-concrete structure and is built to last and probably not all that noisy.

Tigerquoll

Tue, 2010-01-12 18:12

The Australian Government has reasons of revenue and future revenue to appease India. Many Australian universities are highly dependent on Indian students for full fare paying revenue since the Howard government stripped universities of education funding from our taxes. Taxpayers should be demanding to know where that tertiary funding has since gone and why. The Rudd government sees India as Australia's key future trading partner economically and so this is the main reason for Rudd wanting to appease India concerns about ethnic violence in Australia targeting Indians. Rudd has visited India twice as PM. He flew to New Delhi on 10th November 2009, to improve ties and repair reputation damage following publicised attacks on Indian student and associated street protests by Indian students. It makes sense that Australia develops trade ties with India, especially to spread Australia's trade beyond its current overdependency on China. But before jumping to blaming the violence on racism, both Australian and Indian publics shoudl be demanding the objective facts. Problem is that Australia's mainstream media does not report race or ethnicity with its reporting of crime. Some how it treats this as racist rather than factual. What was the ethnicity of the 4 men who set alight the Indian man in Melbourne's inner west suburb of Footscray on 8 January? Many drive by shootings, stabbings, home invasions and other crimes typically in the big Australian cities of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane involve ethnic Australians. Recently there has been a spate of identify theft involving ethnic Chinese on temporary visas or student visas, but the mainstream media does not report the race or ethnicity. Many crimes against Indias are perpetrated by other Indians, bu the mainstream media press does not tell us this. So Aussies cop the race card because of the media's misinformation. Don't get me wrong. Many birth Australians perpetrate crimes and are convicted. The problem is when on birth Australians (ethnic Australians) commit crimes, their race and ethnicity is hushed up by the mainstream media. The media also avoid the obvious positive correlation between urban ethnic enclaves and the rate of crime, especially those enclaves that are relatively new (less than 10 years old). Mass immigration has created these ethnic enclaves so Rudd should not be surprised. Rudd shoudlo start listening to independent sociologists more than his short termism economists and is quarterly key performance indicators. The media also need a head rethink away from pure economic data and toward long term social science data. Also, is it any wonder why Australian prison population statistics do not disclose ethnicity? Facts are what are missing from the mainstream media hype. But then investigative journalism costs money. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Pages

Click to read all comments.