Comments
Abbott misreported but Australia will be like Haiti still stands
Tony Abbott's recipe for
Haiti background articles
Going the same way as Haiti
Off-setting our ageing population will blow-out our numbers
Doug died during surgery
Australia going same way as Haiti - Look out!
Human Capital
"Modernising Victoria's Planning" Free Seminar Melbourne 10 Feb
Climate change evident in Peru and the Amazon
Aborigines and the Ruling Caste
The value of human life?
Don't forget International Women's Day March 8
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.
Contraception and Disneyland in Haiti
Human value of life is quite relative...and quite cultural
Kangaroo shot Plenty Road Preston for holding up trams?
Our treatment of roos is depraved and stupid
Kangaroos as 'vermin' harks to Australia's 19th Century mindset
Wave of compassion for Doug the baby koala - too much ambiguity
Commercial exploitation of disaster
The American Way
Sinophile thoughts of Chairman Rudd
Rudd Wants 20 Million Asians.
Geese & Rudd
Australia and Asia: population numbers & density
Rudd wants 20 million Asians
Rudd's record lamentable, but should he be the focus?
Agree that outnumbering causes displacement
While China armed the Sinhalese, Australia ignored the slaughter
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
The Road to Wipe-out
$42 billion stimulus package a reckless waste of our money
Supports Rudd Government $42billion stimulus program
Realistic and complete proposals to end Tamil conflict needed
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.
What were the facts of the Sri Lankan peace negotiations?
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
What solutions to Sri Lankan conflict were possible?
Vegetation is required for biosphere
combine “natural media” with "man made media
British MPs cross floor to reduce immigration
Donations and disclosure
600000 immigrants
Labor Holdings, Labor Resources P/L and Primeminister Rudd
A subconscious rationalisation for our leaders' cowardice
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.
Trade with Japan is a different topic
Be fair
Haiti: Is the US taking over the landing space?
We urgently need leadership
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!
The Dairy industry is a massive consumer of water
Thylacine Tears
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
Kangaroos
Haiti
Thought Background Briefing program on overdevelopment was good
Outnumbering causes displacement
loss of amenity and loss of democracy - reply to ABC growthism
No escape from growthism on the ABC
Assimilation - Growth Lobby
Water shortage blamed on saving a little fish!
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!
Population growth hasn't ensured Queensland's prosperity
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?
Catholicism and animals
Catholic Catechism says animals only of utility use to humans
Emotion can be an excellent motivator, however ...
Prowling to feed Mega-Family
Garrett should resign in protest of Rudd's e-puppetry
Factory Farming
The AUSTRALIAN shrill "Voice of Papa"
Some agreement has been made between Japan and Australia
Animal crossing
Rudd only cares about revenue performance not social cohesion

Pertinent themes
Unapologetic Japan over Centaur confirms Japan still backward
India : Australia slanging match re immigrants
Over-abundance of livestock and people is the real problem
The real issue is an over-abundance of livestock in Australia, not grazing impacts of kangaroos!
Covering approximately 60 per cent of Australia, the agricultural sector uses more land and water than any other industry in Australia (ABS 2003). Australia is among the world’s largest producers of red meat, with 2.15 million tonnes (carcass weight) of beef and veal, 435 000 tonnes of lamb and 258 000 tonnes of mutton produced in 2007-08.
It takes 16 million sheep, 8 to 9 million head of cattle, 5.6 million pigs and nearly half a billion chickens just to meet the meat requirements of Australians.
According to the Australian Conservation Foundation's Elle Morell, it takes around 200 L of water - mostly to grow grain and to wash out abattoirs - and creates around five kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions to get a small, 150 g steak onto your plate.
Due to the high water dependency, and adverse effects of climate change, such as increased temperature, likely decreases in rainfall, and increase occurrence of extreme weather events and drought condition, most farmers will experience negative consequences of climate change.
Australia's natural resources are declining faster than we are able to protect and repair them. Issues such as salinity, soil acidity, pollution of waterways by nutrients, and loss of native vegetation are costing agricultural industries and the community billions of dollars. The real threat to Australia's ecosystems is not from native animals, but from our massive consumption and export of sheep and cattle, and land clearing.
This coupled with over-grazing at times of drought causes soil erosion often linked to salinization of the soils which prohibits the growth of most plant species.
In Australia desertification results from the grazing of livestock. Before the introduction of rangeland farming by Europeans there was an essentially natural ecosystem with none of the native animals having the hardhooves of sheep and cattle. These are introduced species and their impacts on pasture are multiple of that of kangaroos.
The grazing impact of kangaroos is only between 0.2 and 0.7 of a dry-sheep-equivalent. (non-lactating)

Original source: Bureau of Rural Sciences 2005, Interpretation of livestock
density and net primary productivity, unpub. Data.
Image originally displayed on page
"Indicator: LD-20 Total grazing pressure relative to net primary productivity" at
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/162/ .
Of course, all animals need food, but kangaroos are selective feeders and will only compete with livestock under adverse conditions.
CSIRO showed that wheat crop damage was a myth and that kangaroos aren't keen on any farm crops and can't thrive on them. (Arnold 1990)
http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?act=view_file&file_id=EC66p13.pdf
Where competition occurs at very low pasture biomasses, kangaroos suffer more than stock since stock have been bred over tens of thousands of years to survive under almost any conditions until they exhaust all food supplies regardless of the ecological consequences. Adverse competitive pressure on red kangaroo populations was predicted by Dr.G. Caughley.
A study by Steve McLeod (1996) showed there is no competitive effect for grazing between sheep and kangaroos even during drought. Competition only occurs only in exceptionally poor conditions, and it is more likely to adversely affect kangaroos, not sheep! Diets converge (creating more competition) in degraded lands where kangaroos and livestock are both dependent on an ephemeral 'bounty' due to sustained rainfalls. This would indicate dysfunctional landscapes, with pastoralism as the major contributor to dysfunction.
Another study in Sturt National Park showed that grazing patterns weren't determined by water distribution for livestock but by vegetation, and best resting spots. (Montague-Drake & Croft 2004). Low vegetation was more to do with sheep grazing than kangaroos.
There are often significant differences in the diets of domestic livestock and kangaroos , and amongst kangaroos themselves due to the lower metabolic requirements of kangaroos, their smaller mouthparts and lack of ruminations, their lower water turnover and consequent greater foraging distanced from water. (David B. Croft)
Further Observations on the Plants Eaten by Kangaroos and Sheep Grazing Together in a Paddock in South-Western Queensland:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9740027.htm
The authors conclude that competition between sheep and kangaroos is small.
Kangaroos are selective feeders. Studies in rangelands in western NSW have shown that there is very little overlap in diets between kangaroos and domestic stock.
(See Problems caused by kangaroos and wallabies of September 03 by Ian Temby.)
Kangaroos are relatively miserly drinkers compared to livestock and people. They lap with a long and narrow tongue and do not suck water. They can access water that would not be possible for livestock, even water with mud and algae that would be unacceptable to sheep.
Almost half of our marsupials are extinct, endangered or vulnerable.
Kangaroos are the true spirit of Australia and the land belongs to them, but they are being blamed for all the damage from urban sprawl and agriculture, and these animals are being herded into smaller and smaller fragmented pockets of land, with some of them trapped in pockets of urban sprawl.
Sadly, we have landholders and farmers squabbling over how many blades of grass a red or grey kangaroo apparently steals from the mouth of a sheep or cow! The hatred of kangaroos is mostly due to misinformation, hysteria and a mean-spiritedness directed at true native Australian animals that have survived millions of years living in perfect harmony with their ecology, but are now being persecuted, vilified and made a scapegoat for human-caused environmental degradation.
References:
Steve McLeod (1996 "The foraging behaviour of the arid zone herbivores, the red kangaroo and the sheep and their role in its competitive interactions, population dynamics and life-history strategies". PhD thesis, University of New South Wales)
(Caughley, G.(1987) Ecological relationships. In Kangaroos: their ecology and management in the sheep rangelands of Australia.(Caughley, G.,Shepherd, N.& Short,J.eds). Cambridge University Press Cambridge.)
Montague-Drake R. Croft DB (2004). Do kangaroos exhibit water-focused grazing patterns in New South Wales? A case study in Sturt National Park, "Australain Mammalogy 26. 87-100)
Shanahan
Shanahan propaganda mill
Westminster system hopeless
Failure mode
How to make politicians aware of your needs
Political influence is one of displacing pet wish lists
Kangaroos have no impact on sheep etc
It's futile - so cease!
Why shouldn't we show our emotion, when we write to politicians?
Send to candobetter letters ignored by your Member of Parliament
Thanks, Menkit, for having put on the record these very important and revealing correspondences with Queensland Labor Premier Anna Bligh, with Federal Liberal MHR Fran Bailey and with Victorian Liberal MLC Donna Petrovich.
As long as such correspondences are placed on the public record as you have done here, they need not be seen entirely as a waste of effort.
However, if such letters were sent only to you Member of Parliament and no-one else is able to learn of them, then, sadly the effort will most likely have been completely wasted. Such letters will have almost no impact on most MP's who are clearly glove puppets of corporate vested interests that fill their party's coffers and keep them in office.
The same Premier Anna Bligh has similarly ignored my correspondences with her dating back to 17 February 2009, when I simply asked that she reveal to the public any future plans to sell any assets. See, also, the form letter lifted from a previous speech that she used to respond to my letter in the article Privatisation - let the owners decide : an open letter to Anna Bligh" of 3 Jun 09. I have also seen a great deal of other evidence that the correspondences from hundreds of other Queenslanders representing the views of 79%-84% of Queenslanders opposed to the $15 billion fire sale are being treated no differently by Anna Bligh and other Government MP's.
If, instead, the correspondences with MP's and their unsatisfactory responses or their complete lack of responses were to be placed on the public record, then the process of holding these supposed 'representatives' to account and eventually having them replaced with proper representatives, can begin.
So, please, if you find that your carefully composed letter to your MP or to a Government Minister has been dealt with in a manner similar to Menkit's and Vicki's, then please share it with us so that we can share it with the wider public. (Conversely, if you are one of the very few, who is not a corporate lobbyist, who has had your correspondence on a contentious matter of public importance treated respectfully, please tell us also. We also believe that credit be given where it is due to our political representatives.)
Whilst I have peoples' attention, could I also urge people to sign my e-petition calling for the resignation of Anna Bligh's Government. Anna Bligh's treatment of Menkit's correspondence adds considerably to the strength of the case I have put in my article "Why Queenslanders must demand new state elections" of 8 Jan 10.
More creativity needed when approaching politicians
Subject was "Creative approach" - JS
Dear Menkit,
I don’t know what history you have with Anna Bligh but if I were a politician (or anybody) receiving such a letter from a total stranger I would be reluctant to give it much credence at all.
It seems your letter is very highly charged with emotion, opinion (mostly Steve Irwin’s), rhetorical questions ((mostly Steve Irwin’s, that have little relevance) and some rather aggressive demands.
Perhaps if you adopted a more civil and respectful approach to recipients of your letters they may respond in kind.
Instead of demanding that they read reams of paper/reports etc that may not even be relevant perhaps you could suggest (politely) that they might read the document, and where the document is lengthy, make specific reference to relevant parts that support your cause and place a greater emphasise on factual information than emotion.
In relation to the letter from your friend Vicki it seems the whole issue is based on her assumption (as stated) the hunters are shooting kangaroos without any real evidence. There is no evidence provided that the hunters are shooting wildlife of any description only assumption. It is not stated if the shooters are on private property. Police sirens would do nothing to catch offenders in the act and if this is an area touched by the Feb 7th fires may not be appreciated by residents.
You do not clarify if your friend provided her mailing address to receive information. Both you and your friend need to appreciate that hunting of feral species or even native animals with a permit is not necessarily illegal, so crying wolf, to police or politicians based purely on assumption and irrational concerns about “….what is happening in other parts of the valley that I cant hear or see!” is unlikely to bring any change.
I am not surprised that this passionate letter achieved nothing. Democracy is rarely served by pandering to irrational, emotional, passionate wailings of minority activists.
My suggestion for a creative approach to “get through” to politicians would be to approach them in a more respectful, civil and polite manner with more factual and evidentiary argument than highly charged emotive, impassioned claims and accusations based on mere assumption and speculation.
What Research?
Plane construction not critical to case of 9/11 Truth Movement
Native Animals
Possums change the definition of pets
possums as pets
Josie
Josie
Why assume these were normal planes?
We know the "how"--what is taboo is the "who"
Propaganda publications are evil
possum
"The Australian" lacks balance
Candobetter accused of censorship (again)
Whaling damned by Kevin Rudd, Leader of the Opposition
- Take Japan to international courts such as the International Court of Justice for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to end the slaughter of whales;(why more legal advice? just a smokescreen to fool the public)
- Make formal representations to the Japanese authorities - at bilateral and multilateral meetings - about its practice of whaling (They actually asked Australia to protect them from eco-terrorists - such is the power of 'formal representations'!);
- Enforce Australian law banning the slaughter of whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary; (Still waiting Kevin)
- Monitor and surveillance of whaling vessels operating in Australian waters, and intercept vessels operating illegally in the Australian fishing zone (Where's the Oceanic Viking?);and
- Establish a national network of whale and dolphin sanctuaries (Nothing done here either); "Meanwhile, the Howard Government has demonstrated its lack of serious commitment to end whaling, refusing calls to monitor whalers operating in the Southern Ocean, and rejecting international legal action, including seven options put forward by the expert Sydney Legal Panel in May 2007. "Protecting whales - and preserving our $300 million-a-year whale-watching industry - requires more than the Howard government's hollow words and inaction. "Federal Labor will pursue a fresh approach to end whaling taking an international and domestic leadership role to protect these beautiful creatures". Kevin Rudd's promises and "fresh" and "bold" new approaches to end whaling sound more like the hollow and stale inaction of the Howard era - if not worse! Ignore promises, do nothing, depend on public apathy and pretend it isn't happening is more like it.
7.30 report on population all this week disappointing so far