(We) can do better

Robert Bowman writes about the need to restore the Constitutional rights of American citizens, enhance their national security through a return to Constitutional foreign and military policies, and rebuild their economy by providing financial security to American families. None of these things can be accomplished so long as the giant multinational corporations, the banks and financial service companies, the insurance industry, the fossil fuel conglomerates, the weapons manufacturers, and the billionaires are running the US government. Therefore the first priority of American patriots, he says, has to be separating big money and political power.
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
www.thepatriots.us

Since we Patriots are both liberal and conservative, we won’t all agree on every policy issue. But there are core issues that devolve from our basic mission statement: “Follow the Constitution, Honor the Truth, Serve the People.” We seem to all agree that we need to restore the Constitutional rights of American citizens, enhance our national security through a return to Constitutional foreign and military policies, and rebuild our economy by providing financial security to American families. We also agree that none of these things can be accomplished so long as the giant multinational corporations, the banks and financial service companies, the insurance industry, the fossil fuel conglomerates, the weapons manufacturers, and the billionaires are running the government. Therefore our first priority has to be separating big money and political power. Once we do that, we can then accomplish the rest of our agenda.

So let’s define our core agenda as follows:

(1) End big money control of government.
(2) Restore Constitutional rights.
(3) Enhance Constitutional National Security.
(4) Rebuild Economy & family security.

Now you may note that there is nothing in there about the size of government or about raising or lowering of taxes. Those are strategies for accomplishing the agenda, and are subject to debate. My personal belief is that we need a government big enough and strong enough and (most importantly) independent enough to protect the American people from the global corporations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the for-profit disease treatment industry. Compared to this central task, the job of protecting the American people from foreign invasion is duck soup.

Let’s now flesh out the above four core agenda items, for each one listing specific actions needed and recommending concrete pieces of legislation required.

1. End big money control of government.

1.1 End corporate “personhood”. The absolute first necessary requirement is to reverse the Supreme Court’s erroneous decision that says that corporations have a constitutional first amendment free speech right to spend as much money as they want buying up elections, voters, and legislators. To accomplish this, we must amend the Constitution, restoring its original meaning. The required amendment (which I call the “Granny D Amendment” in honor of Doris Haddock, who worked tirelessly against corporate control) reads as follows: “Corporations and other fictitious entities are not ‘persons’ under this Constitution, and shall have none of the rights and privileges thereof.”

1.2 Revise electoral system to exclude big money and empower the people. The required reforms include (1.2.1) prohibiting private money (including the candidate’s own funds) in campaigns, funding them instead with public money and free TV and radio time to qualified candidates. (1.2.2) abolition of burdensome petition requirements for independents and third parties. (1.2.3) adopting preference voting (sometimes called instant runoff voting) so that nobody is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils or risk “throwing away” their vote. (1.2.4) outlawing any method of voting that does not produce a paper ballot that can be counted, recounted, and audited as necessary. Paper ballots should be counted by hand in public. This is the only way to prevent corporate programmers or partisan hackers from stealing elections.

1.3 Reform corporate law so that boards and CEOs are not only responsible to maximize profits to shareholders, but also have responsibilities to their employees, their community, and the environment.

1.4 Mandate open, truthful, and accountable government. (1.4.1) Pass a federal sunshine law similar to that of the State of Florida, allowing the public an insight into how Congressional and administrative branch decisions are made. (1.4.2) Require identification of all those proposing “earmarks.” (1.4.3) Prohibit secret meetings such as those between Vice President Dick Cheney and oil company executives to draft energy policy. (1.4.4) Repeal and prohibit unfunded mandates to state and local governments (such as “No child left behind”). (1.4.5) Revoke presidential “Fast Track” authority and reclaim the Constitutional right and duty of Congress to regulate trade. (1.4.6) Pass a bill stating that no agreement such as the Strategic Partnership for Prosperity (SPP) or North American Union (NAU) which diminish American sovereignty or give up territory can take effect without the full participation and approval of both houses of Congress, and that no funds may be expended for studies relating to such agreements without the approval of Congress after consultation with the American people. (1.4.7) Establish truly independent investigative commissions to study controversial historical events such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the murders of soldiers like Pat Tillman and LaVena Johnson. These commissions should have significant input from those who are critical of the official stories, and should have a co-chair from among their ranks.

1.5 Re-regulate the media. Return to the pre-Reagan prohibition on ownership of multiple media outlets. Family-owned newspapers and radio and television stations will prevent corporate monopoly media from brainwashing the public and censoring facts which expose government lies.

2. Restore Constitutional Rights for Americans

2.1 Abolish the Department of Homeland Security. We don’t need an agency whose mission is to protect the government from the American people.

2.2 Repeal the misnamed “Patriot Act,” the Military Commissions Act, and any other act which attempts to take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2.3 End the threat of martial law. The President should revoke Presidential Directives 20 and 51 which give him dictatorial powers, and should close the concentration camps Halliburton has built or refurbished around the country.

2.4 Release political prisoners like Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier, and all those being detained without charge. End torture and rendition, and prosecute those who authorized and carried out these illegal and immoral practices. Pardon all those incarcerated for possession or use of marijuana and end the failed “war on drugs.” Repeal federal laws against marijuana and hemp.

2.5 Pass a Congressional resolution stating that the separation of Church and State means that no government at any level may interfere with churches in setting requirements for receiving sacraments. Every denomination has the right to decide whether or not to grant the sacrament of matrimony to same-sex couples. At the same time, no governmental body may discriminate on the basis of gender by refusing adult couples wishing to enter into a civil union.

3. Rebuild Constitutional National Security

3.1 End the phony war on terror. Pass a resolution stating that terrorist attacks like that on 9/11 are criminal acts and will be investigated and prosecuted as such. The perpetrators do not deserve the exalted status of “warrior.”

3.2 End the illegal occupations. (3.2.1) Pass an authorization bill stating that no funds may be used for military activities in Iraq or Afghanistan, except for carrying out an orderly and rapid withdrawal. (3.2.2) Declare that it is US policy to vacate military bases in occupied nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and to give up oil and mineral rights and pipeline routes. If corporate entities wish to retain these rights, they must negotiate directly with the sovereign governments involved.

3.3 Return to Constitutional foreign and military policies. (3.3.1) Declare that the Armed Forces of the United States will be used only for the protection of our borders and our people, not the global financial interests of multinational corporations. The only exceptions will be for voluntary participation in UN peacekeeping forces or humanitarian missions such as natural disasters. Declare that any attack on Iran or any other country not specifically authorized by Congress with a Declaration of War is an impeachable offense. (3.3.2) Except for small Marine detachments guarding our embassies, bring home all our troops from around the world, returning all foreign bases to the host countries. (3.3.3) Cancel all contracts with mercenaries such as Blackwater (or Xe as they call themselves now). (3.3.4) Cancel all weapons development and procurement contracts not required for the Constitutional mission of national defense. Tell the contractors there must be no layoffs. If we can pay farmers not to grow crops, we can pay engineers and machinists not to build weapons. (3.3.5) Return all National Guard units to the control of the governors of the states. (3.3.6) Release Reserve units and excess personnel for transfer to alternative duties such as border patrol, disaster relief and cleanup, and rebuilding infrastructure. (There should be no forced separations.) The personnel and the budget to support them can eventually be transferred to other agencies. (3.3.7) Reorganize the Department of Defense and adjust the Defense budget to reflect the new mission. Once the transition is complete, the DoD budget should be around 20% of its current level. (3.3.8) End the embargo of Cuba and begin establishing normalized relations. (3.3.9) Terminate all covert actions and propaganda campaigns attempting to undermine other countries such as Iran and Venezuela. The fact that a country chooses not to cooperate with multinational corporations is no business of our government.

3.4 Abolish the CIA. Presidents Kennedy and Carter learned that it was impossible to get rid of the “dirty tricks” side of the CIA while retaining the intelligence gathering and analysis function. The CIA has continued to foster instability, insurrection, tyranny, torture, terrorism, murder, and war around the world, causing millions of deaths and creating millions of enemies for the United States through fear and hatred. We must drive a stake through its heart. The many good analysts may transfer to the DIA.

3.5 Honor and care for our Veterans. The fact that current and past wars are Unconstitutional, illegal, and destructive of our national security does not diminish the dedication, bravery, and sacrifices of our veterans who were lied to. They served in the belief that they were protecting our freedoms. We must see that they are cared for. The care of our soldiers wounded in action, suffering from PTSD, and poisoned by Depleted Uranium (DU) is not a discretionary expenditure to be avoided by delay, denial, and bureaucratic red tape. It is a solemn obligation of our government, and it must be met. (3.5.1) Fully fund the VA. (3.5.2) Direct the VA to recognize Gulf War Syndrome as a service-connected disability. (3.5.3) Direct the Department of Defense to root out prejudice against soldiers seeking help for PTSD, and to halt the practice of giving them drugs and returning them to service. (3.5.4) Direct the VA to halt the practice of some examiners who routinely deny benefits for PTSD claims because they “don’t believe in it.” (3.5.5) Direct the DoD and the VA to strengthen programs to ease the transition from combat to civilian life. There have been too many cases of domestic violence, murder, and suicide by veterans unable to make the transition. (3.5.6) Order a permanent halt to the use of DU munitions and armor. Destroy all existing supplies and store it as radioactive waste.

4. Rebuild Economy & Family Security

4.1 Expose the trickle-down myth. Both political parties promote the myth that the way to build the economy and jobs is to reduce taxes and regulations on businesses. The Republicans add a related myth that reducing taxes on millionaires will cause them to create jobs. All these myths are false. Neither businesses nor millionaires create jobs. CONSUMERS create jobs! Government can totally eliminate taxes on businesses and the super-wealthy, banks can offer business loans at zero interest. Yet not a single job will be created unless there are consumers willing and able to purchase the products and services offered. Businesses and millionaires will only create new jobs when the DEMAND can’t be met without them. At present, the demand isn’t there, because workers and the middle class can’t afford to buy. Those who still have jobs are afraid to buy because they may either lose their job or have unforeseen medical expenses. Job loss and medical bills are the leading causes of personal bankruptcy and home foreclosure, and most of us are subject to be impoverished by either one … or both. So we don’t spend our meager savings (if any) unless we have to, and we are afraid to go further in debt. The gap between the rich and the workers has gotten so big that there’s precious little left to pump to the top, and whatever goes to the top never trickles down. So the gap gets bigger. In spite of soaring productivity, real wages today are a third of what they were in the 1950s. This is unsustainable. Henry Ford used to pay his workers well, because he wanted them to be able to buy the cars they built. And both he and his workers thrived. He understood that economics was not trickle-down, but bubble-up. The only way to rescue the economy and guarantee jobs for those who want them is to make every American family financially secure, eliminating the worry that either the paychecks will stop or that medical bills will swamp them. Then people will buy things and businesses will hire more people to meet the demand. Everyone will prosper, including the rich, but only when every family gets an adequate, regular paycheck and health care when they need it.

It is here that those of us who are libertarian in ideology will diverge from those of us who are progressive. We will not agree on how to go about providing every family with paychecks and health care. But however we do it, it must be done. My prescription is outlined below in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Those of us on the left and right come back together again on Banking Reform and Tax Reform, covered in 4.4 and 4.5. These are also vital to our economic development and to financial security.

4.2 Guarantee paychecks for all. (Don’t worry. I’ll discuss how to pay for all this in Section 4.5.) (4.2.1) The simplest solution would be to send every American family, rich or poor, a paycheck every month. Call it “Social Security for all.” Start with $800 for each adult and $200 for each child, with the amount indexed for inflation, just like Social Security. Like Social Security, it would be taxable after your other income rose above a certain level. (4.2.2) A more modest (perhaps interim) proposal is to extend unemployment benefits indefinitely — no maximum number of weeks, no expiration date. (4.2.3) The most satisfying way to provide paychecks, of course, is through jobs. I am convinced that if you provide the regular paychecks first, the jobs will follow (because paychecks will create demand). But there are other steps we should take as well. Until the demand creates sufficient private sector jobs, the government should offer jobs to anyone wanting one. Let the WPA live again. (4.2.4) In order to reinvigorate our manufacturing capability, the government should end subsidies to companies moving jobs out of the country and should use tariffs to level the playing field. Suspend NAFTA and all other “free trade” agreements (they are really free investment agreements) until our trade partners extend the same benefits, union rights, protections for health, safety, and the environment, and wages as we require of businesses here. It should be no cheaper to build widgets in Mexico or China and import them than to build them in Scranton or Detroit or Oshkosh. (4.2.5) Make it just as expensive for companies to hire undocumented workers as American citizens. Use a non-forgeable ID card with Social security number and status. Require non-citizen workers be given minimum wage and other protections accorded citizens. Offending employers would be jailed. (4.2.6) Index the Minimum Wage for inflation and gradually raise it to what it would have been had it been indexed for inflation when it was created at a dollar an hour. (That would currently be about $16 an hour.)

4.3 Health Care for all. (4.3.1) As a conservative, I believe that the only fiscally-responsible way to provide health care is to eliminate the profit, the overhead, the red tape, the interference between doctor and patient, and the interference in our political system of the insurance companies by kicking them out of health care altogether. We must finally join the rest of the civilized world and adopt a single-payer national health system. (4.3.2) A modest proposal to achieve such a single-payer system is Medicare For All. We can start with a bill expanding Medicare to cover pregnant women, infants up to age six, and seniors starting at age sixty. Include pre-natal care, well baby care, and preventive care with no co-pay. The bill should state that it is our policy to gradually expand and improve Medicare until it covers all Americans for medical , dental, vision, hearing, mental health, home health, and long-term care, with deductibles and co-pays limited to what is affordable to families on minimum wage. (4.3.3) Medicare Part D should be repealed, and prescription drugs should be covered as a standard part of Medicare Part B, just like x-rays or doctor visits.

4.4 Banking Reform. The banks take high-risk gambles with our money and lose. Then they go to the federal government for a bail-out. The government goes to the Federal Reserve (which is about as federal as Federal Express) to borrow the money. The Fed then creates the money out of thin air and loans it to the government (at interest which we taxpayers have to pay). The government then gives it to the banks, who are supposed to loan it to us (again at interest, so we’re paying double interest on the same money). The banks then use the money to buy up other banks (including foreign banks) and to pay themselves huge bonuses. The stockholders of the Federal Reserve make hundreds of billions of dollars on money which was never theirs in the first place. They never have a penny of their own at risk! Some sweet deal, isn’t it? But not for us. In this system, all money is created as debt. But where does the money come from to pay the interest? More loans. They can never be paid off. It is a huge pump, pumping money from workers to the ultra-wealthy who own the banks. Both conservatives and liberals agree that this must end. (4.4.1) Pass legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve and eliminating our debt to it. (4.4.2) Pass legislation ending the debt-based monetary system and returning to Congress its Constitutional responsibility for creating money … without debt. The government should print greenbacks and use it for government purposes — including building roads and bridges, caring for disabled veterans, and providing universal health care. (4.4.3) Audit the big banks and financial service companies and nationalize those who are insolvent. They can then be run as non-profit government banks, providing low-interest loans to individuals and small businesses.

4.5 Tax Reform. We have proposed significant government expenditures for guaranteed paychecks and health care for Americans. It is fair to ask where the money is going to come from. For centuries, governments have been using taxes to control behavior. They tax what they want to discourage (like smoking, for example). So why do we tax employers for providing jobs? Payroll taxes are counter-productive. They are especially burdensome on small businesses. The minute you hire one person, you have to hire another to figure out income tax withholding, FICA taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, workers comp taxes, ad infinitum. It’s no wonder most new businesses fail before they ever make a profit. Businesses should only be taxed on profits.

Similarly, we discourage those on welfare from taking a job, because we tax them so highly. If you find a job that pays the same as welfare, and you take the job and the welfare is stopped, you have in essence been taxed 100% on your new job. Even if your new job pays twice what you got on welfare, the effective tax on it is 50% — and that’s before you pay any income tax. Then there’s the FICA (Social Security) tax, the most regressive tax of all. A minimum wage earner pays about 8%. The owner of a Mom & Pop business pays 16%. But a basketball player or CEO making $40 million a year only pays 0.02%. We’re supposed to have a graduated income tax. Yet because of the tax break on unearned income (like dividends and capital gains), the wealthy pay a much smaller percentage of their income than low-wage workers. Someone once challenged corporate executives to find one who paid a higher income tax rate than their secretary. None were found. All this suggests several ways to reform the tax system. (4.5.1) Remove the cap on earnings subject to Social Security tax. This would make it a flat tax, and would keep Social Security solvent forever. Better yet, do away with the FICA tax (and all payroll taxes) completely, compensating by increasing income tax rates or with new taxes (like the tariffs and Tobin tax discussed below). (4.5.2) Restructure the income tax to incorporate a negative income tax (similar to the guaranteed paychecks discussed in 4.2.1) and slowly rising tax rates, with a top rate (probably around 70%) sufficient to make the whole thing revenue neutral. No one with an income of less than $500,000 per year would have a tax increase. (4.5.3) Remove the favored treatment of unearned income, but index the cost basis of property subject to capital gains for inflation, so that only real gains are taxed. (4.5.4) The cost of universal health care will be much less than the current cost, since the roughly 30% skimmed off by the insurance companies will be eliminated. There will be considerable savings because conflicting and overlapping coverages (like Medicaid and VA) will be eliminated. Individuals will be relieved of the expense of private insurance policies and supplements. Businesses of all sizes will be relieved of the burden of supplying health coverage for their employees and (most importantly for companies like General Motors) for their retirees. Yet the cost to the government will rise, and must be offset by taxes. An increased tax rate on corporate profit is reasonable, especially since they will benefit so much. (4.5.5) Introduce the Tobin tax on financial transactions. There is so much gambling going on in the currency markets and stock markets that the total amount of trades is truly staggering. A tax of even a tenth of one percent would bring in enough money to pay for the new programs we have proposed and (quite possibly) make the income tax unnecessary. Such a tiny tax would not deter legitimate investment, but might put a brake on some of the lightning computer trading which goes on today. So the actual revenue created will not be known until it is implemented. (4.5.6) Go back to using tariffs (one of the few types of tax authorized in the Constitution) to level the playing field with trading partners who welcome our investments, but put up barriers to the sale of our goods in their country. Tariffs can halt the flight of jobs from our country, as discussed in 4.2.4. (4.5.7) Pass legislation limiting the corporate income tax deduction for executive compensation to twenty times the salary of their lowest paid worker (legal or illegal). The ratio between CEO pay and worker pay used to be 20 to 1. It is now over 600 to 1. This is a free country. Corporations can pay their executives whatever they wish. But we don’t have to give them a tax deduction for it.

Concluding Remarks

There are countless important issues we haven’t dealt with in this Patriots’ Agenda (like education, the environment, etc.). You can see my position on every conceivable issue on the web site www.thepatriots.us . What we have done here is to identify four core agenda items that are absolutely critical to our future as a nation. We’d love to see them taken up in the lame duck session this month. But I’m not holding my breath. My hope is that millions of Americans across the political spectrum (and perhaps a few Patriots in a future Congress) will take up an agenda like this and, one of these days, force our government to honestly deal with it. Until then, hang in there, keep the faith, and may God help us all.

(NOTE: This article is a slightly updated version of the Legislative Agenda I submitted to Congress when I was running for Congress in 2006. It resulted in me being invited to join the Veterans Affairs Committee “when you’re elected.” Although exit polls had me winning the election by 12 points, the electronic voting machines said otherwise.)

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
National Commander, “The Patriots”
1494 Patriot Dr, Melbourne, FL 32940
Home: (321) 752-5955
Cell: (321) 258-0582
Email: [email protected]
Alt: [email protected]
Web: www.thepatriots.us

The joke is on you, you green fool! You and your idiot faith without evidence! Your techno-optimism and cornucopian denial! Renewable technology? What a laugh! Who did you think you were kidding? Mr. Jevons? What a paradox! Smart growth? Ha! What's next, "Smart" cancer? "Smart" extinction? "Smart" deforestation?

We're Screwed! We're Buggered! Cooked! Done!
Ha ha! We thought we were smart enough to manage complex systems!

The joke is on you, you green fool! You and your idiot faith without evidence! Your techno-optimism and cornucopian denial!
Renewable technology? What a laugh! Who did you think you were kidding? Mr. Jevons? What a paradox! Smart growth? Ha! What's next, "Smart" cancer? "Smart" extinction? "Smart" deforestation? Oh and "Sustainable" Growth! I love that one, and I laughed even harder at Sustainable "Development"! Nice try. As Garrett Hardin said, we got a moratorium on thinking with that one! Mr. Greenwash you really have a sense of humour---too bad your euphemisms didn't fool Mother Nature! But I must at admit you sure put one over on the Sierra Club membership! You even had them believing that we could "de-couple" economic and population growth from environmental degradation! Those comedians from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Eco-Socialists, what a piece of work they are! And then there is the Queen of Smear from Hampshire College! Good work on character assassination babe! You, Morris Sleaze and the Center for New Community make a great team shutting down debate about crucial environmental concerns !

Were goin' down folks! It's Good Night Gracie! Another failed evolutionary experiment for the fossil record! Ha ha!

Doomsday Auction

Ladies and Gentle....men! Welcome to the Doomsday Auction. What we have here tonight is Human Catastrophe offered to you at an incredible price. This is a once-in-a-life time opportunity to make a claim on that disaster which will end civilization as we know it. You have been brought here by special invitation. All of you here are prominent and credible threats to humankind, but your challenge tonight is stake a claim to catastrophe by producing evidence that you have the largest constituency of public opinion behind you. That is, the more people who take you seriously, the more attention you deserve. And if you command the most attention then you, and you alone, can take home the prize of being Boogeyman Number One, The Top Dog of Human Catastrophe!

First, let me introduce viewers to the contestants. We have, in no particular order, Nuclear Accident, Terrorist Attack, Global War, Cyber War, Global Warming, Economic Collapse, Fuel Shortage, Oil Spill, Industrial Accident, and Famine. Sorry, but even though we now have over 7 billion people, "Overpopulation" was not invited to this auction because mainstream environmental organizations refused to size its nomination papers in deference to their corporate donors and political correctness, and the eco-socialists claimed that he was a rich racist who was trying to blame the global poor for his own excesses. "Natural Non-Renewable Resource Shortages" are not here either because Peak Oilers protested that it was all about energy and that the shortage of minerals and metals vital to an industrial economy were not deserving of a voice---a view seconded by PC book publishers who won't print any manuscripts from Chris Clugston.

OK, lets get rolling. Let’s start the bidding at 5%. Who will offer 5% of public opinion to back their claim to fame as a credible and lethal threat to civilization and life as we know it?

Industrial Accident? Thank you. Industrial Accident bids 5%. Now Oil Spill bids 6%. Famine? Famine bids 8%! Cyber War has matched you but Fuel Shortage doubles the offer at 15%. Its Fuel Shortage at 15%. Do I hear 16%? Global Warming raises the offer to 22%! 22% of the people worry about Global Warming. Now Nuclear Accident bids 25%! Its 25% going once, 25%...What’s that? Global War says 27%! Ladies and Gentlemen its 27%..... now Global Disease Outbreak makes it 33%. It looks like we are witnessing a contest here! And yes, yes....Terrorist Attack I hear you. You bid 44%! Now Natural Disaster sees you and raises that to 46%! It’s 46% once, 46% twice, 46%.....Economic Collapse, do I see your hand, yes! Is that right? 63%? You have 63% of folks worried about you? Do I hear 64%? Anybody at 64%? It’s 63% going once, 63% going twice, 63% SOLD to Economic Collapse because you sir look like your looming just around the corner!

Well Ladies and Gentlemen I guess you could have seen it coming. Economic collapse is keeping us awake at night. That wolf at your door has certainly got your attention hasn’t it? Greens have tried to take your eye off the ball with global warming but who the (expletive) cares about another metre or two of rising sea water in 60 years when you will be on the bread line tomorrow, and you will have give away your kids to an orphanage!

If that is not worry enough for you, come back next week and maybe, just maybe, Overpopulation, Peak Everything, Depleting Aquifers, The Collapse of Biodiversity Services and Critical Metal and Mineral Shortages will show up! That's if tensions in the Gulf don't trigger a nuclear exchange!

Have a safe journey home now---- that's if it hasn't been foreclosed on you! As the saying goes, if the bailiff doesn't get you the Grim Reaper will! Now go back to sleep and have an American dream!

Tim Murray
January 2, 2012

Cf. The National Survey of Pandemic Awareness and Attitudes October 28-31
http://www.ecohealthalliance.org/sup/downloads/EcoHealth%20Alliance%20Survey.pdf

Thanks to Emily Spence for bringing this survey and article to my attention through
http://www.ecohealthalliance.org/sup/downloads/EcoHealth%20Alliance%20Survey.pdf

(Photo courtesy of Gallery of Beltway Schmoozers and Useless Tits)

Robert Engleman
Know-it-all
World Watch Institute
Washington, CP (City of Players)

Are you vexed by human population overshoot? Is 7 billion too much for you? Well you have come to the wrong place. If you want to find help to reduce our population from 7 billion, forget it, because we have already resigned ourselves to 9 billion. But if you want to settle for Plan B, then call our Help Line.

Call 1-800-LESTERBROWN

Voice mail recording:

“Hello, welcome to the World Watch Institute Help Line. All of our representatives are currently busy boring people on the Washington cocktail circuit with bland and ineffectual palliatives to overshoot so that the problems they are hired to solve remain unsolved. Please stay on the line because although your call is not important to us, your donation sure as hell is. We accept Money Orders, Visa or Mastercard and but not any criticisms of our underlying assumptions. However, criticisms of the Chinese One-Child-Per-Family Law which each year has saved humanity from an extra 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions are welcome.We are insistent that all human rights must be respected except the right of our species to survive this century if survival means violating our current cultural and ethical guidelines. Things are bad, but not that bad. Just because we have increased our population by nearly 250% in the last half century is no reason to believe that emergency measures are required to deal with our emergency. It's incrementalism or bust baby.

To receive our automated reply to all of your inquiries press 1 followed by the number sign....... You have dialed "1", The World Watch Institute Help Line For Those Looking For Politically Correct and Inadequate Answers To Human Overpopulation Whose Solution Can Only Be A By-Product Of A Social Justice Agenda as approved by a panel of Hartmanite Feminists, Eco-Socialists And Monbiotists Who Couldn't Care Less How Many People There Are.....

Hello, I'm Bob Engleman and welcome to the World Watch Institute’s Demography-For-Dummies-In-A-Nutshell line.

Here it is stupid----- all we want you to know. The Conventional Cant which if repeated often enough will convince polite company that nothing you think is dangerous---to them or their funding sources. Are you ready? Now repeat after me:

Educate women, educate women, educate women.......

Voluntary family planning, voluntary family planning, voluntary family planning........

Women everywhere want only two children, women everywhere want only two children, women everywhere will want only two children....

Stopping at two will do, stopping at two will do, stopping at two will do..........

Chinese methods are stupid and unnecessary, Chinese methods are stupid and unnecessary, Chinese methods are stupid and unnecessary........

If Kerala, Thailand and Bangledesh can do it, so can everyone else, if Kerala, Thailand and Bangledesh can do it, so can everyone else, if Kerala, Thailand and Bangledesh can do it, so can everyone else.........

The Demographic Theory of Transition is a fact, The Demographic Theory of Transition is a fact, The Demographic Theory of Transition is a fact............

Prosperity is the best contraceptive, prosperity is the best contraceptive, prosperity is the best contraceptive......

Sustainable development is not an oxymoron, sustainable development is not an oxymoron, sustainable development is not an oxymoron......

We must find a way to feed 9 billion, We must find a way to feed 9 billion, We must find a way to feed 9 billion......

The birth rate is dropping, The birth rate is dropping, The birth rate is dropping.....

Forget demographic momentum, forget demographic momentum, forget demographic momentum......

2 billion is sustainable, 2 billion is sustainable, 2 billion is sustainable.......And we can take our sweet time in getting there.......And we can take our sweet time in getting there....And we can take our sweet time in getting there......

Don't criticize Green Icons, they are on our side and above reproach......Don't criticize Green Icons, they are on our side and above reproach.....Don't Criticize Green Icons, they are on our side and above reproach........Spare your criticisms for the enemy......Spare your criticisms for the enemy.......Spare your criticisms for the enemy...

For further information, contact our foundation grant-makers who will supply you with all the politically correct solutions that we advocate to satisfy their stipulations.

PS If your concerns relate to climate change, please be advised that Bill McKibben can no longer be reached at 1-800-350.ORG . His new number is now 1-800-400.ORG because that was the only politically realistic number that he could negotiate at the present time. Note, he will not talk about over-population because it is irrelevant---all we need to do is find a way to "de-carbonize" an economy of 9-15 billion people. Appeals can be made to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund at 1-800-1SKY350.ORG

If you find the forgoing offensive and unfair, then please phone in your complaint to:

Tim Murray
1-800-GETSERIOUS

Hello, you have reached the 1-800--GETSERIOUS line. BTW, WTF are you playing at? This is not a drill. Repeat. This is not a drill. We are facing the end of our civilization and/or human extinction---get it? The politically possible is not the ecologically necessary. So make the necessary possible---- or get off the stage. Are you in it for the game---or the result? Then go with the science and let the political chips fall where they may. EFA doesn't tell half the story. It is not about renewables, it is about NON-renewables. Forget for a moment about bio-capacity and start thinking about carrying capacity, the precarious carrying capacity of a global industrial civilization enabled by a diminishing supply of fossil fuels, metals and minerals. Start thinking about how we shrink the population fast enough so that the per capita share of this shrinking resource base does not become so low as to trigger civil massive unrest and global conflict. Can't be done? Fine. Then stop shopping your green delusions and half-measures, shut up and let logic and hard numbers do the talking.

Gail Graham's 17 year old son, Jimmy, was brain injured when his car ran into a tree in Queensland. The accident was unwitnessed and Queensland has fault-based law and insurance for traffic accidents. Because Jimmy was too injured to say what had happened and no witnesses came forward, he was uninsured. You might expect that medicare would pick up his medical bills, and it did, but the care it subsidised was hardly care at all. In a sublimely logical response to an utterly absurd situation, Mrs Graham came close to murdering her son's doctor.


Gail Graham's 17 year old son, Jimmy, was brain injured when his car ran into a tree in Queensland. The accident was unwitnessed and Queensland has fault-based law and insurance for traffic accidents. Because Jimmy was too injured to say what had happened and no witnesses came forward, he was uninsured. You might expect that Medicare would pick up his medical bills, and it did. The problem was that the medical fraternity failed to recommend Jimmy for any significant rehabilitation and seemed to collude to neglect him so that he would die. Moving from Queensland to Victoria to be closer to his parents made little difference. His mother, Gail, who was a journalist, soon got the message that he was being allowed to die without ordinary rehabilitation services because he only had Medicare. Pure bad luck meant that he fell through the holes in the private accident insurance net and therefore was judged by a series of doctors to be too costly to treat and a drain on the public purse. His mother put Jimmy's pension away every fortnight until she had saved up enough to employ a private physiotherapist. The hospital tried to dissuade her from using a private therapist and pointed out the cost. When Gail told them that she had saved up his pension, they sent her a bill amounting to the total for the use of his hospital bed. Read on:

The End

"It was the end.

There would be no money for occupational therapy, no money for any therapy at all. The administrative officer had been right when she pointed out that occupational therapy cost far more money than the average family - or even the above average family - could afford. And that was just occupational therapy. What about physiotherapy? What about speech therapy?

Frantic, I rang the Mont park Brain Trauma Unit and asked to speak to Diane McLachlan. She'd helped Jimmy once. Maybe she could tell me what to do now.

Diane was sympathetic, and surprised that the hospital would actually do such a thing. But they were quite within their rights, she said. There was nothing she could do about it. There was nothing anybody could do about it. The best thing for me to do would be to stop fighting XX Hospital and either put Jimmy in a nursing home or take him home. Perhaps I could appeal to some of my local charitable organizations for help ...

You keep saying that there's nothing you can do! I screamed at her. Everyone keeps saying that there's nothing they can do! There's nothing the Health Commission can do! There's nothing the politicians can do! There's nothing the lawyers can do! There's nothing the media can do! The doctors can do anything they like and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them!

I'd finally lost control. But I couldn't help myself, couldn't stop myself. I just kept screaming at her.

What are you all so afraid of? I wanted to know. Why are you all so afraid? Doctor F. is afraid of Doctor H. and so are all the rest of you! Why are you all so afraid of Dr H.? I'm not afraid of Doctor H.! I screamed. I'm not! And I'll tell you what I'm going to do! I'm going to kill Doctor H.! I'm going to take a gun, and I'm going to go down to his house and wait for him to come home tonight, and then I'm going to kill him! And I' going to tell everybody why I killed him! I'm going to tell them that I killed Doctor H. because he refused to let my brain-damaged, eighteen-year-old son have any therapy at all, because he's letting my son die like an animal and because I can't stand to watch it any more! and then the media won't have to worry about defamation suits, because it won't be defamation. It'll be murder! There isn't a jury in Australia that'll convict me, and even if they do, all that will happen is that they'll say I'm crazy and lock me up for a couple of years. But Jimmy will get a bed in a rehabilitation hospital, and that's all that matters to me! Do you understand? That's the only thing that matters to me!

I was gasping for breath, almost choking. Diane was saying soothing, reasonable things, but I wasn't even listening to her. In the midst of that uncontrollable burst of anger and hysteria, I'd stumbled on the answer. I would kill DoctorH. And then I would tell the whole world exactly why I had done it.

I'd tell them what it was like to watch my son turn into a living skeleton. I'd tell them what it was like o watch his arms and legs fold up and become useless. I 'd tell them what it was like to beg for the most minimal maintenance physiotherapy, only to be told that he wasn't worth the effort. I'd tell them what it was like to look at his eyes and know that he understood everything that was happening to him. I'd tell them what it was like to be powerless to do anything but watch him die.

If I could tell my story to the public, Jimmy would get the care he needed. I knew that.

Georgina wouldn't approve of murder, but Jimmy was running out of time. He was dying. Already, he was little more than shriveled flesh and bone. He was so weak. All it would take was the slightest germ or virus or infection, and he'd be gone. He couldn't' wait for a miracle, and neither could I. [...]."

Gail Graham's book, Staying Alive HarperCollins Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd (June 1, 1985), ISBN-10: 020715189X
ISBN-13: 978-0207151897 is a very well written, readable work that grips you from beginning to end with its truth. The author paints a humanistic picture of the moral frailty of health profession teams and the unwillingness of any to break out from the 'just following orders' excuse for standing by and allowing unnecessary suffering. Her account is memorable because she also shows how professionals will not only stand by, but actively defend the indefensible.

The book was written in 1983 but nothing much in the way people with serious brain injuries are undertreated when their injuries occurred outside an insurable situation.

One thing has changed, however, and that is Australia's laws of defamation, due, as I like to point out, since it seems so surprising to many, to the intervention of that much hated 1990s Australian immigration minister, Philip Ruddock.

When this book was written, it was almost impossible to name names even if you had proof and truth on your side. In 1983 Australian defamation laws meant that you could be dragged into court and sued several times over for one document if a party objected to a term used more than once in that document. And it didn't matter if you had right on your side, if the other party had more money, they could drag the matter out and bankrupt you. In 1983 our defamation laws were so bad that even newspapers would not name doctors because it is relatively easy for a doctor to claim large sums in loss of livlihood if the public are alerted to a mistake. So Gail Graham, when she was writing, could only refer to doctors as DrH., Dr F., etc and to specific hospitals as X and XX hospital. If she had written today, with the evidence she had, she could name those doctors. I wish that she would republish and do so. They deserve to be named. Graham does name a couple of politicians, Mr Roper and Mrs Hill, both Labor politicians, describing how she approached them with detailed information and begging for help dealing with the hospitals and doctors in question, yet both Roper and Hill failed miserably to help her. They were not the only ones.

Gail Graham wrote a sequel, which I have not read but have ordered as an interlibrary loan. She has also written several novels and other books, including a biography of Chairman Mao. Her blog is at http://www.gailgraham.net/3.html, and she has just brought out a new novel, which is digitally available.

This article, which is a book review, is the first in a series we hope to invite contributions to, about brain injury. The Australian Government currently has a project to publicly insure all seriously disabling accidents, called the National Disability Strategy.

On 16 September 2010 I attended an unusually inspiring political and humanistic movement amid the half-deserted towers of Melbourne's sparsely populated but nature-poor Docklands. (Ed. Some small changes made on 22 Jan 2012 due to mistakes in transcription being picked up by a reader.)

Some mindboggling social and legal concepts about copyright and patents here. Take a look at this film if you want strong intellectual stimulation and a wild ride.

On 16th September 2010 I attended the Free and Open Source Software and Gnu/Linux users' conference. I hadn't had as much fun and political stimulation since an Indymedia day more than a decade previously about making digital movies. The two days had in common their political themes of digital democracy. There was so much to listen to and such great speakers and interactions and I took so many notes that my rendering of and publishing of this article was hopelessly delayed. In the end I concentrated notes from the first talk, on Free and Open Software, by Ben Sturmfels, and have had to give up on the idea of reporting on the equally interesting and stimulating workshops that followed it. Notable among these was one run by Kathy Reid who gave a more prompt report on the Open Day events along with a better account of who was who.

Digital Democracy gives ordinary people global power with local roots

Victorian Free and Open Software (FOSS) and Gnu/Linux Users (Linux Users Victoria - LUV) are in a position to organise politically and all vocal participants on this day (they were a chatty lot) seemed to share an intense social concern and responsibility.

FOSS/LUV et al is a group of people (men mostly) who are keen to reach out and have a lot to offer. Many people would call them 'nerds', and they are endearingly conscious of this, dutifully engaging in group self-consciousness, when they talked about attracting new people.

"How do we get our nerds who dress badly and don't change their shirts or wash to behave in a more socially acceptable way?" " "Can we make rules to say that a person cannot attend a conference two days running in the same shirt?"

Perhaps I am a nerd too, but everyone there struck me as unusually well-socialised, with relatively sophisticated social concerns about preserving community values, freedom etc. and tuned into a bunch of indicators, wondering what they all lead to. And so keen to get involved. JP Sartre would have been very jealous. And, another concern, "How do we attract women to our cause?"
Amazing!

Software Freedom Day is an annual event in Victoria. Every schoolchild and public servant should attend. Last year it was held at the state library in Swanston Street, Melbourne.

Much of the rest of this article is adapted from a talk by Ben Sturmfels, a free software developer who writes computer programs and gets paid to do it. Sturmfels is based in Melbourne. He spoke about software freedom day activism as well as about what free software is.

What is proprietary software?

The proprietary software business model is based around a software developer, whether they're a company or an individual, producing some software and then licensing it under a restrictive license to the person who gets to use it. Those licenses tend to apply restrictions on what you can do with the software. These might be something like, 'You may only be able to use this in an educational setting' or 'You may only use this for 30 days' or you might even be able to use it as long as you don't say anything against the company that wrote it. There are software programs that have license like that.

Other restrictions they tend to place on software are that you may not actually study the code it contains to see what it's doing. You cannot actually see what it's doing under the surface. You are not supposed to look at what it's doing in your computer. You may have no idea of what it's actually doing, whether it's connecting to the internet, or accessing you files or communicating with somewhere else.

That's a little bit worrying because most computers are connected to the internet all the time and we keep everything of importance in our files.

This is not just a concern with regard to personal computers but also for companies and government data bases in departments, services and utilities, including hospitals and traffic lights.

There is another problem with not being able to see what the software does or to look at its code, and that is that you are usually forbidden to modify the software. If the software has a bug in it or doesn't do what you need it to do, you are not allowed to fix it yourself. You need to take it back to the person who made it and get them to fix it. That's fine, as long as that person is still around and wants to fix it and you can afford to pay what they ask.

It's one of those situations where monopolies tend to occur. So you often find that there is only one company that will fix you proprietary item and, if they won't fix it, or you cannot afford to pay them you have to throw it away.

(Ed.An example of this is proprietary movie-editing software on digital movie cameras. You buy the digital camcorder, struggle with compatibility on your proprietary computer, then, just as you become adept at using it, after days spent editing and reediting a movie, it develops a bug, such as losing the sound. You go on-line with the problem and have to register and buy an upgrade that costs a lot and probably won't work with your next camcorder.)

Another restriction of a lot of proprietary software normally are rules on whether you can share it or not. Normally the restriction goes, "You may not share this piece of software with anyone." Essentially what is being said is, "You can use it on you computer, but you can't give a copy to a friend who might like a copy." And you can't donate it to a school or something like that.

So, those are four restrictions that are normally placed on proprietary software.

Proprietary software is also described as 'non-free' software because you don't have the freedom to do these useful things.

What is Free Software?

Let's now contrast 'proprietary software' with 'free software', where the idea behind it is that you can do all of these things.

You can look at the software to see what it's doing. You can use it to do anything you want. You can modify it to suit your needs and you can also share it with other people.

It's probably important to point out that the expression, 'free software' can be confusing because we use 'free' for a number of things, including 'free of charge'. In this case, Ben explains, we mean 'free' as in 'freedom', 'free as a bird'.

Free Software Background

Richard Stallman began a movement. He worked in MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Artificial Intelligence labs and found he was more and more restricted by the software he used. He had grown up in a software tech culture where sharing was just the way it was. The software didn't come with restrictions on it. Software was just software and if you were a programmer, you could modify it; or you could get someone else to modify it for you if you couldn't do it yourself.

More and more he began to see companies trying on this proprietary business model, trying to restrict what people could do with their software. This was around 1983. He started this project called the GNU project. You may have heard of it. The project was to build a free software operating system. Start from scratch and build it with these free software values built into it - the ability for people to use it for anything - to study or modify it to suit their needs and to share it and to share their modified software.

It took a little while and in 1985 he started a Free Software Foundation as a non-profit group to channel funds into the project and manage its direction.

After a few years they built a whole load of really useful free software, such as compilers and debuggers, terms which may mean little to you if you don't write software. Basically they are little pieces of all the operating system. They built most of the operating system, but they still had one part they needed and that was the kernel that coordinates all the programs your running, that tells them to take things in turn. They found that in the kernel Linux in around 1991.

It's come a long way since then but it's still pretty young in the scheme of things.

The situation we have now is the Gnu system or Gnu/Linux or just as Linux.

Some of the parts in free software are the best that's out there. The fastest, the most reliable, the cheapest often. Often, whilst free software means 'freedom' it's often free of charge as well. It is actually the envy of a lot of software companies now, this free software can be plugged into all kinds of things. For instance your own browser may be free software (e.g. Mozilla) and your on-line telephone. Things like that.

It's all really exciting at the moment. It's really starting to broaden its reach. The other aspect of that though is that, as it becomes more entrenched in the general culture, the values of the system start to be a little more in doubt. Without "Open" days like to day (celebrating the meaning of 'free software'), we tend to somehow lose some of these values.

For instance, some of the problems we see include where free software operating systems originally designed as such, these bugs creep in - the bugs being that they have non-free software elements, including such things as drivers for video cards, and plug-in things for Firefox and things like Adobe flashplayer and things like Skype, the telephony program.

This is kind of unfortunate because you have this free software and then non-free components have been added, actually devaluing the original philosophy of it.

So, that's just about my summary of free software in itself.

I would like to add that it's actually important that we talk about gnu-plus linux o gnu/linux as the name of the operating system, rather than just linux. There are a few reasons for this and some people have different reasons. The thing I think is most important is that the people who write the Linux kernel software don't tend to talk about freedom as an issue. They are actually agnostic to that. If they publicly stated their views, they are not really that concerned about freedom as a general issue.

By adding the word 'gnu' out the front, so GNU+Linux or gnu/Linux, we actually add the philosophy of gnu to this word, when we are spreading it around.

Whilst we are all free to do what we want, please consider using the terms gnu plus linux or gnu slash linux.

Free software Activism

Work on software patents gives one an interest in seeing how these sorts of things happen. One does not tend normally to think about it, but how did the Women's Rights movement happen and how did the Environmental movement happen? These have impacts on what we are trying to do because 'activism' is really just ... it's people wanting to see positive change in the world and actually stepping up and giving it a go. It's interesting to look at some of the techniques people have used to do this and to try to apply that to free software activism.

It is really interesting to see how free software has been promoted in the past and how it has grown because no-one could deny the major success of this system and the free software movement because, from nothing twenty-eight years ago, we now have a fully free operating system, which is just incredible.

The Amazing Richard Stallman

The large corporations take decades to build these sort of things and the community and people stand all over the world and built this operating system. People often criticise the free software movement and people in it such as Richard Stallman, because he is incredibly intelligent and logical, which makes him a fantastic programmer, but people can sometimes find him a little bit abrasive because he's less tolerant of people who don't understand what he's talking about. He doesn't go for the social graces that maybe people are used to often when someone's explaining something that they don't understand. If you've attended one of his talks, people come away feeling really angry and frustrated about this whole thing because it criticised something they in themselves believed and didn't find him to be a ... Well, if you go on line and listen to one of his talks on you-tube, for instance, you may see what I mean. The question time is quite interesting and the short answers for questions. And I think about ... is that the right way to do it? Because you're putting people off who are just interested in learning about the project. And then I think, well, maybe it's not perfect, but it's certainly worked. Like he built this operating system. He's done it in a way that most of these social movements couldn't do. Like most of these social movements are based around changing people first and then changing the world, but, with free software, he's gone and changed the world underneath us all.

He's built this free software operating system. Now the world just has to catch up. That's not to say it's him on his own at all. Certainly not. There are a lot of other people involved.

We are at a point where some of these other movements are really quite interesting. We may be getting to a point where there is an educational phase in free software, because we have this mostly complete free software operating system now.

Ben described how he works as a software developer and in the course of that he does graphics, music and other things. He says that, although free software doesn't do everything and often does some things particularly poorly, it does everything I need. It plays most of the videos I want to watch now. The web and the multimedia sphere has flourished with developments in video formats being released and new browsers coming along. These are really exciting things.

He suggested that We're getting out of "this lock-in with the Adobe flashplayer and things like that," suggesting that Adobe flashplaye was mostly only used for video these days and that hardly anyone would bother using it fo animations now.

He has been using his free operating system every day for all his work and everything else he needs to do on the computer for about five years.

That indicated to him that we have reached a stage where we can use the operating system without much mucking around. He remarked that he had certainly spent quite a lot of his time mucking around with free software in the past, ut he feels now that most of it is so good that these times are now past.

The Ride to School program

Ben talked about the Ride to School Program, which is a group about healthy change for kids, getting them involved in healthy lifestyles, such as walking to school or riding a bike after school, and things like that. He said that this is the kind of the behaviour-change step he felt that the free software community were at.

The free software community are at the point where their activities are focused on bringing the notion of and availability of free software into the minds of the wide community.

A good start to this was open source and free open source software days like this one, where he was speaking.

He remarked on how interesting it is to see the things that people are making in cyberspace these days, such as 'hackerspaces' and 'Arduino' projects. The rise of such things where you can actually do things yourself, without needing to go and buy it from somewhere and use it for its one purpose then throw it away. You can actually make [cyber]things yourself.

It helps the free software movement for people to understand that they can do that with... their phone ... or they can change their little robot... Their mindset changes. They realise that everything isn't set in stone by proprietary software. With twenty years of proprietary software, they've got into this idea that everything is just as it is sold. No, don't touch it or it won't work anymore. And, make sure you get your virus updates from people who supply virus updates and everything will be okay.

The world really has changed beneath us. Education about free software will take a long time. It may be decades before the general populace understand some of these issues, but it's really about just being persistent and that's what activism is about. It's about having a long term view of these things.

Suggestions about activism.

One of the tricky things about free software we find in Australia is that most of the action that we see on the internet and in the news is in the U.S. and it feels a long way away. You can feel quite disconnected, even lonely, in software.

This was one of the reasons that Ben started a group in Melbourne, Australia to talk about free software. He said that they do some political things from time to time, but often it's just hanging around talking about some of these issues because it's actually nice to talk with another human being about it. Reading about it on the internet and watching videos isn't quite the same.

Open days like this one were where it is really at though, for building a community.

It is important to live according to your own values. There are a lot of people trying to push their values on to other people and it is really important that the audience understand that Ben was not telling them, "You must use a free software operating system for your work." That was a conclusion they needed to come in themself if they wished to, to be comfortable in themself. If that is the conclusion you come to, then you probably should go home and use a free software operating system, despite what your brother o your friend might say. You need to do whatever makes you happy. And that applies to everything - not just free software. You need to be confident in your own opinions to be happy.

Speaking at an event like this is the easy route - preaching to the choir.

But the really hard thing is to go and talk to other people where our views might conflict with theirs, but the good thing about having a whole lot of people is that people respond really well to people who they feel are the same as them and have similar opinions. We can each try to educate the people we mix best with, who are likely to trust our opinion.

You do, however sometimes need to step outside your comfort zone and talk to people who may initially disagree. Free software is actually a mindshift because it's just so heavily drummed into people the way proprietary software is. People use emotive words like "piracy" and "hacker" to make non-proprietary software seem really negative. I'm not saying that copyright infringement is a good thing. You should not infringe copyright.

Ben said that it's often really difficult to talk to close family and friends. Let them love you for who you are if they aren't receptive to your interest in open software.

Comments from the 'audience'

The 'audience' is highly participatory in this talk.

One comments that it is important to go and find a community where you can resonate and strengthen yourself.

Another audience member describes how his aunt and his mother were terrified of computers, having had a bad experience with one where their computer was set up in such a way that it took hours to even open their first program, but, at their request, he installed Linux and they were much happier with their system afterwards.

Another member of the audience asks Ben if he thinks in the long run there will be an innate technical advantage to open source software. He talks about how ten years ago Open Office was a little bit clunky, although it had most of the function present, but of course, now, there seems to be no reason whatsoever for a person to use proprietary software like Microsoft Office. He added that the early Gnu-ey interfaces fo Linux were not always very accessible, but today you can introduce complete novices to Linux and they will find that the work involved is actually less than in the proprietary operating system. It made him think that the speed of improvement in opensource software is faster than the speed of improvement in proprietary software. He said that this led him to hypothesize that there is actually a technical inevitability... that there is something in the way that opensource does things that means that you actually cannot lose in the long run.

Another member of the audience responds by saying that this is probably true in relation to specific versions like mysql. He had read a book which suggested the idea might be true.

Ben introduced the idea that an important kind of activism is to donate you own time to promote a cause. Another thing that could be extremely beneficial was if you had a good job and enough money to do the things you need to do, giving financial support to some sort of activism is often one of the best things you can possibly do. There are a lot of people around helping who lack funds to do these sorts of things.

The Free Software Foundation

Ben gave the example of the Free Software Foundation as worthy of peoples' consideration if they were interested in donating money. He said that those assembled heard about them all the time. They had done so many campaigns that free software movement people were aware of and they were in the news and provided speakers who came round the world to talk to people. People might be surprised to hear that there are only have about ten people in their office - a tiny little non-profit group.

He was telling us this to give us an idea of how much they did without very many financial resources.

"One of the best things, if you so chose, would be to become a member and give some money to them. That would actually be very beneficial. Likewise giving money to any other free software project."

Keep positive because we have this fantastic free software operating system out there and we just need to tell people about it.

More remarks from the audience.

Richard Stillman has made people very aware of the fact that all Linuxes are not equally free.

"A lot of social movements like free software are somewhat of a journey. So people might start dabbling in free software and using maybe Ubuntu or something that's very user-friendly and accessible. That's fine. It's good. But it's also good to have people at the other end, like Richard Stallman, who are pushing towards an entirely free software. We need to recognise the value at both ends of the spectrum."

A response it that Richard Stallman's attitude is admirable. He even refuses to use some websites because they contain non-free code.

"I work for an organisation and he wouldn't do the renewal on the website ... It's interesting particularly because he recognises that it asks your computer to download software and run it off your computer...."

"Yes."

"And he says, 'No, I don't want your free software running on my computer..."

"No, no, actually...I admired that!"

"He's certainly consistent!"

Murmurs of approval.

"It's worthwhile pointing out that that's one activism technique. Polarising the debate and saying, 'This is okay. No, this is not okay. And here is the line...."

"He's a great role model."

"But, the phones I've been convinced by some friends to buy, in my pocket. It's not running free software. What do I do. What rights do I have with that software on this device that I supposedly own?

I recently upgraded from a phone that's seven years old - obviously there were no free software operating phones at that time - to an android phone. But, because I see myself moving along that continuum, I'm now running an operating system that's a whole lot more free than it used to be. I'm not there yet, ut so long as I only move forward, I consider that progress."

Another voice: "There are some areas that have an enormous way to go before satisfying free software. The graphics design area is a blatant example because, as somebody studying graphics design, it's virtually impossible to use things like Gimp, things like Photoshop and Adobe products are set in the course as a compulsory tool and the problem with something like Gimp is the Pantone proprietary colouf scheme is just something you've got to have for professional work and there is progress that some people want to see towards an open colour scheme ..."

"That's a separate issue," says someone else. "I think that's ... I don't consider Richard Stallman an extremist. But I believe he has actually missed a political tool. If you are going to expound a philosophy and you say, okay I'm willing to make a concession and that concession you make is essentially, [to say that] yes, the other side does have a valid point. [...]

"You say in 20 or 30 years down the track there's going to be a shift, but I reckon that if there is going to be a fundamental shift, it's going to catch everyone off-guard..."

"I guess that because there is the software out there that the change is already en route. I mean, we are not trying to play catch-up with building the infrastructure. The infrastructure is already there."

"There does need to be more support available so that people can ring up and ask for help with problems. As slowly the business model grows. Not quite viable yet."

"I really appreciated your point that, unlike other social justice movements, we're in the interesting position that we don't have to anymore convince people to build this stuff. There's already a huge amount of people building this stuff, particularly to improve it. So we can say, 'Here's something really useful and here's why it has been built."

"I think I would like to modify [what you have said] a little bit because I think we still need to convince corporations that it's a good idea... and professionals ..."

"Yes, we are no longer in a position where no-one is doing this..."

"Yes, we are trying to move everyone toward it. There's a whole lot of people already there and so, let's go join those people."

"Another thing is that if someone doesn't want to give money another way you can help is get onto mailing lists and answer peoples' questions..."

"Yes, that's extremely helpful."

"I see a lot of people with proprietary software be surprised that the support with free software is actually better than what's available with proprietary software ... people transitioning from having to call Microsoft and realising the forums for open source are actually providing better support in a lot of cases than paid support."

"It's important that non-technical people go out and tell people about the software as well. Because it's not just about developing the software, it's about people knowing it exists out there, to work from the software and knowing how it fits a particular need."

"I think there is scope to promote free software to other people who are interested in the [same] values, like the Environmental Movement and other Social Justice movements as well, cause in many ways it fits quite nicely with the values that people hold with those movements."

"Often they're going to make that jump quite easily."

"Yes. And it is quite an easy jump to make depending on the kind of software that you need to run. Promoting the values as well as the technical stuff. And it also helps to disperse the stereotype of the geeky Linux guy, which I admit I held until I got to know the community better." (Girl linux user speaking)

Editorial comment: We need Open Source Automobile software

Does it exist? Remember when every third male and some females tinkered with their own cars, stripped them down, greased them, replaced parts, tuned them ... all in the back yard? Aside from the fact that backyards are going extinct due to artificially induced population pressure, cars have become so proprietorially automated, that no-one who doesn't have $20,000 of brand-specialised electronic service equipment can fix them. Where we should be maintaining and improving old cars, built to last, we are fast being forced to commute in small automated plastic bubbles with rapid built-in obsolescence that hold us to ransom with their tuning, parts and service because we don't have the right or the equipment to fix them ourselves.

This is an industry and a social situation where opensource software is sorely needed.

Resources

Hack Melbourne, an enthusiastic group of hardware hobbyists and/or software programmers in Melbourne, Australia.

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Melbourne Free Software interest group

Melbourne's environment is steadily deteriorating as rapid population growth continues but some are insulated by wealth against the effects of this.Article first published January 1, 2012 but republished after site damage on January 6, 2012. I had over 100 reads when it was lost.

In city and suburbs trees fall victim to greed,
Backyards are demolished for a so called need
Of people awaiting all our precious spaces
And we give them up and then turn on the *races.

Our surroundings decline as we stand by and watch

And try to explain it in terms in terms of *“hop scotch”
“If you move to there these ones can move in
Then cover your garden, it’s no longer a sin.”

We think ourselves rich but sometimes we wonder
When our Bay is “un-swimmable” after rain, hail and thunder,
Was it like this when we were all kids?
The Melbourne environment is now on the skids!

But to our weekenders, some of us go

To beaches and sun or to ski in the snow
It still seems to the lucky ones everything’s dandy,
While for the rest of the people there’s little that’s handy.

“Have you heard of Peak Oil ?” I hear someone say,
“No problem” ‘s the answer, “Make fuel out of hay!”
“There’s plenty of growth still there in the system,
It’s elastic, you know- build ‘em higher and list ‘em

On domains that take in the populous places
I care not about problems that everyone faces

When too many people chase scarce flats and houses
I’m content with my mansion and grey suit and trousers.”

*"races" broadcast horse racing in Australia a favorite diversion from anything serious.
*"Bay"-Port Phillip Bay, the shallow lake like sea that get's filled with ordure, a danger to health when it rains heavily.
*"hop scotch"-Old children’s game where players move around different parts of a diagram drawn into the ground

A German animal liberation group slip into a pig-farm and give the pigs a nice Christmas. (Film) Originally posted on 1 January. by Jan 4 it had over 150 reads. Reposted January 6th after loss due to site damage.

Twas the day before Christmas and the silence was deafening of billions of animals locked away in factory farm sheds, laying on concrete blocks and unable to turn around, in agony awaiting their slaughter for the insatiable appetite for meat.

This group prepares fruits and veggies and sneaks into a factory pig farm in Germany. You can see that many of the pigs are unsure of what to do with the fresh food as they have never had it before.
These exceptional beings living in filth--doomed to a hell.

When humanity stops these atrocities towards our fellow creatures, only then will this time of year be a "celebration and peace to all"

Below are two films which show what life looks like for pigs in their native habitat. What a contrast.

For the Animals

Jaylene Musgrave
Vegan Warriors

On the brink of new year it is tempting to think about our financial situation in the months to come

On the brink of next year we wait apprehensive
For what will befall us and power expensive,
We think it’s our due to turn lights on with abandon
We’ve always done this in Carlton or Cranbourne

A financial crisis may come again
It’s a shame we don’t know quite how or quite when,
We hang onto our shares and still listen credulous
To financial “gurus” with notions so nebulous.

Of how endless growth will fulfill our need,
For amassing a fortune by thought, word and deed
To support our retirement that’s not going to happen
We’ll need an alternative else we’ll be caught nappin’

The task is impossible one hapless man says
To his realistic client who usually says “yes”
“I know” says the client, “there’s no growth to be had.
When there’s not enough oil, things have to be bad!”

“It’s the point we have reached I’m afraid to say
And I’ll get the sack for telling you today
I’m supposed to shut up and pretend that it’s good
And all will rebound and put us back in the mood.

Of investing our money, trusting everything rises
And patience will win us financial prizes.
But those days are over both you and I know it
We reap what we do and we know we have sown it.

So free and so easy we took what was on offer
It’d ever been thus and we knew no other.
It wasn’t our fault; we’re but cogs in the wheel
But we know know our *“party” had an amazing feel.

It’s over I know it and here is the crunch,
What will we do in future for dinner or lunch?
Old age isn’t easy and worse in the unknown
World of depleted resources and with crowds overblown.

Twenty twelve is a mystery as we turn over the page
Of Twenty eleven in its final stage
A doomer or gloomer will see our backs to the wall
The rest will not worry, no not one bit at all!

*For more about the "party" see "The Party's over" by Richard Heinberg.

"Common Dreams" is one of the plethora of so called "progressive" organizations that masquerade as grassroots movements of opposition to the corporate agenda---except that part of the corporate agenda which is most vital to corporate ambitions: the unfettered movement of capital and PEOPLE across borders. Apparently, to be "progressive" in America is to support the displacement of indigenous workers or the suppression of their wages through the relentless flow of cheap imported labour---legal or illegal. It is an attitude common to even to those in the Occupy movement . Such is the perverse mentality of a generation that has been fed a sanitized version of history purged of the anti-immigration sentiments expressed by icons like Caesar Chavez, black Congressional Rep Barbara Jordan and the founder of Earth Day, Democratic Senator Gaylord Nelson. Forty years ago, a progressive was someone who understood that population growth was bad news for both for the environment and the working class. Today, like so many other words, it has come to mean something entirely different, and the cause it serves has become obsessed with fund-raising.

Dear Common Delusions:

So "we need each other", do we?

Maybe you need me, but I don't (expletive) need you and your open-borders gospel.

Why don't you respond to my emails? Cat got your tongue? Or could it be that you haven't got any answers, or any justifications for supporting the corporate agenda---that is----the free unfettered movement of capital AND PEOPLE across borders. Your brand of "progressivism" is a JOKE. Trouble is, I stopped laughing decades ago because I heard the punch line 500 times before. Moreover, the joke is in bad taste because the environment bears the brunt of it.

Shock me by actually replying to my emails. Am I talking to a machine or a brick wall?
How many of your solicitations must I reject before you stopping shaking your tin cup at me?

What that reader in California---that guy on social security who praises you for your outstanding job in ignoring the elephant in the room----really needs is not "Common Dreams" but common sense------ an organization which will stand up against amnesty, the Dream Act and the deliberate unenforcement of federal immigration law. Does half of Mexico have to move to California before this 'progressive' reader you refer to understands that MORE PEOPLE=SMALLER PER CAPITA SLICES OF THE RESOURCE PIE? It is obvious that you are not going to help him reach this understanding. Your focus is on the equal and fair division of that pie. News flash---- the pie is shrinking and your recipe ----"social justice"----will not sustain everyone indefinitely.

You complain that Republican Congressmen and Senators are in denial about climate change. Why are you in denial about overpopulation? How can you achieve a sustainable America when you turn a blind eye to rampant ongoing population growth? There are 100 million more consumers in the United States now than there were when Nixon left office. Do you think that the country can absorb another 100 million in the next forty years and still reach that progressive utopia you dream of?

Get real.

I don't need you because we already have enough money-grubbing green-left NGOs on the landscape to soak up our dollars and aggressively misinform us.

Try finding a niche that no one else fills. Try being the first "progressive" entity to tell progressives the truth about limits. Try telling them that confiscating the wealth of the 1% would only provide temporary relief and respite from the remorseless rise in the underlying resource costs that will shrink the economy and shrink the budget for all the entitlements you think are our birth right. Try replacing the dated rhetoric of the sixties civil rights movement with the language of hard numbers and logic. Try educating your readership with the instruction of Bartlett's 16 Laws of Sustainability and the insights of William Catton. Try teaching the fundamentals. Try telling them that it makes no sense to negotiate for the politically possible when what is required is the ecologically necessary. Half-solutions are not solutions. I get enough emotive sentimentality from Chris Hedges and his legion of clones and groupies. I don't need your green delusions and McKibbenisms.

There is another Californian who you need to hear from, but he's not on your subscription list: Sgt. Friday. Just give him the facts m'am. Just the facts.

Tim Murray

(Note: Sgt. Friday was the star of a weekly TV police drama, set in L.A., called "Dragnet". His trademark expression---when interviewing victims and witnesses --was, "Just give me the facts m'am, just the facts.")

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 30/12/2011 10:02 AM, Common Dreams wrote:
> Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
>
> December 30, 2011
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> It’s a fact: our readers sustain us.
>
> Two days ago, I received this nice note from a reader in California:
>
> “You do an outstanding job. Congrats and thanks. Keep it up. Unfortunately I am retired on Social Security. I need you more than you need me.”
>
> We need each other.
> We Can't Do It Without You!
> I know that many of our readers are unable to financially contribute right now. And that’s OK. We need to take turns taking care of each other.
>
> I really hate to ask our readers for contributions. But I know that if we didn’t ask for help, we wouldn't survive.
>
> And it’s the end-of-year gifts from our readers that sustain us through the year. Right now, with only 2 days left in 2011, we are $18,000 short of reaching our critical goal.
>
> Can you make a tax-deductible contribution right now?
>
> 2012 promises to be a turning point year. We will be here for you.
>
> And, with your help now, we will still be here for you when you are retired on Social Security.
>
> Contribute right now before our midnight deadline on December 31st!
>
> In gratitude,
>
> Craig Brown
> for the whole Common Dreams team
>
> P.S. Common Dreams is a 501c3 non-profit media organization. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible.
>
> Click above to make a tax deductible donation to Common Dreams. Or send a check to:
> CommonDreams, PO Box 443, Portland, Maine 04112
> Common Dreams is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Our EIN is 20-3368194.)
>
> Follow us on Twitter
> Find us on Facebook
>
> Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.
> Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.
>
> To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
>
> Home | About Us | Donate | Subscribe | Archives
>
> www.commondreams.org

HA NOI — Significant outcomes have been attained in curbing population growth in Viet Nam, with 18.5 million people lower than estimated by 2010, according to health officials. "Achievements of population activities have contributed much to spur the country's socio-economic development, realise Millennium Development Goals, and combat hunger and poverty."

Originally published as "Nation checks rising population," in the In the Vietnam News

Nurses care for newborn babies at Saint Paul Hospital in Ha Noi. For the past 40 years, the average number of children per woman has fallen from 6.3 to 2. — VNA/VNS Photo Huu Oai

HA NOI — Significant outcomes have been attained in curbing population boom in Viet Nam, with 18.5 million people lower than estimated by 2010, according to health officials yesterday.

The success was hailed at a ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the Vietnamese Population Day (December 26) in Ha Noi.

President Truong Tan Sang presented the first class Independence Order to the population and family planning sector for their achievements in national socio-economic growth.

The Ministry of Health statistics showed that during the period of 1960-2010, the average number of children for a woman of reproductive age had reduced from 6.3 to 2.0.

Life expectancy had increased from 40 to 73. Population growth rate also had reduced from 3.8 per cent to 1.05 per cent. The availability of contraceptive measures had increased the number of married couples of reproductive age.

Director of the General Office for Population and Family Planning Duong Quoc Trong said scientists had estimated that the population scale of Viet Nam would reached 105.5 million in 2010. In fact, the country population was 87 million last year.

"Achievements of population activities have contributed much to spur the country's socio-economic development, realise Millennium Development Goals, and combat hunger and poverty," said Trong.

However, Health Minister Nguyen Thi Kim Tien said, Viet Nam was facing problems in handling emerging issues in population activities such as the difference in birth rate between regions, areas and provinces nation-wide, the imbalance in gender at birth and low population quality.

The health ministry reported that the imbalance of the sexes at birth has been at an alarming level where the sex ratio (the number of males per 100 females) at birth had increased from 110 in 2006 to 111.9 in 2011.

The rate of new-borns with congenital deformities also was on the increase. Situation of early marriage and in-breeding in some ethnic and minority groups were problems causing race degradation.

"An intervention plan should be programmed to actively control the population growth rate due to increasing demands of family planning," stressed Tien.

Tien said that intervention measures should be brought forwards faster with an aim to improve population quality and control population growth rate and unbalanced sex ratio in Viet Nam.

Closely collaboration between ministries and sectors was needed for the perfection of law and the regulation system on population and family planning and implementation of the population and reproductive health strategy of Viet Nam during the 2011-20 period. — VNS

This article, by Frosty Wooldridge, is simply the best damn summation of the human costs of the Iraq War I have yet read. IMHO, Wooldridge is the best writer in the business. He has three things going for him. A firm grasp of reality, a command of the facts, and the creativity to write about them---- driven by the rocket fuel of rage and passion. Say no more. Tim Murray

This month, our combat troops of United States military withdrew from Iraq after nearly a decade of killing 100,000 Iraqi citizens of all persuasions, being murdered themselves by insurgents who infiltrated past check points, thousands were killed or maimed by countless IEDs, and, as time plays out over 100,000 American combat troops are predicted to commit suicide from their brains being scrambled by the horrors of war. Thousands of marriages will fail and countless children will suffer the horrors of war as their fathers live in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome purgatory.

As to the first question of who won: no one. As to the second question of who lost: everyone. As to the third question of who got screwed: America’s military and America’s sons and daughters that served.

Of all the stupid, needless, meaningless and painful wars the United States has created, George W. Bush and the Military Industrial Complex, along with other war profiteers should be sent to prison for their lies, fraud and deception against the American people. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” will become the poster-phrase for our leaders lying, cheating and swindling the American people. George W. Bush cajoled, coaxed and coerced us into war with Iraq.

The German Nazi beast Hermann Goring said it 60 years ago:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Vietnam killed 58,300 kids, wounded 350,000 young men and created havoc across our country. It started our national debt into the trillions of dollars. It split families and it too was based on a lie: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Lyndon Baines Johnson the “reason” to massacre over 2.1 million Vietnamese in 10 years of war. No negotiation, no conversation, no attempt at understanding—just go in to Nam and blast them back into the stone age. Trouble was—they pretty much lived in the Stone Age in the first place. Because of his sickening choice, Johnson died of depression and a very sick and sad man the last years of his life. He actually “got it” as to what he did. It will be interesting to see if former President George W. Bush ever “gets it” as to the astounding amount of death and horror he created. He may end his life inside a bottle of booze where he started it.

From the war in Vietnam, I wrote a piece showing a doctor’s research whereby somewhere over 175,000 to as high as 225,000 American combat troops that left Vietnam in one piece, killed themselves from their emotional wounds from their service in Vietnam. The alcoholism and drug addiction from that war grew beyond imagination. It continues today in veteran homelessness, poverty, broken families, drug and alcohol use and nameless children that never enjoyed a healthy father.

The human misery that George W. Bush created in Iraq and Afghanistan may go much higher than 225,000 suicides of U.S. troops. If you start counting the human misery of 2.5 million Iraqi refugees and incredible displacement of their society, the human misery factor extends off the charts.

As you noticed this past week, the Sunni and Shiites are already bombing each other into more violence. One bomb in Baghdad killed 69 people and wounded over 100 others. Sectarian violence will continue.

Our “moment” (10 years) over there might be likened to a person sticking his or her hand into a bucket of water. While our hand remained in the water, the level of the water changed and we created cause and effect. When we withdrew our hand, it all returned to the same as before we left. As Richard Engel said to NBC’s Brian Williams on Friday, “Their sectarian violence is just beginning and will implode Iraq. Iraq’s President Maliki cannot control what’s coming.”

In other words, their endless tribal wars will re-convene. Which means, all our nearly $1 trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money will have gone for all the death and destruction—for nothing. In the meantime, our own country’s educational systems, infrastructure and cities crumble before our eyes.

Saddam Hussein was no more a threat to the United States than a baby in a sandbox 10,000 miles away. To remain in Afghanistan for 10 years defies logic, reason and common sense. If we are to be the police-nation of the world to bring all the dictators to justice, we would have to attack, occupy and dominate North Korea, China, Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan and two dozen other countries around the world. It’s absolutely absurd what we allowed the Military Industrial Complex to perpetrate on our citizens and our country.

But because we now support an all volunteer army, no one blinks at the deaths and costs. More disturbing, we spend more money on war than most of the rest of the world combined. In the meantime, we suffer 42 million functionally illiterate Americans, 46 million Americans living on food stamps, another 15 million unemployed and 13 million children living in poverty. We’re losing the middle class while our prisons house 2.3 million suffering souls. We have millions of foreclosures of homes for Americans and we can’t pay our teachers a decent wage while our schools fail.

When will this president address America’s rebuilding? When will this Congress “attack” America’s problems? When will Americans speak up for America’s future?

When will 535 members of Congress grow a brain, spine and conscience to represent peace, common sense and reason? When will we elect presidents that studied history, learned critical thinking and understood logic? When will America become an instrument of peace in the world?

If I were a betting man, some president in the future will “create” another war guided by the Military Industrial Complex that creates another generation of suicides, fatherless families, plastic legs, arms and PTSD military veterans. And the American people? Too apathetic to get off the couch to speak up against war!

Frosty Wooldridge

22nd September signs that Tony Burke is listening. WSCA had been lobbying Tony Burke for nearly two years to ensure guarantees in place that all of the promised $530 million conservation fund be spent within Western Sydney to protect bushland remnants promised as offsets.

Cautious optimism

On 22nd December, the Western Sydney Conservation Alliance (WSCA) cautiously welcomes the announcement today by Tony Burke that he will sign off on the Strategic Assessment of the Sydney Growth Centres. WSCA had been lobbying Tony Burke for nearly two years warning him not to rush in and sign off on the plan unless guarantees were in place to ensure that all of the promised $530 million conservation fund (the money promised to offset the destruction of 2000 ha of bushland within the growth centres) was spent entirely within Western Sydney protecting bushland remnants promised as offsets.

The NSW Government had been shifting towards raiding this $530 million conservation offset fund and spending up to 75% of it outside of Western Sydney in order to get more bang for its buck.

Tony Burke

"Tony Burke has listened to our concerns about this looming rip-off and has inserted new conditions into the plan guaranteeing that the entire $530 million fund would be spent in western Sydney. This may have saved thousands of hectares of rare bushland from the O'Farrell Government who intended to raid the $530 million conservation fund and spend it outside of western Sydney. The O'Farrell Government has a plan to increase urban sprawl in Western Sydney beyond development within the Growth Centres and that would have been made all the more easier if the majority of the $530 million fund disappeared from western Sydney.

Thanks to local Labor members

We specifically thank local Labor Members: Michelle Rowland, David Bradbury and Ed Husic for helping to stop this rip-off. They shared in our concerns about the inequity of the NSW Governments plans.

We believe the new conditions insisted upon by Tony Burke include that all the $530 million be spent in western Sydney and that only in exceptional circumstance could it be considered going off the Cumberland Plain to acquire offset lands. That exceptional circumstance would have to be approved by a new committee."

"That committee needs to be thoroughly transparent and it would be good if the community had a say in any decisions."

Growth Centers remain on-course for environmental disaster

"We must not lose sight though that the Sydney Growth Centres is an environmental disaster that will clear about 2000 ha of endangered woodland including about 9% of all remaining Cumberland Plain Woodland. So this announcement, whilst promising much in terms of a future conservation fund, also heralds the destruction of large areas of western Sydney's irreplaceable natural heritage"

Comments: Geoff Brown President WSCA - 0431 222602 www.wsca.org.au

Media Release
Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc

22nd December 2011

Growth Centres Plan go ahead by Tony Burke
Federal Government rescues bushland from O'Farrell Government

Santa is feeling the pressure of increased work as population and density of housing in cities increases. He sympathises with the nurses.

‘Twas the night before Christmas and Santa was stressed
His elves overworked but doing their best,
To keep up the good work which grew more and more
To satisfy children entitled by law,
To a visit from Santa on December 24
Down steep sooty chimneys and then out the door.

“There're too many houses and too many toys
To make and distribute to girls and to boys!”
Cried the elves overworked to skin and to bone ,
Stressed out of their brains while they talked on the phone,
Of how to deliver those millions of presents
When the moon on that night would be only a crescent

And since their last trip,10 million new houses
Awaited delivery of toys and of blouses,
They knew from last year the work had expanded
Crafting millions more toys e’er Santa landed
Back at the north pole from his twenty ten orbit,
Which took him so long he was candidly morbid

Crying “How can they ask for more work each year?
Productivity improvements come very dear
To us in our workplace we cannot do better
Please think of our health and do not send letters!
There’s too many of you and too few of us,
Our reindeer hang in there and don’t make a fuss

But when they look for a house and then they find eight.
Poor Santa gets worried as he’s running so late!
Those planners and pollies do not think ahead,
Not even to the night when their kids go to bed
Expecting one man to come to ever more homes
With wonderful trinkets and be-jeweled combs."

"It’s all very well for them and for theirs
I now have to climb all those millions of stairs!
I’m not getting younger and neither are they
But their superannuation will save the day.
Like all those dear nurses, I love what I do
But pressure from others just stuffs me up too.”

It is typical of the English speaking world that governments that pretend to be democratic, use planners to ride roughshod over the rights of citizens. Here is something from Los Angeles: "In the name of updating its zoning code, Los Angeles is on the verge of overriding community plans across the city by carving out "overlay" neighborhoods in which city employees can approve — by decree and without a hearing or Environmental Impact Report — residential and commercial projects of far greater density than now allowed."

"Future Shock"
By L.A. Weekly
published: January 20, 2011

"Our website comment section lit up last week after Steven Leigh Morris — surely the Earth's only combo theater critic and growth-and-development specialist — wrote about the city's attempt to quietly push through a major planning change ("L.A.'s Church of Our Holy Density," Jan. 14). In the name of updating its zoning code, Los Angeles is on the verge of overriding community plans across the city by carving out "overlay" neighborhoods in which city employees can approve — by decree and without a hearing or Environmental Impact Report — residential and commercial projects of far greater density than now allowed. Commenters are of two minds. Some think opponents of the code revisions fail to recognize that Los Angeles will continue to grow and must prepare for higher density. Others see the revisions as a power grab by the city and developers that mostly cuts the public out of the process.

Reader Rick Abrams writes: "These zoning changes have one goal — to hasten the mega-densification of Los Angeles. Council President Eric Garcetti's and Councilman Tom LaBonge's New Hollywood Community Plan calls it Vertificalization. The Prop. X — Inventing the Next L.A., to which the article referred, called 'yards' a waste. They wanted apartments in people's backyards. They also proposed building Public Housing Projects over all the wide medians along various L.A. streets. They see this green space as waste."

More of this article here.

Wednesday 21st December 2011 - press release from Kelvin Thomson, MP.
You can reply here and you can reply on Mr Thomson's blog.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, with the exception of Singapore, during the last 5 years Australia ran far and away the biggest per capita migration program in the world – 11.1 migrants per thousand people per year. After us came Italy, with 6.7, Canada 6.6, Sweden 5.8, Hong Kong 5.1, the United States and the United Kingdom 3.3, and New Zealand 3.1. In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

I believe the Australian people are instinctively generous and good-hearted, but their tolerance has been stretched to breaking point by the quadrupling of the skilled migration program over the past 15 years, which has generated competition for jobs and housing and put pressure on family living standards.

As a consequence the debate about asylum seekers is very divisive. It is doing nothing for our sense of national unity and respect for each other.

We should not expect the Australian people to accept an increase in the refugee intake in isolation. It should be part of a package where skilled migration is cut by 50,000. There are many good reasons to cut our migration program, and one of them is that it is likely to lift public support for an increased refugee program, which I think it’s something we have to bring to the table when we are working with our regional neighbours on the asylum seeker issue. Furthermore the Australian people have said over and over that they think our migration level is too high, so cutting our massive migration rate is giving the Australian people what they want.

In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

Stable Population Party Australia has finalised its core values and posted them to their website. In 2012 they say that they will be calling for new policy suggestions that align with these party values. Take a look...

Philosophy, Objectives & Core Values

(Click here to go to the SPPA site.)
Australia has a rich tradition in migration and choice regarding family size. Long may this continue.

The Stable Population Party is made up of Australians from all backgrounds who support an ongoing, balanced and flexible migration program. We also reject government interference in decisions regarding family size, including offering irresponsible 'bonus' cash incentives for children. Responsible population policies are urgently required for Australia, in order to avoid draconian policies in the future.

Stabilising as soon as practicably possible will deliver us an optimum population target of around 23-26 million through to 2050. Australia's fertility rate, currently around two children per woman, and average life expectancy would largely determine the exact number. Population growth in Australia is a big problem but it is easy to solve, if our politicians have the courage.

Philosophy

The Stable Population Party is committed to a stable, sustainable, open and tolerant Australia.

Objectives

The key objectives of the Stable Population Party are as follows:

To stabilise Australia's population as soon as practicably possible, aiming for a population of around 23-26 million through to 2050; and
To provide leadership and support to other countries experiencing rapid population growth, so as to help them stabilise their populations, and thus help stabilise global population.

Core Values

To enhance the prosperity of all Australians, our children and grandchildren, and create a better quality of life for all, the Stable Population Party upholds the following core values:

1. Sustainable living

Australia should progress economically and socially using resources in ecologically sustainable ways to protect the environment and the natural world. The aim is wellbeing for all Australians, present and future, and to preserve the biodiversity of our ecosystems, with enough space and resources to live well and in balance with each other. A sustainable Australia starts with a stable population.

2. Egalitarian democracy

All individuals should have equal opportunity to take part in the democratic process. We are committed to honest administration that prioritises the public interest and does not pander to vested interests. Public policy should be based on objective evidence-based advice in light of wider social, economic, environmental, national security and cultural concerns. Importantly, we Australians must be allowed to democratically choose our own population size, mindful of our finite resource base and likely future global challenges.

3. Fiscal responsibility

Public finances and resources should be properly managed and accounted for, so as to ensure Australia lives within its means, without indebting our children and grandchildren or running down our environments. This includes properly accounting for the costs of population growth, like infrastructure, the depletion of our mineral and energy wealth and the growing impacts of our waste.

4. Global citizenship

Through partnership, example and assistance, Australia should help other nations to live well and plan their own future within their sustainable resource base. While welcoming our fair share of genuine refugees, we should acknowledge that overpopulation drives the resource scarcity behind most current conflicts and forced migration. By stabilising their populations through voluntary family planning and empowerment of women, nations protect their food security, improve infant and maternal health, maximise resilience to climate change, free up investment to build prosperity and avoid labour exploitation. All people should be able to live in peace and harmony in their homeland.

5. Productive innovation

We encourage innovation and sustainable development. In economic, environmental, social and cultural fields we advocate renewed investment in research, training and higher education. The aim is to support a skilled, productive and creative nation, allowing Australians to fulfil their potential.

Many people have chosen to limit their family size and in some cases even elected to remain childless, but in almost all cases, they have done so for personal, not ecological reasons. Is the notion that they would make those same choices in the interest of our collective well-being and survival as a species asking too much of them? Is it too much to ask of us to over-ride our genetic and cultural programming to procreate in the interests of a greater good? Perhaps it is. Perhaps the "mutual coercion" that Garrett Hardin talked about, the imposition of birth control laws, can never be "mutually agreed upon" on a scale that would produce meaningful results in the very short time frame we have to avoid disaster. The best people to ask are ordinary people. Would grandmothers choose a world with fewer grandchildren?

Nearly two years ago, I received news that there was a new addition to my family. My niece Gethsemane had just given birth to my "grand-nephew", Oliver. That morning, my friend Michael noticed that my face carried a different expression than was customary. It was a blend of expression of pride and sadness. As soon as I told him about the birth, Michael reflexively congratulated me, and when I confessed reservations, he was perplexed. "You should be happy!" he exclaimed. I tersely responded, "Why?" His answer was equally terse, and I think, profoundly revealing of our predicament. "It's renewal!", he proclaimed.

At that point I wanted to tell him the truth. I wanted to tell him that we were already getting 350,000 cases of "renewal" every day, that we are adding more than 150 people to our numbers every minute, and 200,000 every day---that's right----one city the size of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan every day-----and nearly 80 million every year. I wanted to tell him that were now more people being born every day than there are primates in the world. That we are pushing 50 other species off the plate every day, and pushing people in our own species off the plate every day in the competition for scarce resources. I wanted to tell him this, but didn't. I didn't because he was among those vast numbers of people who didn't even understand that there was a problem. So where could I begin, and when? Certainly not on a Tuesday morning when he was busy with so many errands.

I faced a similar situation later that month. My neighbour Peter announced that they had a new grandson. And not long after that, another neighbour, Rob, made a similar announcement. Both were bursting with pride. How could I dare to introduce the topic of overpopulation?

Now, earlier this week, I received a photo of my grand-nephew, Oliver, just a month shy of his second birthday, sitting on Santa's knee for the very first time. It instantly reminded me of my first time some 56 years ago. The memories are still vivid. As soon as I saw Oliver, my heart warmed with delight. My Malthusian beliefs were instantly overwhelmed by a raw emotional bond with this little guy. If that was my reaction, you can imagine how the rest of the people on the email list responded. They were, for the most part, grandmothers. People over 60. They all gushed at this cute young boy.

All of us on the list replied with our thanks for having been chosen to share this wonderful moment. But one of them responded to me as well. She was once my sister-in-law, now a 65 year old woman and grandmother of two. She noticed my email address, "gloomndoom". Like Michael, she was perplexed. What was there to be gloomy about? Doom? What doom? Am I depressed about something? Did a friend of mine die? Did I have a breakup with someone? Do I have a severe illness? Once again, I initially wanted to tell her the whole truth, but then I realized that now was not the time and place, and that it would take more than one conversation to make her understand why there was cause for gloom. I would need to walk her through a serious of mental decompression chambers. Telling her, from the outset, that she was a murderer, or that we were in overshoot by a factor of 100 would not likely secure her audience. She would more than likely take it as an insult from a madman. I am obviously deranged, or in the depths of clinical depression.

What lesson can I draw from the forgoing experiences?

Jack Alpert believes that we can build a grass roots "belief" consensus for RPD (Rapid Population Decline) by first targeting grandmothers. The kind of ordinary grandmothers who look at young children like Oliver and find in them a source of love, pride and hope. He thinks that you-tubes like the ones he has made can convince them to over-ride their natural preferences and come to accept the bitter medicine of RPD and very low fertility rates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lz5xKaBCSA To test his theory he has asked us for our input----people who have a much higher base-line of understanding than the grandmothers he hopes to reach. Whatever our reactions, Jack is testing the wrong market. He needs to run his stuff by some grandmothers.

That is why I have suggested that he develop three versions of one of his you-tubes. The mild, the not-so mild and the harsh-truth versions of overshoot. And that he select three focus groups of average grandmothers, and have each set of them view one of the versions and report their reactions. Each person tested would be required to respond in isolation of other viewers so that peer pressure was not a factor in the answers they gave. I think that by conducting such an experiment, all of us, including Jack, would get a much better handle on the "perception gap" between those of our ilk and the general public. I suspect that the results would prove quite sobering.

We know that we have our work cut out for us, but I think that it is very much more than the most pessimistic of us can really imagine. While many people can agree, on an intellectual level, that we are very much in overshoot, on a personal level, those very same people apparently find no reason not to get in on the party. We love kids and we love the idea of leaving a legacy. It's in our cultural and genetic DNA. It's the tragedy of the commons....

If RPD is the solution, or part of the solution, or part of a strategy which would mitigate the pain of our long and unstoppable descent from industrialism, then it might be asking too much of us. It might be that it is a sales pitch that can never be persuasive no matter how it is presented.

I like Jack's videos, but I am not the norm. I am not a grandmother.

Tim Murray
December 19/ 2011
Originally posted by Jon Cooksey at http://frogblog.howtoboilafrog.com/2011/12/7-billion-and-one.html
To learn about Jon Cooksey’s fast-paced, entertaining and informative documentary on our crisis, “How to Boil A Frog”, go to his site: http://www.howtoboilafrog.com

Go to youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc to find embedded YouTube Broadcast embedded above.

A search using the terms:

Republican Primaries

... confirms that Ron Paul's campaign to win the Republican Party preselection for US Presidential candidate has been blacked out by the international corporate news media.

No mention of Ron Paul is found until page 3. Stories currently listed on page 3 are as follows:

• Fed Up With Bias, Ron Paul Supporters Boycott Advertisers
  Fed up with a very overt strategic exclusion of Ron Paul during the coverage of the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary race, Ron Paul supporters are ...

• Ron Paul's Shot at Victory? Nolan Chart LLC
• http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/14/ron-paul-im-not-sure-i-have-the-stamina-for-a-long-primary/
• Ron Paul first choice for SD GOP, says poll? Daily Republic
• Examiner.com - Northern Voices Online
• ...

More than anyone else I can bring to mind right now, Max Hastings has demolished any possible view that the Second World War was not a ghastly tragedy for most people affected by it.

I think, however, that All Hell Let Loose fails to adequately address one of the most vital questions that should concern anyone who takes the trouble to study this war:

That question is, once the war began, could the leaders of the anti-fascist alliance -- Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, etc. -- have won the war more rapidly and with less bloodshed and destruction? Was it necessary for all of 60 million to die to rid the world of the evil that caused the Second World War?

Western allies war against Hitler needlessly prolonged

Even Max Hastings acknowledges that opportunities that the Western Allies had to rout the Axis armies in North Africa and Southern Europe were thrown away, , time and time again, by what he depicts as poor judgment or incompetence on the part of a number of generals[1] charged with running the ground war in North Africa and Southern Europe.[2]:

• General Montgomery's overly cautious pursuit of the German and Italian Armies following the British victory at El Alamein in 1942, which allowed them to escape;
• The failure of the Americans and British to stop German and Italian forces escaping from Sicily across the straits of Messina to mainland Italy in 1943; and
• The failure of the American and British to prevent the invasion of Italy by Germany after Mussolini was overthrown in 1943. (This is only touched on by Hastings.) Had the US with their vast air superiority simply bombarded the railway line at the Brenner Pass bordering Italy and Austria, there is no way that sufficient German forces to impose German rule could have moved into Italy.

I could add a number of other examples not raised by Hastings.

Had the British and American leaders acted more decisively, Germany's war machine would have collapsed in 1943, if not earlier, but it seems that Western governments found two more bloody years of war and destruction preferable to the collapse of the Third Reich.

Why?

Could it be that an unstated war goal of Western governments was for stable capitalist rule to be maintained? Had the German Army collapsed in Western Europe, popular Communist-led partisans who triumphed in Yugoslavia would have also triumphed in Italy, Greece and possibly elsewhere.

As it was the de-facto co-operation given by the Western Allied military to the Wehrmacht in its suppression of partisans in Greece and Italy ensured the triumph of right-wing forces, including many former collaborators in the Western sphere of influence. Stalin also contributed to the triumph of right-wing forces, through, for example, his cynical betrayal in 1944 of triumphant Greek communist partisans, whom he ordered to lay down their weapons before the British,

Need Eastern front war have been so costly?

A more vexing question is how the terrible bloodshed on the Eastern Front, in which the vast majority of lives were lost, could possibly have been reduced.

Surely, it should have been possible for Stalin to have offered Germany peace in return for reparations and punishment for the leaders who had caused the war and those German soldiers who had committed the worst crimes against Soviet citizens?

If that had been done, say, after the German offensive against Moscow was stopped in 1941, and Germans, who surrendered, treated humanely, then surely fewer and fewer Germans would have seen reason to continue to fight for Hitler.

Instead, the brutal conduct of the war against all Germans, with no realistic prospect of peace with dignity offered to them, ensured that most fought ferociously until the very end, making the toll paid by the Soviet Union much higher than it need have been. The brutal treatment of Eastern Germany by its Soviet occupiers after 1945 would have helped confirm in the mind of many former German soldiers that they were right to fight to the end.

Footnotes

1. I don't necessarily include General Eisenhower in this. He started the war as a relatively junior officer (Lieutenant-Colonel, I recall) and was promoted to Supreme Commander of the Western Allied armed forces because of his demonstrated ability. It seems that 'mistakes' which served to prolong the war, were made on a number of occasions by officers junior to him, including, in Sicily, by Patton and Montgomery. He may have had, at the back of his mind, his experiences in the Second World War, when in January 1961, in his departing speech as US President, after JFK had been elected, he warned against the "military-industrial complex".

2. I haven't yet reached the part of the book which describes the ground war in Northern Europe from June 1944.

Ideological gap or Generation Gap?

I recently received an email from an American conservative action group that caught my attention. It made a point that is similar to the one that I have been trying to make for some time now. That is, our inability to harness effective support for immigration reform is more reflective of a generation gap than an ideological one.

The "under 35s" live in a different world that we do. "We" meaning the largely computer-illiterate boomers. In fact, today's generation "gap" is arguably much wider now that it was in the fabled 60s. What accounts for this division? There are two variables at play, I think.

The One-Party Classroom

One is that colleges and universities have become what David Horowitz describes as the "One Party Classroom". Cultural relativism and historical revisionism form the undercurrent of almost every subject taught today, at least in the liberal arts. Two generations of students have been taught to believe that all cultures are created equal, that we do not have a legitimate made-in-Canada or made-in-America cultural identity deserving of protection, that ours is a nation of immigrants with no right to restrict the volume of newcomers, that our democratic heritage of free expression must be restricted to protect immigrants and minorities from 'hate speech', that affirmative discrimination (aka preferential hiring) is justified as a measure to fast-track such groups to coveted positions and that immigration driven-population growth has nothing to do with environmental degradation---we can have 'green growth'. This orthodoxy apparently cannot be challenged. Whereas once universities represented an oasis of free debate in a sea of societal repression, they now represent a training ground for the One Party State, a state that conceals its determination to grow our population and remake our culture in the corporate image by showcasing a fake pluralism of Tweedlee and Tweedle-dummer.

A generation that speaks a foreign language in a foreign medium

The second variable that accounts for this generation gap is digital technology. I believe it to be an even more decisive factor in creating the two solitudes than the classroom indoctrination I referred to. Younger people are speaking a language we don't understand and in a medium that we don't participate in---- or even comprehend. They speak MSN text language. Their messages are terse and rife with acronyms, and written with such impatience that no care is given to spelling or diction. It is as if they are all speaking on walkie-talkies---Roger,over and out. And the technology they use to say it is something out of Dick Tracy or Star Trek. No sooner are we introduced to it when it is superseded by another upgrade. Cell phones to smart phones. Emails to twitters. Our heads are spinning while the young take it in stride, and actually, even embrace it. What seems remarkable to us is that they seem to have an obsessive need to report every move and every thought at every moment. They don't seem to be able to tolerate silence or down time. I am certain that interaction with this technology has quite literally 're-wired' or re-structured their brains. The increasing need to interact with smart phones and computers is a chemical addiction. The human brain seeks balance, and has a mechanism to achieve it. Pleasure-enhancing dopamine receptors respond to an overload of pleasurable electronic stimulation by shutting down, forcing the tech-user to compensate by flooding his brain with even more stimulation. This accounts for the increased impatience which marks this digital generation. They are hooked to stimulation and more and more of is required to get the same fix. This is classic "down-regulation" at work.

We can't close the generation gap if WE don't change

The forgoing is not meant to be a condemnation of the younger generation---simply an explanation of what I believe to be an observable fact. So how does that affect us----the over-50s and 60s who want to impart what we think is important information that affects their future? We have two liabilities. Firstly, our message is not congruent with the world-view that they were taught in school. They have been taught to believe in "one world", a world without borders, and a Canada that is "Home to the World"---the slogan that was voted most appropriate and descriptive of our national mission by National Post readers. The idea that this country has a right to preserve both its cultural and natural heritage from the incursions of mass numbers of migrants is not only incomprehensible to them but outrageous. Secondly, even if we broke their programming and packaged our message in a way that would resonate with them, we would have to do it where they live----in the social media. But we are old dogs who don't want to learn any new tricks. We are not apparently interested in making you-tubes, holding demonstrations outside CBC headquarters, going to Occupy protests to hear what youth are saying or performing any creative stunts that would attract media attention. Instead, we want to plod along writing books, research papers and issuing staid press releases. We are like silent film stars who refuse to understand that with the advent of 'talkies', our talents are less and less marketable as time wears on.

Our ideas and our methods of conveying them are an anachronism. I wished it wasn't so, but there it is. Adapt or perish. The choice is ours.

Tim Murray
October 26, 2011

PS I am neither pro or anti Obama. Democrats and Republicans are merely two sides of the corporate coin, and it is a matter of complete indifference to me which growthist party takes office. If I had my druthers they would all be on the bread line. I use the following example just to illustrate how access to the social media can define political loyalties among the younger generation.

Here was the email I referred to:

Dear ______,

Of all the news you and I have shared together, this could be the most worrisome I've ever sent you: Barack Obama is still the hero of voters 18-34, who swept him into office overwhelmingly in 2008 — and are poised to do the same in 2012.

You know I don't scare easily. But if we don't act together now, Obama will win in 2012 — by reaching younger voters where they live — online, with email, on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and cell phones. And that scares me.

We can't afford a blowout like 2008 again. But it's in the cards... because we're still miles behind the Obama machine when it comes to reaching younger voters.

Internet Tactic: 2008 Presidential Race

Facebook friends on Election Day Obama 2,397,253 McCain 622,860
Unique visitors to the campaign website for the week ending November 1 Obama 4,851,069 McCain 1,464,544
MONEY RAISED ONLINE Obama $750 million McCain $370 million

That's why Human Events, the national conservative newsweekly, has launched Click to Victory 2012, an urgent campaign to create a dominant new conservative web site targeting voters 18-34 — and to use all the Obamacrat tools and tactics to convince them they must overthrow Obama in 2012.

VicForests up before the Supreme Court - again - for alleged illegal logging, thanks to the amazing avatars of Environment East Gippsland. Dig into your pockets, folks! EEG does more for you than your taxes!

Wednesday 14th December 2011

VicForests is again being sued in the Supreme Court over what an environment group believes is illegal logging of a very significant protected rainforest area. Environment East Gippsland, which successfully sued VicForests last year, is lodging papers for an urgent injunction this morning in the Melbourne Supreme Court to stop the logging.

“This is the third case of what we believe is illegal logging that VicForests will have to answer for”, said Jill Redwood, coordinator of the group. “The public thinks this type of lawless destruction of protected primary forest and rainforest only occurs overseas”.

“VicForests is still refusing to pay our legal costs of around a million dollars from last year, despite this being a clear court order. If they think this is preventing us taking further legal action, it’s not working. The public is so outraged about their criminal destruction, they have already donated enough for us to get this next legal action rolling.”

“In a proper democracy it should not be up to the public to enforce the law over an uncontrollable government entity. We should not be forced to ask the courts to ensure VicForests abides by the law. We are a developed country. We give millions to other countries to help them stop illegal logging of their rainforests. But in Victoria we are seeing the same happen with full support of the Baillieu government. Exploiting industries seem to be writing the government’s laws and policies now”.

This stand of forest was blockaded for 5 days last week and was broken up by police on Monday.

“It doesn’t take long for a determined crew of logging contractors to cut down the tall trees and smash down a forest of tree ferns”, said Jill Redwood “We hope this injunction will be successful”.

For comment - Jill Redwood: 51540145, Liz Ingham (in court for EEG): 0409 333 595

Robyn Parker the NSW Environment Minister was recently before a Parliamentary Committee on the Environment and asked questions by Labors Luke Foley about the Liberal Nationals reneging on an election commitment to conserve an additional 100 ha of the ADI Site.

Below is the link to the full committee transcript but also the specific ADI question extract. Blank spots have been explained in italics.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/8394DDAF48498727CA25795A000AD302

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: Will you honour the Liberals' and The Nationals' election commitment to conserve an extra 100 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland at the Australian Defence Industries [ADI] site in western Sydney?

Ms ROBYN PARKER: In terms of western Sydney we are doing a great deal in protecting some of the Cumberland Plain Woodland. The Wianamatta State conservation area has just been announced recently by our Government. That is a large section of Cumberland Plain Woodland which has been made into a protected area. I have been out there and had a look at that and made sure that we have got the strongest protections in place as a nature reserve.

The Minister is referring to the 181ha Air Services Australia site at Cranebrook saved by a campaign by WSCA. The Minister makes several mistakes in this answer. She incorrectly refers to the Cranebrook land as the Wianamatta State conservation area - when she recently visited the site to announce it would become the Wianamatta Nature Reserve - and secondly there is no Cumberland Plain Woodland on this site at all.

So the Minister has completely failed to answer the question and demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about the NSW reserve system and its vegetation communities

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: What about the 100 hectares you promised in the campaign to protect? Are you going to honour that?

Ms ROBYN PARKER: Most definitely in terms of western Sydney we have got a number of commitments in terms of Cumberland Plain Woodland and on the ADI site. Following extensive environmental studies it was zoned to enable a mix of conservation and development outcomes. The majority of the habitat on the ADI site is to be conserved in a regional park. That is about 900 hectares. The regional park will contain the highest quality remnant native vegetation which is the Cumberland Plain Woodland. We are focusing at the moment on finalising the plan of management for Wianamatta Regional Park. In terms of the ongoing commitment to conserve a further 100 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland, the regional environmental plan identifies that 900 hectares and that overall offset was agreed to prior to the land plan?

Again the Minister dodges the question about the additional 100 hectare commitment and is obviously reading from a bureaucrat prepared backgrounder about the planning history for the site that zones 900 ha of the site as Regional Park. Whilst there is a 900ha Regional Park proposed at ADI only about half of it is mapped as Cumberland Plain Woodland

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: That is a different area. I am asking you whether you are going to honour?

Ms CORBYN: My understanding is we are actually progressing at Shanes Park, which is where the 100 hectares was identified. So we are actually progressing that, yes.

Lisa Corbyn is the Executive Officer of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. Lisa Corbyn demonstrates her complete ignorance of this matter by making the false claim that the 100 ha commitment was identified for the 558 ha Air Services Australia site at Shanes Park - which the NSW Government is seeking to have transferred to them by the Federal Government. Ms Corbyn has misled the committee as the 100 ha commitment was made in regards to conserving an area of the Western Precinct within the former ADI Site at the Northern Rd Penrith.

So in summary the Minister and her senior staff have not answered any of the questions asked and their responses have again demonstrated why the environment of NSW, and specifically that of western Sydney, is poorly served by Minister Parker and her senior staff.

Source:
Geoff Brown
President
Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc, 12 December 2011

On Monday VicForests’ logging contractors were INSIDE a protected National Site of Significance for Rainforest. A small group of protesters had been holding up logging since last Thursday (8th Dec). The blockade was broken up Monday. This government run logging monopoly called VicForests is again forcing ordinary people to take legal action to stop this criminal activity of rainforest logging in our own state forests!

URGENT !!! Call for help!

VicForests’ logging contractors are currently INSIDE a protected National Site of Significance for Rainforest. A small group of protesters have been holding up logging since last Thursday. The blockade was broken up today. We haven’t heard back from any of the protesters yet. This could be the start of another court injunction!

The story in brief:

· On the 23rd Nov, Environment East Gippsland sent a letter to the DSE alerting it to the planned logging of a protected National Rainforest Site of Significance (the stand of forest had been tagged out in readiness for logging). No reply was received.

· During the week of the 7th December, VicForests contractors pushed a logging road and log landing into the site which adjoins the Errinundra National Park.

· On the evening of 7th December, protesters cabled a tree sit to 4 bulldozers, effectively halting all logging at the site.

· On Thursday 8th, our lawyers sent a letter to VicForests warning them they were inside a protected area and to respond by the end of the day as to whether they would be removing the logging machinery. There was no response.

· Our lawyers then sent a second letter on Friday 9th Dec, warning them that should logging proceed, they would seek instruction from Environment East Gippsland regarding an urgent injunction to stop the damage to this protected area of forest. There was again, no response.

· Monday 12th December, police and state forest and logging agencies cleared the area of protesters and two tree sits. There was one arrest as a result of the police using sniffer dogs!

· Monday – we also sent an urgent letter off to the Snr Sgt at Orbost Police Station detailing the illegal nature of the logging, complete with maps and sections of the relevant Acts and Code - see below (hope the images transfer OK). We asked that they refrain from arresting those trying to uphold the law. And if there are people proceeding to damage the protected site, that they enforce the laws and notify the logging contractors and VicForests of the illegality of logging and if necessary arrest them. This request is at least on the record.

We are now being forced to apply to the Supreme Court for an urgent injunction.

Environment East Gippsland has set a precedent for this by successfully suing VicForests last year over plans to log threatened species habitat. We have already established standing, and other precedents. BUT ... despite the Supreme Court ordering VicForests to pay 90% of our legal costs (in August 2010), VF is still refusing. This means another trip back to the court to force them to pay up! So despite having the standing and ability to take court action against VicForests again, we are unable to due to lack of funds.

Our lawyers will do their best to keep costs down but even just filing court papers can cost maybe $3,000. We are intending to get this done by Wed morning thanks to a super human effort of our lawyers.

We are asking a range of people and supporters to help get the ball rolling and force VicForests to adhere to the law that protects Rainforest Sites Of Significance. But most are in the same boat as us.

Can you please help at all – in any way? Donations or people willing to come to the site and help until an injunction can be secured.

Environment East Gippsland has tax deductible status so can issue tax receipts for donations. We imagine the urgent filing of papers to the court could take about $3,000. Once kick-started, the court case itself could put costs up to $10,000. Much cheaper this time, but still money we don’t currently have.

Our bank details can be sent upon request if you’d like to donate via EFT, or just go to www.eastgippsland.net.au and donate via the Paypal button.

We would appreciate any help – financially or just in spreading this through your networks.

Below are the legal details of what is going on.

Many thanks,

Jill

(03) 5154 0145

Nostalgic memories can be dismissed as invalid, but the facts beneath this strong emotion may reveal the true direction in which we are heading.

Many people yearn for earlier times in their lives, especially for childhood, provided they were protected and supported at the time rather than abused or neglected by the adults around them. The emotion “nostalgia” can colour memories in such a way that we lose objectivity or even accuracy. So is there any validity in a person’s memories about another era?

When we try to piece together how things must have been before any of us were on the planet we use public records and paintings, photographs, literature and people’s accounts. A first hand account may have been written contemporaneously, 10 years later or even 50 years later. To some extent, nostalgia could permeate anything not written contemporaneously. (On the other hand over catastrophising could permeate any account!) So how do we avoid the “contamination” of nostalgia?

Recollections of childhood can be tinged with nostalgia, perhaps for the state of childhood and the love of one’s parents. So how do we know in giving or receiving a rosy account if it was really better 40 or 50 years ago? Is it valid to test whether things were better in the past by imagining that one could revisit, as an adult, places from the past unchanged and imagine how one would feel? Would it still be nicer than it is today, even without our youth and all those dear long dead folks? If the answer is “yes” maybe there is a case for saying in a particular case that things were actually better in the past.

At the age of about 19 I read a book called Future Shock by Alvin Toffler which made a big impression on me. What stays with me about Toffler’s thesis was that he said the world is changing very fast, so fast that most people are disoriented by this and in fact suffer shock akin to the culture shock one may experience on visiting a place that is utterly different from one’s usual environs. He called this phenomenon Future Shock This book made a lot of sense to me as the main difference between a rapid change in one’s environment and visiting a completely different environment is the fact that distance is involved in the latter. Furthermore the culture shock from visiting a very exotic place is reversible by going home! One has some control! With future shock from a dramatic change in one’s immediate surroundings, one cannot escape by going home. The situation usually cannot be reversed and the sufferer has to really go through a grieving process for what is lost (the surroundings they were used to) and at best a gradual healing and acceptance.

In conversation recently the subject arose of what must have been an unfathomable trauma for the Australian Aborigines around Melbourne when the ships from Britain arrived and the people’s whole existence was over-run and annihilated in a very short time. Hopefully nothing like that happens in the future to the people of Melbourne that could ever compare in magnitude to that abomination! The life of the Aborigines went steeply and rapidly down hill in mere decades because of this invasion. If an elder of the Boonwarrung tribe had said to his grandson in 1860 that life had been idyllic when he was a boy and that they did not have to share their land with white people and it was dismissed as nostalgia would it be any the less true? There can be little argument that life 50 years earlier was a quantum of magnitude better for him and his people than in 1860.

People living now especially in first world countries with rapid population growth are accustomed to constant change. That is not to say they are immune to future shock but they are told that change, or “progress” or population growth are normal and to be expected Everyone would have heard the self comforting adage often expressed on the loss of something beautiful and treasured like a creek or a piece of bush land with a cornucopia of bird life giving way to a freeway or a housing development “Oh well that’s progress!’ People on the outer fringes of Melbourne (termed the “growth corridor”) see the countryside around them caving in to never ending housing concrete and bitumen. The pain of lost paddocks, lost natural areas, ruined creeks, lost wildlife is so immense that my friends there tell me they try to avoid driving near these once loved places. They just don’t go there any more. Is this a situation of grief or immediate nostalgia? How does one reconcile oneself to the loss? Are we supposed to just forget what was there? If we keep the memory is it nostalgia? Which is in fact better, the ever expanding suburbs and connected by dark grey tar and hard edged concrete, or the paddocks, countryside and farms connected with the vagaries of country gravel roads? Does the unhappiness of those who lived there before it was transformed render their comments invalid?

If we lived in a place where population remained fairly constant would nostalgia figure so largely in our lives as a way of recollecting “the way things were” or would we only regret the normal and inevitable loss of the power of youth and the attrition of those we love over the years.

I don’t know because I have always lived in an environment that has changed rapidly. Of the houses I have lived in or known intimately, massive changes have overtaken them, a road though the back yard and the house demolished, neighboring houses expanded to the adjacent fence looming over me and views blocked by new buildings. The city where I live now is being re-built with old houses pulled down , gardens destroyed , earthworks boundary to boundary to provide cavernous holdings for cars, trees chopped down, the dreaded yellow notices on house after house warning of massive expansions. With unending high population growth our only certainty is continuing uncertainty and upheaval.

Mary Drost of Planning Backlash and the Marvellous Melbourne website has picked up Matthew Guy's 'challenge' on population growth and comes back with the figures and this statement. We look forward to Matthew Guy's response.

Statement re Natural Population Increase of Melbourne versus the Additional Population Increase caused by Immigration

Minister Matthew Guy’s Challenge to me was that

"Figures show that Melbourne would still increase by 500 a week even if there was no immigration. So what do we do about that?"

Firstly, I understand Melbourne is actually growing by more like 1,800 a week (90,000 a year) so natural increase is less than a third of the problem.

This Challenge needed a response using figures produced by others than those representing big business, since they often present only those figures that suit their push for growth and development. Therefore I have consulted with the top names in Australia who have been studying the growth of Australia and Melbourne and below are their findings. I challenge the growth lobby on their biased stand, as evidenced by the fact that they appear to have given you only a misleading fragment of the picture.

The CPUR has prepared new projections for household growth in Melbourne. Given recent demographic developments (including the decline in overseas student enrolments in Melbourne). It is likely that Net Overseas Migration to Melbourne will average around 35,000 a year and that fertility will fall because of the record high price of entry level housing.

Given these assumptions, the number of households in Melbourne will increase by around 750,000 over the next 30 years.
Over the next decade (2011 -2021) the number of households in Melbourne will increase by around 286,000.

Less than a third of this would be needed with balanced migration (zero net migration), which is the world’s average.

There are two sources of growth in the number of households. One end is the young who want to get into the housing market. The other end is the growing older group as the baby boomers replace the currently much smaller number of retirement aged residents. But most of these older households will stay in their houses even though they become 'empty nests' and partners die.

High rise does not solve the needs of young families. They will want family oriented housing, preferably a detached house or if not possible a town house or unit in a suburban setting. Therefore the current forest of high rise apartments will be left high and dry, or will be filled with unwilling and discontented residents. Most of these younger families will have no choice but to move to the fringe because that is where affordable detached housing is likely to be located. Those who want to live in established suburbia will have to compete with immigrants for the limited dwelling units available, because most are occupied by baby boomers.

The burden on cities like Melbourne can be relieved by reducing Australia’s immigration quotas; otherwise the crisis of housing affordability young people already face will get worse. Further the burden on any government trying to solve the overloaded infrastructure problem while population grows freely is enormous.

PROJECTIONS OF AUSTRALIA’S POPULATION GROWTH to 2050 show that for the Big Australia projection (assuming net overseas migration of 180.000 a year – which is around the current outcome) will mean an increase from 22 million now to 36 million in 2050. Of this increase,
4 million by 2050 - will be from natural increase alone
10 million by 2050 - immigration plus children of migrants born in Australia

Natural increase is high at present because the baby boomer generation’s children are now in child bearing age. This is projected to decrease after a decade or so and eventually will stabilise so that births will equal deaths. So it is a short term issue. The biggest problem is the high rate of migration. State governments have a duty to point this out to Canberra. Handling even Melbourne’s current 20-25,000 a year natural increase strains its resources, so the federal government should be encouraged to reduce immigration.

Hence to claim that "growth is inevitable even without immigration" would be dishonest, unless one also mentions that the growth produced with balanced (net zero)  immigration would in fact  be temporary and fast diminishing.
 
Mary Drost

This information has been obtained from the current studies being undertaken by Dr Bob Birrell of Monash University and including discussions with Dr Tony Recsei of Sydney, Mark O’Connor of Canberra, author of Overloading Australia, Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia and Kelvin Thomson MP.

See also Marvellous Melbourne

Has the prospect of global temperature rises between two and six degrees centigrade got you down? Don’t worry, for the world might well be in for a cooling trend. The kind that comes after the planet is enveloped in a canopy of ash and debris following a thermo-nuclear war.

Has the prospect of global temperature rises between two and six degrees centigrade got you down?

Are you like me? Do you hate hot humid summers that never end? Do you toss and turn in the night, soaked in sweat, not finding relief, even in the darkest basement or under the shade of the biggest tree? Don’t worry, for the world might well be in for a cooling trend. The kind that comes after the planet is enveloped in a canopy of ash and debris following a thermo-nuclear war. You see, nuclear winter, the bogeyman you thought had gone into permanent retirement when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet empire bit the dust, is still on the menu.

For those who lost the recipe, let me tell you how we can rustle up some nuclear winter in time for dinner. It’s quick, it’s easy, and you don’t have to be a professional chef to pull it off. Just follow Chris Clugston’s Scarcity> Conflict Cook Book. (cf. “Scarcity”)

“If you like mushrooms, you’ll love mushroom clouds! Nuclear winter is a cool summer treat...And its easy to make....Just follow Chris Clugston’s recipe, let me show you how!”

The first ingredient is a hopeless economic dependence on natural non-renewable resources (NNRs). That’s easily found, especially in North America, Europe and the emerging economies of China and India. Secondly, it is important that there not be enough NNRs to satisfy the growing appetites of all those nations which demand them. Again, no problem there. Seventeen remaining global NNR reserves will be exhausted within 25 years. We are talking about trifling things like antimony, arsenic, barite, cadmium, fluorspar, gold, iron ore, lead, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, rhenium, silver, strontium, tin, zinc and zirconium. Those kind of things we can do without---that is, unless we live in an industrial civilization. And then there is boron, magnesium, mercury , phosphate rock, the platinum group metals, selenium and vanadium---which will be exhausted within 41 to 61 years. And beyond that, bromine, cement, lime, potash, rare earth minerals, salt and soda ash will be not be economically available.

But wait, I know what you’re thinkin’. We are an exceptional species. We are ingenious. Our brains are designed to work around limits. We will think of something. After all, we always have, haven’t we? We can develop “renewable energy”. Sorry to rain our your parade, but Dawn Stover said it best:

“Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed...” Geothermal, wind, hydro power and biomass? “All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it. And while proponents would have you believe that a renewable energy project churns out free electricity forever, the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant. Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years. So what, exactly, makes renewable energy different from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power?

Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium.

Unfortunately, "renewable energy" is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven't discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.” from The myth of renewable energy of 22 Nov 11 by Dawn Stover http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy

Sorry Peak Oilers but I guess it isn’t all about oil---or energy---after all. We need all those other 69 natural non-renewable resources that Chris Clugston inventoried---unless you think that solar panels, turbines, and drills etc can be made from mud and straw.

But back to Clugston’s Cook Book. We have the first of our ingredients----the non-renewable resources which are in terminal decline, and the second, which is the fact that there won’t be enough of them to go around to satisfy everybody---particularly the industrial giants---and the ones like America which is rapidly losing its stature. The third ingredient is import dependency, or in Clugston’s parlance, “potential geopolitical supply constraints”. This is the most active and critical ingredient in the whole mix. It is not so much that dwindling supplies of non-renewable resources will not be domestically available, but that many of them that will still be available are found in the most inconvenient places---for the United States at least. Politically unstable or unfriendly places.

For starters, about 80% of the world’s proven oil resources are located in the Middle East. And then there is the stuff that is used in essential infrastructure. 83% of abrasives come from China. 72% of boron reserves are found in Turkey. 75% of proven Chromium reserves are found in South Africa and Kazakhstan. 84% of clay imports come from Brazil. Half the cobalt is located in the Congo. 40% of the copper comes from Chile. China is the third largest producer of gypsum, Iran the third. China is the world’s leading steel producer and accounts for 40% of global lead mine production, 40% of proven global molybdenum reserves, 65% of the world’s silicon, and together with Indonesia, they produce 40% of the world’s tin. 40% of the world’s vanadium is produced by China and South Africa, 68% of US zinc ore imports come from Peru and 52% of titanium sponge metal imports come from Khazakhstan.

Then there are the NNRs that the United States imports to support industrial agriculture. 72% of its boron comes from Turkey. 50% of proven manganese reserves come from South Africa and the Ukraine. 100% of its phosphate rock is imported from Morocco. And to make your computer, IPhone and tech toys, 51% of US antimony comes from China, plus 86% of its arsenic, 58% of its beryilium from the Ukraine, and half the proven indium reserves are found in China. In fact, of the NNRs which the United States requires to make high tech electronic devices, 28 of them are imported from potentially volatile or unreliable sources. And 17 of those imported 28 NNRs supply more than 79% of American requirements. (cf. Scarcity, Humanity’s Final Chapter, pp. 52-57)

This roll-call of vulnerability is by no means exhaustive. But you get the picture. Without the United States Navy to impose its power and police the seaways, it is unlikely that you could drive your car to the local shopping centre to buy your latest gadget or load up on groceries. You know, that car with the “End the Iraq War” bumper sticker on it. (Never mind. Dump the car, live off the grid and wear a Ghandian loin cloth if that fits the image you want to project. But spare me your hypocrisy. You aren’t baling out of the industrial system or your dependence on the violence it’s built on.)

What happens when somebody threatens to deprive a fading superpower with a trillion dollar military budget of its supply of essential NNRs? What did Japan do when the United States cut off 90% of its oil in 1941? In the last century, resource wars claimed the lives of over 100 million people, but in this century, the arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can destroy our species, and a good many innocent bystanders as well.

So in case you didn’t make notes, here again is the formula for our demise, a recipe for nuclear winter in a nutshell:

Take 69 non-renewable natural resources that have already peaked , any one of which can cripple our industrial economy and for which no conceivable alternatives can collectively be found.

Add accelerating scarcity of those resources.

Throw in a pinch of dependence by militarily lethal powers on foreign imports from unstable and/or potentially hostile regions....

And PRESTO---- you have a nuclear exchange, which according to Paul Ehrlich, need only be a limited one between say, India and Pakistan, to finish off humanity.

Nuclear winter would ensue and I suspect, the hospitality industry on the Gold Coast or the beaches of Florida or the Algarve would have its worst season on record. Damn, there goes your tan. You worked hard for your vacation, and as a North American, it was your entitlement. Life is so unfair.

And here you were worried about climate change. I guess Matthew 6:34 was right after all. Don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. And all of humanity apparently.

Think positive thoughts. Put on a happy face. Something will turn up. It always has, has it not? Cassandras are such a drag.... Oh, I am such a downer. No wonder the girls don’t ask me out.

Tim Murray

December 1, 2011

Federal Labor Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, has condemned reports in an article by Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11, that the Victorian Liberal Government is seriously considering proposals to further reduce the rights of residents to object to inappropriate developments in their neighbourhoods. (Mr Thomson's electorate of Wills, Victoria, Australia, has very high population and development density, with severe traffic congestion.)

The Victorian Minister for Planning, Mathew Guy, is considering industry proposals to reduce the standing of the public to object to commercially-motivated development of their built and natural environment, according to the Age article.

Master Builders Association of Victoria executive director Brian Welch has been quoted as believing that current rules are ''excessively democratic'' and that they encourage ''vexatious objectors.''

Mary Drost, of Planning Backlash and www.marvellousmelbourne.org has said that she would be opposed to any reduction in rights to objection. She later observed that the Master Builders complain that 7% of applications end up in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). "What this says to me is that 93% go straight through. They have nothing to complain about as far as I can see."

The Victorian Treasury department has called for an overhaul of the land-planning framework to reduce conflicting policy objectives between government departments, which it sees as providing excessive scope for appeals.

''The land planning framework should be overhauled to reduce the scope for appeals due to conflicting policy objectives, clarify who has standing to appeal planning decisions and assess the potential for greater use of market instruments to achieve planning objectives,'' according to the treasury briefing document.

Federal MP, Mr Kelvin Thomson, says, “The last thing the Victorian Government should be doing is making it easier for developers to construct more high rise, more apartments and more concrete monstrosities.”

“Premier Ted Baillieu and Planning Minister Matthew Guy when in Opposition were very critical of the former State Government’s handling of the planning system. They have no mandate whatsoever to contemplate measures to further reduce residents say on planning and development proposals.

“The plans being considered by the Liberal State Government would provide less scope to appeal against contentious planning proposals. The Age report suggests that the appeal process could be pared back to cut the number of objectors, on the basis that it costs developers money.

“Such an approach displays an arrogant disregard for the costs that high rise concrete monstrosities impose on local communities- more traffic, more congestion, more carbon emissions, increased pressure on local infrastructure and services, the suffocation of local amenity and the effect on physical and mental wellbeing.

“All too often property developers make handsome profits at the expense of local residents and communities, profiting from infrastructure which local communities have built and paid for, and leaving locals to live with the inconvenience of loss of amenity which comes with more crowded neighbourhoods.

“In my own electorate there are numerous examples of residents and neighbourhoods being short-changed, disregarded, and left to pick up the pieces- such as the Union Street U108 development in Brunswick, the Kodak Redevelopment and former Coburg High School site in Coburg, the Bell St-York St and Cumberland Rd developments in Pascoe Vale, the former Tip Top Site, Nicholson St and 240 Lygon Street developments in Brunswick etc.

“Developers use doublespeak terms like "sustainable", "exemplary design", "efficient planning" and "reduced footprint". These are all code for removing residents' rights to meaningfully object to developments in their neighbourhoods.

“Any further moves to prevent residents from having a say will only damage the quality of life for residents in Melbourne, and take our city down the road of the high-rise concrete jungles of Asia and Latin America.

“The planning system needs to provide residents, local communities and local councillors with a greater ability to have a say on what developments are appropriate for their neighbourhoods- not a reduced one”, Mr Thomson concluded.

Sources:Josh Gordon, "Push to cut planning appeals,"The Age, 29/11/11 and a Media Release from Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills, Wednesday 30 November 2011. Media contact: Anthony Cianflone 9350 5777 or 0424 138 558

Why have many academicians apparently been rendered dumbstruck during my lifetime by what is all-too-obvious? Absolute global human population numbers can be clearly seen skyrocketing since the end of World War II. When I was born, 2.3 billion human beings lived on Earth. In a single lifetime of threescore and ten years (1945 – 2015) human population numbers are projected and fully expected to increase by 5+/- billion people. How can so many economists and demographers not see what is happening?
by Steven Earl Salmony (SESALMONY AT aol.com)

It is almost 2012. Why have many academicians apparently been rendered dumbstruck during my lifetime by what is all-too-obvious? Absolute global human population numbers can be clearly seen skyrocketing since the end of World War II. Experts are certainly not stupid, and yet I wonder if they are playing stupid? Have they been mislead by personal arrogance, extreme foolhardiness and wanton greed or overcome by a lust for influence, privilege and power? Or all of the above? Perhaps the cascading reports in the mass media of many too many so-called experts are governed by political convenience, economic expediency, social suitability, religious dogma and cultural conventions in the service of their shared ideology as well as their idolatry of the global economy. When I was born, 2.3 billion human beings lived on Earth. In a single lifetime of threescore and ten years (1945 – 2015) human population numbers are projected and fully expected to increase by 5+/- billion people. How can so many economists and demographers not see what is happening? Do their professional activities have something to do with science? I say no, definitely not.

I can find much preternatural[1] thought and unscientific research among the 'experts' in demography and economics, but cannot locate adequate scientific evidence that supports the idea of "human exceptionalism" with regard to the population dynamics of the human species. Although the idea of human exceptionalism is known to be specious from a scientific point of view, because it is of vital importance to ideologues and those who primarily benefit from the way the global political economy is organized and managed, human exceptionalism has not been the subject of sufficient scrutiny by scientists and consequently allowed to stand uncontested during my lifetime. Even today scientists refuse to identify the idea of human exceptionalism regarding human population dynamics as the false proposition it is. First class scientists remain electively mute when confronted with scientific research that directly contradicts the idea of human exceptionalism. Where is the scientific research to support the idea that human beings are somehow exempted from ecological "rules of the house" in our planetary home, as many so-called experts in economics and demography have regularly and adamantly proclaimed since the time of my birth.

The family of humanity appears to have been confused and harmed for many too many years by ideologically driven sycophants and absurdly enriched minions of the rich and powerful who have dishonestly been laying claim to scientific knowledge that they have not ever possessed. Demographers and economists are not scientists, the imprimatur of the IUSSP and the Nobel Prize Committee notwithstanding. These disciplines never have been fields of scientific study and never will be, at least not until demographic theories and economic models conform to the biological and physical laws of the world we inhabit, laws based upon the best available science. Science is. And whatsoever is is, is it not?

Extant scientific research of human population dynamics/overpopulation has been consciously and deliberately ignored by demographers, economists and even respected scientists with adequate expertise. All of them have failed to stand up for science and humanity by speaking truth to the greedmongering movers and shakers of the global political economy who rule the world in our time and appear dead set on ravaging the Earth and degrading its environs until the planet is an unfit place for children everywhere to inhabit. If my perspective could somehow be on the right track, then we are bearing witness not only to the greatest failure of nerve, intellectual honesty, moral courage of all time, but also to an incomprehensible loss of capacity to do the right thing, according to the lights each of us possesses.

Steven Earl Salmony is a self-proclaimed global citizen, a psychologist and father of three grown children. Married nearly 40 years. In 2001 Steve founded the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population to raise consciousness of the colossal threat that the unbridled, near exponential growth of absolute global human population numbers poses for all great and small living things on Earth in our time. His quixotic campaign focuses upon the best available science of human population dynamics and human overpopulation of the Earth, in order to save the planet as a place fit for habitation by children everywhere. He can be reached at SESALMONY AT aol.com

Footnotes

1. Preternatural Pre`ter*nat"u*ral (?; 135), a. [Pref. preter + natural.]
Beyond of different from what is natural, or according to the regular course of things, but not clearly supernatural or miraculous; strange; inexplicable; extraordinary; uncommon; irregular; abnormal; as, a preternatural appearance; a preternatural stillness; a preternatural presentation (in childbirth) or labor.
[1913 Webster]

Tasmania's Tarkine rainforests are important for their flora which has links to the ancient continent of Gondwana, and for their lichens and fossils which help tell the story of Australia's ancient flora and its evolution.
Mining companies like Venture Minerals are desperate to exploit the minerals beneath Tasmania's environmentally significant Tarkine area. Demand for metals being placed above the value of the environment.

The Tarkine region is located in the north-west of Tasmania. The area encompasses 447,000 hectares of wilderness including the Southern Hemispheres largest single tract of temperate rain forest, a wild coastline with an extraordinary wealth of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage sites. It's the habitat for over 50 threatened species.

The extensive rainforests, beautiful river gorges, buttongrass mountain tops, flowering heathlands and long wild beaches combine to make the Tarkine one of the world's great treasures.

These rainforests are important for their flora which has links to the ancient continent of Gondwana, and for their lichens and fossils which help tell the story of Australia's ancient flora and its evolution.

The Tarkine is a  sensitive region rich in mega-diversity.  It's one of the world's last remaining temperate rain-forests, the home of the Tasmanian Devil and many other precious species.

National Heritage a must:

The Tarkine must be put on the National Heritage List.  The heritage assessment of The Tarkine will help ensure that the heritage values are considered in decision-making, so heritage protection is balanced with the social and economic aspirations of the Tasmanian community. Short-term economic benefits should not be at the expense of the un-quantifiable value of ancient woodlands, rugged coastlines, and forest habitat destruction.

Mining companies like Venture Minerals are desperate to exploit the minerals beneath Tasmania's environmentally significant Tarkine area.

Demand for metals being placed above the environment:

Chinese demand for base metals such as gold, iron, tin, zinc, lead, copper is at an all time high,  and this would mean logging, pollution, roads, and heavy traffic destroying the landscape and pristine rivers.

Environment Minister Tony Burke was called on to immediately include the Tarkine on the emergency National Heritage Listing amid concerns about the impact on the Tasmanian devil population of a revised tourist road project.   He denied that he made a promise to do so.  His predecessor, Peter Garrett, first gave the Tarkine wilderness a one-year emergency listing, which Mr Burke let expire.  Since then he has let a British mining company test drill in the area.

Mr Burke says the new plan for a tourist road is not the same as the original 132-kilometre loop road plan that was subject to a now lapsed emergency listing. One road is not similarly destructive an another?

Mining and road proposals threaten to carve up Tasmania's unprotected the Tarkine wilderness area, local defenders say. 

Venture Mineral's Mt Lindsay tin, tungsten and iron mining proposal, coupled with the revival of the controversial Tarkine link road proposal, should have given Mr Burke grounds to reinstate Tarkine's emergency National Heritage listing.  Heritage listings would not stop mining, but developments would have to pass more rigorous and critical environmental tests.

The Mount Lindsay tin project is the largest of several mines planned around the Tarkine in an emerging new Tasmanian environmental battle. The Tarkine National Coalition said up to nine new open cut mines are in development there.  Venture Minerals predict $1 billion in revenue, with more than 500 jobs in construction and 200 in operation.

Surely the threats of mining are enough reasons for an emergency heritage listing for the Tarkine? 

Mr Burke says the principle that a heritage listing automatically locks out all development is wrong.  He says with or without a heritage listing, environmental protection remains.  "Developments" and "protection" are inherently contradictory.

Mr Jordan who heads the Tarkine National Coalition says Mr Burke's decision to lift the heritage listing means other mining companies will not be scrutinised as closely as Beacon Hill Resources.  The whole area should be protected as a national park.

The interests of miners are being placed above the Minister's obligations to the environment. All three proposed mining projects will have secured Commonwealth environmental permits during the 18 month period he had at his disposal, allowing them to avoid scrutiny against National Heritage criteria. They will also be allowed to continue exploration drilling and associated access roading without need for Commonwealth assessments.

The mining will cause havoc to the pristine condition of the area. There is nothing "sustainable" now. It's just window-dressing. What about the costs and long term damage of these industries and jobs? Mr Burke is supposed to represent the environment, not the mining industries. As with his population strategy, that come to nothing, he is now abrogating his duty to protect one of the last temperate rain-forest areas in the world.

It is wrong to destroy sacred and holy places to plunder their riches, and the same applies to Nature's sacred places.

Getup - Save the Tarkine

Save the Tarkine

Please email Minister Burke [email protected]

Holland and "New Holland"

Holland is a funny place
What it lacks is lots of space
It’s very clever what they do,
Pushing land from under those who say “moo”
Into the sea without a “how do you do” !
Their country looks bigger I can say for sure,
And it sure beats the hell out of going to war.

Australia on the other hand
Has lots and lots and lots of land.
Though it seems to go to infinity.
All around is dark blue sea,
So it is an island I would say,
And comes to an end for sure one day,

As we cross the blazing desert,
At last we come to something pleasant,
But alas! It’s very thin,
We see the sea ‘ere we are in,
This greyish green and but hopeful crescent,
Only trims the massive desert.
:-)