the greatest injustice of the 20th century

Posted on June 9, 2010 by grandad

I observe with interest that the esteemed US reporter Helen Thompson has been virtually fired for making a statement about the Israelis going back to Poland and Germany etc where they came from and to vacate Palestine where they are unwelcome intruders. I don’t think that she should have been fired because she is stating a fact that many of us, of her vintage, think is a correct requirement if we are ever to have peace in that region again.

We are not anti Jewish or pro Palestinian, we are bemused by the decisions made in 1948 by the Unite Nations Organization to punish the Palestinians for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people of Europe by the Nazis, when they appear to have had no part in those acts of cruelty. Further,to then dispossess the Palestinians of their land, which they had occupied for tens of thousands of years, and give the land to European Jews that had no connexion or relationship to that area, is quite inexplicable.

As stated in my previous blog on this matter, when people have been unjustly dispossessed of their lands, they don’t forget such acts nor forgive them. Examples of such foolish government mistakes are the Northern Ireland conflict, which dates back centuries, the Balkans conflicts that dates back even further, and others.

Israel may think that it is winning and unassailable today but I’m sure that in years to come things may not be so good and they won’t have so many willing allies to blindly support them.

Unfortunately, this problem has developed into a religious war. When Palestine was first invaded it was a country where Muslims, Jews, Christians and even, Atheists lived in relative peace but once the Israelis set up a sectarian state things changed for the worse. Now we have the Muslims migrating to Europe and America and all over the world and as their political influence increases so they will be able to better bring pressure to bear on Israel by causing their supply lines to be cut.

I think that Helen Thompson was right when she expressed her sentiment and the world will regret the stupid and unjust decision made by the UN in 1948!

Posted in the great injustice of 20th century | 1 Comment

Mines Super Profit Tax

Posted on June 4, 2010 by grandad

I think that it is essential that we take an interest in the mines super-profit tax legislation. We should consider what this tax is intended to do and how it is to be applied and for whose profit.

Firstly the tax is the brain child of Mr Ken Henry who is a Senior Public Servant commissioned by the Howard/ Costello government, and that was a government that couldn’t see how they, together with the other governments of the same ilk, by removing all restrictions from control of banks and the like, was heading for a failure of the world system of economics.

Further more, Ken Henry has a personal interest in that he has to protect his not insignificant, annual income, possibly as much as a million dollars a year.

Obviously, Mr Ken Henry has a barrow to push, whereas in the opposite corner we have the genuine Australian interests represented, these are the mining magnates, the mine companies and the Coalition Parties.

Mine magnates have only their annual salary to protect and, since it is only a mere ten million dollars or so a year, it is easy to understand why they have to so strongly resist any erosion of their income. How could they advertise the advantages of this country to their friends overseas on less?

The mining companies have the problem of having to either pay a fair return for the super profits or move their operations off shore where their profits will be reduced because they will not get the same stable political conditions, climatic conditions or, in the case of Asia, transport availability. We know that the companies will do what is best for Australia because we have the examples of other international companies in similar cases. For example we have James Hardy that continued to fight for the right of their workers to keep their jobs at the mines and asbestos works as long as they could. Similarly, we have had the tobacco companies fighting to keep our right to smoke without being pestered by anti smoking agitators. The tobacco companies are still working to try to ensure that the peoples of Indonesia and Malaysia, etc are not worried by the anti smoking fanatics. We are well aware that these international companies are fully aware of their obligations and wouldn’t think of doing anything that would not be in this countries best interest.

With regard to the Coalition Parties sound objections to the supertax laws, we have only to look at their representatives.  We have Mr Ian McFarlane, previously trusted to negotiate in good faith with the opposition’s Penny Wong to obtain a bill relating to the global warming control problems that would be acceptable to the Government and Opposition and good for the country. When Mr McFarlane successfully accomplished this task, he still had the courage to oppose the bill when it was presented to the Parliament for consideration. This together with Mr Abbott’s promise to cut wasteful expenditure on schools, hospitals and the like but will give 12 months maternity leave on full pay, makes one realize just how well Mr Abbott will manage the economy and not waste money on improving the nation’s infrastructure and services.

We must make sure that we don’t have this super profit tax enacted; it will destroy the profitability of the mines and all we would get is the possible improvement in our hospital, universities, schools, superannuation and pensions etc. The miners and other workers can be sure that the mines will always look after their interests as exhibited in the recent recession when they made sure that they didn’t carry any redundant staff!

Come on Australians, give the mines a free hand, we did the banks and look how well they have served us!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

ETS application

Posted on May 26, 2010 by grandad

I note that Rudd is being condemned for deferring the introduction of an ETS bill to parliament. This seems to me to be quite unreasonable and unjustifiable. I think that it isn’t Rudd that should be condemned but the opposition parties. We have sitting on the opposition benches a certain individual named Ian McFarlane that in good faith negotiated a version of the ETS that would be acceptable to both the Government and the Opposition, he did this at the request of his then leader Mr Turnbal.

Next McFarlane betrayed the leader and then when the bill that he had helped to draft was introduced to the Parliament he voted it down, indicating that he will do anything stay in power regardless of the consequences of his vote. McFarlane is the sort of person that, if in a service capacity you found that you had him to protect you back and you were called into action, the first step you’d take to secure you back would be to shoot McFarlane!

I feel that when Rudd said that the introduction of an ETS was an urgent and essential requirement to protect the future of the human existence, I think that he was right. Unfortunately, he is faced by an obstructive opposition which is of the opinion that economic security is more important than ecological security. Hence it seems sensible to abandon the introduction of an ETS bill till the waters are washing around the feet of these global warming sceptics, then it will probably be too late to present an effective bill; however, there will then be more chance of getting a bill passed!

God help us if we ever get the present coalition parties in Government, they are absolutely hopeless and I feel that they are more interested in pleasing big business and other powers than doing what is good for the ordinary Aussie bloke of either sex!

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Australian Constitution needs to be updated

Posted on April 21, 2010 by grandad

Well the health update has been made a mockery off by the latest agreement between the State  Governments and the Federal Government. Any improved administration of a more effective health system has basically been thwarted. It would appear that the now proposed agreement has negated any  remaining  meaningful and progressive changes to the National Health Scheme.

We have the Western Australian Government just claiming that it wants to maintain control over its GST allocation,  even though it is made part of a pool established by Federal and all the State  Governments to be exclusively used for the health services.  It seems illogical to have an agreement where the State can put money into a pool but then be able to take it out as it deems fit, without regard to the joint requirements of the Federal and the rest of the State Governments

Similarly, the other States will have the administration of the national fund pool and this is already the cause of the existing blame game. There is no way that having the States trying to allocated the pool of health money will just continue the scrambling of each State to ensure that it gets what it considers its share without regard to the actual need of each State to supply an appropriate amount of money to suit medical needs. The allocation of the fund money will be based on the political status assumed by the State Governments and their perceived pecking order. I cannot see how the new structure will in any way stop the stupid aimless behaviour of these somewhat irrelevant State Government.

Frankly, I do not reckon that the Federal Government will be able to get this effort to improve the national health service operation past the obstructive Senate or past the almost impossible hurdles of a referendum! If it did manage to get the agreement past the existing hurdles, the agreement has been so emasculated that it is virtually ineffective in its existing form!

Posted in australian constitution | Leave a comment

Australian Constitution Needs to be updated.

Posted on April 18, 2010 by grandad

It is quite obvious that the Australian Constitution was compiled to suit the British Parliament and induce it to give Australia a nominal sense of self-government. It is written to ensure that we have a minimum capability to modify and amend the constitution to best suit our evolution as an independent, sovereign state. For example, the constitution is mainly about The State rights and has little reference to the citizen rights. It divides the country from the word go and ensures that we have not one government but seven, which ensures that we can never have a real consensus between the seven levels of government to obtain what is best for the country, e.g. the present in ability to legislate to obtain a health scheme which will serve the whole country because each state wants to ensure that it gets the maximum even though they have all proven that they are incapable of coming up with a scheme that would make their own health systems work.

Furthermore, it ensures that we have a colonial powers’ head of state as our head of state which, no matter how you look at it, means that we are still virtually a colony. I know that the monarchists talk about how the “ diggers “ fought for the Queen/King and country, but this is because no other alternative was available at that time. I’d bet my life on the fact that if the English monarchy were to try to impose its will on Australia again, there would not be too many ex-diggers out the fighting against our government, irrespective of what persuasion it may be, to prop up the will of the Queen. The “diggers” were fighting for Australia. They would have fought, regardless of what government was in power. Australia was what was important not monarchs or governments. This can be seen where in countries such as Russia the people fought most fiercely to defend their country against the Nazis, even though a great many did not approve of the communist government of Stalin.

The first thing that we need to do on the way to establishing our nation-hood is to get rid of the states and have one government responsible for the running of the country together with our own national Governor/ President, head of state

The second thing that is necessary to have reformed on our way to nation-hood, would be to reform the parliament to obtain a more democratic system more in line with the British parliament. When we adopted the near British parliamentary system we overlooked one of the main protections to of democracy which exists in the British parliament, the British parliament has a House of Review (The House of Lords), it is a real house of review, it can not deny the elected government the means to govern i.e. it can not deny the elected government access to the finances necessary to govern, nor has it the power to even delay any financial bills. The House of Lords acts as a real house of review, it can delay a bill and send it back to the Commons for reconsideration, I believe it can do this twice. However, if the elected government decides to resubmit the bill for a third time it is decided on the majority vote in the Commons and is passed. This is democracy at work. Our system is a joke, i.e. the continuous thwarting of the elected government in the Senate where the rejection is accomplished on the vote of Senators of somewhat dubious quality representing a few hundred people on the electoral roll.

The present situation is ridiculous where we have an elected government which can not pass its legislation because of a hostile house of review, this is not the function of a house of review, it is just a ploy by the opposition to get back into power by fair means or foul without regard for the intentions of the electorate.

Our parliamentary system is supposed to be based on the British system but I can assure you that there is no way that you could induce the British electorate to modify their system to match ours, they are not that stupid. It is no wonder that many still consider Australia as a colony together with many other nations that would certainly never accept another countries head of state as theirs’.

The constitution as it stands does allow for it to be changed by having a referendum; however, this is also made as hard as possible. The result of the referendum requires, not only the majority of people to vote for it to be passed but there must also be a majority of states vote for it. This is once again a travesty of the understanding of democracy, under this requirement it is possible to have the big states want to accept the changes but have a couple of the small states want to reject the changes and as a consequence many millions of voters may be thwarted by several hundreds of thousands, hardly democratic!

If we do eventually manage to get the constitution changed to be more citizen friendly and protective of our democracy, we could then push on to obtain recognition and protection of citizen rights. We could start by enshrining the right to freedom of speech, nation wide secular education curriculum, freedom of choice for things such as euthanasia, single sex marriage and other things that are interfered with by governments based on their religious beliefs rather than individual rights

Now that so many of us are no longer believers in any gods and not at all impressed by any of the religion, and also that those that are believers in gods are not of Christian belief, we should work to ensure that the laws of the land are based on justice and legal and psychological grounds not religious beliefs that have not any real substance.

Posted in australian constitution | 1 Comment

Survival of Life on Earth

Posted on February 1, 2010 by grandad

This concern of mine is not one that in the long term effects me, I won’t be around that long; however, I feel that I must record my concerns, hence this blog.

I have recently been listening to the 7.30 Report on channel two which had a series of programmes relating to the population growth in Australia, and tonight I listened to Treasurer Swann talking about the problems we face regarding aging population and global warming. I also have been listening to people like climate sceptic Monkton and others such as Senator Joyce, Senator Fielding, and others such as economists and industrialists and have been impressed by the fact that none of them appear to have been able to address the real problem. The only one that made any sense was Dick Smith, and Lindsey Tanner poo-hood him as being naïve.

Firstly I would observe that no one seems to have appreciated that this wonderful planet could well be able to support life for another two or three billion years providing we don’t suffer an astronomical catastrophe. The leadership that is charged with the responsibility of guiding us through the present global warming and population problems seems to be unable to visualize anything beyond three terms of parliament. Consequently, they only plan for a maximum of 50 years population growth and then extrapolate that this will cause economic growth from which we will all benefit. They haven’t yet appreciated that long term planning with regard to life survival should be measured in thousands of years, if not billions…Nor do they seem to appreciate that continuous growth is just not sustainable, even over relatively short periods of 100 years, the planet must run out of its finite supply of resources and space.

I will first talk about the problem of global warming.

When talking about global warming we still seem to talk about our ability to afford to address this problem as if our economic state is of any real importance to this issue! Global warming is a consequence of our not abiding by the requirements of the real force that controls the universe i.e. science. The universe evolves and operates within set parameters set out by physics and chemistry and if we break these laws then we suffer the consequences. We are polluting our environment and if we do not effectively address this problem we will all possibly suffer extinction. Therefore, it is imperative that we keep the problem as the objective and possibly use economists and the like as they should be used, i.e. to advise the best way to obtain the required solution and minimize the effects on the population of the world. This is a problem which we have to solve, even it means that we have to make drastic changes to our present life styles..

Listening to the global warming sceptics and opposition politicians reminds me of when I was much younger the similar argument was about asbestos and smoking. Then we had these sceptics and bogus scientists making statements that asbestos and smoking were safe and it wasn’t necessary to shut down the mines and factories or stop smoking. These charlatans managed to keep the mines working for years and the miners kept their jobs, likewise, the smokers still kept boasting that they would smoke if the chose and there was proof or evidence of smoking related cancer. The charlatans walked away rich, the companies paid out massive compensation and the workers and users are still dying, often in great agony!

The consequences of ignoring global warming will be far worse than those resulting from asbestos mining and smoking!!

Regarding population growth, this is a really interesting and difficult problem to solve. Firstly we, like all other forms of life on the planet, are programmed to reproduce. Over the millions of years of our evolution, we had arrived at a position where we reproduce at a rate that matches the expected death rate from natural predators and disease and as a result the total environment stayed in balance and all was in harmony. However, our evolution has taken us to a situation where we have almost nullified all the natural methods that existed to control our growth.

It is still necessary to reproduce for the species to survive; however, it is now possible to over reproduce and threaten our very existence, therefore, it is essential that we devise a means by which it is possible to keep the population within sustainable limits. Today I heard both Dick Smith and Lindsey Tanner state that the world population is expected to plateau out at 9 billion. How can they make this statement without having set maximum population target and having put in place a means by which the population can be forced to not exceed this limit.

Again we are confronting the ultimate power controlling the universe and if we don’t control the population to a level in harmony with the environment we will breed ourselves out of existence.  This is a really hard social problem because we will somehow have to determine who will be allowed to breed and who will have to be celibate. The problem will be further complicated by the fact that we will have to make a choice but ensure that we don’t destroy the diversity of population or make racial or national based selections.

Another problem with population control is that we no longer have the reason for breeding we inherited through our genes. Our politicians and industrialists would have us believe that the reason for our existence is to work in factories and create growth and money for someone else. Something like an ant community? However, I would prefer to think that we could have a very good future where we live in harmony with the ecology and yet by education learn to enjoy the sciences and arts and other wonders that exist in this world.

This is a problem in that we will not be able to call on our self made gods for a solution, in fact we will have to make sure that we ignore the religious indoctrinations we have been subjected to over the millennia, we certainly can’t afford to breed at a rate of 8-10 children per family, if we do we will very shortly, (less than 100 years), reach above 60 billion and this will most certainly stretch the limit of the available resources!

The language of science is mathematics and since the problem we face is a consequence of science, we must surely be able to come up with a model that would enable us to work out almost exactly the population the world can support comfortably and even a way to obtain the necessary birth regulation system.

Remember, we are looking for a solution effective over a couple of billion years not 50 or 100 years

Posted in population growth | Leave a comment

Population Growth

Posted on January 25, 2010 by grandad

The This Day Tonight program on the 25th January, had a piece on this subject which I feel inclined to comment upon as follows.

It would appear that the population problem is really matter of having an available area for expansion whilst keeping the needed space to support that population within the confines of a finite fixed area without destroying the environment for all other life forms.

We have evolved to a degree where we are now the first life form that has the option of controlling our reproduction or breeding our selves to extinction. Mr Rudd has formed the opinion that we will be better off with a bigger population. This is based on the impossible belief that we can have everlasting growth; which would need everlasting growth of population. Since there is only a finite space available, adoption of a policy of everlasting growth will inevitably lead to our extinction as a species!

It is not now necessary for human beings to breed flat out to obtain the survival of the species so we should now be working out what we do want from life and how we can balance our breeding to obtain this state, in balance with the rest of the environment, such that we can have a long term future for ourselves and the rest of the life forms!

When I say long term I mean thousands of years not fifty years, one gets the impression that our world leaders feel that they only have responsibility for looking after the events happening within their life span whereas I would hope that, such a magnificent life form as we have evolved into would be able, by application of this powerful brain, ensure that life goes on as long as our planet will support it.

Frankly, I don’t think that the world is yet ready to address the problem of over population, they have too many religious and personal freedoms hang-ups and not enough responsibility commitments.  It will need a realization that there is a fast approaching apocalypse to jolt the masses into a state of action and this may well be too late!

Posted in population growth | Leave a comment

what is education?

Posted on December 14, 2009 by grandad

If we look at the Grand Inquisition, it was made up of the educated of the time and they were well aware, inter alia, of the fact that the world is the centre of the universe, accordingly, it was quite right of them to incarcerate someone that should suggest that this was not so. Unfirtunately for them, Galileo was right.

Even though Galileo was educated in the same system as the Inquisitors, he was able to ask the question why is this so and is it right.

Some hundreds of years later Darwin was likewise persecuted for again questioning the accuracy of the details of the subject matter being taught at that time by the educated elite. and again, Darwin was right.

This has happened throughout the years and every one that questions the teachings of the day is reviled and often persecuted, some times severely so but eventually they are frequently right and their ideas win the day.

I am hoping that the being right continues to win the day because we are presently faced with a global problem which is not just an academic problem for the advancement of our knowledge, this problem could well result in the extermination of all life on this planet for a number of years, if not correctly addressed.

My worry is that we have now an opposition which is just like the Inquisition, it knows that there is no global warming caused by human activity and there is no need to do anything about it because we have god to look after us. Unfortunately, we seem to be ruled presently by these people of strong religious belief such that one of our senators claims to believe in god when there is no evidence of the existance of such a creature, whereas, he claims that, despite all the evidence of global ice caps melting etc, there isn’t enough evidence of global warming for him to press for some appropriate action.

It seems to me that there is too much teaching in our education system and not enough questioning!

We should be teaching our students priciples of maths, science, etc but we should also be encouraging them to question what they are taught and to understand why things are considered to be so. The trouble with our present leaders is that they have been taught things from a religious aspect and they are unable to put that training aside and consider things from a logical view point, for example, Kevin Andrews preaches freedom of choice but when the Northern Territory voted for voluntary Euthanasia, he was able to override that choice as being not one that he could live with, so much for freedom of choice?

Frankly, I’m pleased to be old because I can’t really see that, with the world leadership we have today, there can be any great odds that they will be able to come up with a solution to the global warming problem, and if they should get so lucky, there is no chance that they will be able to solve the over population problem.

The trouble is, now days parents send their children to school to be disciplined  and taught comformity and not to be a pain in the arse by asking awkward questions and to just do as they are told.  Which makes for disillusioned young adults with no aim other than to make money which is their measure of success or to be no hopers!

Where is the old fashioned idea of learning for learnings sake?

Posted in education | 4 Comments

The Law and Justice

Posted on November 4, 2009 by grandad

I have looked at this blog and can see why it is not too clear what is being ranted about if one hasn’t been following the same news stories. The stories which initiated the rant were the stories, in all forms of media, which related to the release of the convicted murderer of Dr Chan ( a Mr Lim ) some years back and the reaction to this release on parole, and then the other story indicating a similar interference from the government, was the hounding of the paedofile, Dennis Ferguson.

My rant was a consequence of coming to the conclusion that present day politicians would override any legitimate legislation to suit their political aims without regard to justice or the rule of law. It also seemed that there is no  sound constitution or bill of rights setting limits to the extent to which the government of the day can over ride existing legislation to obtain its own political aims

It was and is my conclusion, that because the law makers are the politicians, and because the politicians have to go to the people to be re-elected and because the politicians have no set restrictions on their legislation, then they will enact the laws that are politically most expedient at any one time without regard for the long term consequences of any such legislation. This enables any rabble rousing tabloid paper to put pressure on the government of the day to make a headline without regard to the consequences of issuing such rubbish.

It was my conclusion that to obtain really safe legislation, free of political exploitation, it is essential that we have a genuine overhaul of the existing constitution and add to it a bill of rights. Unfortunately, I haven’t kept a record of the press releases referred to but I trust that this addition will somewhat clarify my earlier rant.

Posted in Justice | 1 Comment

the law and justice?

Posted on November 1, 2009 by grandad

I find that it is frightening the way that the law is administered by a well proven justice system and then overruled by  weak politicians as a result of pressure from daily papers  which have very little cridibility but a largish reader base.

The latest of these ” lynch mob ” type interferences by weak and popular vote catching politicians is the Victor Chan killer release  on parole case .  I can understand the family of Victor Chan being annoyed by the release of Lim on parole but they are naturally biased, most normal people would be quite prepared to kill someone that had killed their father in cold blood for no reason other than to make money. However, such emotions will, if unchecked, lead to never ending killing where everyone is trying to exact the revenge that they feel entitled to   To stop such lawlessness we have a the law of the land which is administered by qualified and, we hope, unbiased and wise legally knowledgeable Judges.

Unfortunately, the laws of the land are formulated by politicians and these seem to have no back-bone and are only looking to get re-elected.  As a consequence, the laws of the land are frequently manipulated by rabble rousing daily papers which rouse the mob instinct of the populace and pressurize the politicians into making dangerous laws which eventually will be used in a way that they are not intended.

Lim was sentenced under the law and it is proper that that sentence be enacted in accordance with the judges sentence. We have to presume that the judge, who probably listened to days if not weeks of testomony, will have taken all things into consideration and arrived at a judgement that was as just as could be humanly expected. It is absolutely stupid to allow some elected politician to toss the law out on a whim to aid in his re-election prospects.

It is obvious that we need a new constitution that protects the people not the States, which seems to be the main function of the present Australian constitution. It is possible to argue that we would be better off as a country of Australia with one government and not have all these divided loyalties to various States. We also need a Bill of Rights which sets out clearly what the politicians can do  legally. At present, each political party in power in the Commonwealth and States and Terrortaries can enact any law as they see fit, or so it would appear.

An example of this abuse of power is the special laws enacted against the paedophile Ferguson, his crime is one that is most distastful but he is entitled to the protection of, and justice from, the law. Once he has finished his sentence and provided that he complies with the law, then he is entitled to his liberty. If we have a problem with this, we should change the law to take into account the circumstances of various crimes.

I understand that paedophilia is a complaint for which there is no cure. If this is so, then we have to adjust the law to permit the euthanasia of people that have this affliction or adopt the less humane option of shutting them away for life in a, usually, most unfriendly prison. It is certainly not acceptable that we should enact laws that relate to individuals, there is no end to the possiblilties of giving politicians  such powers.  Also we have to accept that if we allow a paedophile to have his freedom after a prison sentence, then we have to allow him to have the means to support his life style and work etc to feed himself, it is inhumane to expect that he will sit down and starve himself to death to avoid contact with his fellow human beings.

We have to have a system such as a Bill of Rights and a person orientated Constitution, to ensure that the laws that these politicians enact are not just political ploys to appease the, generally ill informed, public.

I have listened to people like John Howard argue that if we have a Bill of Rights the power will rest with the judiciary rather that the elected parliament. This is a valid arguement but we need to set out what the politicians can do and have the judiciary administer those rights, the judges don’t have to present themselves to the people for re-election every three years or so. Having seen the way in which our politicians have behaved with their strutting the stage to show that they are the stronger on crime  and punishment, I’d have much more faith in a judgement by a judge even though I know that the judges are appointed by the politicians in the first place.

From past judgements in the High Courts we have seen that judges don’t always go the way that one would expect knowing their political persuasions. By comparison we have the rantings of Rees and O’Farrell both of whom seem to think that the Daily Telegraph has some credibility, a belief that is most difficult to understand.

I still can’t understand why it is that we are supposedly so well educated but we don’t think beyond what we are told and just follow like sheep and allow the dismantling of a legal system that has grown and proven itself over many hundreds of years. We should be looking to improve and widen our liberty and rights rather than trying to persecute those that have fallen foul of the law and suffered the consequences thereof.

Posted in Justice | Leave a comment