Political Expediency Pollutes CPRS

Kevin Rudd's CPRS - Carbon Pollution reduction Scheme - was to be one of his great environmental stamps. It was to involve a carbon cap-and-trade system; higher electricity prices, which would encourage more consumers to use renewable energy; some compensation for high energy use industries; and an environmental halo for Mr Rudd.

It was beset by difficulties:

1. The Greens thought it didn't set sufficient targets for the reduction in carbon pollution
2. The Copenhagen Conference on climate change achieved little, as many predicted, and countries have not committed to any reduction in carbon emissions
3. The Coalition - Liberal and National Parties - are running a policy of denying climate change, protecting the short-term interests of big business. They, and the Greens, defeated teh CPRS Bill in the Senate, biut for the different reasons outlined above.

The NSW, and other states, electricity price regulator, approved large price rises for electricity. In NSW there were 2 reasons for this: preparation for the carbon trading scheme, and the desire of the NSW Labor government to privatise electricity generation and sale, for its own short-term political reasons.

Voter backlash against the price rises, and manipulation of that anger by teh Coalition parties before this year's election have led to Prime Minister Rudd shelving the CPRS until at least 2012.

The shelving has nothing to do with the merits, or otherwise, of the CPRS. It has everything to do with political expediency.

John

Corrupt Storm

For several days now, the media has regaled us with the sordid details of corruption at the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. The corruption involved 2 sets of accounting books; one "official" set, kept with player contracts. A second set, hidden in a separate storage, apparently documents extra payments to some players at $15 000 a time. Today's news also gives some details of letters of offer (of off-the-book payments) to at least 3 players. The corruption involved at least some senior managers, probably the players to whom letters were written, 1 or more sponsors. The NRL has imposed very tough penalties: stripped of Minor Premierships, Premierships (Grand Final wins), return of $1.1m in winnings and $500 000 fine, loss of all points for 2010, and unable to gain any competition points in 2010.

The corruption allowed the club to keep more players, with more talent, so that they gained an unfair advantage over other clubs. It is devastating for those not involved, and it would be appropriate for them to stand up and say that they do not want corrupt officials, staff, players at the club - they should help root out the evil infecting their club.

For more than 10 years, ever since its inception, Melbourne Storm has lost money; losses that have had to be made up by grants from the NRL, and from its owner, News Ltd. News Ltd has been trying to sell the club for some years. It might now not be able to sell the losing concern.

While forensic accountants have been called in by News Ltd, and some matters referred to police, there is more that must be done. The NRL must investigate:

• players to whom letters were sent, offering the corrupt payments. If shown to be true to the NRL's satisfaction, these players must have their NRL contracts withdrawn, and be suspended from any professional league for at least 12 months.
• the involvement of club executives, and other staff, including coaching and related team staff. As with players, anyone involved should be banned from working in any NRL-related capacity for some time.
• The apparent insider trading on betting. At least 1 $50 000 bet on Storm getting the wooden spoon (coming last) was made hours before the announcement that they would get no points in 2010 and come last. What relationship does the bettor have with the NRL, the Melbourne Storm, or any other club, or club executives?

Other clubs, and other sports, will be examining, or re-examining, their behaviours. That is a good thing. Corruption in any form is insidious. It, and its perpetrators, must be weeded out.

For the record, I do not support any NRL team; I prefer Super Rugby.

John

Beauty Madness for 9YO Girls

Today's Sunday tabloids carry the story of 9 year-old girls having regular hair removal & waxing at beauty salons. There's no law against this - the child enters the salon, with or without a parent, the salon takes the money. Done deal.

The questions spring to mind.

• Do 9yo girls need waxing/hair removal? The occurrence of excessive body hair mostly occurs after puberty. Most 9 yo girls have not yet reached puberty.
• Why would parent(s) allow removal of non-excessive hair in a pre-pubescent girl? Social engineering of parents (" 'everybody' at school is having it, mum"), or parents providing money, but not knowing how their daughters are spending it.
• Do "tween" magazines/websites promote hair removal as 'beauty'?
• How many 9yo girls have the cognitive maturity to make a rational decision about the process? Psychologically, not many at all.
• What ethics are shown by salons that do this to 9 yo girls?

It seems to me that there would be very few young girls who would need this medically. It is pandering, or the effect of undue influence by others. Industry (beauty, and the tween-targeting publishers) must exert more energy in ethical behaviours. Parents must remember that it is OK, even good, to say "No, that's not appropriate at your age".

Madness, sheer, bloody madness!

John

Hospital Reform Driven Wrongly

According to a number of polls, most Australians support the Federal Government in its efforts to improve public hospitals. They support the concept of the Federal Government funding hospitals more directly. Prime Minister Rudd's offer is to withhold 30% of GST revenue from the states and use it, and other federal money, to more directly fund 60% of hospitals' costs.

A number of states, driven by Victorian Premier, John Brumby, have proposed a model of 50-50 funding. That's 50% from the Federal Government, 50% from the states. The Federal Government does not, under his plan, keep any of the GST money to fund hospitals, AND the states would receive the "bucket of money" for hospitals - well States' Treasuries would get the money! I think this has been much of the problem - states use too much of the money on bureaucracies to "manage" the public hospital system. Kevin Rudd's model of direct funding of more local hospital networks avoids some of the bureaucracies, and should give better value.

With state resistance building, Kevin Rudd has added a sweetener - $500 Million, over 4 years to cut hospital waiting times. Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has told the media that about one in three patients wait for more than eight hours in emergency wards for treatment. The "plan" is to cut that to less than 4 hours. Of the $500 M on offer, $150 M is on offer from 1 July this year. The sting is that hospitals have to cut the waiting time in ED's in half, BEFORE they get the extra $350 M! Yet in order to reduce waiting times, public hospitals need: more ED doctors, more nurses, more hospital beds (which require more nurses). With about 760 public hospitals throughout Australia, that $150 M represents about $200 000 per hospital, or perhaps 3 nurses for 1 year. That's just 1 extra nurse per shift.

The concept of more money for more "efficient" hospitals is NOT a suitable model of funding for something as important as health. Yes, hospitals need to improve, but to deny funding to a hospital because a political target is not met, is not appropriate.

John

Political Images

Image, Image Everywhere, an' Not a Policy to See. (with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge; ... and the Ancient Mariner)

This week we have had 3 political 'debates': 2 in Australia, and one in the USA. One involved (Labor) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition (Liberal) Leader Tony Abbott. They debated Health reform in Australia, with particular emphasis on improving our hospital system. Both were dressed well, wore significant makeup, and presented the political image they and their minders planned. By all reports, Kevin Rudd won the popularity contest, and the debate. He actually has a policy he wants to implement; the Opposition is still deciding if it has one, or wants one.

In NSW, The (Labor) Premier, Kristina Keneally and Opposition (Liberal) Leader, Barry O'Farrell, debated how good/bad/indifferent is the state, and why each of them should be elected as Premier in March 2011. By all reports, Barry O'Farrell won that debate. He will probably win the NSW election in 2011.

These two debates were really all about image, style, and scoring political points in a setting other than Parliament. After all, televised Question Time does the image of politicians no good at all. I have previously written about the disgrace that it is. Not for nothing is the NSW Parliament called "the bear pit"!

The third debate occurred in the US Congress and Senate, which ultimately passed a Medicaid Bill. Reports indicate it will assist up to an extra 3 million people gain the health care they need. As an Australian, I was astounded when, during Obama's Presidential campaign, there was at least 1 free health clinic organised in rural America - for farmers and their families who could not afford health insurance, but who desperately needed health care. The then US government had abandoned them. Republicans (mostly) are those who opposed the legislation - their view is that one must have money, or an employer, to pay for health care. Everyone else, it seems to the Republicans, can go hang! What a sad indictment on a political party.

Australia, of course, is not immune to poor health policy. We desperately need good policies for Indigenous health, dental care for many, improved aged care, better funding for hospitals, ... (the list goes on)

Politicians everywhere must forget image; they should instead go for the substance of good policy. And WE must tell them so.

John

Cleanup Question Time

This week's Question Time in Federal Parliament had only one difference from many others. The Opposition asked for a series of public. televised, debates on Health Policy. Prime Minister Rudd accepted.

It all came about because the Government used Question Time to bait, and deride, Tony Abbott's record as Federal Health Minister in John Howard's Government.

Question Time usually contains a few "Dorothy Dixer"s - questions from Government backbenchers that allow a Minister/Prime Minister to bag members of the Opposition. They usually shout back insults and the whole process degenerates into a slanging match of insults. So much for MP's concept of Parliamentary accountability and responsibility. It's all about cheap point-scoring and has nothing to do with acountability, responsibility, or establishing good policy. And so it has been for more than 20 years under Governments led by Keating, Hawke, Howard, and now Rudd. "You FRAUD", "You FAKE", "You LIAR", "You LOWLIFE" are what has passed for Parliamentary "robust debate" for far too long.

However, you can be sure that Messrs Rudd and Abbott will be on their best behaviour for the televised debates. They do not want the public seeing the the way they "debate" in Question Time. Yes, I know that's televised live, too; but the ratings? What ratings?

It is time that Parliamentary debates, and Question Time, are properly attended, and properly debated, without resort that by community standards is is both unparliamentary, and unacceptable.

You can write to the Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition at the following:

Prime Minster Rudd: http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

John

It's NOT a Tax! - Libs

In a week when Oppositin Leader Tony abbott has had a great big idea, the Liberals are now denying it involves a tax.

Tony Abbott's policy-on-the-run for 6 months fully paid maternity leave, with actual income up to $150,000/year (ie up to $75,000, but highly variable, and inconsistent) left many Liberal Party members in shock. He had not consulted them, not had the policy approved by Shadow Cabinet, let alone a party meeting, And, he said it would be funded by a levy on big business. (those with incomes more than $5 million) They haven't addressed the concept that different women would be paid different amounts of maternity pay, just because they're richer, or poorer.

It would certainly provide, and require, more money than Kevin Rudd's (Labor) proposed legislation for 6-months paid maternity leave at minimum wage rates.

Tony Abbott used the word 'levy', rather than 'tax', because he's been accusing the Government's Emission Trading Scheme of being "a great big new tax". Following attacks in Parliament about his own 'great big new tax' on business, the Libs have rallied. In a number of interviews, Sharman Stone, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Status of Women, said they are not calling it a tax, they are calling it "an investment in human capital".

Big business called it a tax, and don't want it. Taxpayers recognise it as a tax; media interviewers recognise it as a tax. If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, and is paid like a tax ... The Liberals deny it's a tax. Moreover, if I were a woman, I would not want to be referred to as "human capital" for the use of business as they see fit. Businesses view capital as something from which they want a return. Capital is something to be used. It's impersonal.

We should be debating whether or not the policy is "good policy" not playing with words, and not hiding the details, and flow-on effects of a new tax on business.

The Liberal Party should be straight with people, and say "Yes, it's a tax. IF Australia is to adopt our paid maternity scheme, we need new taxes. Big business will pass on the cost to taxpaying consumers, who will ultimately pay" There, I've said it for them.

John

Better Health

I haven't posted for a while, because a relative and good friend had been seriouly ill. Jude died today, from cancer. It really is a most insidious disease. She she is survived by her husband and children.

For the last 5 weeks or so, she has been in hospital, receiving treatment and care from a team of professional people, specialising in cancer, cardiology and palliative care. There have been doctors, allied health professionals and nurses. She reached a stage where doctors recommended only palliative care. We travelled considerable distances to see her each weekend, one Friday and yesterday afternoon. She died peacefully this morning. All have been professional and caring. They have made her, and our, cancer journey that little bit less difficult, but no less emotional.

Her death comes in the week that Kevin Rudd has proposed a partial takeover of hospitals. His plan proposes that the Commonwealth retain 30% of GST revenues, instead of passing them on to the states. This money would be used to help fund local groups of hospitals, which would be managed by local boards. The total funding would be split 60% Commonwealth; 40% State.

I have not delved into the broad plan proposed by Mr Rudd, but I would make the following comments:

• Most people recognize, or believe, the current model is flawed, and inefficient. It encourages cost-shifting between state and Commonwealth-funded services. Each state has its own bureaucratic model.
• We voters do not have to accept the first new plan to come along (Prime Minister Rudd's). We should also be aware that the Opposition Liberal-National Parties want to use such a takeover, of their own 'plan', to resurrect WorkChoices-style industrial relations.

So, let's have have the discussion - we need to. But let's not jump at the first offer made. You wouldn't do that when buying a car, or house. Don't do it with health reform.

Vale, Jude
XXX

John

Political Ethics & Standards Vary

Political ethics and standards of responsibility vary depending on whether a party in in government, or opposition. Consider the following.

Peter Garrett has had a tough week with calls for him to be sacked as Minister for the Environment. The cause: his government's policy of funding insulation in houses. There have been house fires, and deaths of 4 workers employed to install insulation. The Coalition Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, accused Mr Garrett of ignoring 13 warnings about aluminium foil insulation, and the use of metal staples. My understanding is that this is not cause for sacking/resignation, although he must be accountable to Parliament for the policy. The blame must lie with the employers, who bear responsibility for the standard of work, and worker safety. On Channel 7's Today Tonight program, one employee indicated he'd done a Certificate 4 in Insulation Installation in 2 days' training! The course requires 4 units of competency, and I question whether long-term competency can be achieved in that time. Nevertheless, the Opposition has been baying for blood, insisting on Ministerial standards. However, the current Coalition Opposition, when in government 3 years ago (2007), saw no need for an inquiry, or sacking of then Minister, Kevin Andrews, over the deaths of 3 foreign workers under the 457 Visa Scheme which he implemented. They did nothing. The then Opposition, now Labor Government, called it "revolting".

In NSW this week, Labor Premier Kristina Keneally refused to stand down Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Karyn Paluzzano. Ms Paluzzano has been referred to ICAC over allegations she used public money to help fund her (re)election. Premier Keneally has also publicly ridiculed and, possibly tried to intimidate, the whistleblower. Ms Keneally's actions have now been referred to ICAC by the Police Commissioner. Ms Paluzzano is a member of the NSW Labor Right Faction, which installed Ms Keneally as Premier. The Coalition Opposition has called for her to be stood down as Parliamentary Secretary unitl the ICAC investigation is over.

So, politicians apply different standards of ethics and behaviour depending on whether they are in Government or Opposition, & possibly whether their colleague voted for them as leader. Hypocrisy, from all parties?? You decide.

John

Abbott's Climate Change 'Crap'

Having previously decried the concept of climate change as "crap", Opposition Leader Tony Abbott released the Coalition' "Climate Change Policy". Why would Abbott would release a policy on climate change, an argument he described as "absolute crap"?? The answer is ... political expediency. There, that wasn't so surprising, was it?

Pru Goward, then Liberal Shadow Minister for Climate Change in NSW, put it so well in an address to the Lowy Institute in Nov 2007, when she said "the most important part of developing a climate change policy was to ensure it had wide ranging public support" (http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/ - the headline is 'Climate Change Action Needs Public Support')

That is, the MOST important part of Liberal Policy is that it be electorally popular. No mention of the need for good policy. At all. And Tony Abbott has tried hard to deliver a 'popular' set of slogans and ideas to the following groups:

• farmers, who will not be restricted in the amount of land clearing they can do. Any pollution they create, or vegetation they remove will not be counted.
• big polluters, who are promised $Billions to conduct "business as usual"
• so-called "mum & dad" voters whose only worry is when the next tax cut is coming, and fearful of paying tax for public good (Note: that is not all of us! Many of us DO want good policy)
• Industry, which will not have anything extra to pay. Yes, there are promised "sanctions" for those who exceed "business as usual" levels of pollution, but how much is unspecified. The base level seems to be 2010 levels. The reduction is supposed to be from 1990 levels.
• climate change sceptics & deniers, who will recognise how very little this scheme will do.
• The Liberal Party right-wing, who will have been happy to hear Opposition Shadow Finance Minister, Barnaby Joyce, say he would cut public service jobs to help fund the subsidies. Abbott later distanced himself from this, but didn't specifically rule them out, either!

Tony Abbott further uses some smoke & mirrors. The "same 5% cut as the government" is deceitful, because Abbott't 5% is from 1990 levels of CO2, while the government's is from 2000 levels. The '5%' part is the same, but the amounts of CO2 to be reduced are significantly different - more than 300 000 tonnes of carbon different! The scheme is to be funded from "budget savings" - Barnaby Joyce has already flagged a cut in the number of Public Servants - but Abbott has not committed to where the savings will be made. (Under John Howard and Peter Costello, the Liberal Party targetted lower income earners, and those on unemployment & disability pensions to make savings for middle-class welfare)

So, Tony Abbott has heeded Pru Goward's 2007 advice, and gone for electoral popularity over good policy! "Looks good (in the smoke), sounds good, but it isn't. Now, if we can only get PM Kevin Rudd to improve his ETS legislation from 'ordinary' to 'good' policy ...

John

MySchool Website

The MySchool website (www.myschool.edu.au) was launched this week, amid much controversy. As you read it, remember to "never confuse a test score with an education". The website crashed for significant amounts of time. From an IT perspective, that was either poor planning, or poor implementation because that traffic was foreseeable. I suspect the problem is more likely to be underlying database errors. Serious questions have also been asked about the following:

• the resultant league tables created by the media. Remember the media do this simply to make a quick buck from sales, and possibly to denigrate some schools, or school system.
• the site does NOT give amounts of Federal and State funding in total, or per student. That might well have been politically damaging for Julia Gillard, and the Federal and State Governments. Some reports say such information will be included in the a later version.
• the site makes comparisons between statistically dissimilar groups/schools. eg boys-only schools with girls-only schools; high schools with primary schools; comprehensive schools with selective schools
• the site assumes that all students from a school conform to the demographics of the suburb/town in which it is sited.
• NAPLAN testing and performance does not measure an education.

Nevertheless, it was announced with much fanfare, and many media appearances from the Federal Education Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. This gives some clue to the sites real purpose: it is politically-driven. Ms Gillard wants to fight public and private school teachers, and state education systems. She wants what every Minister for Education wants: to be the 'Great Education Reformer'! The tests of reform will not be the media interviews, the press releases (with photo), or Parliamentary comments. The test of her reforms will be: more equitable distribution of public resources; provision of more staff for public schools (lower class sizes have been shown to improve educational outcomes). While she's at it, Ms Gillard might work to restore Federal funding for TAFE and Universities to reasonable operating levels. They have been screwed for money since Paul Keating was Prime Minister, and John Howard continued the policy almost relentlessly. I think that Julia Gillard won't do it, in which case she will have failed the public education reform test.

As for the MySchool site, and its data:

• remember, like investing, "past performance is no indicator of future returns"
  and
• "Never confuse a test score with an education" (John)

John

Politics Has No Holidays.

We've been on holiday for a few weeks. There has been so much to catch up on returning.

Politicians have holidays, too. But not, it seems politics, and the leaders of the major political parties are never far from a microphone, a journalist, and a 10 second gabfest.

Julia Gillard has been kicking deftly at a number of targets. Public School teachers, the Australian Education Union & its state teacher affiliates, and Private School teachers and teacher unions, and some parent organizations have come in for some sharp words over their opposition to the national publication of schools testing data. In one interview she even exhorted parents to approach teachers (directly) about thier school's, and students', performance. The message has been 'don't mess with me, I'm the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Education'. So there!

Tony Abbott has hit the media with his advice to women to remain a virgin till marriage. That's not something he practised, and he didn't advocate it for men. Still hasn't. On this issue he seems to have used all of his appalling 'people skills' to have 51% of the population thinking 'who's he to tell me what to do or not do?', and the rest laughing at him. Nevertheless, for all Abbott's lack of people skills, perhaps the underlying issue is one of the sexual health of people. The Australian Government website http://www.sti.health.gov.au/internet/sti/publishing.nsf/Content/young makes the following points:

• the rate of STI's is increasing. ie more people, mostly 15-29 have more infections.
• Young people, 15-29, account for 75% of cases
• HIV is increasing again
• insufficient people use condoms, and using a condom reduces the chance of getting infected. (not that they provide absolute protection)

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott might have been better to raise the issue of rising rates of STI's on the health and well-being of people, rather than trying to preach to just 51% of the population. And Deputy PM Julia Gillard wasn't going to miss the chance to score easy political points against him. Shame she didn't come up with any sensible suggestions for policy.

2010 will be a year of politicians looking after politicians, and the chance to get (re)elected. It's a (Federal) election year. Good policy, and intelligent public debate, along with a functional Parliament, remain a dream.

Sir Henry Parkes said "All great questions will be dealt with in a broad light and with a view to the interests of the whole country." - Tenterfield Oration, 1889, arguing for a Federal Government. He is undoubtedly spinning in his grave at the cheap antics of our politicians.

John

Advertizing Fast Food And Racism

KFC has withdrawn an ad it used in Australia showing a Australian cricket fan sitting amongst West Indian cricket fans. The West Indian cricket team has just played 3 tests against Australia, and will play some one-day or 20/20 games soon. The concept was that everyone's happy when fried chicken is provided, that the product makes it "too easy" to quieten opponents' supporters, and the support for different teams is less important when the advertised product is provided. That is largely how viewers in Australia considered the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjT4HjWrreI&feature=related

However, some people in the US have taken offence, calling the ad racist, because it stereotypes African-Americans as only eating fried chicken. It is within their rights to take offence - that is driven partly by their individual, and collective, histories, and the societal context they have applied to the ad.

Is the ad racist? What's racist? Is racism a behavioural thing? That is, an action. Or is it driven by a n ideology that a person's outward appearance, or nationality, determines their position in society? I think there are elements of both behaviourist and ideology that drive racism. The behaviourist element often arises from those who act with a mob mentality, or who have not learnt to treat all people with respect. People who lead others to commit racist acts - some politicians, community 'leaders', some 'shock-jocks' in the media - are undoubtedly driven by an ideology.

I understand that in a different society, where there are different sensibilities, there are some who have interpreted it differently and have been offended. However, I do not believe the ad was created with any racist intent, and should not be seen that way. I'm not aware of any West Indian cricketer, or supporter, who has been offended.

John

Happy New Year: What I hope For

WOW! Sydney's fireworks are still the best!! Awesome! You can see some images of NYE from around the world at:

• http://media.smh.com.au/decade-starts-with-a-bang-1007483.html
  
• http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national

It was great, but it is a moment in time. A moment where people forget their troubles, express their good wishes to others, and enjoy themselves.

Today, after the party hangover clears, brings a new reality. What do I want for this year? What are my "new year resolutions"? Mine is simple: I resolve to help our politicians develop better public policies - policies that are in the best interests of Australia, rather than political self-interest, or the interests of "the Party". Some examples of public policy that need a re-think:

• Hospital / health management: How much, if any, should the Federal Government manage? It is undoubtedly in the best interests of Australia's people that the Federal Government be responsible. State politicians are reluctant to hand over anything - it would affect their budget, the size of government, and the number of Ministers drawing Ministerial salaries. The Federal Government knows it's a dog's breakfast, and will cost more to fix than the savings retrieved from the states & territories. Political self-interest is impeding good policy.
• Climate Change: political half-truths & mis-truths are being used to protect the interests of large political donors,and to propagate populist (but largely incorrect) fears. IT is in human nature to try to control our environment, that's why we build houses, so why would politicians not try to control climate change to benefit people? The cynical, but correct, answer is political self-interest, or the financial interests of the political party.
• Refugees: The release of Cabinet papers from 30 years ago show that our politicians, especially those from the Liberal & National Parties have learnt nothing. They still popularise xenophobic ideas, and seek political opportunism at the expense of good policy. Liberal Party and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's pronouncement that he would simply turn away boatloads of refugees knowing that they would likely sink and drown, is the latest example of bad policy for political expedience. The Federal Government politicians are little better - they seek to placate populist public opinions, and the Opposition, for their own benefit, rather than deal properly with a difficult issue.

Happy New Year for 2010 - now, go to work on our political leaders and local members.

:)
John

Merry Christmas

One of the better slogans I saw during the preparations for Christmas was this sign, outside a church:

"Christ - not available in stores"

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to all!

I will be having a few days' break to celebrate.

:)

John

Mary Mackillop - Australia's Saint-In-Waiting

"Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built in the air
And I wonder when we are ever going to change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains"

So sang Tina Turner in "We Don't Need another Hero"

We have found something today: Blessed Mary Mackillop, founder of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, has had a second miracle confirmed by the Vatican. She will be confirmed as Australia's first saint sometime in 2010.

You can find more information about Mary Mackillop, and the order she founded at:
http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/mackillop.htm
http://www.marymackillopplace.org.au/museum/education_resources.asp
http://www.sosj.org.au/about/index.html

"We don't need another hero": politician, environmentalist, or any other. Mary Mackillop acted on her motto "Never see a need without doing something about it". She worked for the poor, the disadvantaged, the isolated. She was concerned with human dignity, not redistributing wealth to the wealthy, not avoiding taxes, not drugs and parties and "celebrities". Mary Mackillop was concerned about people, and did something about it.

What about you?? You could help with a charitable donation. Choose your favorite charity; see your local church, synagogue, mosque, temple; or checkout the following websites.

http://www.vinnies.org.au/
http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/
www.charityhampers.com.au/salvos
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/

Help someone else - all you feel is good! I did.

John

"Cop-out-en-hagen"

The statement issued by world political leaders at Copenhagen is being spun as a good outcome. The only outcome is that there is, indeed, a document signed at Copenhagen. The world's leaders of developed, and developing, nations would not want to have spent as much money, time, travel, even carbon pollution to go home with nothing. So, an agreement of sorts was the most likely outcome.

The "outcome" such as it is, has been rejected by the countries most at risk, including the island of Tuvalu, as being a sellout. Almost all of Tuvalu's income comes from selling Internet Domain Names - the ones ending in ".tv"

The document

• is not legally enforceable.
• allows each country to set its own targets. Targets will be lower than expected, and have little effect on increasing temperatures, increased severity & duration of drought, or rising sea levels.
• allows each country to check itself - there is no independent verification - and write its own report. I wonder what people will think of politicians writing reports about themselves!

The politicians have sold out the world, their people, their children. They sold out because they had a selfish agenda: to not give what they should, to want more than they should, to pollute more for a fist full of dollars. That is their shame, and the shame of their government, and their families.

Plato viewed the world as having 2 planes: an (ideal) plane of perfection, and a plane of reality. In the ideal plane all people are virtuous, acting ethically and justly. The plane of reality is an imperfect copy of the ideal plane, and people only see occasional glimpses of good. There appears to have been not much goodness driving negotiations in Copenhagen.

Politicians have committed to meeting in Mexico next year to try to enhance the agreement. Many will doubt their ability to tighten the agreement, based on the "commitment" not shown, and selfishness that was shown, at Copenhagen.

We, the people, must contact our politicians, and tell them we want significant action on climate change, and we want binding international agreements.

John

Nats Accuse Abbott of Treehugging

Tony Abbott's plan for an alternative to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or Carbon Tax, has hit a snag - his partners in Opposition, the National Party. Together, they were instrumental in using the Senate to block, a second time, an ETS proposed by Kevin Rudd's Labor Government.

As the Liberal Party worked on an alternative to an ETS, National Party Senator Ron Boswell, has hit out at a key element - planting more trees, and granting (financial) incentives to farmers to do so.

Mr Boswell's reasoning is that farmers shouldn't plant trees, and governments should not pay them to do so. Fair enough - he wouldn't want to be socialist in his ideas of financial support for farmers ... oooh, wait a sec, yes he does. The Nat's policy is is often summarised as 'privatise profits, socialise losses'. And climate-induced long-term drought and diminishing farm viability will be socialised with government support: at least, that's the Nats' view. There is no doubt that more of our primary industries need to be restructured, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. John Howard, to his credit, did it for the sugar industry.

Boswell's a dinosaur, and Tony Abbott, as Leader of the Opposition, should tell him so.

John

Alcoholic Violence: Is Society Stupid?

Over the weekend police in all states & territories, and New Zealand, had simultaneous operations on drunkenness and violence. They particularly targeted 'hot spots', including Oxford St, Kings Cross and George St in Sydney.

From the data so far, it looks as though the publicity telling people it was happening had absolutely no effect. None. Zilch. So are we as a society, and the people concerned, so stupid that there was no change in behaviour?? Well, yes! People still went out with the purpose of getting drunk; people still carried knives & machetes, looking for a fight; people still thought they could indulge in illegal drug-taking. One TV actor, Todd Lasance, was allegedly caught with cocaine. 'Who?' you ask - well he's a person who wants to be known for his acting on the tv soapie Home and Away, wants to got to the US to further his career; and, yes, just another drug addict. Perhaps the tv show 'Stupid, Stupid Man' was written with the likes of him in mind. If convicted, the US might deny him entry.

More and more people are beginning to think the solution involves some or all of the following:

• restricted opening hours for licenced premises. That is, the time they can be open, and the closing time.


• enforcement of the RSA laws. Many establishments and nightclubs are clearly NOT fulfilling their legal and social obligations for a quick buck. Those not complying with the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws should be shut down. Repeat offending licensees should be banned for a period of years, and repeat premises should have a licence suspended, and not reissued at that address for some years.


• higher rates of referral to drug and alcohol counselling

Me? I went to a party on Saturday night, had a few drinks, remained sober, and had a good time.

Those who go out to get drunk, and the premises that serve them, need to be targeted. I cannot see a reason why licenced premises need to be open beyond, say 1:30 am; or why drunks should be free to violently roam the streets. Nor can any taxi driver!

OK, I confess that all reads a bit like a weekday shock-jock, a species of which I am not fond. However, we, individually, and as a society, need to address the issue of alcohol, its irresponsible service by licenced premises, violence, and the people who go out to get druink and be violent.

John

Keneally First NSW Woman Premier

At a special caucus meeting at 6pm today, the NSW Labor Party dumped its Premier, Nathan Rees, and elected Kristina Keneally with support from Joe Tripodi /Eddie Obeid's Right Faction. They had installed Nathan Rees, from the Party's Left Faction, as Premier just 14 months ago. They'd called Morris Iemma's bluff, and dumped him. Like (dumped Federal Liberal Leader) Malcolm Turnbull, Nathan Rees continued to talk. Correctly, he cited those in the Party who have weekly tried to white-ant him, and his leadership. Like the Liberal Party, the NSW Labor Party will never recover until the likes of Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid are gone. Bitter factional power-broking only breeds disloyalty, treachery, and, ultimately, a long time in Opposition.

The Left Faction's Carmel Tebbutt will remain as Deputy Leader.

Just like the Federal Liberal Party, the NSW Labor Party is a (rocky) horror show ...

(Joe Tripodi & Eddie Obeid, wearing black fishnets … I mean eyebrows, and cloaked in developer funds )
It's so fatuous, oh fantasy free us
So you can't see us, no not at all
In a caucus meeting, with manic intention.
Well-secluded, We see all.
With a stab in the back, You're in the Premier’s seat
And nothing can ever be the same
We’re spaced out on power, we are in control
Let's do the Labor backstab!
Let's do the Labor backstab!

(Kristina Keneally, with high-pitched, shrill voice)
Well I was walking down Macquarie Street just a-having a think
When a snake of a guy gave me an evil wink
He took me in, he took me by surprise
He had a Right Faction and developers' eyes.
He stared at me and I said ‘yes’
Ethics meant nothing, never would again
Let's do the Labor backstab!
Let's do the Labor backstab!

(with apologies to all from The Rocky Horror Picture Show)

John

Related article:
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/12/libs-jump-to-right-with-abbott.html