What Australia MUST do: Part IV
What Australia MUST do to advance: Part IV
Part I: Here // Part II: Here // Part III: Here
My forth item in the list of six “Things Australia MUST do in order to advance” is an issue that while is very popular right now, is not exactly what is being talked about. I will also use the real life story of my fiancée, not as an emotional (read: weak) argument, but as a real world example of how things aren’t working. Unlike the rest of this series, I don’t actually really have a concrete solution. I have always been a strong believer in the old adage: if you don’t have any better ideas, then shutthefuckup. However, with this issue, I simply must speak up without a well thought out answer to the problem.
In late 2003 my fiancée tore her anterior cruciate ligament in her right knee. She went to the doctor who confirmed the tear and a dislocation of her knee, which corrected itself.
She was referred to a, purposely unnamed, hospital to get arthroscopic surgery, a procedure that is relatively routine which could involve treatment of the injury, or at the very least give the doctors a real look at the damage done. She was told to rest the knee, and await instructions from the hospital for consultation and surgery times.
We met mid 2004, and from the beginning her issue with her knee was clear. Any running or heave walking would usually cause her knee to “pop out” of place, causing her to tumble to the ground, it would fix itself and she would be sore for a day or so. This happened at least once a fortnight; sometimes it happened when just walking normally.
At least once a month her mother would call the hospital to see what the holdup was, and each time was told that they’d get back to her.
It wasn’t until around 2007 that we found out that a family friend was in a position it see the waiting list, and could actually advise us on the status – she called with bad news – she wasn’t on the list. It appears that the GP never forwarded on his referral. The most confusing thing was, not the incompetence if the original GP, but the fact that we were mislead by the hospital for at least three years. The reason they’d “get back to us” was because they couldn’t find her on the list.
The best thing to do would be to start again. We went to a new GP, got a referral and few weeks following, and we got an appointment. It was for December 2008. Seeing as we had about ten months notice at the time, we were very much on time for the appointment.
We spoke to a doctor who sent us to get an MRI. We would then have to come back in a couple of week for the result.
When we returned, now early 2009, the doctor was dismayed at what he had found, not only were all her ligaments now almost dust, it appears that by going on for so long without treatment, she had worn her menisci down a considerable amount. The menisci are the little cushions that prevent the femur and tibia bones from rubbing together. The doctor concluded that she needed surgery as soon as possible and confirmed that I was wrong in saying that she “whines too much”, because this injury would make it painful to move.
We returned home and few days later got a letter saying that we were officially on the list and a date will be sent to us as soon as it comes available.
By August 2009, we got another letter, asking if my fiancée still required the surgery. We said yes.
In January 2010, we got two letters from the hospital. One letter asked if she still needed surgery, and the other was a request to get another referral and MRI as it has been so long since the consultation.
That’s right, because it has taken THEM so long, we must do it all over again to prove that her ACL and meniscus haven’t GROWN back.
We had said that at this moment she couldn’t have the surgery as we are now expecting our first child. Their response? Take her OFF the waiting list entirely.
Once she has recovered from childbirth, she would have to get another referral, another MRI and join the bottom of the list again.
She has been waiting for medical assistance that has been required since before I met her.
Since the injury, we met, we dated, we moved out together by renting a house, we got engaged, we bought a house and we are now happily pregnant.
The initial injury happened in 2003. It has been six years and she still hasn’t received the treatment she needs.
Even if one discounts the initial GP screw-up and counts it from the second time she stated the process. She has officially been on the waiting list for a knee reconstruction for 14 months.
As the injury isn’t life threatening and she can have a (relatively) normal life her surgery is “elective” and she is classed as a Category 2: for painful conditions. The maximum wait expected under the health department’s target is 90 days.
My fiancée has currently waited a full 365 days longer than the expected wait time. 2,100 days if one was to count time from the first doctors visit in 2003.
I really wish our story was unique, but it’s not – in some cases it’s even a mild story of how our health system is failing us.
And we do have American readers on this site, please let me assure you that it has nothing to do with a single payer system. In my opinion it has to do with priorities and the lack of forward thing by every state government for the last 20 years.
The big election item at the moment appears to be the health system. Our federal candidates have debated, fought and poked fun at each other over their health care plans. Tony Abbott in one corner has criticized the Government’s plan to effectively take over all hospitals and health services in every state, while KRudd has mocked Abbott for not have a health plan at all.
To be honest I don’t know if giving the health system to the federal Government is a good idea or not, one thing is for sure the way it is just does not work.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, I don’t have a solution for this one, but one thing is clear – it must not be left off the list.
What Australia MUST do to advance: Part IV: Fix the Broken Health System
- db
What Australia MUST do: Part III
What Australia MUST do to advance: Part III
One of the most significant universal laws set in place in the western world, originally (though not officially until much later) by France and, like most things, made famous by the USA is the separation of Church and State.
In Australia, our constitution also includes this little nugget:
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
That is from Section 116, and it prohibits the Government from setting a state religion (Take that Christian Australia!), and from prohibiting the Government from intervening in any citizens private beliefs.
But where is the stipulation that Government must not give favor to any one religious view when formulating law? Banning Stem Cell research because of “moral” objections is unmistakably Christian morality being given free reign, as is the “ban” on stores trading on Easter Sunday.
Then again it is ONLY our constitution and isn’t really worth the papers it was scribbled on in a pub one night. Don’t believe me? Look at section 115:
A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
Oops.
(Just a side thought, does that mean I can use gold to pay off my house? I mean, it is well established that our coins and banknotes are now legal tender (instead of being like an I.O.U for gold), but my Constitution says that making coins and notes legal tender, thus taking away any REAL value they might have had is and was illegal. But yeah, we have separation of Church and State.)
In Australia, no law can pass without the Royal Assent. This means that no law can pass without the Queen’s blessing and as the Queen isn’t really here (nor would she want to be), she assigns a representative to do all the dirty work, that person is the Governor-General. So while many people might think KRudd is in charge, our (defacto) head of state is the GG.
This is where the lines between church and state begin to blur, making a big, blurry, fuzzy… thing.
The Queen, under and English monarchy is the head of the Church of England, thus making the Governor-General, Australia’s representative for the head of the Church of England. That means that all laws must get the royal assent from a defacto head of a Catholic-ish church.
To add more fuel to the flames of absurdity when trying to pretend Australia and any church are separate, in 2001 John Howard, everyone’s favourite gnome, put forward his support for Peter Hollingworth, an Anglican minister for Governor-General, which the queen accepted.
Hollingworth eventually retired due to Anglican priests in his Diocese showing the Catholics they too can fiddle hard and Hollingworth doing his best impression of a Pope.
This piece is about the need for the Australia to setup and demand a 100% secular government free from any and all hindrance from religion.
Abortion is a perfect example. Under a secular, rational Government abortion would be legalised, without debate. It would than be up to the citizen if they would get an abortion. Marijuana would be legalised, Voting would NOT be compulsory and neither would wearing a seatbelt.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, not voting and not wearing a seatbelt are stupid, dumb things to do, but I’ll be damned if a Government with a hard on for soft paternalism will tell me what to do.
If we had a truly secular Government, we wouldn’t have to deal with Sentator Fielding. If a truly secular Australian Government existed, after his outing on Q&A as being a person who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, he would have been laughed out of Canberra while wearing a dunce cap.
Again this isn't meant to be a pieve on the ridiculousness of religion, or the absurdity and hypocrisy of the people who believe, but the need for Australia to take a hard stance on allowing a representatives personal morality getting in the way of governing a country which, I feel, is in a unique position to become a world leader in all the major sticking points of our civilization.
The problem Australia clearly has, is that the lines between religion, specifically Christianity, and the Government are blurred beyond recognition.
According to Senator Fielding, on the same episode of Q&A, Kevin Rudd opens his private meetings with a reading from the bible. Our leader, regardless of his personal private views should never be using scripture to base his decisions.
Before each sitting of Parliament, the Lord's prayer is read - in my local council the Lord's prayer is read before each meeting. How in holy hell can Australia claim it has a multicultural society when before each meeting of our elected "leaders" a Christian prayer is read?
It has been suggested, multiple times, that a politician can not, and should not, separate his or her personal religious views from their public self.
That point of view is all fine and dandy, if one day they woke up and magically became a representative - but they didn't. What the public has seemed to forgotten over the last decade or century is that these people work for us. They represent an entire electorate regardless if someone voted for them or not. Unless they are certain the 100% of their district would approve of a reverse logic, hypocritical moral stance then they should not represent it in their public persona.
An electorate will never be wholly one religion or moral viewpoint, especially in times such as these there fore the government can not make decisions based on one religion or viewpoint. Any and all decisions made by the government must be based on rational fact and evidence and must never intervene with anyones personal life.
The only way to ensure that Australia becomes an untarnished, beacon of freedom and liberty is to clearly define and defend the complete separation of religion and the governing body.
- db
Refugees should be a non-issue
Refugee: a person who applies for protection from and the right of residence in a foreign country, due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country
Rudd backflip slams asylum seeker door
Just a quick one on the "refugee issue":
I fear that this time the general public are to blame... by believing and accepting the BS sprayed by both sides of parliament we have made this an election issue when it should be a human rights and humanitarian issue. By denying or delaying even one legitimate refugee, we have failed as both humanitarians and a civilized society.
The ironic twist is that we are suspending processing of Afgans - the very country that WE helped destabilize - both by not putting pressure on the US in the late 80's early 90's to help rid people of the Taliban they trained and armed and when we walked into two wars in the region without an exit strategy or rebuilding strategy.
This is OUR fault, and while I wish for a world without refugees, maybe a couple thousand of them showing up on our doorsteps or being relocated to our communities every year might make people realize the ramifications of bad decisions when it comes to foreign policy.
-db
What Australia MUST do: Part II
PART I is HERE
Before the War on Terror™, Australia had a proud history of being “the peacemakers”, we were a proud, fair and free* country. “Fair go, Mate” was the catchcry of the easy going, “fair’s fair” and tolerant nature of the quintessential “Aussie”.
Just like how the RSPCA fights for the rights and humane treatment of “all creatures’ great and small” unless that creature is a “pitbull”, cane toad or any other creature that doesn’t fit their agenda, the “Fair Go” mantra also has a limit.
It appears the official Australian definition of a “Fair Go” is: equality extended to all citizens, except the homosexuals.
I say it’s the Official definition, because according to polls taken a very few months by various publications, the majority of Australians feel it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a marriage.
At least that’s what they say when asked.
An unintended side effect of denying a group of people the same rights given to any other citizen is that it turns that group into a target and creates a class system. When bringing this up with people who do not support same gender marriage is that it is just the term “marriage” that they don’t support. Other than the word, they believe all other rights and privileges should be extended to them.
But that’s not the point.
Besides, do you really think the government gave these “rights” in order to be nice?
The Same-Sex relationship register was the only way the government could stop homosexuals from claiming welfare when they had a wealthy partner.
We have all heard the stories. One partner would make a circa $110k salary, the other quits their job and collects the welfare checks. Authorities were powerless because under the law, same-sex relationships weren’t recognised.
It’s the only way they can have their cake and eat it too.
Not to spoil the fun, but one of my future “Things Australia MUST do…” articles will involve the root of these nonsensical views on homosexual marriage, so I won’t really go into it here.
The thing that really grinds my giraffe is that there is absolutely no rational reason to deny same gender couples the choice of getting married. Please give me a rational argument to reject Gay marriage… go on… I’ll wait.
- Unnatural? INCORRECT.
Occurs in nature.
- Immoral? INCORRECT.
There has been no direct link between same gender attraction and terrorism (quite the opposite actually – I’m looking at you, Allah)
- Tradition? IRRELEVANT.
The mutilation of the genitals of young girls is a tradition in Africa, should we not change that either? Mohels traditionally used their teeth to perform a circumcision – want to bring that one back? No? Then let’s not go there ok?
I like to joke around, but the fact is that this issue isn’t very funny. We are denying other human beings the rights we have because of who they love. It is almost sickening to think about it. And the worst part is, Australia really isn’t that far behind the rest of the western world.
That is why Australia must live up to its “Fair Go” image and take the lead. We MUST recognise and celebrate same-sex marriage if we are to advance as a free and progressive country.
-db
*We have never been a truly free country... wow I wonder if that will come up in this series...
Coming up next time - Part III.
What Australia MUST do: Part I
Well Hello there!
It has been a while hasn't it?
And SO MUCH has happened! It's a wonder this site has been quiet despite, what?, a Z list sportstar/Media whore breakup and a TV star whose fame vanished nigh on 20 years ago being accused of feeling up an underage co-star.
But seriously folks, it does appear that this country is in a Rudd - I mean rut (which essentially means the same thing).
A small country that has the opportunity to lead the world in everything from medical research to human rights in practise is spending its mornings trying to decide between finding new ways to screw with the middle and lower classes and doing SFA.
I really dislike when commentators or bloggers point out what is wrong with a government but don’t offer any real alternatives to the problems. To point out what is wrong is easy, to suggest a solution… well that takes a special type of A-hole blogger.
So rejoice! I have come up with 6 sure fire ways to get the country back on track!
This will be presented in a six part series. Each entry will have two suggestions to propel this little island/continent/rock of ours into the history books as the most progressive and revered nation in history!
To-Do List for Australia: Part I – The Media
Australians are stupid - I mean ignorant - I mean racist - I mean lazy.
Bah! I don’t know what to think about the general populace. I don’t have the time or willpower to get to know you all so I like many others, turn to the media to determine the pulse of a society.
The initial goal of the media companies was to inform and entertain. Then like all good ideas, they begin to decay and corrupt. In most cases the corrosive agent is the almighty dollar. The priorities of the media have been shifted somewhat and now look more like this
Priority 1: Turn a Profit
Priority 2: Create and or air Entertaining material
Priority 3: Inform and educate
If you have read this with a cynical tone so far, you may think that I am complaining. I’m not.
Media outlets make the lion’s share of their money through advertising. The more eyeballs on a page/screen or the more ears tuned into a station the higher that outlet can charge for the advertising. The media outlets need you interested in what they are showing in order.
If a company is producing/airing material that nobody wants to see/hear the less advertising money they can demand. It’s simple, it’s logical, it’s democratic and it works.
Now resume the cynical tone:
Unfortunately, greed has taken the place of responsibility and the commercial media use underhanded techniques to sway public opinion and dupe them into consuming what they put out.
If I were to use what the media calls “news” or “entertainment” to make a judgement on our society I would certainly think Australians are stupid, ignorant fools who are getting exactly what they are asking for.
Perhaps they ARE getting what they are asking for. Perhaps the majority of people out there LIKE to be placed in some sort of altered reality where consumption is the key to happiness. Perhaps I am alone in my want of unbiased straight talking news. The media outlets are only giving out what the people want and even if they were to bend the truth to satisfy the interests of certain (mostly paying) groups; people generally don’t really care.
It is at this point I believe the media should adopt and actually keep it’s own ethical code. Including some of the following rules:
1. Reporting on all news based on importance to the community.
If the station manager is a member of the Labor party and doesn’t really want Steven Conroy demonized or shown in a negative light over his human-rights-breeching-internet-filtering-bill , the news department must refuse to bury of skip the story. The aforementioned law, for example, is of the utmost importance to the future of this country and all citizens need to understand the implications of the filtering plan. If ACA was truly a Current Affairs program and not an over bloated infomercial it would be covering this issue every night with the absence of emotional arguments and focussing on fact and educated speculation from experts. Even if the public really don’t care or don’t want to know, the media should be compelled to inform despite the possible financial impact it has on it’s organisation.
2. Practice Full Disclosure *before* presenting a story
Picture this. A new wonder drug emerges that could cure cancer. The company producing this drug is called DaneCo. One in ten people, however, die instantly after popping the pill; more research could fix this but that would delay release by 7 years and the company can’t afford that. Now imagine the Government is currently considering approving the drug for sale despite the risks.
Channel 78 News reports that The Government is considering approving a drug that cures all cancers and has a 90% success rate.
Channel 89 News reports the Government is considering approving a dangerous drug that could kill 10% of those who take it. They also report that despite the fact that the company could fix it so nobody dies the government may approve it anyway.
At a cursory glance, these appear to be reporting the same thing just from a different viewpoint.
What if Channel 78’s CEO was on the board of DaneCo and stands to make billions off the approval of the drug. The CEO instructed the news team to give a positive story about the drug knowing that the audience will likely pressure and lobby the Government into approving the drug.
Prior to the story taking place, shouldn’t the presenter preface the story with information about the conflict of interest? I think they should, but they don’t.
Shouldn’t Tracey Grimshaw preface a breaking celebrity news story by informing the viewers that they paid the interviewees $200,000 for their opinion?
3. Misleading is the same as lying. Publically retract mistakes.
A couple of months back there was a story about a dog attack on a man who required stitches to his arm afterwards. The media reported that it was a “pitbull” that attacked the gentleman. Through my own investigations and contacts I found out that there were three dogs that were present at the incident and indeed two of them were American Staffy’s, or what we commonly call a “Pitbull”. The other dog was not a Pitbull. If you can guess which dog attacked the man you win a gold star. The “dangerous” dogs were not the attackers. Another glaring piece of journalistic integrity was that they reported the dog had a hold of the man for almost 20 minutes. 20 minutes and only stiches? Here is a tip for those who don’t know: if a vicious “pitbull type dog” has their infamous lock jaw on you for twenty minutes, you will need a lot more than stiches. If you are attacked by one of these dogs and their intent is to kill you and they manage to make contact, you can kiss the skin and tissue around that area goodbye.
Things just didn’t seem to add up about this story until one finds out that it wasn’t a “pitbull”.
So, where was the correction? Where was the clarification of the facts? There was none. I’m not suggesting the news correct every one of the many, many inaccuracies it portrays every night, but if they get a story flat out wrong – the people should be informed.
The media has tried policing itself with their ethical codes (written and unwritten) but these have failed. I also don’t think they would start cracking down on themselves when so much money is at stake.
I hate the government, but a democratic system elects a government to make decisions on their behalf. They should also regulate and watch industries that have a large influence. While this comes dangerously close to a controlled police state, I’m suggesting the Government sanction and pay for a truly independent fact and conflict of interest watchdog on all “news” programs. If the “news” wishes to have opinions and or “sponsored” segments, that is fine as long as the audience is well aware that they are viewing such content.
An informed public is a smart public. And a smart public is what we need moving forward.
So, an independent whistle blowing watchdog for the media and it’s “news” programs that is my first of “Six things Australia must do to advance”
Ohh this IS exciting isn’t it? What will number 5 be? Crocs? Tasmania? Lara Bingle? Only time will tell.
Continue to press F5 until the next step is revealed!
- db
‘Mea Culpa’ – it’s latin for sympathy vote…
"I'm sure we'll take an even bigger whacking in the period ahead and the bottom line is I think we deserve it
We are taking a pounding because we haven't been up to the mark so far.
We are proud of what we have done on the economy last year in the face of everything happening around the world, but we are facing a different benchmark now
I think people are becoming disappointed at the pace of the delivery of the commitments that we have made
We ain't walking away from it one bit. There has been a delay and I've been blamed for that, criticised for that - fair cop."
What is he up to?
One could argue that he is apologizing to set himself up as an honest, straight shooting kind of guy.
Do you buy it? Because I certainly don't.
KRudd's contrived "apology" is as about as see through as a freshly Windexed windshield. It appears to me that he is appealing to the supposed "fair go" Aussie idiom and perhaps trying to become an underdog - and everyone loves an underdog!
In the era or active audiences (in contrast to the "passive" audiences of decades ago), the new generation of politic watchers and News viewers usually can read between the lines. Simply put - we have seen all the tricks before.
That said, it doesn't explain why KRudd would actually NEED to do this. Even though the two party preferred vote polls were showing a deceased gap the Labour party is still miles ahead. Perhaps it's due to the fact that KRudd can't gaurentee that there won't be anymore major screw ups between now and the next election, maybe he already knows one is coming.
I would hazard a guess that this "apology" of sorts is directed squarely at the older GenX and Baby Boomers, because as evident from an episode of Q&A a few weeks ago the youth, righfully, aren't as forgiving.
The young people of the audience clearly didn't buy the "GFC" as an excuse to allow health and education slip through the cracks.
As transparent as the PMs move is, as of this morning (02/03/10) it has worked. Overnight the PM has seen his approval ratings climb. The two party preferred polls still show Labour with a very strong lead.
Unfourtunatly, this has prompted an almost complete copycat performance from the Victorian Premier John Brumby:
"We've had a pretty ordinary run, that's the truth of the matter, to the extent that there have been delays, well, of course the responsibility for that rests with the government — rests with me as leader of the government."
Unlike KRudd, however, Brumby is actually in real trouble of being ousted later this year with Street Crime, Myki, Water and health plaging his term as Premier.
Brumby needs to start panicking (which means for us we will see an onslaught of "Policy on the Run") as he is running against Ted Baillieu - an absolute silver spoonfed toff, but a real threat to the leadership.
KRudd however has to compete with this:
That budgie must be cold.
I'm curious as to why the PM is apologizing.- Actually I know WHY, I'm confused as to WHY NOW?
-db
Conroy- Corrupt, Dangerous and Stupid
It appears that the older I get, the more amazed I am of the incompetence of our "authorities". Whether it is a Chief Commissioner's ignorant and stupid advice or childish calls from one side of Parliament to another for the resignation of another politician.
I won't suggest for a minute that I am becoming any wiser - quite the opposite in fact; I am becoming more ignorant with each passing day.
It's a sad fact that along with my ignorance, comes an expectation that our elected leaders are dumb and dodgey.
There used to be a perception that if you thought the Government were "on the sly", you were either:
a) Joking
or
b) Batshit insane and probably a member of the Greens.
Due to my increased frustration with the incompetency of our duely elected, I have tried to resist getting "caught up in it" and tried ignoring them, hence the lack of new articles on this website. Then the news broke that I was right -Steven Conroy is corrupt, dangerous and irrationally stupid.
After the smug satisfaction of being correct in my assessment of the Senator, a worrying thought entered my mind.
Why the hell is he still there?
It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots to read behind the lines of what happened here. The would be a number of unwritten "rules" for Senators. One would be "Don't accept gifts", another would be "If you DO accept gifts, DON'T get caught and DON'T give the gift giver $250 million a month after said gift."
The latter rule was rather specific, and he still broke it.
Going skiing with Kerry Stokes is not a crime. Allowing him to pay for your time on the mountain a month before giving him a massive financial windfall with no strings attached, should be.
Mr Conroy maintains that it was just a normal meeting. In Colorado. 13,641 kilometers away from your office. If the Senator was there on official business why did he pay his own way to get there? If there really was a legitimate official reason for him having to ge there, like he suggests, Why didn't the trip go on his expense account? Surely that is what it's there for?
The story just doesn't add up.
The more concerning thing is that although he has been caught pretty much red handed, and add to the fact that he is the biggest threat to Australia's freedom; one would think it would be the media's dream to crucify him until he either quits or emigrates to the UK.
But they aren't.
They are reporting on it, but where are the editorials? Where is the outrage?
Nobody likes Conroy, I doubt he even likes himself. Why isn't this a bigger deal?
Late last week, Conroy called out Tony Abbott for having a meeting with James Packer before opposing the $250 miliion dollar kickback - guess what? Tony Abbott was going to oppose it anyway because he is in OPPOSITION.
Ugh, I hope everyone realizes how hard it was for me to defend Tony Abbott. I feel dirty.
Apologies for this almost incoherent rant about a guy that nobody likes. I will now return to my hole where I am sticking my fingers in my ears whilst humming and rocking in place.
- db
ADDENDUM:
I haven't really been able to come up with a clever name for Conroy yet. I have Kevin Dudd, Barreness Julie, Brother Abbott the list goes on (but really stops there).
If anyone can think of a clever pun for Senator Conroy let me know!
Reaction to the Liberal Parties environment “Plan”
Who would have thought that money, of all things, would fix the environment?
That's what Tony Abbott says.
He says he'll also put 100,000 solar panels on Australian rooftops every year. If any Government were to do that, which they wont, it will only lead to "grid-fed" electricity prices will go through the roof.
Just like how thousands of homes got water tanks - *ahem* sorry, taxed water tanks- has seen the price of water skyrocket.
Mr Abbott also claims that this won't "cost" the public anything, which means one of two things:
1. $3.2 billion will be made out of nothing and put pressure on interest rates
or
2. The $3.2 billion will be created by making cuts to other sectors.
I think number two is more likely as our schools, hospitals, income tax rates are all at a perfect level.
If he takes a signle cent from anyother sector, the public ARE paying for it by proxy through the degeneration of another portfolio.
What is remarkable , however, is that the confessed skeptic would devise and plan to implement a great plan for the environment.
That last sentence would be true if his plan was actually good for the environment.
Here is some quick blink reactions to the announcement:
- He didn't mention changing our main source of electricity from coal to a renewable source
- He announced the EXACT same 5% cut in emmissions - the same laughable 5% target
I don't care if one is a "Greenie" or not; a 5% cut by 2020 is disgraceful and will not effect the Global environment, let alone our local environment one bit.
Both sides have set this target because it is easy to reach and doesn't ruffle too many feathers.
I only say it doesn't ruffle many feathers because the big polluters have kept unusually quiet about this.
They are quiet because they know they can do their part for this easy taget without having to change their major business model.
By sucking up to industry and the commercial sector both sides of Government have effectivly sold out our childrens future and ignored the desires of the electorate.
He also announced he would plant 20 million trees by 2020. I will let a quote from Ken Caldeira, of the global ecology department at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, speak for me:
The idea that you can go out and plant a tree and help reverse global warming is an appealing, feel-good thing [...] To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time.
Both of these plans (the ETS and whateverthehell Abbott calls this policy (which is the equivalent of a fingerpainting)) are reactionary plans, not thought out and while sound nice and make great headlines, don't even beging to scratch the potential this country has for making strides in the face of neo-environmantalism and carbon emission cuts.
That is all.
-db
The Blackout #nocleanfeed #openinternet
From the 25th to the 29th the main page of the opinionation will show an in-browser popup "blackout" to each new visitor.
This is to protest the Australian Government's plan to "clean the feed" and filter out objectionable content.
Please see the following resources for more information:
http://www.internetblackout.com.au/
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet
Somebody think of the children!
- db
Tony Greenfinger
Photo: Kate Geraghty
Yeah... I don't buy it either.
In a desperate attempt to shift the current public belief that he doesn't believe in Global Warming / Climate Change, Tony Abbott's PR team, whom I suspect have yet to graduate from any public relations course, have set him up with photo ops to sway our opinion.
The problem for the Opposition Leader is that Generations X and Y aren't as easy to fool as the hypocritical Baby Boomers. In order to have any hope of not looking like a fool on election day, he must find a way to connect with the two later generations. Unfortunatly, Generation X and Y aren't what one would label "passive" audiences. Through schooling and general distrust of the media and Government the younger generations have learnt to smell a rat. A picture of a man planting a tree just doesn't cut it as far as changing perceptions. We are all well aware of what a staged photo op is and this is the most basic of all. It's also painfully obvious that by appearing in a blue top, fluro vest and Khaki pants he is trying not only to connect with environmentalists, but also the blue collar worker. Although I'd class both parties as elitist conservatives, the Liberal party has a history of not being kind to the working class.
One photo doesn't make up for what we know he believes. How can we know? We get our information straight from the mentally challenged horse's mouth:
"Notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world's warming has stopped"
I don't want to critisize the "man" for an opinion that many people hold, but this point of view flies directly in the face of what GenX, GenY and... science believes. His vague and almost comical plan for a "15,000-strong ''green army'' to tackle land degradation" will not get him any favours from the voters.
The job of a Prime Minister should be to listen to the people and act in the best interest of the country. When over 90% of the population wants real action on Climate Change via green energy plants and tough regulation on industry - you do it. Not because you believe it, but because we do.
I am not suggesting the Government should act on every whim from the electorate. For example, even if 90% of the electorate supoprted mandatory internet filtering, the Government of a "free" and democratic society shouldn't even entertain the thought. But when the whim is backed up by the vast majority of scientific data and common everyday observances - it must be upheld, especially of the cost of non action, according to the latest scientific data, is the possible extinction of our species.
Not that I'd suggest anyone would ever buy this pathetic attempt to appear environmentally concious ("Oh look, he has a hammer he MUST believe in climate change"), but those who might be entertaining the thought - what do you think a man who thinks the worst is over is really going to do for the wellbeing of our lands and the planet? Tony Abbott has shown in the past to be a man who acts based on his beliefs and morality, do you think, if elected, he would honestly "waste his time" dealing with a cause he doesn't believe in?
Didn't think so.
- db