Another good comment
Read this on the telegraph's website this time from a user named: morph
Sarah Hanson-Young is dreaming if she thinks releasing them to the community would be cheaper. In detention centres they are housed fed and cared for with shared facilities. In the community they would expect separate housing, food, medical care and welfare. There would be no scales of economy, unless she was going to share her place with 5600 asylum seekers.....Not likely
The original article and story can be found here: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/australias-billion-dollar-boats-detention-centre-contracts-blow-out-to-103-billion/story-e6freuzi-1226266158906
Must watch! Chaser Greens Voters
Video Description:
The most accurate assessment of Greens voters that I have ever seen - for mine, a vote for the Greens (until they are held fiscally accountable for their - quite wonderful - social policies) is akin to a donkey vote.
9 reasons why Qantas had every right to do what it did!
- Qantas' primary responsibility is to deliver a profit to its shareholders: Qantas as a public business listed on the Australian stock exchange has a responsibility to the shareholders/investors in the company to ensure that a profit and growth occurs. Qantas must prioritise the various interests from the stakeholders in the company, and the shareholders must always come first in such a matter.
- Qantas cannot afford to pay their workers any more money: Qantas is already losing money on its international routes and drastic cuts in spending need to be made to ensure that this arm of the business remains profitable. Pay increases for their employees are simply not possible to be made.
- Qantas employees are already the highest paid in the world: Qantas already finds it difficult to compete with other airlines as they currently pay their workers some of the highest wages in the world. How can these employees possibly want any more money? It's just plain greed!
- As aircraft become more efficient, less employees are required: Just like many other technological advancements around, aircraft become far more efficient and thus require less employees to service and maintain the airline's fleet. Therefore, Job Security for all workers simply cannot be agreed upon, as a number of the workers eventually will become redundant.
- Unions had already been taking action against the company for months: The various unions had already been undertaking industrial action against the company since September in a series of rolling strikes, aimed at bleeding the company slowly and painfully.
- Qantas was already losing significant amounts of money from union Industrial Action: Qantas was already making losses of approximately $20m per week as a result of customers using other airlines due to uncertainty surrounding flights and disruptions.
- Unions that same day announced increased industrial action: The Transport Workers Union the morning after the AGM said that they planned to increase the amount of industrial action, until the airline agreed to their conditions.
- Qantas deals with many unions and has managed successfully to negotiate with a majority of them.
- The only effective industrial action available to Qantas was a lockout!! The employees have the right to take action against Qantas, so why can't this company take action against its employees? It would seem that many people in the Australian community believe that employees should simply be allowed continually to make threats to their employers, yet no kind of retaliation be expected.
I certainly didn't like seeing the airline grounded, but it seems that this was the only way to show the greedy unions that they don't always get what they want, and that they do not own nor do they run the company!
Let me know your thoughts in the poll or comments below! Please spread the word!
Loading ...ABC 7.30 special interview with Alan Jones
It's been a long time since this was aired but if you haven't already seen it, please watch it! Alan explains many of the controversies from the past year and also speaks about Climate Change and the Government's proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 20/10/2011
Reporter: Leigh Sales
Galileo Movement Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal Video Series
Fantastic Video series produced by the Galileo Movement and presented by Malcolm Roberts.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Coming Soon (will update soon)
ABC Drum: Andrew Dodd comments on Bolt case
I've been following the discussion over the recent Bolt decision and have been very pleased reading the raft of support for Bolt from many commentators (even from the ABC!). Here's a bit I found particularly interesting and reasoned from Andrew Dodd on ABC's The Drum website.
There is clear logic in the judge's ruling, but my contention is that it fails to establish why Bolt’s writings did not qualify under the freedom of expression exemptions within the Act and it falls short of establishing that Bolt's motives were as debased as the ruling suggests.
In essence this case was lost on this point - the belief by the judge that "people should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying".
Bolt did not get an exemption under the Act because of "the manner in which those articles were written" and because "they contained errors in fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language".
I think the ruling is dangerous because it asserts as indisputable fact that Bolt's articles were not reasonable and were not written in good faith and do not classify as "fair comment". The Judge clearly believes they were not written with a genuine public interest in mind.
But in the end this is just one person's view. Although those of us that don't like Bolt's writing might think we understand his motives, we really don't have a clue whether Bolt honestly held these views. Perhaps he was being courageous, rather than reckless, in seeking to talk openly what many would say quietly. I don't share his views but I can see some merit in the argument that true racial tolerance is only achieved when we can ventilate unpopular views openly and have a robust discussion about them.
- The Bolt decision will have implications for us all, Andrew Dodd, ABC
Great to see others that have similar views to me on this issue.
Is it Racism or Reverse Racism?
So when does the debate over Aboriginal issues become racist? It seems that recently Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt crossed the line when he wrote a story regarding what he called 'white aborigines' or 'political aborigines'. Bolt describes a number of people who identify themselves as Aboriginal yet they are proportionately a majority comprised of other races. Bolt goes further to explain that they claim their aboriginality for political recognition and to help advance their careers. "Not yet convinced that for many of these fair Aborigines, the choice to be Aboriginal can seem almost arbitrary and intensely political, given how many of their ancestors are in fact Caucasian?" In the article are a number of titles listed that have been claimed by the people mentioned:
- Victorian Indigenous Art Award
- Ambassador for the Australia Council’s Indigenous Literacy Project
- University of Technology in Sydney’s Indigenous House of Learning
- Scanlon Prize for Indigenous Poetry
- position at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Arts Board; and
- Macquarie University’s Warawara Department of Indigenous Studies
- (the list just goes on and on!!)
The court found that Bolt's article had numerous factual inaccuracies and this may be true, but I find the overall message and intention of the article in no way racist where Bolt states:
"I think it sad if we keep harping on about differences and rights based on trivial inflections of race."
"To me, this blacker-than-thou offends the deepest humanist ideals"
"In fact, let’s go beyond racial pride. Beyond black and white. Let’s be proud only of being human beings set on this land together, determined to find what unites us and not to invent such racist and trivial excuses to divide. Deal?"
Bolt added outside court after receiving the judgement (as reported by The Age):
"This is a terrible day for free speech in this country," he said, which drew heckles from some supporters of the applicants in the case.
Bolt responded with a glare and an appeal. "Can I at least have my free speech now," he asked before returning to his hand-written prepared text.
"It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves. I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings. Thank you."
Extraordinarily, Jonathan Holmes from the ABC's Media Watch programme also agreed that Bolt perhaps has a right to say his opinion in an episode broadcast on 4th April 2011 (although I don't entirely agree with other parts of the episode).
"To my mind, to declare something unlawful just because it causes offence - on the grounds of race or anything else - is an unjustified curtailment of our freedom of speech."
So what protections are put in place by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975? Section 18D of that act states:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
Justice Bromberg concluded that Bolt's conduct was not exempted from Section 18D due to the "manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language." They further added that Bolt did not act "reasonably and in good faith" and that it did not have "a genuine purpose in the public interest."
"Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people," Justice Bromberg said. Effectively however, many journalists/broadcasters will be unlikely to raise the issue as there is the potential for further legal action to take place under the Racial Discrimination Act.
Let me know if you agree with the judgement in the comments below or on twitter using hashtag #Bolt and please be sure to send it to your family/friends to help spread the real facts over this clear injustice. I'm sure there will be much debate on this issue over the coming days.
Further Reading:
- Read the full judgement
- Read Bolt's article that sparked the controversy
- Racial Discrimination Act 1975
- Read Bolt's thank you to his supporters
Carbon capture trial hailed a success
Retrieved from ABC News Online:
A $10-million carbon capture and storage trial has been completed in the Otways.
The CO2 Cooperative Research Centre is testing storing carbon in rock underground near Nirranda.
The chief executive, Richard Aldous says the trial has shown that carbon [dioxide] produced from burning coal can safely be stored.
"Our first project, where we stored 60,000 tonnes of CO2 underground, allowed us to demonstrate that CO2 can be safely stored underground," he said.
"But it also allowed us and our scientists to monitor very closely, precisely how it was happening, how it was interacting with the rocks."
Doesn't this just show that perhaps there are better alternatives around that will get the same reduction in emissions(5%) as Gillard's Carbon Dioxide Tax.
Carbon Tax Explained
Found this great video on the internet that basically explains every element in an easy format. Make sure you watch it and send it around to your family/friends!
(You can either send the link to this page or send this link: http://kzoo.co/VyQHed).
SMH Comment about Asylum Seekers
Here is an excellent comment posted by an anonymous user on the Sydney Morning Herald website (in response to one of their published opinion articles). I couldn't agree more.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/deadlock-on-asylum-issue-strikes-at-the-heart-20111226-1pah8.html#ixzz1hh4NGfgd
Posted by: 'mick e mause' December 27, 2011, 7:32AM
The comment attracted many negative responses!