The Climate Change Political Football

On Friday 04/07/2008, in the first comprehensive assessment of the impact on Australia of climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut reported that Australians must pay more for food, petrol and energy or risk a rising death toll, economic loss and destruction of natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef.

The Howard Government’s policies on the environment, climate change and global warming: scepticism, inactivity and a steadfast refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol did little or nothing to address concerns raised by The Garnaut Report and other similar studies. None the less, it was to some extent highly politically astute. Howard understood that any positive measures in environmental policy would have a huge economic cost and be political poison. However, Howard failed to accurately gauge the mood of the Australian electorate and the piecemeal environmental policies he took to his humiliating 2007 defeat were seen as too little too late. The rise of the Greens as a force to be reckoned with attests to the fact that the environment is now a major concern to considerable sections of the community.

The Kevin '07 campaign made considerable ground by declaring environmental policies which at least appeared to have some credibility, as long as the capitulation on the Gunn's pulp mill is put to one side. There were key Tasmanian seats which might have been put in jeopardy had Labor opposed the mill. The Rudd government has undoubtedly been damaged by the recent trauma over petrol prices. The decision to implement an emissions trading scheme and meet the Kyoto goals is likely to damage Rudd's government even more among sections of the population that votes with their hip pockets in mind. It may actually improve his standing among those with a genuine concern for the environment. The backroom boys have undoubtedly already weighed up the statistics. Still, the climate change political football is looming more like wrecking ball for both sides of politics.

Perhaps this is the fundamental flaw with democracy. It is natural that any government strives to ensure its political survival. To do so, it necessarily introduces short term policies that aim for approval within the next electoral term. Dealing with the environment has always required much longer term vision and a good deal of short term economic pain; making 'climate scepticism' a very attractive response.

It seems clear that governments will always create policy agendas in line with voting intentions. The responsibility ultimately falls to the electorate. If the majority aren't willing to spend more on petrol and make sacrifices to help save the environment governments are unlikely to do anything more than make expedient noises in an attempt to pacify the minority who understand that sacrifices are necessary to ensure the survival of the human species.

The irony is the long term economic cost of ignoring conservation will be much greater than any short term hardships we might endure securing the future. How much prosperity will we enjoy when coastlines are under water and the rest of the country has turned to desert?

Revenge on Telemarketers and Email Scammers

In my haste to answer a phone call recently, I managed to spill a glass of orange juice all over the keyboard of my new laptop. Imagine how angry I was when I realised the call was from yet another telemarketer. These calls can be relentless, and requests to stop calling seem to achieve nothing. Here are some ways to deal with these pests:

1. The Seinfeld strategy: poiltely tell the telemarketer: 'I'm busy right now and I can't talk; give me your home number and I'll call you back later.' When they decline to give their home number: 'I'm sorry, I suppose that's because you don't want people calling you at home? WELL NOW YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL!!!.'


2. Three little words that work: 'Hold On, Please...' Saying this, while putting down your phone and walking off instead of hanging-up immediately) would make each telemarketing call so much more time-consuming that boiler room sales would grind to a halt. Then when you eventually hear the telephone company's 'beep-beep-beep' tone, you know it's time to go back and hang up your handset, which has efficiently completed its task. These three little words will help eliminate telephone soliciting.


3. Do you ever get those annoying phone calls with no one on the other end? This is a telemarketing technique where a machine makes phone calls and records the time of day when a person answers the phone. This technique is used to determine the best time of day for a 'real' sales person to call back and get someone at home. What you can do after answering , if you notice there is no one there, is to immediately start hitting your # button on the phone, 6 or 7 times, as quickly as possible. This confuses the machine that dialled the call and it kicks your number out of their system. Gosh, what a shame not to have your name in their system any longer!!!


4. When you get those 'pre-approved' letters in the mail for everything from credit cards to 2nd mortgages and similar type junk, do not throw away the return envelope. Most of these come with postage-prepaid return envelopes, right? It costs them more than the regular 50 cents postage 'IF' and when they receive them back. It costs them nothing if you throw them away! In that case, why not get rid of some of your other junk mail and put it in these cool little, postage- prepaid return envelopes. Send an ad for your local chimney cleaner to American Express. Send a pizza coupon to Westpac. If you didn't get anything else that day, then just send them their blank application back! If you want to remain anonymous, just make sure your name isn't on anything you send them. You can even send the envelope back empty if you want to just to keep them guessing! It still costs them $1.00 The banks and credit card companies are currently getting a lot of their own junk back in the mail, but folks, we need to OVERWHELM them. Let's let them know what it's like to get lots of junk mail, and best of all they're paying for it... Twice! Let's help keep Australia Post busy since they are saying that e-mail is cutting into their business profits, and that's why they need to increase postage costs again. You get the idea! If enough people follow these tips, it will work ---- maybe you'll get very little junk mail anymore.


5. Do you ever recieve emails from people claiming to be the wife of the ex president of Nigeria or some such place, telling you that they have millions of dollars they can't get out of the country and if you just help them with $10,000 dollars to cover the transfer they will give you millions? Reply to the email and agree to the conditions. Tell them you will meet them at Nairobi airport (preferrably somewhere that requires them to do some very expensive travel) next Friday at 4.00am and that you will bring the $10,000 in cash. Of course DON'T TURN UP.

My laptop keyboard remained sticky for months. Taking a little revenge has at least given me some satisfaction and I haven't had any spam phone calls lately.

Zeitgeist: Conspiracy or Internet idiocy?

While Zeitgeist is an interesting and unusual film, the ideas it presents should be approached with some caution. Before taking my word for it, visit this site to watch the movie online: » click here to view

Zeitgeist abounds with conspiracy theories and makes a very good case against Christianity (according to the film; there is no record of Jesus as a historical figure; the story is more an astrological metaphor), and it also has a section attacking the central bank of the U.S.: financiers like J.P. Morgan intentionally precipitated the depression by calling in loans on mass for their own advantage, and the central bank continues it’s hegemony by providing the government with currency at interest that can never be repaid.

There is also an expose on 9/11 claiming it was all an inside job, perpetrated by the U.S. government. This really does seem incredibly far fetched; although some very compelling evidence is presented. The buildings collapse in the manner of a controlled demolition where a series of charges cause implosion. Why did the interior steel structure collapse? Why was there practically nothing left of the planes? (Even with particularly bad crashes, there is always substantial wreckage). Why did an adjacent building which wasn’t hit by a plane also collapse? You can even see a series of small explosions down the WTC just before it collapses; makes you think anyway.

The main problem with the ideas Zeitgeist presents is that they lack credible sources. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist,_the_Movie Gives some background info, producer etc. The criticism is worth reading:

"In addition to attracting significant public interest, it has been criticized for relying too heavily on anecdotal evidence and for using unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs, quotes, and book citations without page numbers. In a piece entitled Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic, the Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullshit" saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points". In one of its few mainstream reviews the Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates"

Many conspiracy theories seem to omit details that don't support their case while focussing on those that do. Zeitgeist is no exception.

Lame Ducks

Has no one noticed that Wayne Swan looks rather like a duck? Considering his name and the uncanny resemblance, it's surprising that more cartoonists haven't made milage out of it. Sorry about the silly picture Wayne; I really couldn't resist. The serious issue here is the current obsession with basic commodities like petrol prices, groceries etc. Do people really think that the government has any real control over such things? Surely they realise that imports are part of a global economy and as such can't really be controlled. As far as petrol goes, if anyone wants to play a blame game here they should be pointing a finger at previous governments for not exploring viable alternatives to petrol. It has been increasingly obvious for many years that a fuel crisis would develop sooner or later.

Certainly 'working families are hurting because of the skyrocketing price of fuel, high grocery prices and interest rates. Any government would need to address such issues to ensure political survival. Ultimately, these issues are a distraction; people can't expect a goverment to do what it can't, however much they would like them to.

People should be expecting the government to focus on areas where it can have some influence, such as dismantling the diabolical 'Work Choices' policy of the Howard goernment. This was an area that most people did very quickly see for what it was; a bad joke. The very name 'Work Choices' was a joke; the only choices most workers were being offered by their bosses was 'my way or the highway'.

Government can exercise meaningful control over areas, like:

• developing a more compassionate immigration policy (no more children behind razor wire please)


• a more reasonable approach to the Nothern Territory intervention and indigenous affairs


• a more equitable and efficient health system


• an improved education system


• a telecommunications/broadband network that doesn't lag years behind the rest of the world


• an improved public transport system


• a more progressive environmental policy

These are areas towards which the Rudd government has at least made some positive moves. Wayne Swan can be partially forgiven for his anatine appearance.

Police remove Bill Henson's nude photographs

The roslyn oxley9 gallery sent out a media release on the 23 May, 2008 saying the following:

Statement on behalf of Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery and Bill Henson

After much consideration we have decided to withdraw a number of works from the current Bill Henson exhibition that have attracted controversy. The current show, without the said works, will be re-opened for viewing in coming days.

Bill Henson is one of Australia's leading contemporary artists and is internationally respected. His works are held in every leading art institution in Australia and are included in the collections of a number of the world's most prestigious art museums. The Art Gallery of New South Wales and the National Gallery of Victoria have both recently held a retrospective of 30 years of the artist's work.

Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery will remain closed while the current exhibition is re-hung.

Someone had complained to the police and the Vice Squad removed the photographs on the grounds that the photos were pornographic.

Since then, controversy has raged on TV, in newspapers and on radio in Australia.

What are the photos? They are nude photos of 12 to 13 girls and boys. The photography is, in my opinion, very artistic. Shadows are used to show what the artist says he intends. To evoke the vulnerability and fragility of that stage of adolescence. Coming from the light to the dark or vice versa. The shadows also act to cover most of the sexual parts of the bodies, although not all. I don't know if that was the photographer's intention. But he has been showing such photos around the world and in Australia for many years. He says this stage of life fascinates him. He also takes many other photos of subjects not so controversial.

Recently, the Australian Government held a Twenty 20 summit including the experts in all fields of life's endeavours. Many ideas were floated and presented. It was seen to be a success. But the Creative stream of the conference, headed by Cate Blanchette, released their statement saying that this was censorship of art.

Now, I don't think it is censorship of art until the matter has been through the courts. If the works are said to be pornographic (which I don't think) then the gallery and the artist has committed a crime and the works should not be shown. It has not been the Censorship Board which has made these decisions.

What bothers me most is that a girl or boy of that age is not in a psychological or emotional condition to be able to give informed consent to being models for the photographer. Of course their parents gave consent. But is that right? I don't think I would.

The photographer is 45 and therefore in a position of power during shootings. I'm not at all suggesting that the young people were not safe in this environment. The photos portray the youths as almost asexual really. Now I don't know what control the parents or youths have after giving consent to the photo shoot. Do they have control of the finished shot? Presumably this would have to be the photographer's decision.

I know nudes of all ages have been portrayed in art. But in photos? And in these times of hypersensitivity to pedophiles and child sexual abuse and exploitation? Of course there are the really sexualized images of young girls in advertisements but these girls are clothed. I hate it, but I wouldn't censor it.

I don't think these Henson photos are sexualized. But it still disturbs me.

Well, the matter is in the courts now, so I guess not much more can be said.

But I'm interested in your view. I cannot show any images here. They are copyrighted. Many galleries do not allow viewing of larger images however

Written by contributer, Jenny Campbell from multifarious mushrooms

Human Rights and Wrongs

Most people in western, developed countries take their rights for granted. We assume that we will be treated fairly under the law, that we will have reasonable working conditions and rates of pay and that our governments will govern with our best interests at heart. This is of course not the case in many 'third world' counties where no such rights exist. Even the slightest divergence from the official line is treated with brutality and harsh repression. Political and religious tolerance is non existent. People are commonly arrested, tortured or made to just 'disappear'. Many people living under such regimes take great risks to fight for freedom and often pay the ultimate penalty, such as Che Guevara (pictured). Many people in the developed 'free' world are so apathetic they don't even exercise their right to vote, or only vote because they are required to do so. They are completely complacent when it comes to politics because they labour under the assumption that they are 'free' and that their standard of living will continue indefinitely.

In actual fact, people living in developed countries have little more real freedom than those under repressive regimes. Perhaps they do not usual suffer the human rights violations common in some parts of the world, provided they are white, anglo saxon and protestant. Those not belonging to the dominant cultural group or those unfortunate enough to end up in prisons or places like Guantanamo Bay have a different experience. Images of police beating up black drivers bear testament to this.

The governments of western 'democracies' are just as repressive as goverments of less developed countries with a reputation for brutality. Their techniques for controlling the population are just much more sophisticated than old fashioned violence. Western 'democracies' allow us to elect a government from only two viable alternatives: Liberal vs Labor, Labor vs Conservative, Democrat vs Republican etc. all amount to approximately the same thing. One party with slightly left leanings, one slightly right; just two shades of barely distinguishable grey. While it is preferrable to a one party state like China, or states which pretend to have elections like Zimbabwe or Burma it basically amounts to the same thing: the interests of the ruling class are in any event preserved.


Western 'democracies' are in reality ruled by an oligarchy made up of those controlling large corporations. Any government which dared to oppose such interests would find itself quickly out of office. Just ask Gough Whitlam or Jack Lang. Large corporations are subsidised to the tune of billions of dollars in the interests of 'boosting the economy' while corporate bosses draw obsence salaries, all the while trying to cut the wages and conditions of those in the 9 to 5 rat race. Consumerism, a corporate controlled media and high levels of debt ensure the complacency and submission of the general population. Dissent is usually tolerated as it is unlikely to do any harm and 'freedom' is of course good for business.


This is a much more efficient system than countries that control their populations with old fashioned repression. The regimes of countries like Burma, Zimbabwe, China etc. are bound to sooner or later fall. When the level of repression rises and the standard of living falls to intolerable levels, heroes like Che are bound to rise and dictatorships are bound to fall.


The bottom line is: GIVE A DAMN!

Brazilian Priest Finds God

"A Brazilian priest who rode a bundle of party balloons into the horizon to set a flight record has disappeared. Rev. Adelir Antonio di Carli took off from the coastal city of Paranagua in southern Brazil, buoyed by 1,000 helium-filled balloons. Wearing a helmet, aluminum thermal flight suit, waterproof clothes and a parachute, he was attempting to break the 19-hour record of human flight by party balloons. Eight hours after takeoff, di Carli was reported missing after he lost contact with authorities. Rescuers said they have found the balloons floating in the ocean off the coast of southern Brazil but have seen no sign of di Carli, who planned to use money raised from his adventure to finance a "spiritual" rest stop for truckers in Paranagua."

source: CBC News

The Rev di Carli evidently had a great deal of faith; he did not wear a life jacket and although he was carrying a GPS did not know how to use it. You'd have to applaud the priest's bravery and his noble plans for the money raised. You'd definitely have to feel sorry for him. You'd also have the think it was an extremely silly thing to do.

Do events like this cause people to question their faith in god? Surely god would have to be looking after a flying priest raising money for spiritually bankrupt truckers. Evidently not. In early times, people thought god literally lived on top of a mountain (Olympus, Zion etc.). After a while they learned to climb mountains and found god wasn't there. It was then decided god lived above the clouds. After a while longer, basic aviation was discovered and god was still not up there. Now space travel, deep space probes, space telescopes have been discovered but still no god out there. God has now conveniently become a metaphysical entity with no physical dwelling, as science has the annoying habit of encroaching on the unknown. Despite this, a growing number of people are blindly following their religions with increasing fanaticism. This wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't so much killing done in the name of peace and love.

Perhaps the Rev. di Carli is closer to god now; we can only hope. God moves in mysterious ways but so do balloons.