A New World Religion Backed by the United Nations

This article was subsequently published at Online Opinion 
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002


The world is going barking mad with religiosity! While many of us feel that we have known this for a long time, it has always been difficult to find substantial evidence that wasn't countered by arguments of religious vilification.

However, I’m not talking about Islamic suicide bombers, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, the abhorrent members of Westboro Baptist Church, ‘pro-life’ radicals bombing abortion clinics, or any of the other examples of minority groups being less than good examples of the faiths they follow.

Instead, I would like to open your eyes to a new pervasive religion that is steadily growing and insidiously lurking in your community. If successful it will have a terrifying impact on the existence of life as we know it.

Regardless of your political views, spiritual beliefs, faith or lack thereof, please bear with me for a moment while I tell you a short story. Even if it sounds a bit familiar, please persevere.

This story is set on a unique world; a smallish blue-green environment with abundant vegetation and teeming with wondrous life forms on land, air and water. In this world, there is a sentient humanoid species who believe that their world has an undefinable, immeasurable and yet omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent energy force that interacts with all life forms.

This force gives them life, nourishes, teaches and provides them with all that is needed to live well and, as if they were its own children, they call this force "Mother".

They recognise that Mother is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom they share a common destiny and to whom they must relate in ways that benefit Mother.

However, their world is confronted by an evil that is attempting to dominate and exploit Mother and other beings. This evil is causing severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings.

They are conscious that this destruction is also harmful to their own inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother is sacred. These clans are acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent the evil enemy causing impacts on Mother that threaten the wellbeing and survival of all species.

Sound familiar? No, it isn't the plot from James Cameron's blockbuster, Avatar - but the resemblance is not a mere coincidence. While Avatar has been justifiably compared to the historical and current issues of our own world, it now seems that the lines between fantasy and reality have blurred even further.

Apart from a few tweaks for syntax, everything above in italics is a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which was passed in Bolivia on 22 April 2010 at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and has since made its way to the plenary floor (here and here) of the United Nations.

'Mother Earth' has been transformed from a metaphoric and mythical euphemism into pseudo-scientific woo! You have not entered the Twilight Zone; you are not watching a CGI enhanced movie; this is reality and the world is about to enshrine the beliefs of a new-age religion (or a revival of ancient mysticism) into legal rights on par with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, before you retort with “it's all about protecting the environment” or label me a shill for capitalism and corporate world domination, let me correct you. For the record, I am a staunch environmentalist. I believe in, and promote the protection of landscapes, habitats and species. I readily acknowledge that human activity is essentially bad for this world and that we need to curb our greed and consumerism. You will hear no argument from me on those facts.

But, that is NOT the point of this rant. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making "Mother Earth" the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens.

No, I am not being overly dramatic. Read the details for yourself so that you can fully comprehend the implications. It is littered with religious undertones and metaphors that have enormous legal repercussions on every human being:

"we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her" and

"the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law"

Such statements, when taken to their natural conclusion, imply that you and I cannot even dig a hole in the ground or kill a cockroach for fear of prosecution under some future law. Even cleaning your house might become illegal because of the bacterial colonies that you would destroy in the process!

This is not merely a feel-good unifying statement of our inarguable environmental responsibility as custodians of the Earth. It is a deliberately transformational credo that redefines our very existence and our relationship with all life on this planet.

All of this poppycock has stemmed from the rising groundswell of support for an environmental movement that has ceased to function as a sensible social and political force. It is now, undeniably, a zealous quasi-religious cult that wishes to impose a narrow-minded and anti-scientific view that all life is part of one universal ‘energy force’, which we are now obliged to pay homage to, for all that 'she' has done for us.

This is nothing short of irrational pandering to the fantasies of earth-worshipping, crystal-healing, indigo children. Human beings are now eagerly lining up to be the sacrificial lambs at the altar of Gaia.

This type of international politicking and pseudo law-making will do very little to improve our relationship with the environment or save many species from extinction, but it will make some people feel good as they run naked through the forest with blue birds on their shoulders and rabbits bounding at their feet singing some Disney inspired anthem. Except that the forest is likely to become a restricted area - after all, animals and plants will have a right to exist without any human interference.

This is not an isolated event to be ignored or passed off as the random act of a fringe third world nation. This has been decades in the planning and follows the inclusion of Rights for Nature into the Ecuadorian Constitution in 2008 and the United Nations' proclamation of April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, distinct from Earth Day on March 22 each year.

The UN's own website for Mother Earth Day states:

In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognize and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

Please note that the United Nations did not act out of mere tokenism. This is a predetermined action to meet a predefined goal and it is sanctioned and supported by the member nations of the UN. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a real agenda in play and it is supported by:

Agenda 21: an initiative of the United Nations that seeks to create a world bound by the principles of sustainable development; and

Codex Alimentarius the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements devised in 1963 and guided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) with the support of 184 member nations.

All of this is pointing to a future where your current life and lifestyle is marked for demolition as unreasonable restrictions are inevitably placed on the energy you consume, the food you eat, the materials you buy and even the places you are allowed to visit.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. On that we can agree.

But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Faith in our ability to succeed on that pathway is far more palatable than faith in Gaia and the religiosity that surely follows.

  

Not recommended for vegans!

Following on from my posts about killing day old chickens and the dolphin for food campaign I thought I would share this enlightening fictional perspective written by Terry Bisson.

The title is also the first line; it thus commences:


"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."

"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"

"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."

"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."

"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."

"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."

"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."

Full story here

Closer to A Brave New World

In a recent post I asked "Is a virus secretly killing you?" and cited growing examples of how common and uncommon virii are being connected with various cancers.

Here is more research that points to the same conclusion, this time in relation to prostate cancer.

Big pharma must be joyous at the opportunity to develop more and more vaccines. Meanwhile the world's fresh food supply is becoming more restricted leading up to the implementation of codex alimentarius.

I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of soma and soylent in the marketplace.

Dolphin Dilemma

Simultaneously published at Online Opinion

It is both intriguing and bewildering watching the fallout and resulting hype over the documentary The Cove which portrays animal activists, led by Flipper trainer Ric O’Barry, outing the not-so “secret” practice of dolphin fishing in Japan.

At the heart of this political campaign is the emotional bond that we have been conditioned to believe exists between dolphin and human; that somehow dolphins are more human than other animals and thus deserving of something more than what we give to other animals. On the other side is a tradition spanning thousands of years across many cultures all around the world; that dolphins are a genuine food source.

According to the campaign material on various websites in support of or directly related to the movie, the purpose of the film is to alert people to the “heinous” activity and gain support in demanding that the Japanese government ban the practice. They raise only the following few points:

• 20,000 dolphins and porpoises are killed each year in Japan;
• the way in which the dolphins are killed is "brutal";
• Japanese consumers are being sold dolphin meat;
• the meat can contain high levels of mercury; and
• the meat is often labelled as whale meat.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the aim is to prevent dolphins and porpoises from being killed (full stop) and that the other issues (the horror of death; that Japanese people are barbaric for eating dolphin meat; health and safety of consumers is at risk due to toxins; and illegal trading practices include mislabelling of seafood) are merely designed to attract a sympathetic audience from as far and wide as possible.

Subsequently, I’m not going to be drawn on debating some of these points in detail as they are simply red herrings, which I will explain shortly. My intention herein is to play Devil’s advocate by taking a philosophical look at each of the other points raised by the filmmakers to determine whether the practice of dolphin fishing is indeed as bad as they suggest.

Ultimately the question open for debate is whether dolphin meat should be available for consumption. Individual moral values aside, there are only three points to logically consider when determining whether we should eat a particular food (be it beast or plant):

1. Is the food fit for human consumption? It must be nutritious, palatable and have no ill side effects.
2. Will consumption hasten the extinction of that species or be detrimental to the population in a particular area?
3. Are the practices of bringing the food to the table the best available? Are they environmentally sound, humane, hygienic, efficient, competitive and honest?

Let’s look at these in detail for the example of dolphins and porpoises in light of the movie, The Cove. First, dolphins, whales and other cetaceans have been an integral part of the diet of numerous cultures for many thousands of years. Technically it is a nutritious and pleasant food to consume if you don't draw any conscious familiarity to Flipper. Those that are squeamish about the concept are likely to have similar issues with eating Bambi or Thumper.

Concerns about toxins, such as cadmium or mercury, are justified but are equally applicable to other seafood caught from the same waters as the dolphins. All pollution eventually reaches the oceans, so seafood has experienced increased levels of toxicity in recent decades and the developing nations of Asia are the leading culprits.

Similarly, we have examples in Australia where a cheap fish is substituted for an expensive one, such as barramundi. Labelling and toxicity are matters for the relevant agencies to address and most consumers are right to expect their food to be labelled correctly and to know that it meets health guidelines, no matter whether it was chicken or whale.

These are not issues unique to Japan or the dolphin trade and both arguments are simply red herrings. Thus, there is no gastronomic or biological reason for banning dolphin as a food item. Let’s move on.

As to the second question of extinction, my research indicates that this isn't a critical issue for dolphins like it is with, say, whales, the great cats or the orang-utans. With the exception of a few localised problems (e.g. Solomon Islands dolphin population being relatively small), global dolphin populations are quite safe. 20,000 per year may seem like a large number, but it represents about one third of a per cent (0.0033 per cent) of the world dolphin population.

“According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” (National Geographic, August 2009)

In comparison, it is estimated that there are fewer than 5,000 blue whales, no more than 8,000 right whales, less than 50,000 fin whales and about only 60,000 humpback whales in existence (International Whaling Commission). But even these represent high populations when you look at the plight of the tigers with less than 7,500 worldwide with three of the eight sub-species already declared extinct (The Global Tiger Forum).

On the flipside chickens are almost exclusively farmed to meet human food needs and rarely exist in the wild. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) “The world population of domestic chickens increased by 160%, from 13.5 billion in 1998 to 35 billion in 2006” (Assist America). The vast majority of these birds are killed for food every year and our growing demand ironically ensures the survival of that species, as they almost certainly could not survive in the wild. Modern cattle, swine and sheep also enjoy high populations almost exclusively to serve human needs.

It’s important to highlight some points about farming. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult and expensive to "farm" dolphins, captive breeding (modern farming) isn't always good for the animal, the species or the consumer. It requires more intensive land use and is often reliant on antibiotics, pesticides and nutritional supplements. Additionally, pollutants are a common issue across most Asian seafood so if a dolphin farm was developed (like a tuna farm) it would probably exist in the same polluted waters.

To argue, as I have heard some do, that dolphins are somehow different to other animals because they are not farmed is once again another red herring. If we were to farm dolphins in the same way that we farm tuna or salmon would that make the practice more acceptable? Perhaps not for those who are deep in the heart of the moral campaign. That makes it merely a straw man argument.

So now we come to the issue of herding and culling. Is it an unavoidable fact or an inhumane brutality? Again, let’s look at it from an objective perspective. Humans are predominantly omnivores. We eat meat, therefore we must kill animals. Killing involves shock, pain and bloodshed as anyone would expect. Unfortunately it is not efficient to put every animal “to sleep” with a chemical before slaughtering it. What we all would hope is that we engage best practice in our methodology. If we discover a better way to kill a cow that doesn’t drastically increase the costs, we should employ it.

The question therefore, is not about whether the practice of herding dolphins into coves for slaughter is barbaric, brutal or inhumane. Instead it is about whether a suitable alternative exists. I have found none, but I’m open to being educated on the subject and will gladly campaign for the worldwide introduction of such methods if they exist.

DO NOT WATCH IF SQUEAMISH! - Dolphin slaughter in Japan

Currently it can take a few minutes for a dolphin to die after it is cut open and bleeds to death - the same method is used to slaughter pigs, albeit after they receive an electric shock and they are hung upside down to hasten the bloodletting. I have a feeling that electricity and water would not be a good recipe for dolphin fishing, but perhaps the hanging of the carcass would make the event swifter and ease any suffering.

There is a distinct similarity between herding cetaceans and trawling for fish, however the trawl is less efficient due to the large amount of by-catch taken. Additionally, fish can take much longer to “suffocate” out of the water, resulting in higher levels of stress than other produce.

The only other difference is the cuteness and human-like qualities we observe in the prey. Anyone who has owned pet fish, mice, birds, cats or dogs and studied their behaviour might see that dolphins are hardly unique and that it is we humans instead who have the cute animal-like qualities. Cuteness is hardly a rational argument for deciding what to eat.

In conclusion, if we have a food that is palatable, fit for consumption, honestly labelled and reaches our plate in a manner equal to that of other produce, as long as that food is from a sustainable population and not at risk of future extinction then there is no argument against it continuing to be available. Whether you choose to buy or consume it is entirely up to you.

Certainly, no adult should be forced to eat kangaroo if they don’t want to, but please don’t argue that I shouldn’t eat it because it’s cute, has feelings, isn’t humanely killed or simply because it happens to be on our coat of arms. Similarly, the arguments don’t stack up with dolphin!

At the current levels of dolphin fishing, matched against wild populations there is nothing to suggest we should stop the practice of dolphin fishing. It is simply not in the same league as whaling. However, there is clear evidence that we could improve the method of culling and that we should proceed with haste in that direction.

To those readers who might like to jump in and claim that I have skirted around or ignored the moral issues, please feel free to do so now. Your morals are your own and they should direct your life, not anyone else’s and least of all mine.

All I'm asking is that people understand why they are reacting in horror upon watching The Cove - ultimately because it’s a cute dolphin and not an ugly pig.

Ask yourself “if a dolphin farm existed (like a tuna farm), that was free from pollutants and they were slaughtered as humanely as possible - would you allow dolphin meat to be sold?” If not, why not? Can you find a single reason that isn’t purely emotional and tied to your programmed conditioning of what a cute dolphin represents?

For the record, I eat meat - I know how it gets to my plate and I'm OK with it. Most people don't want to know because knowledge means accepting responsibility.

How to kill a day old chicken

There is a fair bit of hype going around the Internet at the moment about this video showing day old male chickens being "ground alive".

WARNING: do not watch the video if you are squeamish about how your food is produced!

According to this article on the RSPCA website:

"The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (http://www.publish.csiro.au/books/download.cfm?ID=3451) states that all culled or surplus newly hatched chicks that are destined for disposal must be treated as humanely as those that will be retained or sold. They must be destroyed promptly by a recommended humane method such as carbon dioxide gassing or quick maceration."

If the RSPCA believe that being ground alive is a quick and humane death, then that is good enough for me.

Who's for a roast chook?

On Monday (7 September 2009) I will be publishing a detailed article (on OnlineOpinion as well as here) with regard to dolphin fishing, which is practiced around the world in many countries but has been highlighted in the new film The Cove.

I take a look at the arguments raised by the film makers and test their veracity. You may be surprised at what I discover and the unusual conclusion that results.

Nearly 1 billion starving worldwide

I've blogged, facebooked and tweeted about the impending global food crisis. Now here's further testimony.

Atheo News: Nearly 1 billion starving worldwide

Still don't think you will be affected?

Think again!

The great food crisis - are you prepared?

No doubt you've heard various reports about the usefulness, toxicity and plausible conspiracies behind flouride, aspartame, genetically modified organisms (GMO) and many such things. Some of you may even be aware of the impending food crisis that is about to hit us. We have already seen it with the crisis in grains around the world, large scale price hikes in food costs, and mass populations of bees dying from unknown causes - a major concern for food production.

You may have already formed an opinion about these things and wish to stop reading here. Fine - I can understand. But don't! Your life may depend on it.

What I have seen, read and heard recently has me concerned. More than concerned - it has me mortified and angry. You should be too, because it will directly affect you and your family, yet there is NOTHING you can do to stop it.

That's right - there's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening.

I'm not here to plead for your action, to write letters to your government representatives, or to gather all your friends for a protest march. Believe me when I tell you, that nothing you do will prevent the coming food crisis - it is inevitable and you MUST prepare for it, or suffer its consequences.

The only advice I can offer is to buy some arable land big enough to grow your own fruit trees, vegetables and basic crops, perhaps even to run some livestock or a dam for fish if you enjoy meat - a couple of hectares should do it. Make sure you own the land outright, no peppercorn leases or mortgages, so that no-one can easily take it from you when the financial system crashes completely.

Build a modest house that isn't reliant on electricity, where you can live a sustainable life away from the rest of modern civilisation. If you can do this you may be one of the few billion people to survive. Sounds like it's a return to an arduous life of subsistence - it is. But the alternative is going to be tougher.

The future reality will see us rationed on highly regulated GMO and manufactured foods that are deliberately deficient of essential vitamins and minerals (and all supplements become illegal) to ensure a passive and compliant population.

Do your own research on real topics that are present in reputable news sources and from government agencies - it will verify what you read on all those conspiracy websites about food and population control. Search terms such as:

Agenda 21
codex alimentarius

And for the real life conspiracy behind it all watch the video below. The whole thing will be an eye opener for many, but the key points about food and population control begin at the 37 minute mark. If you don't have 2 hrs to devote for the whole thing, start there.



I will point out, that I disagree with some of the views presented in this movie, particularly relating to pantheism and gun control. Take some extrem views with the grain of salt they deserve, but certainly look at the facts presented.

America's growing enemy

Keep an eye on Venezuela.

According to reports like this and this, Chavez is being too much like a Robin Hood for the US and international bank boys to just stand by and do nothing.

He has already taken back the oil & gas fields, now they plan to ramp up production and hit foreign companies with a 50% tax on excess oil profits.

He also plans to nationalise the cement industry as well as the Argentinian controlled steelmaker and even take measures to ensure that the people of Venezuela have enough food for the future - no way!

And in the back of his mind is still the plan to introduce a Tobin styled tax on financial transactions.

How will they stop him? Rumours of impropriety? Another coup? Acts of terrorism? Assasination? Here's a start.

But there is also the growing concern about who should be the local sherrif of this region of the world. Perhaps The South American Defense Council?

At least that might explain why Venezuela and Brazil are spending big on arms. (Does anyone know why Greece is at the top of the list of big spenders?)

But despite all this, Chavez does appear to have some interesting friends ...
Belarus
China
Iran

Maybe it is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

And if that isn't enough to make you at least question the US stance on Venezuela, try reading the works of Eva Golinger, namely The Chavez Code and Bush vs Chavez - Washington's War on Venezuela or start by reading this review.

Of course, you are also welcome to ignore this and simply take the view that Venezuela deserves everything it gets for its socialist, anti-American, communist-loving, anti-semitic, Simpsons-hating philosphy.

Teens uncover 55 year old lie!

Kiwi kids discover drug company lie!

International drugs conglomerate, GlaxoSmithKline, is facing court in New Zealand over misleading advertising, after two high school students discovered that Ribena, a blackcurrant drink it has been promoting for 55 years for its high Vitamin C content, contain very little of the essential nutrient.

The company has admitted to Australia's corporate watchdog, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that its marketing was misleading and its given an undertaking to explain the true nutritional makeup of Ribena on its packaging, its website and in future advertising.

And tomorrow the company's New Zealand subsidiary will be in court facing 15 similar charges brought by the ACCC's counterpart, the Commerce Commission, which carry a penalty of up to $3 million in fines.

According to another report in the Sydney Morning Herald it seems that the multinational got confused about the vitamin C content of blackcurrants (which is supposedly 4 times higher than oranges) and the vitamin content of its popular drink.

"Weight for weight, the 'four times' statement is factually correct but we accept that there is a potential for confusion among consumers and have taken the action to remove that claim."

In January, the Herald reported an analysis of popular children's snack foods and beverages by the independent consumer watchdog Choice, which found that Ribena consisted of little more than sugar and water. Its essential ingredient - blackcurrants - made up just 5 per cent of content, the study found, and was a processed product made from concentrate.

Fancy that ... a drug company lying to us! What is the world coming to? LOL!

Iraq's missing billions

The question on everyone's lips over the last few months has been "can things get any worse in Iraq?". Apparently they just did.

A report via The Independent claims that at least one billion dollars (US$ value, I'm guessing, though the article doesn't stipulate the currency), but possibly double that amount, has gone missing from the nation's ministries.

The funds disappeared over an eight-month period in the previous financial year. Comparisons are being made about the fraud and the oil-for-food scandal during Saddam's leadership, which lost $1.8 billion dollars.

While the United Nations has felt the scathing pressure of world opinion for its lack of policing and accountability of the oil-for-food program, USA forces and diplomats were in a much better position to prevent this significant episode of theft, fraud and corruption. The fallout is expected to be severely damaging to the US.

According to the report, the money was siphoned away through a series of unscrupulous deals to purchase arms from Poland and Pakistan. The deals were peculiar because they were:

"awarded without bidding ... signed with a Baghdad-based company, and not directly with the foreign supplier ... the money was paid up front and ... paid at great speed out of the ministry's account."

Instead of receiving quality weaponry and machinery, Iraq was left with inferior equipment with some of it past its useful life, such as 28 year old soviet-built helicopters that the manufacturers claim should have been scrapped after 25 years.

No doubt these revelations will add to the woes of the Iraqi and US administrations and any hopes of an early pull-out by allied forces are all but dashed as Iraq is now clearly incapable of adequately training its military or providing the necessary infrastructure to protect itself from insurgency.

The USA is now here for the long haul, its feet stuck in a quagmire of corruption, mismanagement and insurgency that seems futile to try and stop. Nothing short of a miracle could stop the country travelling further down the path of chaos and soon the USA will be beyond its own capability to protect its own interests.


[+/-] show/hide this post

Galloway sticks it to the US Senate

I continue to admire the British for one enviable characteristic that sets them apart from any other nation - the ability to be so damn polite when insulting someone. :-)



And there is no better example of this than George Galloway's recent statement to the US Senators in answer to allegations that he was involved in the Iraqi oil-for-food bribes.




His statement can be found here or watch it online via the Information Clearing House.



Galloway, an former Labor MP (now an Independant) and outspoken critic of the illegal war, is standing up against the hypocritical and arrogant USA, who, it seems, is having a hard time trying to pin this scandal on anyone and everyone who opposed their invasion of Iraq.



Galloway is clearly a man of conviction and honour, and I support him and his continuing campaign for justice in Iraq. There can be no justice until all USA forces are removed from its borders and Washington relinquishes its control of all Iraqi resources.



As Martin Luther King rightly extolled, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice."




[+/-] show/hide this post

Barnett digs world's longest political grave

The election campaign may be into its second week, but until last night's televised Leaders Debate, it was flying low on the radar for most Western Australians.

Less than 24 hours ago this election seemed to be a choice between tweedle-dull and tweedle-duller. Now, with the help of an event equivalent to a Chernobyl-style meltdown inside of Colin Barnett's cranium, duller has become moronic, if not certifiably insane!

Of course, I'm talking about the Coalition (or is it just the crazy Libs?) promise to build the world's longest canal from the Kimberley to Perth, a distance of around 3700km. But it is not an original idea - the ALP set about investigating the concept last year (see the Guardian report here).

What is incredulous, is not that the idea has been raised (every option is valid until proven invalid) - the real problem is that Barnett used the Leaders Debate to publicly commit (presumably as a core promise) to the $2bn project without even so much as a feasibility report!!

As reported by the ABC:

Jorg Imberger, from the Centre for Water Research at the University of Western Australia, says Mr Barnett's policy is premature.


"Technically, a proposal like that is feasible, but whether it is economic or not is totally another question," he said.

Not just economically - what about environmentally? What effect will such a project have on native wildlife when it effectively creates a barrier between coastal and inland WA? What will be the effect of increased agriculture due to the proposed irrigation schemes along its path?

And why, oh why, should we use pristine clear water to supply industry, while many of our regional communities lack suitable potable water? If they do intend to use this resource for domestic supply, how will they guarantee the safety of the supply? At least with a sealed pipe (the much maligned Ernie Bridge proposal) it is more secure from deliberate or accidental contamination.

So many questions, so few answers. But at least it has a bit more credibility than the idea proposed by a former Democrat candidate who, quite a while ago, suggested towing an iceberg from Antarctica! :-)

If there was anything that might put a stop to the Libs gaining Government, this commitment just might do it. The ALP are probably celebrating already.

[+/-] show/hide this post

It's Maslow, stupid!

It takes a rare piece of journalism or opinion to make me stand back, reassess my own attitudes and finally to change my stance.

This piece in The Age today, does just that.

What Australian and US voters now crave

The Age - November 11, 2004

The left has failed to recognise society's need for a sense of social and moral order, writes Gregory Hywood.

But I'm going to take it further than the author does. It is more than just morality being sought, it is the wider umbrella of safety and security - the need to be protected.

It is clear to me now that we (the libertarian progressive left) have been going about the last few months (years even) with our heads stuck so far up our arse that we couldn't see what was really changing in Australia, let alone the rest of the world.

I'm not saying that we are wrong, just that we need to rethink the issues that are important to voters. I think Abraham Maslow might have the answer.

When an economy is doing well (as has the USA and Australia) basic needs, such as food, water, sleep etc, are mostly met and few want for much. Such is the first level of Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" - the physiological.

The next concern is that of safety. We desire the need for a secure home and a family. Refugees stuck in a detention centre are clear examples of those who desire this basic need. But middle Australia also, in its own way are being failed at this basic level, because national security and moral grounding are also tenets of safety.

When both physiological and safety needs are met, we tend to aim for love or inclusion - we need to feel we belong. That is part of the reason for creating a family. It is also why people joing sports clubs, community organisations and churches.

After that is met we focus on our esteem and we seek to improve this by the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the house we live in, the job we have. The luxuries in life that tell society "what and who we are". We give ourselves status.

Finally, if we can ever fulfil those four needs we can then seek 'self-actualisation'. We seek to improve ourselves, not by physical stuff but mentally and spiritually. Self-fulfilment, peace, knowledge etc.

It is becoming clear to me that the stereotypical "leftie" is predominantly coming from a higher level on Maslow's hierarchy. We are campaigning for how WE want the world to be by fighting for human rights and debating high-brow issues like stem-cell research and the war in Iraq. We are the Chardonnay set.

However, middle-Australia (as with the majority middle in the USA) are still scrambling to meet their needs for safety and belongingness. Quite often they are trying to aim for esteem needs (by purchasing plasma screens with surround sound) in the hope that it will fill the other hole in their life. But they are ahead of themselves. They turn to materialism because they cannot answer the need for safety and security for their family.

They are so hocked up (average debt is 140% of the average Australian's income compared with 50% two decades ago) that if interest rates rise by 1/4 of a point they will need to work an extra shift to pay for it.

These people, the majority of voters, do not care that Howard lies, as long as he keeps the economy safe. They've had enough of saving the trees and the rivers, they want someone to keep interest rates low and employment high. They have no need to understand the plight of refugees or the Sudanese because they are rightly concerned about their own plight. Charity must begin at home.

So how do we, the high and mighty lefties turn the focus from our pet projects (war, free trade agreements, old growth forests, medicare gold, gay rights, Telstra, ABC funding, etc) and towards the things that matter to THEM?

It's their sense of security, stupid!

Until all those millions of middle-Australia voters feel secure enough with their lot to comfortably move onto the esteem train, or even the self-actualization shuttle, we will be fighting a lost cause campaigning for the esoteric, the altruistic and the utopian.

The reason that we had the human rights boom of the 50's and 60's is precisely because the economy was sound and families were not under financial pressure. They had the time, the money and the desire to move past esteem-building and into promoting self-actualisation.

At the moment we are trying to pull down the upper-class in order to
haul the lower class up Maslow's ladder - over top of the middle
class, even! If instead we choose to help middle-Australia to move
beyond their safety-net concerns, they will undoubtedly turn around
and assist the lower class to move up.

How do we do it? I'm honestly not sure. But sitting in our ivory towers drinking Chardonnay and discussing the rights and wrongs of the world ain't cuttin' the mustard.

We need to be forming progressive economic policy that can be implemented step by step. E.g. While a Tobin tax is a great idea we need to realise that it isn't going to happen soon. However, income splitting is plausible and possible. An overhaul of the tax brackets to link them with CPI is a valid proposal. But these are just some of the ideas that need to be promoted and they require strong campaigns.

As much as I despise the religious right, I must admit that Family First seem to be on the right track. Their policies are in line with the strategy I've outlined above. They are off the blocks and racing ahead while we are left scratching our heads and wondering why everyone has shifted to the right.

They haven't! They've just voted for the people that are listening. We've stopped listening because we are spending too much time preaching about the things that DON'T matter (at the moment) to the average Australian. Us lefties are simply ahead of schedule in being too progressive for the issues that are not high priority and we've forgotten what really matters to the voters that count.

It reminds me of a human resource philosophy I learned many years ago ... a happy employee is an effective employee. If an employee is having trouble paying the mortgage, it will reflect in their work and they are less likely to be enthusiastic, effective or charitable to colleagues that may need help.

The same goes for voters - the Australian public. A happy Australian will be more enthusiastic, more effective in their work and home life and more likely to take an interest in current affairs, social issues and the plight of those less fortunate.

To that end, I'm making a big commitment to focus my energies on assisting the necessary reforms to shift mainstream Australia out of the safety mindset and into the esteem and self-actualisation phases. That can only be achieved by focussing my energy on domestic issues, especially pertaining to the economy.

I'm basing that strategy on the hope that once in these higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy, Australians will be content to support the greater causes in life. I could be wrong, but I'm hoping I'm right.




[+/-] show/hide this post

Crystal ball gazing

It seems that the Coalition is going to secure its 39th Senate seat and will not need to rely on Family First to support any future legislation. This gives them a clear run to introduce, nay force, any number of draconian or regressive measures it likes.

As of the 1st July 2005, bar any miraculous conscientious objectors from the coalition getting in the way, Howard will have absolute, unfettered power. Australia will be the loser. All we can hope is that he plays it cool and keeps his hand firmly by his side, lest he reveal more of his Napoleonic traits.

What this will mean for various issues is anyone's guess. Telstra will undoubtedly be sold, but the devil is in the detail. The whispers of a break-up of the public telco could mean anything, for better or for worse.

Industrial relations is high on the agenda, but just how far he is prepared to go in this term is undecided. How badly does he want that fifth term of government? Even Whitlam concedes that Labor will be in opposition for another two terms.

And then we have foreign ownership laws, especially relating to the media. Analysts have been expecting Telstra to move into a traditional media presence, but the way in might be from reverse. Will Howard give the green light for the future USA-based News Ltd to take up a signicant piece of the Telstra pie? Are they interested?

It might herald the end of Australian culture as we know it, be it as weak as it currently is. BHP is no longer the Great Australian, our Aussie foods (like Vegemite and Arnotts) belong to others. Our entertainers must migrate to Hollywood and the UK to fuel their success, and not to mention the great brain drain that sees our intellectual property fail to carry a "Proudly Australian" badge. Even the Wiggles are Americanising their songs with themes of Central Park and being a New York fire-fighter, so why not rob us of more of the great Aussie spirit?

Hold on to your seats, Australia! We might be in for a bumpy ride.

[+/-] show/hide this post

What to do with nuclear waste?

href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1208387.htm">Claims
have resurfaced that the Federal
Government has a secret list of up to 22 sites for a nuclear waste
dump.

NO KIDDING?

Honestly, what do people expect the government to do about nuclear waste?
With disposal methods href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=nuclear+waste+disposa
l+sun+rocket&btnG=Goo gle+Search&meta=">(like sending it off to the sun)
currently too expensive it has to be stored somewhere!

The href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/campaigns/intro?campaign_id
=3940">debate about whether we should be producing nuclear waste in the
first place is an entirely different matter and not applicable to this
issue. The facts are that we DO utilise href="http://www.iaea.or.at/">nuclear energy, medicine and related
research. Australia's Lucas Heights
reactor is a real and necessary part of our lives and href="http://www.brendannelson.com.au/">Brendon Nelson is spot on
(that's a rare thing) when he says:

Federal Education, Science and Training href="http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/index1_cp.htm">Minister Brendan
Nelson told Sky News that the states would have to find their own sites to
store waste and that the Federal Government was still looking for a site.

Clearly there needs to be more thought put into HOW and WHERE nuclear waste
should be stored. And not just for Australia, but the entire world.

Contrary to my fellow Greens and href="http://www.democrats.org.au">Democrats I support the establishment
of a world class href="http://www.uic.com.au/Pangea-TOPSEAL99.htm">facility based in
Australia to handle domestic and international nuclear waste. I firmly
believe that producers of nuclear waste should be required under
international law to ensure the highest standards for safely (as much as is
technically possible when we are taking half-lives of thousands of years)
and securely storing (disposing is not feasible) of the material.

IMHO the best opportunity lies in Australia.

• we are unique in having a stable democratic government for the last two
  centuries


• our nation is geologically stable with few earthquakes and no live
  volcanoes to present a danger to an underground facility


• Australia has an expansive area of desolate and remote land that is
  relatively easy to secure


• we have the resources and the ability to receive international support
  for the concept

On top of all this is the financial rewards that will flow from charging
the international community for the safest and most secure solution the
world has yet seen. We are talking billions of dollars a year in revenue!
That would easily give us a world class health and education system and
partially solve our growing welfare crisis.

Food for thought, my fellow homo sapiens!

[+/-] show/hide this post

Musing About Human Biological Conditions

It is quite a simplistic concept. Everything about our living bodies is a chemical and electrical reaction. No one disputes that our bodies are finely tuned biological devices that react to our environments. Food contamination, pollution and contagion are merely a part of the whole environmental effect.

Sure, I am a strong believer that parenting styles have a fair bit to do with children's behaviour and that we should question why certain styles are adopted and what effect our new westernised (anti-extended family) domestic situation has upon our family life. But the answer to the question lies in looking at cause and effect (the old chicken or the egg paradox). Are we looking at a symptom or a cause?

I don't believe that the medical profession has delved deep enough yet to fully answer that question. I believe that illnesses are an effect, not a cause. Bacteria, viri, chemicals and genetic anomalies are the key cause for physiological, mental and behavioural conditions. The medical profession merely labels such conditions so that they can categorise and treat "it". But more often than not they are treating the symptoms, not the cause.

My well-used example is having a headache. More often than not, headaches (not migraines) are caused by dehydration and can be overcome by drinking adequate fluids. however, our usual reaction is to go and grab some paracetamol, aspirin or codeine and wash it down with a glass of water!! How ironic! Chemicals to fix chemicals .. .and yes, even water is a chemical ... but it is the CORRECT chemical required by the body.

I'm not saying that chemicals are the complete and sole reason for behaviour, but they are certainly proving to be a significant reason. I mentioned the physiological effect of electronic entertainment as another cause, but there are others and I'm not about to claim that I know all the reasons. It might be decades or centuries before we can claim to understand the forces at work.

Clearly, however, if our bodies are (at their most basic level) a series of chemical reactions, then surely changes in the function and behaviour of our bodies and minds can be influenced and caused by foreign chemicals or high/low doses of our bodies own chemical compounds. This is why mental illnesses are usually treated with chemicals. Whether we feel up or down, angry or scared, at peace or flighty, all depends on our level of chemical compounds such as dopamine, adrenalin, insulin, endorphins and hormones flowing through our veins.

Chemicals are not the only answer, but they are certainly significant enough to warrant close attention.

Bigotry

A MESSAGE POSTED TO AN EMAIL FORUM, OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER

I have just read some of the most bigoted comments I have ever seen and I'm disappointed that they have appeared on this forum.

The Qur'an, the Torah, and the Bible could all be read and interpreted to mean anything under the guidance of the right person. You just need to read Leviticus to understand where the Christian fundamentalists gain their stance on homosexuality, where the Catholics get their views on sex, or where some other groups get their ideas about the foods they eat, or the clothes they wear.

Isolating Islam as a hateful religion is unnecessarily harsh and insulting to Muslims (and to anyone else with a respect for a person's religious beliefs, like myself).

Remember it is the PERSON that causes the terrorism not the religion. Do we blame Catholicism for Northern Ireland? How about blaming the Baptist denomination for the bigotry in the south of good 'ol USA?

Respect and understanding is what is needed, not blame and hate! And it is not a matter of political correctness. The Muslims I know are kind, loving and generous people.

To define Islam on the actions and words of Osama bin laden is as gross an indecency as defining Christianity on the actions and words of Hitler.