Badda Bing
|
Posted:Apr 23, 2010 8:08 pm
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1630 Views
|
badda bang
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Paralysis at the Extremities
|
Posted:Apr 23, 2010 8:06 pm
Last Updated:Apr 23, 2010 8:07 pm
1747 Views
|
The West Australian Newspaper has long made it perfectly clear that it is willing to trade the future of this state for short term gains, but it has never been so blatant as it has been in the wash-up from the State Government’s refusal to sign away GST revenue in exchange for half considered promises and a fiscal slight of hand. Hammering the Barnett Government for not signing up for $500million in extra health funding, there is no mention of the fact that much of this funding is dependent on high growth rates in health spending and revenue growth. Put simply, to get the whole $500million we have to have a lot more sick people AND a fast growing economy- both at rates far higher than the Commonwealth has used for its own projections in other areas and forums. In signing over the GST to the states, former Prime Minister John Howard gave the states a source of revenue that left it less dependent on Commonwealth handouts- a form of revenue that increased with economic activity. Given that the Grants Commission had already taken nearly a third of this revenue from WA, it seems insane for the state government to give up another third in exchange for such dubious promises. Never a fan of Mr Barnett, one is left to ask the question if WA’s only daily newspaper is pushing an agenda that is good for the state or simply to make the Premier look bad.
This is but a small part of a broader assault on the federal structure of our political system; the invariable toccata scored for ‘If you were designing a nation you would not make it like this…’ Which is the whole point really; the nation was never meant to have such a dominant Commonwealth government. Aside from those powers designated in the constitution, like defence or foreign affairs, anything the Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for has been ‘stolen’ from the states. I use inverted commas for the stolen part because many times these increases in the Commonwealth’s authority have been agreed to by the states themselves or forced by decisions of the High Court (usually taking its cue from the US Supreme Court). In a real sense, though, many of these powers have been stolen, either by the Commonwealth Government over reaching and gaining a favourable ruling from the High Court, or the states themselves agreeing to a temporary measure that becomes permanent (and broader than originally intended, again thanks to rulings by the High Court). The whole reason that the Constitution makes such efforts at centralisation difficult is that the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the central government. The prospective dangers of centralisation were among the main reasons that New Zealand and Fiji turned down the invitation to join with the Australian colonies; dangers that we should not be so quick to dismiss.
As proponents of reform and efficiency and government supporters roll out the arguments against federalism, the ineptitude of St Kevin’s government has allowed us to see clearly why the States, even under this arrangement, are necessary. It should be remembered that under St Kevin’s original proposal, a proposal that Labor intended to use as a central plank for re-election, there was in fact no allowance for extra funding to hospitals until 2014. This has largely been glossed over but amounts to a political lie of the first order- much of the support drummed up for the reform package among the general public was the fallacious notion that the reforms would deliver extra funding in the very near future- as in months, not years. The very fact that the government had to sell the scheme to the states meant that there was a requirement to think through the reforms clearly and time to adjust to expert criticism. The fact that St Kevin has been able to get out of this particular lie is that the State Governments refused to sign on without more short term funding- thus negating its potential impact. One should contrast this to those programmes in which the states have had little or no input- half thought out schemes that looked good on paper but were not subjected to the sort of scrutiny required to get it through a COAG meeting.
The central plank of the centralists’ argument is the idea of a National set of rules and standards that apply across the whole country. This seems a largely mechanistic argument to me- the idea that the needs and wants of somebody living in Karratha might be the same as somebody living in Launceston. One might reasonably suggest that a house in Karratha should be cyclone proof, but the idea behind the centralist position implies that a house in Launceston should be built to a similar standard. It hardly strikes me as an efficient use of resources and the alternative, that we accept a lower standard in some areas to get a national rule, is utterly absurd. There is also the attendant problem of a lack of experience of the conditions on the ground; how can somebody in Melbourne possibly understand the requirements of living in Perth, much less Karratha? While a largely centralist form of governance might make sense in a small country, Australia stretches across an economically and culturally diverse continent. The centralisation of media production in Sydney and Melbourne has had deleterious affects on this cultural diversity in the small span of two decades since the beginning of aggregation in our television networks; what would be the economic and political consequences of a similar concentration of decision making in Canberra, relying on the political clout of the more populous states?
One of the main arguments to be made against the centralisation of government function is the loss of flexibility that comes with the attendant increase in control. To borrow a military term, what ensues is ‘Paralysis at the extremes and confusion in the centre.’ A decision matrix that stretches across a continent and 22million people and ends up on one person’s desk means that the amount of information coming to that one person mitigates against timely and effective decision making at the best of times, much less in times of general crisis and especially in times of particular crisis. Bureaucracies tend to breed reports in an exponential degree- the more layers the more reports get written. Again borrowing a military example, an enquiry into the poor performance of the Israeli Defence Force in its attack on Hezbollah found that unit commanders spent far more time writing and reading reports on the status of their units than they did actually training with those units. This gave rise to a culture in which the quick processing of reports was more valued than actually being able to fight your unit in battle; true military leaders were being passed over for promotion in favour of officers for whom an actual combat situation was merely an abstraction. In practical terms, rather than fighting the Hezbollah, the army were conducting a mathematical exercise based on probabilities- the expectation that if they did this, then the enemy would do that and then acting accordingly relied on the fact that the enemy had to do what was expected. Hezbollah did not act as expected and the invasion bogged down because the talents needed to advance in a bureaucratic environment were not always married to a talent for innovation at need. Given the argument that centralisation is conducive to reform, this is a telling blow against such beliefs.
Another, related, factor stemmed from the fact that officers reacted to their conditioning and tended to consult up which meant that, as the invasion bogged down, the number of critical decisions being made by the central command grew proportionally to the point where the central command was receiving so much information that it could not process the inputs in time to make a timely decision. This not only had tactical significance but also strategic significance; the focus on the numerous tactical considerations led to a failure to appreciate the strategic considerations and requirements. This trend had been widely predicted since the 1970s but had seemed somewhat overblown in the face of experience; the rise of network centric warfare theory arose as a counter. The fact is that, until recently, the soldiers tasked with collecting, collating and analysing this data had had field experience that allowed them to pick out the important information from the dross. As the history of large scale conflict retreated ever further into the past, the soldiers with field experience gave way, as we have seen, to those promoted for their skills with reports rather than actual war-fighting ability. The consequence of this was to make the forest more important than the trees; salient details were being overlooked or folded into broader summations. This had already led to problems in day-to-day operations but the sudden influx of strategically and tactically important information on a scale made possible by modern communications technology swamped the capacity of the computers and analysts to hold it all, much less give it serious analysis. This meant that some information was simply lost without trace; it also meant that pre-war assumptions of the enemy’s behaviour were used to filter the information that was being received- assumptions we already know weren’t valid. In essence, the central command had conditioned itself and its soldiers to a point where they were fighting another war entirely to that being conducted by the enemy and paying a horrific price for doing so.
Another factor limiting the effectiveness of a central bureaucracy, and something that many of us will have experience of, is the profusion of pro-forma reports and systems. Both national supermarket chains have any number of these. I began a process a number of years ago where I would physically record the top twenty sellers in my department- either by writing them down or, later, adding them to a computer spreadsheet on a monthly basis. This has passed into procedure as a mere requirement to print off the appropriate report and filing it for reference; given my personal experience I would estimate that only two thirds of managers print that report and very few of them actually look at it before putting it into the appropriate file. So formulaic has it become that many of those who print the report have other staff members do it for them. My personal records, many of which cover whole regions and chains as well as individual stores, not only inform me of current events but trends over time. By failing to actually use these reports in any way, managers are robbing themselves of this important tool; it also means that a generation of managers are going through the system without realising the importance of such information. This not only devalues information generally, but information based decision making in particular- in essence it leads to a management culture based largely on pre-determined biases. The requirement for national merchandising standards has been similarly warped; initially proposed as product flow chart so that similar lines were displayed together according to normal usage, it has led to the result that regionally significant products are often devalued in favour of nationally significant products. This has not only affected individual suppliers and even items, but whole categories. While the demise of locally based manufacturing capacity has been the most visible loss, the real sacrifice has been at the expense of real product innovation. Rather than an actual innovation of product, the vast majority of new lines that appear in the main supermarket chains in Australia have simply been re-packaging or re-badging existing lines. Development costs are a significant cost to a business- especially a small manufacturer (or grower). Without a significant proportion of the retail market available because of national merchandise requirements there is simply no way for that innovation to transition from the small, state based, chains to a nation wide chain without significant risk- a risk financial backers are increasingly unlikely to accept.
The main justification for centralisation is the economies of scale that can be achieved. While these can be significant, after a certain point they merely become incremental. In the context of current political debate about the future of the federation and the states, we must beware to balance the costs against any potential benefits. As we can see, bureaucratisation actually detracts from any benefits that may be gained- and the benefits may not be all that they seem. Far from being avenues of speedy reform and innovation, far from gaining better control of situations by central authority, far from gaining the ability to make timely intervention through the accumulation of information, far from being able to impose real efficiencies, centralisation and its attendant bureaucratisation leads to the exact opposite. Perhaps the most damning risk of centralisation is none of these, but what they eventually lead to. There is a tendency for the leader of an organization to essentially identify themselves as the organization- an ego-driven notion that our management structures invariably transform into a sort of feudalism. This personal identification invariably leads to the idea that criticising a person or their ideas becomes an act of disloyalty to the whole organization with the corollary that advancement can only be achieved by unquestioning acceptance of policies determined by those above- regardless of the consequences. It also leads to the scenario that loyalty to the organization, as demonstrated by length of service, is more important than actual ability. In private enterprise, unless disrupted by a change in management culture to renew the organization, this leads to the demise of the organization.
Government departments, by their very nature, do not suffer this consequence and, by that nature, can perpetuate such structures often to the detriment of their primary role. One need look no further than the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to see the consequence of this- when many senior Aboriginals themselves are calling for a new approach the Department has firmly stuck its head in the sand and continued with 40 year old policies that have simply failed to work despite all the money that has flowed into it. St Kevin’s own personal management style, his distraction by other issues and the ego-driven belief that his humbling of the government to the Aboriginal people through his Apology to the Stolen Generation has fixed all that needs to be fixed will ensure that, for the life of his government, the sort of management shake-up required is not going to happen. This is a clear example of what we can expect without the states in the mix- having essentially been booted out of Aboriginal policy since the referendum delivered care for this people to the Commonwealth. Given the abject failure of centralisation to substantively improve the lot of Aboriginals, it may very well be that a future Prime Minister may be called upon to apologise on behalf of the Australian People for that particular well intentioned mistake. The sorts of policies that appeal to and are supported by the voters of New South Wales and Victoria, the two states with proportionally the lowest numbers of Aboriginals, do not take into account the actual reality of life for urban Aboriginals in other states much less the challenges in the inland communities. Though the States could certainly do much better, one trembles to think of the consequences but for their limited role and their influence through COAG. Perhaps the greatest crime is that, having finally found their voice, Aboriginals are being excluded from the debate as to their future by the very people who supposedly champion their cause because of the political consequences in the two states where they are so under-represented. This is precisely the danger that removing the federalist system would present to all of us.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Scales before mine eyes
|
Posted:Apr 20, 2010 11:25 am
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1616 Views
|
When it comes to horoscope porn, about the only ones who do better than Librans are Geminis and Aquarians.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Friends Like This?
|
Posted:Apr 20, 2010 11:15 am
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1641 Views
|
It is now being reported that the computer networks of three of Australia’s major mining companies, BHP-Billiton, Fortescue Metals and, significantly, Rio Tinto, have all been attacked by hackers based in China. The significance of the attack on Rio Tinto is that one occurred in the same week that its chief of operations in Shanghai, Stern Hu, was detained. Several mainstream commentators have made the suggestion that the Chinese hacked in looking for the evidence needed for the arrest of Mr Hu. Putting aside the fact that while Mr Hu was arrested it was many months before he was in fact charged, perhaps the more likely explanation of the events surrounding his arrest was that evidence was inserted. Recent comments by the Rio Tinto CEO suggest that the information that Mr Hu had transferred to the Perth Head Office of the company was unremarkable in light of the charges he was convicted of (bribery and stealing economic secrets), and certainly with the initial charges (stealing state secrets). The Chinese authorities arrested Mr Hu with the clear expectation of laying charges quickly; the possibility (I would suggest likelihood) is that Rio Tinto discovered the inserted data and removed it before Mr Hu was arrested, hoping, perhaps, that lack of evidence would lead to his release. Given the lack of consular access, legal access or even familial access, it is unlikely that we will ever know what pressures were applied to gain a confession. Mr Hu was born in China and doubtless still has family there- including his wife who remained in China the entire time. Both Amnesty International and the US State Department have cited instances of confessions elicited by Chinese investigators threatening family members. It has also emerged that the alleged primary victim of the thefts, China Iron and Steel, was also a significant actor in the investigation. Given the rebuff of one of its biggest members (Chinalco) by Rio Tinto’s shareholders and its own status in the case, surely its investigation can only be seen as tainted- at best. Several other investigating authorities contributing to the investigation have also been found to have had conflicts of interest. One can only ask whether these are mere conflicts of interest or a part of a conspiracy to punish a company for rejecting the overtures of an important government owned company.
Of course the real hypocrisy is that while Mr Hu can look forward to an extended stay in a Chinese prison for stealing economic secrets, China has just been caught out, again, undertaking sophisticated forms of economic espionage on a scale and with an intent that dwarfs anything Mr Hu might have done, if he is indeed guilty. With its ideological blinkers firmly in place, both the government and the media generally have failed yet again to address this issue in terms of its consequences for Mr Hu and for the Australian economy more generally. Several articles reporting on the attacks sound as if they could have been written in Beijing, seeking to justify the hacking attacks on BHP and Fortescue as mere addendums to the evidentiary hunt at Rio. Given that several Australian journalists are reporting that they have access to the record of the secret portion of the trial, and make no mention of hacking attacks finding any evidence, the alleged evidentiary hunt seems to be no more than a smokescreen by China apologists seeking to justify blatant hypocrisy on behalf of the Chinese government. Even if the hacking of Rio Tinto’s networks could be justified as a hunt for evidence (where was the warrant?), how can this be a justification for hacking into the networks of the other two companies? This was clearly not a hunt for evidence but a cut and dried case of industrial espionage (actual or attempted is immaterial).
Hardly a week seems to go by without some revelation that Chinese based hackers are attempting to gain access to computer networks throughout the world. Given the rigid control that Chinese authorities maintain on internet access, hacking on such a scale can only be sanctioned by the government; running the blatant lie that these attacks are by private citizens over which the authorities have limited control serves only to belittle the journalists who write such rubbish. One might expect more from the government of this nation were it not so Sinophile; following the report by the Defence Department that there were 4500 attempts to hack into its computers, the vast majority originating in China, the government merely suggested that the problem was not significant. While posing as Australia’s friend, with the connivance of the government and sections of the media, China has repeatedly engaged in distinctly unfriendly conduct. Despite all evidence to the contrary, St Kevin continues to believe that he has some sort of special relationship with the Chinese leadership. Sacrificing opportunities with Taiwan, for example, in order to curry favour with Beijing has devalued Australia’s commitment to democracy, made it appear a pawn to Chinese interests and upset an important trading partner for no gain. In fact it seems that the more St Kevin and his government panders to the Chinese, the less friendly they become.
The leftist whitewash of China’s actions is inspired by a blind belief in ideological compatibility and a big dose of rabid anti-Americanism. In hoping to replace United States dominance of the global community that champions values opposed to their own, Leftists have bought into the rhetoric of a socialist paradise when widespread and systemic corruption, rampant nepotism and cronyism, flagrant and brutal violations of human rights make China anything but a paradise. Does the West have faults? Of course it does; but replacing it with an uncritical view of China out of an intellectual vacuousness and blind faith is not going to be the answer. It is high time that the leftist journalists and the government stopped whitewashing and excusing the poor behaviour of a bad friend.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Oh Hai
|
Posted:Apr 19, 2010 4:39 pm
Last Updated:Apr 22, 2010 7:59 am
1655 Views
|
I would just like to thank everyone who responds to my posts. Because I am a standard member I can't use the reply button to respond, only the Add Comment. I think that this unfairly raises my comment count for simply being polite. I will continue to reply in more detail as required; but the thank yous were getting on my conscience.
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
The Biggest Threat
|
Posted:Apr 19, 2010 4:33 pm
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1848 Views
|
In the January/February edition of the periodical Foreign Affairs, there are a number of articles discussing the consequences of nuclear proliferation. Several of the authors confidently assert that US Allies would be reassured by the American Nuclear Umbrella and are therefore unlikely to try and gain access to their own weapons. The only problem with this assertion is that it is a hollow promise. Even during the Cold War, it always struck me as unlikely that a US President would risk the vaporisation of Chicago or New York if the Soviets used nukes in Europe or elsewhere. If anything, the modern situation makes the use of an American nuclear weapon in defence of an ally even less likely. If we proffer the scenario of an Iranian nuclear attack on Tel Aviv or a North Korean attack on Tokyo, could an American President really justify the obliteration of thousands (millions?) of citizens of those countries given that the decision to use the weapons has been made by a very small clique of despots?
It seems highly unlikely given that the only use of these weapons previously was to effectively end a war against an opponent that had systematically conducted massacres of POWs and civilians, had engaged in systematic forced , human experiments and whose soldier�s, sailors and airmen, not to mention the civilian populations of Saipan and Okinawa, had shown a fierce propensity to die rather than surrender. The focus of approbation on the decision to employ these weapons, to a point where the Japanese feel entitled to be considered victims of US barbarity, ignores the fact that more deaths were inflicted by the Japanese at the of Nanking than were suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; that the weapons caused 200-250thousand deaths to end a war that cost 50-60million deaths. The chief justification for the hyperbolic and sensationalist rhetoric is that the bombs deliberately targeted civilians; which is precisely the scenario we face if North Korea or Iran were to use nuclear weapons.
In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile crisis, John F Kennedy predicted that by the end of the 1970s the United States would be faced by a world community in which somewhere between 30-40 nations would be possessed of these weapons. It was Kennedy who began the long process of trying to thwart that prediction, a process continued by subsequent Presidents with varying degrees of effort and success. The problem with this effort is that it is ultimately self-defeating; each accession of a nation to the status of nuclear power makes proliferation far more likely as America�s ability to guarantee nuclear protection to its allies is weakened by public opinion. The American guarantee can only work if there is a perception that it is free to retaliate, and that perception is being steadily dented. One of the emboldening aspects to Iran�s continued push for nuclear weapons is the knowledge that the political turmoil subsequent to the invasion of Iraq has seriously weakened the likelihood of conventional, much less nuclear, attack. In its decade long war with Iraq, the Iranians suffered 1million dead and barely penetrated Iraqi territory much further than the outskirts of Basra. Iranian officials have been quoted as being surprised at the political turmoil in the US engendered by a campaign that cost some 5000 deaths and conquered the whole country. The perception in Teheran is that the US is unlikely to risk more turmoil, and cost, attendant to militarily opposing Iran�s programme. Whether this is the reality or not is largely immaterial- it�s called gambling for a reason.
There are convincing economic, diplomatic and political justifications for a belief that proliferation will not unfold as quickly as many commentators fear. It is widely expected that Turkey would forgo nuclear weapons in order to maintain their hopes of getting into the European Union; it is expected that the Japanese public would destroy any government instituting a weapons programme at elections; it is expected that continuing diplomatic relations with Egypt are likely to keep its programme on hold. The problem with these expectations is that they ignore the political effects of a perceived lack of security. Given the domestic focus of President Obama, and the likelihood that his successor, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be even more domestically focussed, can any of these countries ignore a neighbour with nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them as a tool for blackmail? While Iran has used Israel�s possession of these weapons as a justification for its own programme, the proliferation of these weapons in the region is likely to owe more to that chronic distrust engendered by the Sunni-Shiite divide that has always disrupted pan-Arab unity than anything Israel might do. Saudi officials have publicly declared that an Iranian bomb could not go unchallenged by their country; Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey must surely follow.
One of the few constants in Chinese diplomacy has been the terror with which it views Japanese acquisition of nuclear weapons. Former Prime Minister Koizumi, shortly before leaving office, made it quite clear that Japan had the capacity to make these weapons but had decided not to proceed. It is increasingly clear that China has allowed the situation in North Korea to develop in order to distract American diplomacy in the wider East Asian region. It has gambled that American fears of further proliferation in the region has made the Americans lean heavily on Seoul, Tokyo and Taipei to forgo developing their own programmes in response. A true resolution of the crisis can only come when China feels that it has something to gain by making the North Koreans give up their bombs; an American threat to remove its diplomatic pressure on Tokyo would probably have greater impact than any number of talks with Pyongyang. Be that as it may, if the North Koreans successfully develop nuclear missiles of even reasonable accuracy, and are able to match the warheads to the missile, then no amount of pressure from Washington will long delay a Japanese response. After that, it is almost impossible to see how any regional power can long forgo the development of their own programmes- including Australia.
A complicating factor is the politics of climate change. As wonderful as the benefits of alternate energies promise to be, it is becoming increasingly apparent that they are unlikely to replace even a significant proportion of current energy needs much less future demand- at least not in the sorts of timeframes that are being discussed. Ironically enough, one of the major stumbling blocks has been a reluctance to rethink the technological aspects (innovation through better design). I say ironically because it is precisely this sort of thinking that has made nuclear power a better option than even a decade ago. While it is increasingly apparent that even nuclear power is unlikely to have the hoped for impact on energy resources originally envisioned for it, there is no doubting that it will have a more significant impact than solar, wind, tidal, etc. While Westerners have been conditioned to reject nuclear power, no such moral or ethical limitations (ill-informed or not) will hinder developing countries from relying on nuclear power. Regardless of how ideologically pure the green movement thinks itself, in order to have some sort of influence on the energy decisions of developing countries it will eventually have to choose between nuclear waste or carbon emissions. The uptake of nuclear power in the developing world, and the eventual position adopted by Green political leaders and its subsequent affects on Western politics, are both likely to have significant impact on proliferation policies.
Uranium used in nuclear power plants needs to be 4% pure; that used in nuclear weapons 90% pure. Neither is interchangeable (except dirty bombs- normal explosive devices exposed to uranium or spreading nuclear waste). Most experts will say that refining power-grade uranium to around 40-50% is relatively easy; it is the extra refining that brings most programmes unstuck. Simply having a nuclear reactor is not automatically going to lead to nuclear weapons; but it does make it easier to gain the scientific expertise to do so. A further factor is the likelihood that a terrorist nuclear event is going to involve a dirty bomb which raises the problems of securing nuclear waste. Bob Hawke was entirely correct in asserting that Australia taking the world�s nuclear waste would be the biggest contribution that this country could make to the security of the world. That an environmentalist should release a statement that doctors should ignore the benefits of nuclear medicine in the same week shows the warping of their attitudes by all things nuclear. The attitude of environmentalists to these issues is going to have a big impact on proliferation. If they support nuclear power, it is likely that monitoring regimes and the like will prevent it. If they continue as they are, and with the likely impact this will have on Western politics and policies, then there is a good chance that proliferation will explode to match Kennedy�s worst nightmares.
In order to prevent further proliferation, it is going to be necessary to demonstrate that possession of such devices is no guarantee of security- regardless of the cost. This will take either of two forms; technological intervention or physical invasion. Given the support that North Korea has had from China and Iran had from Russia, physical invasion may promote more risks than it alleviates. Another aspect is the maintenance of public support if the nation being invaded uses a nuclear device on invading forces. A technological solution is more likely to have success without significant risks and significant costs. While such technological capabilities could be used to defeat the threat ofRussian and Chinese nukes, a better solution would be to involve both these nations (and India) in any sort of technological solution to ensure that the development of the technology does not trigger what it is meant to prevent- a nuclear conflict. Whether it is a defence shield in the manner of StarWars or Strategic Defence Initiative, computer hacking or something bizarre like hunter nannites that are released near suspected weapon sites and then hunt down and physically dismantle both weapons and research equipment (or at least disable them), it is going to be the only guarantee of (relative) safety. The Great Unknown in all of this is the threat of terrorist access to radiological material and/or nuclear weapons. It is disturbing that while terrorism experts constantly warn that a nuclear attack requires far less sophistication and planning than was demonstrated by 9/11 or the London Bombings, governments are still largely focussed on these events almost to the exclusion of nuclear attack. While most terrorist scenarios revolve around a containership docking in port, a nuclear device can have a devastating impact on a city long before it reaches a port; it is simply not enough to have a detection system that is focussed solely on the arrival points. A detection system that targets radiological devices on the scale required would be useful against nations with a suspected capability.
The United Nations has recently reiterated that the greatest threat to humanity, even to life on earth, is a nuclear holocaust. In terms of raw power there are many events in nature that could achieve a similar or even more devastating affect; none are as statistically threatening or likely as a nuclear conflict. Even the worst predictions of climate change fail to threaten life on earth, for all its impact on liveability. We are on the verge of rampant proliferation and placing our trust in soft diplomacy has served merely to slow, not halt, the spread of these weapons. The diplomatic, economic and political reasoning that seems to make proliferation unlikely have to be measured against the threat to national security that some nations might feel if an antagonistic neighbour gains access to these weapons. The history of warfare and weapons should remind us that it is unlikely that any nation would willingly part with this capability once it was acquired. For all the emotionalism and rhetoric attendant on the dream of disarmament, reality dictates that another avenue will ultimately have to be pursued to make us safer from ourselves. If the West is truly serious about preventing proliferation, it is going to have make some hard choices and accept some harder costs- it simply can�t be left to the Americans alone.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Fixations
|
Posted:Apr 18, 2010 8:26 am
Last Updated:Jun 3, 2010 12:19 pm
1567 Views
|
I lurv a nice butt.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
YMBAAI
|
Posted:Apr 18, 2010 8:10 am
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1592 Views
|
Asperger’s Syndrome is a form of autism that mainly affects sensory inputs and co-ordinations, with various consequences including social awkwardness. Many of the symptoms make for amusing anecdotes, which one site I regularly participate in assembled into a thread. I have been intending to do this for some time and will continue to post new ones as they come up. Most of these I can personally identify with but some are just so amusing that I had to include them.
YOU MIGHT BE AN ASPIE IF…
...your teacher commands every one in the room to pair-off to discuss a topic and you are extremely relieved that no one wants to be your partner.
...you consider the pleasantries of others just a waste of time.
...if you have dreams of communicating with extraterrestrials and nightmares about chatting with the next-door neighbour.
...if your neighbours come to your door needing help with their computer at all hours of the night
...if you help them with their computer problems at all hours of the night
...if your high school librarian knew you better than your classmates
…You used to be able to memorize the name and reign of every pope, even though you were Jewish.
...if you can do complex math equations in your head while everyone around you scrambles for their calculators.
...if you can hear the water dripping in the sink in the other room, but you don't notice the person sitting next to you is speaking to you.
…you visit a historical site or museum and know more facts than the guide or curator.
…you put music in alphabetical order but the rest of your room is in disarray.
…you can carry on a conversation by using nothing but movie quotes or song lyrics.
...you have watched C-SPAN for longer than five minutes.
...you laugh when people say funny things like "Trust me."
...all your cd's have to be the right way up in their cases
…You might be an aspie if you know how to replace hardware and troubleshoot in your computer, but can't figure out how to check your voicemail on your cell phone.
...If you have actually read the dictionary from cover to cover.
...your puppy knows exactly how many treats you will give her based on what time of day it is.
...You ate the same thing for lunch everyday for 11 years and then, when your school banned nuts (and you always ate a peanut butter sandwich), you simply ceased eating lunch.
..."Get a haircut" is on your list of things to do for weeks at a time without getting it done.
..."Get a haircut" has to be on a list.
...people come into your home and ask, "When are you moving the rest of your stuff in?"
…-if you still keep your old X-Files VHSs which you recorded as well as the VHS editions which you bought, even though you have the ENTIRE collection on DVD as well-- and you shudder every time at someone else's suggestion that you "Sell those old things!"...
…-if, when going to a specific restaurant, you haven't ever had to think about what to get since you've gotten the same thing there since you were 8...
...you find talking to yourself enjoyable, actually more enjoyable than talking to other people.
…If your pets require more social interaction than you do.
…if your pets HAVE more social interaction than you do...
…if your idea of a Friday night is enjoying a book big and heavy enough to be classified as a weapon.
…you can fall asleep listening to Rammstein at full blast, but a fly buzzing in the next room will drive you into a state of nervous collapse....
…you'll do anything for anyone, but someone moving your things is grounds for manslaughter...
… care more about how your "Sims" are dressed than you are.
…doing well by leaving the house once or twice a week.
…If you only obtain new clothing during Christmas and birthdays.
You can recite the countries of the world in alphabetical order, but can't remember the last time you did something socially
...you find office supply stores soothing.
...your idea of a hot date is a trip to the office supply store (bookstore, computer store/show)...
… a book of city population numbers and demographics is your idea of a great read.
...you can't pronounce a significant part of your vocabulary, because you learned the words when reading.
…if you knew you could move mountains but finally did nothing because, invariably, at some key point down the road, you had to deal with real people....
....you look at the emoticons and hold the mouse arrow over the right one to read what it is saying because you can't figure out what they mean by just looking at them!!!
...when no one wants to watch movies with you because you always want to complain that what they're doing doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Big and Busty
|
Posted:Apr 17, 2010 2:14 pm
Last Updated:May 23, 2024 12:44 am
1602 Views
|
A good way to remember the difference
Brought=Bring
Bought=Buy.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Healthy Debate
|
Posted:Apr 17, 2010 2:12 pm
Last Updated:Apr 17, 2010 2:12 pm
1636 Views
|
There is a great deal of media commentary that suggests the chances of St Kevin being re-elected, and surviving afterwards at the head of the government, is going to be determined by the outcome of the Health Reforms he is pushing. So it is somewhat amusing that Kristina Keneally has come out against the proposals after St Kevin snubbed her earlier this year. The NSW Labor government is facing an electoral disaster next year and, in what is becoming something of a Labor tradition, has turned to a nice woman untainted by the failures of past ministries to try and save the day. There is a perception that she is a puppet of the NSW Labor Right and it was politically necessary for St Kevin to show a little distance from her and her backers. How this turned into the vision of a grown man, Prime Minister of the country, acting like a spoiled is another matter, but it was a cringe worthy moment of embarrassment for the NSW Premier. As much as she is riding the crest of a wave of opposition to the Prime Minister�s health reforms, given the likely outcome of next year�s state election, would it be too much to suggest that there is a little bit of payback at work?
Another element that provided some amusement, though of the darkly cynical variety, is the way in which St Kevin is selling his package to the public- or at least the public of the electoraly important states of NSW and Queensland. The next few elections are likely to be decided by a half dozen seats in those two states; States that, by common consensus, are regarded as having the worst hospital systems. His Health Reform road show, taking in the marginal seats in Queensland and NSW, is likely to be a big plus for his re-election chances; of course the scarcity of details in the package means that we have no idea if it will actually reform those systems and certainly not how it will benefit the rest of us. I am sure that St Kevin believes in his health reforms (probably another moral imperative) and that they are good for the country but his method of selling these reforms are just another example of divisive politics.
The truly funny part, in a bizarre sense, is that Karaoke Kev is selling this package in much the same way that he tried to sell us on the ETS. It is a moral imperative; opposing these reforms is an act of evil; we don�t need details, we just need to trust the socialists in charge to do things right. Despite dozens of surveys that have plainly said that the public�s problem with the ETS was a lack of details, both the government and the lefty commentariat continue to push the line that people just did not want to pay extra to save the environment- scared by the big bad denialists, evil human beings that they are. This belief in the duplicity of the general public (plus those evil denialists) is simply to cover the fact that the government stuffed up its campaign. It has meant that instead of facing up to the fact that it screwed up, the government has simply decided to run essentially the same campaign. I agree with Victorian premier John Brumby; if the reforms are so comprehensive and essential then why are they being released on a slow drip? Since the initial announcement there has been a steady trickle of further sweeteners and policy funding that seems designed to buy off the opposition. The really weird part is that the government�s reform package is based on the Victorian system but with the Victorian government asking what is in it for them (somewhat reasonably one might imagine) the Federal government is suggesting that it is a flawed model. After months of spruiking Victoria�s system as the best in the country, you have to ask what sort of idiot would seriously turn around and say that it was one of the worst and expect to be taken seriously.
The annoying thing about much of the government�s position is the automatic assumption that being opposed to their reform is being opposed to all reform. When, during the Health Debate, St Kevin told Tony Abbott that if he were serious about reform he should get on board with the government�s plan and co-operate to make it a reality. It was widely reported as being an invitation to co-operate in the sense of a bi-partisan plan and a bi-partisan push so that Tony Abbott could be made to look like an obstructionist when he laughed at the suggestion. The fact is that there are an increasing number of experts critical of a number of aspects of the reforms, many suggesting that after spending millions on the change there will not be all that much benefit. The government is attacking its critics because they don�t have access to all the detail, which is an odd arguing stance given that the government has not released all the details of the scheme; we�re just being asked to accept that on faith the government has everything worked out. Given their track record on unscrutinised spending with the Insulation scheme or the Building the Education Revolution or the National Broadband Network, it is hardly an argument to inspire confidence. The stage is set for a failure on a scale not unlike that of the ETS, more embarrassing perhaps because of the opposition of state Labor governments.
About the only thing going for the government is the complexity of the Health System. Even those within the system are often perplexed by how it is supposed to operate, much less how it actually operates. The simple truth is that the vast majority of us are being asked to make a decision on this without any idea of what we are really being offered. Waiting lists at local GPs, emergency departments and elective surgery are increasing but very few of us would have any real idea why it is so, speculate as much as we might. Essentially we�re being asked to decide who has the best ideas for fixing these problems based on how much money they are willing to spend. Given the untold billions in extra funding announced at each election and ploughed into fixing things, without much result, perhaps it is time to rethink that equation. One of the most effective tools in reform and innovation is not to keep throwing money at the problem but to rethink the problem. Of course this would require that people find out a little more about the health system; given that most people barely take the time to learn how the DVD player works this does not seem likely. So in the short term, at least, we are stuck with this uninformed bidding war. What may get the government across the line is the idea that they are trying to do something, regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or whether it actually achieves anything.
The point that rankles most, and it is a general criticism of the way this government operates, is the way in which it paints itself as the sole arbiter of what is right and good. Whilst talking about ending the �blame game� and appealing for bi-partisan support for its various reform packages and programmes, it quickly descends into childish name calling the moment somebody raises even the most reasonable objections. Sidetracking to the Building the Education Revolution farce, much of the defence mounted against legitimate criticism of the various rorts in the programme has boiled down to the necessity of the projects funded; it never seems to occur to government members that no matter how necessary a COLA or toilet block might be, that it costs 8 times what was originally quoted is a problem. The government is portraying the critics of this rorting as being opposed to better education facilities full stop. It took a similar stance with critics of the ETS and the insulation scheme and now Health Reform. The government definitely talks a good game and the media has, generally, let it slide- it is more interested in the sexual peccadillos of golfers and footballers (it is interesting to contrast the media reaction to the activities of a certain actor to those footballers involved in various sexual escapades over the last few years). This government has been astonishingly averse to changing its methods even in the face of the most obvious evidence that it is wrong or has made a mistake; the Prime Minister in particular has relied on a Messiah complex of absolute infallibility that past performances simply don�t justify. Whilst decking itself in the bunting of moderation, this is a remarkably strident and extremist government. Unfortunately, at least on Health Care, a Coalition government is hardly going to be much better; its preferred solution is likely to be another form of federal takeover of the hospital system.
The dumbest aspect of this, and it applies to the opposition as much to the government, is the idea that if the states fail to jump on board a federal takeover then a referendum is likely to resolve matters. It is a bankable certainty that WA would be opposed to a full federal takeover; all it then requires is one other state to oppose it (SA or Victoria being most likely) and it fails. Yet both sides seem to be acting under the impression that only health policy is at stake and that other political factors, not to mention the competency to actually amalgamate and run the various systems, is immaterial. Hence the almost unrestrained intemperance of the stance adopted by the various government ministers and spokespeople in response to the states objecting to a half-arsed, half detailed reform package. If a referendum is never going to succeed, then it would probably be beneficial to adopt a position that seeks the input of the various state governments on their needs and requirements. There is no proven correlation between the injection of more money and the achievement of beneficial outcomes; one might even speculate that the more money spent, the less likely it is that other avenues of reform will be identified and/or acted upon. One example is the situation in regards to obstetricians. The shortage of obstetricians has been ascribed to the big insurance premiums required of them; the government�s response has been to pour extra money into training more obstetricians. It seems an almost grotesque waste of money; the problem is not a lack of interest but an inability to make a decent living, especially given the high inputs of time and effort made by the individual obstetrician to not only qualify in medicine but to take on a specialty. A better solution might be for the government to establish an insurance programme for obstetricians and similarly afflicted specialists (such as paediatricians). Another solution might be a statutory limit on the awards made in some of these cases, thus driving down the premiums required by private insurers.
In the end, the current health debate is likely to achieve nothing; neither side is willing to compromise despite all the rhetoric to the contrary. Perhaps this is the funniest aspect of all; despite tonnes of print and hours of radio and television and the efforts of experts on both sides it has never struck me as likely that the reforms being floated by St Kevin and his government were ever likely to win total support. The hallmark arrogance and messiah complex of its supporters simply made it a certainty. Rather than focussing on how to make the current model work better, we have been condemned to a show that simply underscores the risks associated with the politics of the extreme. One might be forgiven for thinking that the Australian hospital system, judged by the rhetoric of the various contributors to the debate, is of a standard similar to that to be found in some third world country. It should be remembered that our hospital system, and the people who work within it, are amongst the world�s best. In measuring the success of the health system by how long it takes to be treated, we forgot that point. Remaking the whole system for the sake of that one aspect runs the risk of making the wrong priorities important. Is it better to be made to wait so that you can be competently and successfully treated or is it better to be seen quickly and given a rushed diagnosis that might not actually be correct?
As an aside-
The controversy surrounding Christine Nixon has dredged up the inevitable comparison to her US presidential namesake, Richard Nixon, particularly in lefty articles. Anybody reading (or hearing) some of these items would be forgiven if they emerged with impression that President Nixon was not merely incompetent but evil made manifest. Several articles have stated or implied that President Nixon ordered the burglary at the Watergate Building when transcripts of the Whitehouse recordings and interviews with key players make it clear that he did not. It is quite clear from all available evidence that these men went far beyond what President Nixon intended and, in this regard, his only fault lay in not ensuring that they were acting as he intended. President Nixon acted illegally in attempting to cover-up the burglary and attempting to destroy or withhold the evidence of his involvement in that cover-up. Whilst substantially reprehensible, they hardly qualify as evidence of evil.
It is interesting to note that, outside of the anglosphere, President Nixon is still regarded as one of the greatest American Presidents. Without the constant demonisation by the lefty media (or if he was a Democrat President) it is likely that he would still be regarded as a great president. As America�s debt continues to spiral out of control, even in the midst of recession, many economics commentators are looking back to his decision to allow the market revaluation of the Dollar as a real solution to the current crisis. Missing from the widespread praise of President Obama�s nuclear diplomacy is that he is following in the footsteps of Nixon�s policies. And though somewhat strained, the d�tente between the US and China was made possible by that arch anti-communist�s visit to Beijing; �Only Nixon could go to China.� It was Nixon who made the withdrawal of American forces from Viet Nam acceptable and possible; much of the strategy behind the Surge in Iraq and now Afghanistan is a highly compressed version of the strategies adopted to end that struggle. It was Nixon, not Johnston, who made �bussing� work and civil rights for American Negroes a substantive reality.
The picture of Richard Nixon painted by William Safire was influential in changing me from a proto-communist to a moderate conservative. It was also my first exposure to the idea that the media picture of a man (or woman) could be diametrically opposed to the reality. Richard Nixon was a flawed character and his demons eventually got the better of his judgement in one crucial mistake that has effectively seen him condemned ever since. Yet his contribution in so many areas, whether in or out of office, has been significantly underplayed or ignored for the sake of a false characterisation that is unfair and undeserved. Often painted as an arch conservative of the far right, both by the broad left and the far right, Nixon�s presidency, in reality, was marked by a deep commitment to moderation. It is high time that we moved beyond the media caricature and began to appreciate the man for who was.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Dutch Treats
|
Posted:Apr 11, 2010 6:59 am
Last Updated:Apr 11, 2010 7:00 am
1553 Views
|
When we visited Amsterdam a few years back, we were so excited to be there, staying in the youth hostels, that it took us a couple of days to realise why we were suddenly hungry all the time. Of course like every neophite visitor to Amsterdam we went looking through the Red Light District; in retrospect I am moved to ask if anybody ever saw an attractive in one of the windows?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Country Roads
|
Posted:Apr 11, 2010 6:54 am
Last Updated:Apr 11, 2010 7:37 am
1676 Views
|
Regional Australia is undergoing a crisis. While the population debate inevitably, pathetically, became focussed on the challenges facing the mainland capitols, the continuing decline in the population of the inland towns has been completely ignored. The population debate was supposed to be this national discussion that addressed the multiple issues associated with an increase in the population. Now it does not really matter if it is 30 million or 36 million or 50million; we can’t just keep stuffing people into the mainland capitols. The lack of infrastructure spending, notably on electricity supplies, public transportation and water supplies, has led to a crisis response situation that is focussed on the problems caused by the lack of spending on infrastructure rather than the actual population increases. Of course the greenies have shifted the focus to the surface issues that we can see every day; never mind that it has been thirty years of environmentalist friendly policies that have dumped us in this situation. How keen they are to blame us for the problem!
An analogy can be made with the current problem with the declining rate of food yield increases, the lack of food being a common argument the greenies use to protest population increases. Having ‘solved’ the population bomb in the 1970’s, governments cut investment on agricultural research; CF and CP Runge estimate that there is a $400million shortfall. Whilst this may sound like a lot of money, consider the billions spent on food aid and the organizations that are responsible for the delivery of that aid; consider the amount of that aid being diverted by corrupt and tyrannical regimes. The money that should have gone into infrastructure spending (not just utilities but education and health) and agricultural research has been spent on tax cuts and middle class welfare and entitlements. If you worked five minutes from home, would you really need that $50 tax cut or welfare entitlement to spend on petrol or a high mortgage?
Our work and management culture is built around workshop and factory era technology and doctrines (and dare we say ego?). The majority of jobs still require some form of these structures; but by no means all. A significant proportion, some estimates range as high as 15%, of work could be done from home. This would require some workplaces, perhaps entire industries, to shift from the usual management control methods of when and where work is done to accept a more outcomes oriented work method. One objection to this new style is that it would require a lot more trust in employees, and consequently employee discipline, for it to work. Yet feedback tends to suggest that the schemes operate effectively in terms of employee benefit and work outcomes; the limiting factor seems to be that managers are unwilling to give up the control of the work environment. Obviously this does not apply to all jobs, like those that require a face-to-face aspect like retail, but a significant portion of work now undertaken in offices could actually be done from home. The government is spending $43billion on an NBN network that could see that home in Bathurst or Kalgoorlie. Rather than being forced to accept a traditional nine-to-five job structure, with an outcomes based job structure that focuses on the actual work done it would not only increase productivity and create benefits for workers, but it would decrease some of the congestion in the mainland capitols.
One of the significant factors in the decline of regional centres has been the trend for the last two or three generations of women to move to the city in pursuit of employment and career opportunities. Although the intention is to return in time, the reality is that few return and those that do already have a family. One of the main factors in the high rate of suicides amongst Australian farmers is the lack of opportunity to start a family. Farming is a hard job with a great many pressures; the price of wheat might be high when planting begins but could collapse by the time harvesting is completed- there may not be enough to cover costs already spent in the hopes of a good return. In the absence of companionship and in a culture resistant to or without the services of psychotherapy or counselling there is no relief valve. This is not to suggest that country girls should be kept down on the farm. Nevertheless, the revitalisation of the regional centres needs to be a priority if only for the importance that agriculture has in the Australian economy. Without farming and mining, there simply would not be a lot to the Australian economy. With congestion in the mainland capitols set to get worse, there is a real opportunity to revitalise regional Australia and ease some of the strain on the capitol cities.
Many of these regional centres have spent a fortune on municipal works to a standard that is not far short of metropolitan services. Yet they have not reached a degree of sophistication that would preclude a more sustainable town planning environment. The major impediment to public transport in Australia is not safety concerns but the lack of flexibility; indeed a more flexible, and thus better patronised, system is likely to require less in terms of security rather than more. As it stands at the moment, each new subdivision or suburb- each new expansion of the urban sprawl- takes capacity away from making the system more flexible and diverts it to simply getting people into the city. The very low density of our urban development makes an underground railway not only hideously expensive to construct, but ensures that it would need to be heavily subsidised during its operations. Above ground rail operations of the scale required would simply exacerbate the problem by taking land better used for urban or commercial development and locking it into transport usage for perpetuity-much the same applies to roads, etc. In fact, Australian cities dedicate almost 40% of their land area to the motor vehicle, the vast majority of which spend as little as 2% of their lifetime actually on the roads. We spend an absolute fortune on roadtrains and heavy vehicular transport not only in the cities but between the cities, when for a fraction of the cost we could service a network of heavy freight trains. The drop in use on the road network would mean less wear and tear and correspondingly better maintenance, leading to a drop in accidents because of the poor state of country roads. Rail is a much more efficient form of goods transport meaning lower environmental impacts while at the same time lowering the costs of transport. Though mechanically challenging, a proper network of electrified heavy rail to major regional centres could also be used to transport passengers via high speed rail to a series of regional towns on the route. Even without public transport, the reduced traffic congestion of these towns compared to the capitol is still likely to use less resources than a similar arrival there. Depending on the size of the town involved, light rail, buses or even an underground rail service from the major terminal are all feasible in the smaller setting- especially if the town is designed around the public transport system.
The main justification used by town planners for the existence of a major metropolis is the concept of economies of scale. At its most basic, this simply means that the same amount of resources can be used to provide more services or that certain services become cheaper. A block of flats for thirty households requires far less infrastructure to bring it utilities like power, water, sewage removal, etc. than would a suburban street for the same thirty households. And whereas the distribution, and payment, of these services would become the responsibility of the developer, it is left to the government agency to arrange for the distribution to the thirty houses. Australia’s low urban density is not conducive to this sort of urban justification; the notion of the quarter acre (or one sixth acre in some areas) is now so fixed that it is unlikely that we shall ever break free of it, and certainly unlikely to break free of it in the time frame that we have. One of the major selling points for the attraction of skilled migrant is that Australia provides freedom from the block of flats that many of them call home. Urban planning specialists and planners and thinkers, not to mention the environmental lobby, have been harping on about Australia’s low urban density for well over 40years without there being anything in the way of an impact. Rather than hoping for the sudden reappraisal of the ‘owning your own quarter acre’ culture that exists in this country, and spending resources we don’t have on planning for it, the current debate provides an opportunity to make the best of what we have. Of course architects and developers might gain a wider acceptance for apartment style living if, instead of the dingy one and two bedroom apartments they offer now, they were to break out and offer three or four bedroom apartments with wide living spaces. Rather than trying to cram as many people into these places as can be half-reasonably made to fit, perhaps something as simple as making them a place to call home, rather than a place of residence, would go a long way to solving the image problem. We have a culture that is manically devoted to space; work space, living space, personal space. Just as it has taken 200years for this culture to develop, it is likely to take much more time than we have to change it.
If we’re just going to concentrate on the problems that extra population is going to cause, then it is hardly likely to be a real debate about the actual population we will end up with. By necessity an aging population is going to require not just an increase in productivity but an actual increase in the number of workers; the costs in pensions, health services and the like are either going to have to be spread out across a broader number of workers or we are all going to have to pay a rising proportion of tax. If this is combined to a steadily rising mortgage repayment schedule due to the lack of land being made available, as often by an inability to provide services to the blocks as it is from a developer’s greed, then we are personally in for a dark time of it, regardless of how well the economy does overall. We have literally thousands of small towns with good amenities that are simply being left to dwindle while we continue to stuff ever growing numbers of people into the capitols. While private enterprise will be required to provide part of the answer, the simple fact is that it will require the devolution of government ministries out of the major cities and into the regional centres. Not merely the functionaries, either; the minister and their senior advisors will have to go with them to lead by example. Given the technological capabilities of wide area networks, video conferencing and mobile/wireless communications there is no reason why this should prove difficult. Even if it moves only ten percent of the population it will considerably ease the congestion in the capitol.
To waste this opportunity, this debate, on the same tired and hackneyed themes that have dominated for the last forty years is simply criminal. Unless we start killing whole tranches of the population, then the population is going to grow well beyond the current number. It does not matter what that number turns out to be; the simple fact is that we need to stop filling up the capitol cities with the vast majority of these people. We have not invested enough in infrastructure to contain them, frittering away billions in schemes, tax breaks, entitlements and welfare payments that have made the situation worse. Rather than continuing to waste these billions on policies that keep people trapped in the rat race, it is time that we used this resource in the form of subsidies and spending that will allow at least a portion of them to break out into the regional centres and soak up the excess capacity there. A properly executed and planned programme of renewal can transform regional Australia into an environmentally sustainable, economically viable and socially and culturally vibrant series of communities linked by rail and technology to the capitols and the world.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
He's Back
|
Posted:Apr 8, 2010 7:32 pm
Last Updated:Apr 9, 2010 10:50 am
1496 Views
|
Three technicians and ten days to convince them that it is not my computer that is the problem but their modem.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (rm_mazandbren) use [blog rm_mazandbren] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
92
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
