[LINK] End of the filter? Better off without a Stalinist, censorious, Labor government.
community at thoughtmaybe.com
Mon Aug 9 12:41:29 EST 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim Holburn" <kim at holburn.net>
> On 2010/Aug/08, at 3:52 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
>> In practical terms, their asylum seeker policies don't seem to
>> be producing a better outcome than the Coalition's. The
>> people smugglers are back in business because there is, or was,
>> again a benefit in turning up unannounced in Australian
> I find this vacuous. The Australian government has not and has never
> caused boat people to come or not. In the current case it is wars in
> Sri Lanka and two wars we are involved in that have disrupted other
> countries enough to make people want to come to Australia enough to
> risk a boat journey. This whole thing about people smugglers is
> weasel words. If people have enough need they will find a way to do
> it. In the case of the previous government they upped the immigration
> quotas - that was what probably stopped the boats. The rest is all
> spin. Europe gets half a million clandestini - "illegal" imigrants if
> you like - per year. Half a million per year. We think we have
Yes, the whole thing is bullshit. Scaremongering.
Check out this graphic:
> If we are part of a disruptive war in another country we have a moral
> obligation to help the people we have disrupted. We loudly tout that
> we have a great country and a great government and we wonder why
> people want to come here?
> Also - we have signed the UN Refugee convention. Refugees reaching
> Australia are not illegal, on the contrary, we have legal treaty
> obligations to them.
Exactly. The same is true of Australia's indigenous people. We've got many
legal obligations to make up for there...
>> In practical terms, the government has not yet achieved any
>> progress on global warming. I think there has been too little
>> support for solar thermal power, including those systems which
>> store the heat overnight.
> Both our major parties are beholden either to industry owners or
> industrial unions and neither is going to be really interested in
> doing anything about climate change.
> Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world and we are the one
> of the biggest CO2 emmitters per capita. It's going to require
> massive change in our infrastructure and massive community pressure
> for change. Neither major party can or will do it without us.
And this is probably one of the best ways to have things change anyway --
individuals become aware and enact changes in their own ways/lives that
result in collective change. Even just consuming less can obviously make a
dramatic impact, not only on atmospheric equilibrium, but on the fundamental
basics of ecology that we've become so distanced from... The land/soil,
water, rejuvenation cycles, etc..
>> In trying to find something to be happy about with Labor, there are a
>> few: quarantining welfare payments and plain label cigarette
>> packages, both of which I think will have significant and lasting
>> health benefits which can't be achieved by other means. Generally
>> Labor has been more supportive for Medicare and public health.
> Neither seem like a great choice. It's like that slogan "The least
> worst choice".
Exactly and this is by design. It's always been a false choice for as long
as I can remember.
Both parties are there to ensure contiunation of the same -- corpocracy.
In the words of John Pilger, one of the few real Australian journalists:
"The major western democracies are moving towards corporatism. Democracy has
become a business plan, with a bottom line for every human activity, every
dream, every decency, every hope. The main parliamentary parties are now
devoted to the same economic policies - socialism for the rich, capitalism
for the poor - and the same foreign policy of servility to endless war. This
is not democracy. It is to politics what McDonalds is to food." (2009)
More information about the Link