Are all politicians as bad as each other?

How often have you heard the untrue mantra: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all the same"?

An assertive, authoritative lie encouraging complacency, uttered as a direction to stick with the known, the familiar, no matter how unwholesome.

It makes life easy, but encourages ignorance & lack of curiosity about things that affect YOU. 

Who discourages us from making an informed decision about what is arguably one of the most important decisions we can make?

Who we vote for affects us, our families, our communities, our environment. 

Decisions made by parliament can make life harder, or smoother and OUR VOTE MATTERS!

Political decisions impact our access to clean water, affordable & healthy food, clean air, wages, media ownership, timely & adequate availability of health care, aged care, disability support, education, research, sale of government assets, fire fighting equipment and professional employment services ... to name a few.

Michael West discusses the role of the media: "positive coverage increases electoral support for a political party. Media endorsements of a candidate is particularly effective on moderate voters – those most likely to enter an election campaign undecided. The discrepancy between polling and outcomes in the 2019 election can be explained by the influence of the media."

The bulk of the Australian media loudly & assertively supports the LNP (Liberal National Coalition) no matter which skeletons should be exposed, and ignores or undermines Labor, the Greens & independents, no matter how beneficial it would be for us.

How do we find out about policies which have a NEGATIVE IMPACT?

Who holds the government to account when the bulk of the media doesn't?

Our Independent Media and satirists (yes, really, including  A complete list of the Liberal Party’s corruption over the last 7 years from The Chaser) have consistently done a great job exposing many less than desirable choices made by politicians.

Politicians' actions matter more than words!

Shadow Minister for Government Accountability, Kristina Keneally suggests we "look at [politicians] actions and ask who they stand for". (National Press Club youtube & transcript )

"Boring" I hear you say, or "I haven't got time for that."

In that case, take as little as 1 1/2 minutes to find out whether the federal politician in your seat is using your vote to support things you want - or just SAYING the right words.

How?

THEY VOTE FOR YOU

theyvoteforyou.org.au

Do politicians' actions support the positive, vote catching words on their marketing and websites or not?

For example, does the Minister for the Environment vote FOR policies that help or hinder endangered species, the Great Barrier Reef, water security for us AND our environment?

Now, back to Kristina Keneally's address.

The Federal government and media didn’t stand up for aged care residents, they didn’t stand up for Robodebt victims, and they aren’t standing up for workers who need secure jobs and a wage rise.

She says it's her "job to call-out every government rort and racket, every broken promise, every instance of the Liberals and the Nationals putting their donors and their cronies ahead of the national interest." 

Subscribe to some of our Independent media, because LNP politicians' wrongdoing won't make headlines in the Murdoch media because:

"proper scrutiny and real accountability depends on issues being carried / into the homes and minds of your readers, listeners and viewers." And this is something the Murdock media wants to avoid as much as possible. Our ignorance is to their benefit.

When faith and respect in democracy is undermined, democracy is weakened too.

Integrity in politics matters

It matters to the health and strength of our democracy.

It matters to the state of our economy and the quality of Australians’ lives. 

Corruption in politics matters 

Keneally states that exposing acts of corruption doesn’t damage the standing of politics.
 
Corruption itself does that.  Even more so when corrupt acts go unpunished. When they’re ignored, or worse, rewarded. 
 
When there are seemingly no consequences for gross incompetence and no penalties for scandalous negligence – that’s what undermines belief in the system and respect for the institution. 

In her address, she discusses the escapades of some ministers and the lack of accountability either from the Prime Minister or the mainstream media.

It doesn't inspire confidence or trust in the system, and when independent bodies like the Audit Office find problems – as they have with the airport dodgy land deal in Sydney and Sports Rorts – Morrison responded by cutting their funding.  

Conventions and Institutions eroded 

The erosion of conventions and institutions that uphold democratic freedoms combined with social media, disinformation and foreign interference to sway voters, is a wakeup call that we must preserve and uphold the bedrocks of Australian democracy, including:

• An independent Australian Electoral Commission
• Compulsory Voting
• The rule of law, an independent judiciary and independent law enforcement and national security agencies – with appropriate oversight, especially on intrusive powers
• Freedom of the press and public interest journalism
• Freedoms of religion, association, and speech, and
• Oversight and accountability mechanisms, provided by bodies like the Australian National Audit Office, Senate estimates, and state-based Integrity Commissions.

Satisfaction with Australian democracy has more than halved in the last decade, down from 86% to 41%.

Australians have low expectations and cynical views of our Government 

Distrust and disengagement allow failure to go unaddressed, and self-interest to be served.

When voters’ cynicism grows, politicians who serve their own political purposes flourish, and we're caught in a vicious, self fulfilling cycle of disengagement and despair.

 "It does matter who you vote for, they're not all the same."

Annoyed people take the easy option and donkey vote, or follow the loudest voices on the bandwagon to be on the "winning side".

So when there's significant coverage FOR one group and AGAINST others, the alternatives will have difficulty finding any traction no matter how good their policies.

To help prevent further erosion of democratic norms and expectations, we can encourage people we know to take an interest in our collective future and DON'T OUTSOURCE DECISION MAKING TO VESTED INTERESTS INCLUDING FOREIGN MEDIA MAGNATES.

A final word from KK:

The most important duty of elected representatives is to deliver support quickly and provide confidence to the Australian people that the parliament is on their side & solutions will be found.

Some of our Independent Media!

Part 2: Discussion of the 2014 Coalition budget. A Christian perspective.

This is a continuation of my discussion of the article by Dr Brett Parris which appeared in Ethos.

Dr Parris discusses five factors which make the budget a low point in Australia’s modern history and which he believes should “continue to spur Christian leaders into outspoken and courageous resistance.”

Discussion of factors 1- 3 here.
Factor 1: Lies
Factor 2: The failure of neoliberal economics
Factor 3: Seeking a return to surplus on the backs of the poor, the sick and the marginalised

  

The fourth factor:

’… the abolition of the mining tax and particularly the price on carbon pollution is a triumph of ideology and climate change denial over both economics and science. For a government that would rather cut benefits to the poor than to raise revenue from mining companies, and with no science minister, these moves were not a surprise – indeed they were election promises.

I’ve commented before that I doubt many people who voted for the Coalition fully understood the implications of the manipulative, finely crafted 3 word slogan: AXE THE TAX. We’re now experiencing the logical, expected outcome.

When ‘reporters’, who we naively expect to do a bit of rudimentary research and actual reporting, encourage us to accept anorexic sound bites, instead of explaining what happens if mining companies are protected from taking responsibility for their emissions, this is the outcome. We pay. 

The governments ineffective and discredited direct action plan "will cost tax-payers $2.55 billion to pay big polluters to reduce their emissions if they want to" (my emphasis) 

At no point in Coalition policy is the social cost of carbon addressed. In my analogy of the golden goose, it’s the equivalent of the goose flapping grubbily around the neighbourhood entering your home uninvited, and pooping everywhere - but not laying any golden eggs. You come home every evening and have to clean up after the messy goose, disinfect your home and go to the doctor to be treated for avian flu virus – all at your own expense. The lazy owner of the golden goose, who has allowed his dirty goose to wander at will, simply shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head and says “tough luck, not my problem”.

“our current coal exports are causing between A$12 billion and A$110 billion of damage globally each year (in 2014 dollars). None of which is included in the coal export price.”

We, the Australian taxpayer are consistently and expensively paying for the costs of cleaning up the carbon from hugely profitable, multi-national companies. How does that make sound economic sense?

Factor five:

Lastly, making higher education far less affordable by deregulating student fees is a catastrophically stupid policy. It will increase poverty levels for students, increase class-based social stratification, decrease overall skill levels in the workforce, and make public debates of complex policy issues even more difficult over time as fewer people can afford a broad education that is not narrowly tailored to a particular job. Graduates will emerge with large debts which will harm their well-being and pressure them to seek high paying jobs at the expense of more community-minded jobs such as teaching, nursing, child care, social work and public service 

As for the persistent, and in my opinion scandalous treatment of reputable scientists, and science in general by the Coalition ministers, we’re seeing the shameful outcome of their dark ages attitude. Australia has enjoyed world acclaim for the inventions of our outstanding scientists, engineers and researchers. We have had good cause to be proud of some incredible inventions. 

We enjoy the benefits of science every day, yet this government chooses to cut funding, dismantle whole departments and trample on the hopes and dreams of children, teenagers and university students with their persistent attacks on science and allied fields.

The inevitable outcome [of funding cuts] is big reductions in the CSIRO’s research output. ... Research fields slated to go include neuroscience, colorectal research, urban water research and marine biodiversity. Research will be scaled back in radio astronomy, astrophysics, renewable energy, metallurgy, Nano science, and social and economic sciences. Labs and facilities that will close include the Mopra telescope, the Aspendale laboratories, the Highett laboratory, the Ardig field station and the Griffith laboratory in the Riverina.

People will be lost to science. Australia loses. Young people who have dreamed of work in a wide variety of scientific and allied areas will have to rethink their options. Those in the middle of, or who have recently completed challenging degrees, have had the rug pulled out from under them and are being callously told "earn or learn" when they've already accumulated many thousands of dollars of debt and now have little chance of getting relevant employment in Australia. 

We will all suffer in some way as a direct result of this frightened, frightening attitude that science is something to be scared of so it's being stamped out.  Scientific research and the positive outcomes we have come to appreciate from our extended world class scientific community take a bit longer to come to fruition than the proverbial golden egg. The long term implications are all negative.

Labor’s Kim Carr told Guardian Australia that "this is a government that has no science minister, no science policy, no technology policy, and no jobs policy.” There's a sustained attack on the environment, renewable energy and research. No matter how much they bleat otherwise, we see valuable jobs in a wide variety of areas being lost. We can see their anti science agenda. We see a marked lack of job creation schemes.

Kim Carr noted that the government is "not interested in developing our capacity to attract new investment, so it's not just the thousand scientists that will lose their jobs, it is the knock-­on effects that taking out that type of capacity has on the broad economy and particularly industry”. ( here ) In the topsy-turvy world of the Coalition, this is being presented as positive. 

Back to Dr Parris:

some of the most strongly ‘Christian’ electorates voted for these cruel and regressive policies. ... This surely points to a colossal failure of leadership among the Christian churches over many years. ... If one good can come of our current malaise, perhaps it will be the re-ignition of a Christian sacred activism grounded in Jesus’ teachings, fuelled by deep prayer and with the courage to speak truth to power no matter what the cost. (my bold)

Challenging closing words indeed.

I hope other religious people not only from the Christian tradition, but from the many other faiths represented in multicultural Australia, find the strength and courage to speak out where they see injustice and oppression and join Dr Parris to make a stand and speak confidently and openly about the damage the Coalition, as well as the vested interests directing policy (not just the figurehead, Tony Abbott), are doing to Australia.

I don't know the source of this poster
but will happily credit it. 

.

Part 1. Discussion of the 2014 Coalition budget - a Christian perspective.

I've just read an outstanding article; it's long and well worth reading in its entirety. It appeared in Ethos and was written by an intelligent, articulate, well educated Christian man, Dr Brett Parris, who is concerned by the 2014 federal Coalition budget. He discusses a number of significant factors in detail.

Unfortunately mainstream public perception of Christian groups is deeply tarnished, and this hasn’t been helped by the government requiring schools to employ Christian chaplains in order to receive a particular funding package. In my opinion, Mr Pyne has also aggravated the situation with his comments to Christian School Leaders that "the Abbott government had a 'particular responsibility' to private education, that they 'don't have for state schooling'. This sets up an unpleasant 'if you're with us you'll get funding, if not you won't'.

For non-Christians the original article provides positive insight we rarely hear about in the main stream media, where if it isn’t a catchy slogan, a smirking comment about a Christian acting foolishly, or a priest behaving badly, it isn’t reported. And that’s a real shame because this article is worth reporting and discussing.

Dr Parris discusses five factors which make the budget a low point in Australia’s modern history and which he believes should “continue to spur Christian leaders into outspoken and courageous resistance.” 

The first factor  is the one many people including me have commented on - lying. “Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s and Treasurer Joe Hockey’s wholesale trashing of so many pre-election promises is breathtakingly cynical, surprising even a jaded electorate” 

When public trust in our elected representatives is eroded so badly and people feel betrayed, shocked at the blatant disregard for common courtesy and decency, and feel that they’re being treated with contempt, it’s going to be very hard to have an informed discussion about anything. Trust lost is hard to regain, although, sadly, having a trusting, well informed electorate doesn’t appear to be either valued, or high on the agenda of the Coalition.

The second factor is related to neoliberal economics. Dr Parris describes neoliberalism clearly and without fuss. Do you remember the story of the goose that laid golden eggs? Neoliberalism is to do with the fantasy that trickle down economics will provide golden eggs for everyone - it's a win/win situation!!! …but really, money only flows to the owner of the goose who doesn't want anyone else to benefit from his wealth.

"Neoliberalism is obsessed with small government as a matter of principle without understanding the important role that public investment and good governance plays in sustainable prosperity." My italics

He then reminds us that a healthy, well functioning society is supported by a variety of public investments. The myth of the self made man conveniently ignores the important underlying role which public infrastructure plays. He couldn't have "made it" without access to the infrastructure which government borrowing and our collective taxes paid for. 

In my goose analogy, the golden goose is tended by a variety of skilled workers including vets, researchers into diseases such as bird flu and the people who designed and built its pond. The incubators for the golden eggs are heated by energy from a grid built by public utilities, and the eggs are nurtured in other ways, for instance by people using our public transport infrastructure to get to work at the golden goose egg farm. In other words, the golden goose owner relies on public investments even though they aren’t acknowledged or directly paid for by him.

This unacknowledged infrastructure is called INVESTment for a reason – they’re positive for the whole country, this is where governments borrow in a very different way to families. These are long term investments from which we all benefit, not just the privileged and powerful.

In addition he writes, “Australia has one of the lowest levels of public debt of any country in the OECD." That’s impressive! It’s also a bit of a furphy to also say that Australians are highly taxed, we aren’t.

The third factor where Dr Parris is quite scathing is “seeking a return to surplus on the backs of the poor, the sick and the marginalised.” Basically, "people cost too much" More here.

He discusses the massive cuts to foreign aid, our local social safety net being eroded, seesawing income support the unemployed under 30s, and cutting benefits for poor families which “is surely a recipe for increased depression and other mental health problems, family violence, alcohol abuse, suicide and crime”.

Allied health workers are expressing concern that they’re already seeing an increase in depression and anxiety. They expect this to only get worse as the hidden costs of the budget are implemented, and the flow-on from state and local government takes effect.

It’s also important to note here that the vilification of groups by the use of divisive or derogatory words isn’t going to make jobs magically appear. Imagine being a rural job seeker on unemployment benefits or a uni graduate with a strong work/study history, continually hearing yourself referred to as a dole-bludger who isn't trying to get work.

After tailoring your resume to specific jobs, attending interviews and not being employed through no fault of your own, you’re trying to remain positive in the face of derogatory, uninformed, cruel comments that don’t acknowledge or reflect the reality that there simply aren't enough jobs for the number of people actively job hunting.

According to the ABS March data there were

140K vacancies

724K unemployed.

These figures don't account for the many thousands of under-employed well qualified people, or those who have become so disillusioned, beaten and demoralised that they've given up hope. The hidden unemployed. 

How do we want our youth (and other job seekers) to see themselves BEFORE they attend stressful interviews? As failures? bludgers? As the guilty party who have somehow manipulated the country so there aren't enough jobs to go around? Do we want our graduates to see themselves as not worthy of a career after a long, challenging and expensive education? How do we want employers to view candidates who may have been unemployed for some time? As losers and bludgers? This kind of vilification is hardly a recipe for success. 

We know the negative, undermining effect of name calling, and how it erodes confidence and self esteem, yet not only the media, but government ministers are encouraging this sadistic, divisive pastime. In addition the government is doing nothing to address the complex underlying causes of unemployment, (here) and are persistently negative about supporting jobs growth in areas such as renewable energy.

It’s lazy to vilify people and call them names. It takes maturity to openly discuss and address the complex local, national and international causes of un and under-employment. It's shameful that with this Coalition government we see the former, complete with unfair blame, not the latter.

4: The abolition of the mining tax
5. Higher education will be less affordable
Continued here ...

.

Budget grumbles -1. Media

It's Interesting that after the disastrous budget, the Murdoch media is currently working overtime to vilify students and disability pensioners, and whilst it makes a welcome change from the prejudice directed towards asylum seekers and the lies surrounding their issues, it's no less repugnant. They are however providing a wonderfully rich resource for teachers, particularly those working with English, clear thinking, logic, media and even maths students. 

The ferals are revolting! 

There is no room for misunderstanding the reaction expected of the reader, who is now primed to agree and demonise those who are protesting, without having any idea who they are or what they're protesting about.

The Daily Telegraph directs us to focus on a small group of presumably angry protesters and a prominent policeman. Did the photographer or some other person encourage the people to point dramatically? Is the policeman placed there to remind us that ferals need to be kept in their place? A quiet, orderly protest isn't nearly as dramatic as one with "action". 

One wonders how the picture has been cropped. Who was to the right of the person in purple? Was it someone older who’d benefitted from the free education enjoyed by many of the Prime Ministers generation and who believes that a well resourced and equitable education system, available to the whole population, makes for a strong and vibrant society? Was it a man under 30 living in an area of high unemployment, wondering how he'll support his family if he's laid off. 6 months without unemployment benefits is a long time. What has been cropped is just as important as what has been highlighted.

The huge headline LIVING ON EASY STREET is dramatically placed under the action shot of people pointing.  A cursory glance would imply that living on easy street refers to those vile and scary 'ferals' - it doesn't, and is completely unrelated. Nothing about the disastrous poll, nothing prominent about the diverse and valid reasons for the protests. No insight provided for curious readers.

In contrast, note the almost sombre tone of the Sydney Morning Herald where poll results are placed prominently, reflecting the strong and angry reaction by ordinary, everyday Australians to the budget. Further information is provided for those choosing to delve further. 

Everyday Australians targeted
For some details about how ordinary, everyday Australians, our neighbours, and others in our communities will be affected by this unfair budget look here. There you'll find some of the figures that which are usually shared openly on budget night. 

More than one third of the budget cuts - $6 billion - fall on the middle quintile of households, earning $45,000 to $63,000. 

■ Families with school-age children are the hardest hit. Across all income groups, they will lose $15.9 billion over four years, more than 90 per cent of the total. 

■ Low and middle-income sole parents suffer worst of all, losing between 10 and 15 per cent of their annual income - $4000 to $6250 - on family earnings of less than $60,000 by the time the changes to welfare take full effect in 2017-18. 

■ The burden rises sharply for families with children over the four years of the budget. For example, a sole parent earning $60,000 with children aged eight and 12 will lose $1808 in annual income in 2014-15 and $6278 in 2017-18. 

Low- and middle-income earners, especially those with school-age children, are hit hardest as the family tax benefit for single-income families is abolished and indexation is curbed. 

And that's fair? To target low and middle income earners yet not the wealthy?

...

The Daily Telegraph ran a front-page story about there being more people on disability in NSW than died during the World Wars. 

In what way is this relevant? In what sad world is encouraging readers to further marginalise and sneer at disability pensioners, rather than show compassion and understanding  considered acceptable?

Apart from them apparently running the same divisive line a few years ago, they chose a picture of a long queue of people appearing to line up to receive their disability payments. Placed carefully next to a picture of diggers we're encouraged to agree - Diggers did it tough. They suffered. Disability pensioners aren't as worthy as them. 

It turns out this photo is a fairly common piece of royalty-free stock imagery. A Google image search finds this and this and this. It's not related to real Australians on pensions.

But it's too easy to just cruelly vilify those on disability support, and imply that they're bludgers rather than give accurate, reasoned and intelligent insight into the real issues. There's a more thorough assessment here.

This kind of manipulation appears designed to influence and deflect the anger so many feel against the cruel budget. It's a blatant attempt to discredit our fellow citizens who have genuine concerns about how they'll manage with a variety of cuts and persistently increasing costs. These tactics target those least able to respond, and look like a smelly smokescreen to take people's minds off the real issues of inequity, unfairness and a wider gap between the have's and have not's that will be the outcome of the budget . 

AXE THE TAX

Is everybody really being asked to help with the heavy lifting?

Who isn't being supported by this budget? What happened to the end of the age of entitlement?

Is the government able to maturely handle the anger directed at them in response to their unfair budget? Do they need the Murdoch press to shield them by pointing the manipulative finger of outrage towards those negatively affected? (rhetorical question) 

When mining companies were threatened with a fair tax, they used their extraordinary financial resources and complained loud and long. Why is it ok for exceptionally profitable, multinational mining companies to protest, yet not ordinary Australian citizens? Is anyone in government able to explain, without resorting to predetermined cliches, why those least able to pay are being hit hardest, while those most able are barely touched? (another rhetorical question)

to be continued... here Budget Grumbles 2. Education and unemployment.

.

The vital topic that's not being discussed this election

For a long time I've been trying to get my head around something that seems completely illogical and so far, I'm simply not getting there. Maybe you can show me where my logic is out of whack?

The role humans play in climate change is accepted in 97% of the world's peer reviewed climate papers, the burning of fossil fuels is a known factor in climate change. The scientists conducting the studies are experts in their field and have devoted their careers to the study of climate, and I accept and respect their expertise.

Health impacts
What is routinely overlooked are the health impacts from the extraction and burning of coal - coal dust makes people ill. Not just an itchy throat kind of ill, but debilitating, health destroying cancers, strokes and lung diseases - extremely unpleasant illnesses to have and all because of exposure to coal dust (also here).

At the moment those health costs are borne by the individual and community while our government subsidises the companies to extract the coal. Seriously, our government pays foreign owned companies to remove part of our country which can never be replaced to sell it overseas. And that's good because some jobs have been created. And any job is a good job. Even if it's slowly poisoning you. So they say.

But if the cost of personal and environmental ill health was factored in, and the generous subsidies removed, how viable would fossil fuels really be? 

"A major Chinese power company is in line to win millions of dollars in federal and state government grant money to develop Victorian brown coal." The Age

Development? How is it development? That implies to improve. I've tried to see where this is good and how we benefit, but try as I might, I'm at a loss. Not only are we paying a foreign company to rip out our coal and poison our communities, but it's also directly contributing to climate issues. That's not particularly smart is it? Or else I've got it all wrong. And so have the doctors, the scientists and every other trustworthy person involved.

We are only ever told that coal mining is good for the country. How is this good? Our taxes are at work to subsidise foreign companies to dig up our coal (which can never be replaced) and ship it away to other countries. We're not stockpiling it for future use, to use within a mix of sustainable technologies. It's gone. Forever. And we're left with the clean up bill. And we're told we don't want these companies to be taxed for polluting our land, our water, our sky, our communities. Really? Why not?

Some people have jobs with the fossil fuel companies. Some people get very ill. So more of our taxes are used to assist them with doctor and hospital visits, medications, nursing, maybe even palliative care. And funding is pulled from hospitals, there are cuts to nursing and beds are closed. What a lucky country!

We're left with the costs of pollution of land and waterways. With the loss of drinkable water. Loss of environment. With the ongoing expensive health impacts, not only for the people who made a conscious decision to work in coal dust, but for the innocent families and children living nearby. And this is good. So they say. But I'm not convinced.

Alternative energy
Then, in Victoria, we have the vilification of alternative energy, and in particular wind power. On health grounds. Some people report getting headaches and not being able to sleep. Really? And in its wisdom, the Victorian Government makes the wind industry jump over all sorts of hurdles that aren't applied with the same enthusiasm when it comes to coal and CSG.

The government listens to a cashed up, vocal minority who are repeatedly discredited and yet NEVER comment on the very real and negative aspects of reliance on coal. It's hard not to be cynical. The vocal minority who don't like wind power and with spurious claims have more clout than those suffering with real, genuine and identifiable diseases. It's as if the people living in and around coal mines and coal fired power stations are expendable. Their lives are of less importance. That seems to be the unspoken message from the government. And this is good. So they say. But it doesn't seem right to me.

Doctors warn of "the costly legacy unfolding for Australia from under-regulation of the pollution caused by many [coal and CSG] resource projects" (link). Yet simultaneously we have over-regulation and rejection of studies in the case of wind power. Who benefits from this inconsistency? ...

"It is clear that State government approvals of coal and coal seam gas projects are often influenced by potential economic gain without thorough assessment of potential harms," said DEA spokesperson, Dr David Shearman.  

"Permitting dangerous pollution is creating a costly legacy for Australia that is being picked up in the healthcare and other sectors."  

"The social and financial costs of this pollution are not being measured or factored in when projects are given the go ahead." (here) 

But 'no worries' says the government, and gives the green light to more and more coal and CSG operations - and people who live along roads and train-lines where the coal is transported continue to get ill. But this is good for the country. So they say.

My apologies. I don't have the source for this graphic.

The end of coal?
And while all this is happening (or not in the case of wind farms) ...

"Goldman Sachs this month produced an explosive report, titled "The window for thermal coal investment is closing." In it, the bank revealed that "thermal coal's current position atop the fuel mix for global power generation will be gradually eroded by the following structural trends:
1) environmental regulations that discourage coal-fired generation
2) strong competition from gas and renewable energy and
3) improvements in energy efficiency." 

and of a statement that should be of great concern to everyone:
"there is little evidence Australian Governments are acting to adjust our economic and social structure to the reality that coal is over: despite knowing this must be the case if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming and if emerging economies are to act on the health and water crises precipitated by their too-fast growth of coal power." (here) (my bold)

And so we come to an election where none of this is mentioned. Not climate change. Not our role in it. Nothing about building a resilient country. Nothing at all from the major parties about plans for the inevitable impacts of rising seas, changing and erratic weather patterns and the effect this will have on food production or communities and cities. Nothing about the clash of water requirements for people, farming, agriculture, mining. Nothing to do with the incredible heating of our country. Nothing. Not a hint that with climate change, we are currently facing what has been described as "one of the greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world"- Stephen Hawking.

In the minds of Australian politicians feted by our embarrassingly mediocre media, these issues don't rate a mention, and in the case of Tony Abbott they're shunned. And I'm appalled because our changing climate affects us all whether we like it or not.

To date, glib politicians are showing a marked lack of understanding, wisdom, courage and leadership on climate change. Hiding their heads and continuing to support coal so generously doesn't appear to benefit Australia or the world. (For an Indian perspective on Australian coal being shipped there this is an interesting article.)

And if I'm wrong, could you please explain how. Nicely of course!

Or if you happen to also be uncomfortable about our reliance on fossil fuels, and the dreadful associated health impacts you can do something and encourage your super fund to divest from fossil fuels. (Are you the Vital Few) Because fossil fuel investments are seen as being increasingly risky and you wouldn't want to see your super go down the gurgler would you. (Forbes)

.......

On the importance of voting thoughtfully: Why vote? Because if you don't vote, someone will speak for you.

........
Some of the articles used in the above spray:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html

https://theconversation.com/our-carbon-black-hole-the-real-budget-shortfall-17282

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/leadership-us-insurance-companies-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-climate-change_n_3643917.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/living-in-the-dusty-shadow-of-coal-mining/story-e6frg6z6-1226255705308

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/08/get-fact-has-rupert-got-it-right-on-climate-change/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

http://dea.org.au/images/general/DEAtheHealthFactorV2_2013.pdf

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/note-to-australia-thermal-coal-is-over-65519

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/15/tony-abbott-climate-plan-maths

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/doctors-fear-coal-dust-health-impacts-going/4572022

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/02/04/558676_latest-news.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade-2013/

Australia’s legendarily irresponsible mining industry has a new plan: while the planet faces catastrophic climate change, build the world’s largest coal mining complex, and then build a shipping lane to that port straight through the greatest ecological treasure we have - the Great Barrier Reef! 
http://www.avaaz.org/en/australian_coal_disaster_global_rb/?pv=43&rc=fb

http://aweablog.org/blog/post/wind-turbine-syndrome-farm-hosts-tell-very-different-story
.
Blogged by Sue Travers

T. Targets & Teachers. Workplace bullying

Target: a person, object or place selected as the aim of an attack.

Targets of bullying go to work to get their job done and are rarely interested in office politics or conflict, they're not interested in power plays. They may have high moral values, integrity, a strong sense of fair play and dislike arguments and aggression. The target often has a mature understanding of the need to resolve conflict with dialogue and negotiation. Many are reluctant to make a formal complaint against the bully and would prefer to forgive and get on with the job at hand. They are often extremely strong individuals who are able to withstand serial bullying for years.

The target may be vulnerable (see V) is some way, for instance need to pay a high mortgage or may be a sole parent living off one wage. They may need to stay in a work environment to cover expenses, even though they may be experiencing daily torment and feel locked in, as if there is no escape. They are not weak because they stay.

The target  may be artistic, imaginative, creative, academically above average, or may be different in some way. Many targets are caring and empathetic, forgive easily and are unwilling to resort to the lying and deceptive tactics of their tormentor. They are often criticised by the bully as being soft and overly sensitive, but in reality are showing a mature ability to respond to the concerns of others gently, with respect, dignity, consideration and tolerance. In addition, the target may show a strong sense of independence and self reliance, they have little need to be part of the 'inner clique'.

The bully on the other hand will generally try to recruit others into the 'chosen' group. They are malicious, callous, and uncaring about the needs of others. The bully manager may refer to his or her management style as 'tough', 'rough and tumble', 'strong', or 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' and respond with impatience, irritability and aggression when this style is questioned or when he is referred for management mentoring.

East Side Gallery. Berlin. 2009.

Teachers as targets (link to information for Queensland teachers who are being bullied. Some of this information is relevant for others)

Teachers who are independent, self-reliant, self-motivated, imaginative, innovative, and full of ideas may be targeted by others in the profession, particularly if they have an envious, malicious, bullying department head. The bully boss may be threatened by the competence and popularity of this staff member.

Sadly, many excellent teachers who are keenly aware of the difficulties faced by their caring, gentle students - the loner, the nerd, the learning disabled, the child who is a bit different in some way - may be hounded out of the profession. The hierarchy appears afraid of the very qualities that make them excellent teachers, and often does little to support them in the face of ongoing, relentless bullying.

Sometimes these very teachers have been able to protect the student targets from bullying by other students and staff. When they are "let go" the students are again vulnerable.

Teachers as bullies
Teachers who are serial bullies may also delight in targeting vulnerable students as well as other staff. They are devious, cunning, vicious, undermining, cruel and vindictive when they have found their target.  These malicious teachers not only restrict the child's access to enjoyable activities as punishment, but devise humiliating, belittling punishments on a daily basis for the target, possibly making fun of a mild physical deformity or a learning difficulty. They make cruel and callous criticism of the child's work, calling them 'dummy', 'failure' or bringing the classes attention to the simple fact that the child is different is some way.

This constant undermining and bludgeoning of a fragile self esteem can affect the child for life. Many adults have told me that whenever they try to prove that they can do something challenging, the face of their teacher tormentor and the onlooking class appears in front of them, and they hear the belittling, undermining, cruel and malicious comments, even 50 years after they've left school. Many never achieve their potential.

East Side Gallery. Berlin. 2009.

"You'll never amount to anything, I don't know why you try", "What a loser", these and other cruel phrases prevent the student from learning and actually encourage the child to go into a protective mode and should never be used in the guise of "It'll make him try harder".

Uncontrolled shouting is excruciatingly painful for a child with certain hearing difficulties. They cover their ears to prevent the pain, which increases the rage of the out of control teacher. Students in a classroom with a teacher like this will have difficulty learning.

Teacher Training
Teacher trainers please take note: all trainee teachers should be explicitly taught how to manage a classroom effectively so all students can learn, this must include thorough training in effective management of child bullies. Every primary teacher trainee should be given thorough training in how to teach mathematics, reading and spelling to all students including those with learning difficulties. Sending trainee and new primary teachers out without these vital basic skills is appalling, and that it is happening in 2011 is .... (words fail me)...

The importance of tackling bullying in Primary schools is well documented, and makes obvious sense. Twemlow, Fonagy & Sacco have written some excellent papers that I hope to discuss at a later date.

Further information on bullying at school here. For schools, teachers and other interested parties: CASSE (Creating a Safe Supportive Environment) has an inexpensive conference in May 2011 in Melbourne, link here.

What is your experience as a student, teacher or target? 

Here tomorrow: Underestimate & Unrelenting


There are many outstanding resources on line. A couple I find useful are Bullying. No way! an Australian resource for teachers and students, and a UK site Bully On Line. This is in no way an exhaustive list, and each country will no doubt have equally good or more relevant websites. If you're being bullied please seek advice from a professional health care practitioner experienced in this area.

Over at jumpingaground I'm spending the month Drabbling using alliteration, often with an environmental theme.
.