The NBN Will Remain an Issue into the Next Election
The NBN will live on. Despite the Coalition winning government with the ex-National Party Independents support, the National Broadband Network will remain with Labor at the next election. Indeed, they will win and put Australia on a path to a better future. There is no way the Australian people will accept "the private sector will provide" because it certainly won't. Telstra is only interested in market share. Hope lies in Telstra investing heavily and freezing out small telcos. This is its long term plan. Faster broadband is needed now, however, for medicine, education and scientific endeavours.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
Australia's Voting System is Quite Straightforward
Voting informal just because you don't understand the Australian voting system is not a smart thing to do. Admittedly, the way Australians elect representatives is a bit odd, but other countries have idiosyncratic election methods as well. The US collegial way is considered far too complicated to explain to an outsider. Though quite simple, the British process of first past the post tends to favor a choice between two parties. It was unusual for the third party, the Liberal Democrats, to win so many seats as in the last election.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
Memories Are Not Real
Childhood memories are figments of your imagination. If you believe that you'll believe anything. Children in the UK were asked to recall memories of things their parents said didn't happen. But how do we know if children were trying to please their parents? Most children live in a dream land anyway. So asking them to recall seeing Santa Claus is just "baiting". And asking them about flying through the air is "hypnotising" for dream recall.
If you broke your leg as child you certainly remember that, and whether the sun was out when it happened. The pain makes it stay in your mind. One thing that really remains is the care one receives from others. You remember things done with grandma because she was always kind and forgiving. Furthermore, really horrible events like being involved in a road accident and then taken to hospital remain as clear as the day they occurred.
We wouldn't have an identity without memories. We are the sum of our experiences. Taking that away from someone is condemning that person to live in the forever "now". Debate is rife about whether learning is anything of value. For example, a day after taking exams most of it is forgotten. But a university degree or any other academic test is something the individual values and society values. Whether you actually remember things taught is quite irrelevant. You have gone down that road and reached the destination. Surely, that is what life is about: having experiences, chronologically, with the past leading to the present and into the future and remembering certain milestones.
If you broke your leg as child you certainly remember that, and whether the sun was out when it happened. The pain makes it stay in your mind. One thing that really remains is the care one receives from others. You remember things done with grandma because she was always kind and forgiving. Furthermore, really horrible events like being involved in a road accident and then taken to hospital remain as clear as the day they occurred.
We wouldn't have an identity without memories. We are the sum of our experiences. Taking that away from someone is condemning that person to live in the forever "now". Debate is rife about whether learning is anything of value. For example, a day after taking exams most of it is forgotten. But a university degree or any other academic test is something the individual values and society values. Whether you actually remember things taught is quite irrelevant. You have gone down that road and reached the destination. Surely, that is what life is about: having experiences, chronologically, with the past leading to the present and into the future and remembering certain milestones.
Dogs Are Smart, Just Like Humans
Humans aren't that special. It was once thought that people were superior to chimpanzees because humans had feelings and showed love. We all know now that chimps do have these propensities. Other animals weren't even considered in the "advanced" creature stakes. Time has shown that many animals use tools to find food.
Pets such as dogs tend to mimic their owners. They say you grow like your partner and if your companion is a dog then the dog copies you, and heaven forbid you copy the dog. So strong is this bond that dogs will actually give up food rewards to do what their owners do.
Research had two group of pet dogs. Their owners went on hands and knees and opened a sliding door with heads and closed hands. One group of dogs was rewarded for opening the door. The other group was reward with food for not doing what their owners did. All dogs opened the door - foregoing the food reward.
Clearly dogs learn like humans. They copy. Dogs in the test were of many breeds, so intelligence was not a factor. Furthermore, what does a dog do when it sees a human yawn? Think about it. It yawns of course.
Pets such as dogs tend to mimic their owners. They say you grow like your partner and if your companion is a dog then the dog copies you, and heaven forbid you copy the dog. So strong is this bond that dogs will actually give up food rewards to do what their owners do.
Research had two group of pet dogs. Their owners went on hands and knees and opened a sliding door with heads and closed hands. One group of dogs was rewarded for opening the door. The other group was reward with food for not doing what their owners did. All dogs opened the door - foregoing the food reward.
Clearly dogs learn like humans. They copy. Dogs in the test were of many breeds, so intelligence was not a factor. Furthermore, what does a dog do when it sees a human yawn? Think about it. It yawns of course.
The Internet Is Not Yet the Great Leveller
Access to the Internet prevents it from being a world levelling device. In Australia people will have to wait up to eight years to get broadband. South Africans living in "dangerous" areas will never get an Internet connection because telco companies fear theft of copper wire. India is too poor, so many regions will have to remain on dial up Internet. Those in remote places in Britain are still waiting for a method to be chosen for broadband distribution.
Leading Western countries are the main source of software for all Internet users. Even Twitter and Facebook are based in the US. People also use these sites to interact with those of similar ilk. The world is segmenting into cliques and a broad world view is not materializing. This is despite more information being available for the average person than at any other time in human history.
People are essentially parochial. They identify with the region and country they are in. Though international news is easily accessed, many choose not not to log on. They still get news from local television and radio. Such news sources now have less than 15 per cent of non-local news, particularly in the US. Ninety five per cent of Internet users in the UK go to domestic news sites. Afghanistan is the topic of most international news stories while clashes in Africa are given just cursory comment.
No doubt in time a common world view will develop. This is because urbanization is happening everywhere, so there will eventually be a common background for most people irrespective of place of origin. The readership of blogs is increasing, with most commenting on local and international issues. There is a need for barriers from language barriers to be broken down. News will travel faster when breaking stories are translated on the spot.
Leading Western countries are the main source of software for all Internet users. Even Twitter and Facebook are based in the US. People also use these sites to interact with those of similar ilk. The world is segmenting into cliques and a broad world view is not materializing. This is despite more information being available for the average person than at any other time in human history.
People are essentially parochial. They identify with the region and country they are in. Though international news is easily accessed, many choose not not to log on. They still get news from local television and radio. Such news sources now have less than 15 per cent of non-local news, particularly in the US. Ninety five per cent of Internet users in the UK go to domestic news sites. Afghanistan is the topic of most international news stories while clashes in Africa are given just cursory comment.
No doubt in time a common world view will develop. This is because urbanization is happening everywhere, so there will eventually be a common background for most people irrespective of place of origin. The readership of blogs is increasing, with most commenting on local and international issues. There is a need for barriers from language barriers to be broken down. News will travel faster when breaking stories are translated on the spot.
Who Do We Owe Money To?
Everyone is in debt. That seems to be the case. But if we all owe money to whom are we indebted? Who are these fat cats who spend their days on the beach having cool drinks brought to them while they while away the time sunbathing?
If truth be known the money does not actually exist. It has been created in the books of independent and national banks. In centuries passed the local blacksmith acted as the bank. Gold, silver and promissory notes were left in his safe. He soon became aware that the "goods" left for safe keeping would not be taken out by the owner for a very long time, if ever. For storing the valuable minerals and promissory notes he gave promissory notes in return. This meant that he could create money. He could also give loans, a large part of which would return directly back because the debtor opened a new account.
When large private banks started, governments gave an assurance that a run on an institution would be protected by public money. We have seen how silly this concept has proved to be by the US and European governments bailing out private banks. Private debt has become public debt. This on top of the mushrooming private debt worldwide.
Much of Western debt is owed to China which buys US bonds. It is a mistake to believe that it wants the money back any time soon. If it did the world economy would grind to a halt. Then, who would buy its exports?
The real problem is economics. This social science is just theory. There are complicated models that do not apply to the real world, with demand and supply curves, meeting long term average costs and so on. Real business doesn't operate that way. There is not one model for cost plus 10 or 20 percent, or get it cheap and sell high until demand stops then throw the stuff out. That is how business really runs. Note the supermarkets, they don't cut the price of everything that doesn't sell. They would rather throw it away than sell it. After all, they make the supplier take the loss. Economic advisers have not helped one government to balance the books. And the advice they are giving now to raise taxes and cut spending will surely prolong the recession. Cutting debt is like turning the water tap down - someone has to go without! Let's be honest much of this debt will never be paid. It doesn't really exist.
If truth be known the money does not actually exist. It has been created in the books of independent and national banks. In centuries passed the local blacksmith acted as the bank. Gold, silver and promissory notes were left in his safe. He soon became aware that the "goods" left for safe keeping would not be taken out by the owner for a very long time, if ever. For storing the valuable minerals and promissory notes he gave promissory notes in return. This meant that he could create money. He could also give loans, a large part of which would return directly back because the debtor opened a new account.
When large private banks started, governments gave an assurance that a run on an institution would be protected by public money. We have seen how silly this concept has proved to be by the US and European governments bailing out private banks. Private debt has become public debt. This on top of the mushrooming private debt worldwide.
Much of Western debt is owed to China which buys US bonds. It is a mistake to believe that it wants the money back any time soon. If it did the world economy would grind to a halt. Then, who would buy its exports?
The real problem is economics. This social science is just theory. There are complicated models that do not apply to the real world, with demand and supply curves, meeting long term average costs and so on. Real business doesn't operate that way. There is not one model for cost plus 10 or 20 percent, or get it cheap and sell high until demand stops then throw the stuff out. That is how business really runs. Note the supermarkets, they don't cut the price of everything that doesn't sell. They would rather throw it away than sell it. After all, they make the supplier take the loss. Economic advisers have not helped one government to balance the books. And the advice they are giving now to raise taxes and cut spending will surely prolong the recession. Cutting debt is like turning the water tap down - someone has to go without! Let's be honest much of this debt will never be paid. It doesn't really exist.
Ostriches Use Wings to Run
The mystery of why dinosaurs evolved feathers has been solved. Observation of ostriches shows that wings are used to retain balance while running. Far from being evolutionary leftovers, they are used constantly.
This finding was made by breeding ostriches that were "human-friendly". Then they were then able to be tested, which took place when they were three years old. The ostriches were made to run down a 300 meter "track", indoors. They were seen to zigzag, brake and turn, guiding their bodies using wings as rudders.
Tests showed that feathers provided lift which improved stability. All living flightless birds are able to evade capture by quickly turning one way then the other. Without wings they would not be able to do this.
This finding was made by breeding ostriches that were "human-friendly". Then they were then able to be tested, which took place when they were three years old. The ostriches were made to run down a 300 meter "track", indoors. They were seen to zigzag, brake and turn, guiding their bodies using wings as rudders.
Tests showed that feathers provided lift which improved stability. All living flightless birds are able to evade capture by quickly turning one way then the other. Without wings they would not be able to do this.
http://www.adventure--australia.blogspot.com/http://www.tysaustralia.blogspot.com/
http://www.feeds.feedburner.com/AdventureAustralia
http://www.technorati.com/blogs/http://adventure--australia.blogspot.com
Woman Complains About Gollywogs
Be careful! There might be a gollywog about. A Melbourne woman saw a gollywog doll for sale and she is now campaigning to stop it. But is she stopping racism or preventing the gollywog from existing? This all goes back to the Noddy series of books by Enid Blyton. Gollywog, who held an important position as Toytown garage proprietor, was a major character. Enid Blyton had no racial intentions by including him. Though she did admit that she hated children.
The woman says, “It’s a shock to see them brought back." They didn't actually go away. They have been available for many years in shops despite Gollywog's removal from Blyton books after 1980.
These days you can buy Caucasion, Asian and African style dolls, so what is the big problem about selling gollywogs? Banning things always causes problems because it makes an issue out of something when no bad feeling is intended. Australians used to call people from Italy and Greece wogs in the 1960s and 70s. These new Australians made it into a badge. Remember the wog series of films?
This lady is reading something into the situation which really isn't there. She complains, "There is an elegant white ballerina doll whereas the black doll is seen to be poorly dressed." Gollywogs were always dressed in a type of uniform, dungarees. She probably interprets this uniform as being "poorly dressed". Obviously there is demand for them, otherwise they wouldn't be for sale. Perhaps a dark skinned child wants one for comfort, a friend to play with.
The woman says, “It’s a shock to see them brought back." They didn't actually go away. They have been available for many years in shops despite Gollywog's removal from Blyton books after 1980.
These days you can buy Caucasion, Asian and African style dolls, so what is the big problem about selling gollywogs? Banning things always causes problems because it makes an issue out of something when no bad feeling is intended. Australians used to call people from Italy and Greece wogs in the 1960s and 70s. These new Australians made it into a badge. Remember the wog series of films?
This lady is reading something into the situation which really isn't there. She complains, "There is an elegant white ballerina doll whereas the black doll is seen to be poorly dressed." Gollywogs were always dressed in a type of uniform, dungarees. She probably interprets this uniform as being "poorly dressed". Obviously there is demand for them, otherwise they wouldn't be for sale. Perhaps a dark skinned child wants one for comfort, a friend to play with.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
