The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How our political system fails us > Comments

How our political system fails us : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 24/3/2009

Politics is replete with careerists who lack education, training, and political character to deal with substantial issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
One great problem with this approach is that there is not just one problem. There are many. Climate change due to putting emissions into the atmosphere, overpopulation due to decrease in infant mortality, opposition to population planning by reactionary churches and many other factors, proliferation of armaments due to primitive hatreds, desire for profit and many other factors, decrease in amount of arable land due to population patterns etc.

The replacement of some of Peter Garrett’s functions by Penny Wong was most reasonable. She realises as a politician that there are competing interests that she must take into account. Peter Garrett is not an expert but an informed layman who has a sense of urgency about the problem. Experts in various areas are not needed to govern as they do not have the necessary wisdom and feeling for the cut and thrust of politics to govern. What is needed are politicians who are aware of the problems, have the humility to consult experts in areas they have to legislate and the ability to set priorities for the most pressing needs. Politicians should have the education to evaluate the testimony of scientific experts but need not be experts themselves.

A scientist led the Australian Democrats for a while. John Coulter was probably the most competent person in science to ever lead an Australian political party. He was also passionately committed to deal with the effects of global warming. However, he was a failure as a political leader. I attended a session where Dr. Coulter spoke. During question period a man asked about the evidence for carbon dioxide levels in coring of Antarctic Ice. The rest of the session consisted of the techniques for taking the corings and evaluating the results. Coulter simply got sidetracked in a discussion of technological minutiae that was not relevant to the broader issues.

I believe that government by technocrats would be a step backward from our present system.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“While the success of governments in responding to the global economic meltdown is still unknown, we can already see that they have completely failed to deal with those intractable issues, global warming and fossil fuel depletion.”

This self-evident fact is not at all surprising; governments can do nothing about climate change (they have merely been conned into believing they can by grant-hungry scientists), and fossil fuel replacement is up to the private sector. As oil was supposed to run out in 2002 (more scientific propaganda), but it didn’t and is still going strong, the private sector doesn’t see the need to spend money on the problem – if it really is a problem.

Globalisation was one of their big mistakes, and this author foolishly wants politics to be ‘globally based’ too; another step towards disaster and world government. You need only look at the EU to see the silliness of that. And, Rudd, flying off to global talk fests with his absurd cockiness and tailor-made wave from the door of a RAAF aircraft looks pretty silly too.

Peter McMahon things more of this would be a good thing, including, horror of horrors, a world government based on the corrupt and incompetent United Nations! Worse still, he is probably stuffing young heads with this nonsense. He would also like Rudd’s idea of touting for Communist China to take a leading role in this world ‘government’, presumably.

“Just how such an institution could work is a difficult issue”, opines McMahon. Let’s hope it is TOO difficult for the sake of the entire world.

“Our politicians lack the ability and resolve to formulate meaningful policies and our political system is too prone to manipulation by the mass media.” True; but this person wants them replaced with a group of maniacs who want to rule the world.

Small wonder we see such incompetent graduates coming out of universities.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:44:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, looks like you have knocked out all your afore mentioned failures with nothing left.

So looks like it is time to bring in Immanuel Kant's recipe for Perpetual Peace, comprising a Federation of Nations.

Which indeed, was the scientific reasoning that first, the League of Nations was based on, and later the United Nations.

But any political philosopher will tell you that both have been buggered up by singular national intrusion - first the League by Greater Britannia and the UN by Pax Americana.

Finally, might now mention that Peter McMahon's formula could indeed comprise what we all know as multi-lateralism, just another term for globalisation.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:08:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, at first reading I actually warmed to your article. However, for reasons I couldn’t initially identify I read it again and then again. Each reading made me less comfortable as I realized there was a superficial layer of seemingly common sense, overlaying a wide range of political complaints at which you throw an ideological answer.

The answer you propose is “politics and government that is globally oriented, information-rich and open to input by relevant expertise.” If that is your answer I wondered what the question was.

The question you pose seems how do we solve the problem of “climate change, fossil fuel depletion, pandemics and the global economic meltdown”? You also raise a sub question of how we can stop governments from making political decisions.

The first two “problems”, climate change and fossil fuel depletion, feature prominently and often, therefore I suspect your thrust is that politicians are not supporting your perspectives on these two issues, because they are making “political decisions”. Therefore we should replace them, not just in Australia, but also the political leaders of the G7 nations that fail your ideology.

I was also disturbed by your “assumption close” on the key problems. It’s a very old tactic but still draws some of us in, the old fear, uncertainty and doubt. Your assumptions are that AGW, global financials, fossil fuel depletion and pandemics are a real and immediate threat that “must” be addressed by the politicians you want to replace. Tut, Tut Peter.

Much as it may distress you to take a peek into the real world, AGW is losing support, the science behind it flawed. There is no such thing as “settled science or scientific consensus”, they are contradictions in terms. The global financial crisis will be solved by financial means, not handouts to the demand side. Fossil fuel depletion and pandemics will always be a threat; fortunately we have two things going for us, scientists and investors.

The prospect of a global political body made me shudder and left me scrambling through Karl Marx and Max Engels.

Well said Leigh.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A brilliant article IMHO.

McMahon has skilfully highlighted many of the problems of the current political-economic system. Lately, I've been wondering if the Australian political system is even more unlikely to produce good leadership than the US one ... at least in the US, there is _some_ chance a wise president will be elected and appoint a good cabinet. While I see the benefit of local regions being represented at the national level, it almost ensures being governed by a cabinet of populists without a deep understanding of their cabinet areas.

The previous comments trying to cast Peter's argument in terms of appointing technocrats seems spurious to me.

I see signs of positive change though. I think Labor, despite their current dominance, are 'running on empty' in terms of vision and drive. A "new politics" may very well be emerging right now on the 'net and elsewhere. Which is why it's particularly crucial to oppose Labor's current internet censorship plans, whatever name they dress them up as.
Posted by Pat S, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 5:39:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem I have with this article is that the author condemns government for problems that have only been apparent for a short time; less than a year in the case of the GFC. And contrary to the claim of failure, there is very substantial effort under way to address these problems. Solar power is progressing towards grid parity, and battery technology may soon offer economic storage, making the electric car viable.

I will be waiting a few years before revising my optimism in human ingenuity.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 6:36:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would you ask Penny of Peter to design a car , build an aeroplane ?

Don't be stupid you would say .

Tech endeavours require private gain and born in focus .

Asking Pollies or Professors to achieve Global Cooling is like asking a Cooks Convention to turn a boiled chook into icecream .

Recoup Rudds fling money put it up as a prize to the Person / People / organisation who can invent a way to sequest Carbon in quantities that will reverse global warming within 10 years .

Let the inventers loose !

Those Great Men and Woman who got us to where we are today .

Once the Product is invented and working , a doggard individual is then required to with incredible precision figure out any mysteries happening within the system , this person will talk to him/her self , possibly have a personal relationship with a grass hopper and during sleep or relaxation frantically dream up schemes to screw the Gov for grants etc . These people are different or alternates or Aspergers like People , they are very valuable people , would you pore over a microscopic Bacteria for years eventually getting it to make Vaccines or Glue or Cheese these wonderfull people are called Professors . Inventers are brash and impatient take Rolls Royce for example "Flog it until it Busts then rebuild it until it will not" (referring to aero engines I think).

Post the Prize , Victory is on the Wing !
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THis is the same old argument of letting elitist run things. A global government would be a disaster for human rights and human inventivness point of view. One thing the article did highlight is the need for our parliments and institutions to be more responsive to concerns of the electorate. This would be a good opprtunity to introduce Citizen Initiated Referenda as this would allow for issues of concern to be debated and voted on to force change.
Posted by foxydude, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:57:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commercial Bank CEO's appear to be the most qualified ever if their expertise can be judged by their renumeration .

Yet their high paid endeaviours have resulted in the common people being dispossed of their homes and jobs .

These people are like Rats , they have no morals and Rudd gave them money , Millions to pay each other out ...........what !

What about the Dads & Mums and Kids out on the Street with a handbag full of CenterLink forms ?

How do they Lease / Rent accomodation with no job , would you lease them your house ?

Why should a contract be able to King Hit and Crusify a family when the Bankers performed with such care free abandon ? Are our leaders morally inept are they as bad as the Bankers ?

Might I suggest America's war with the Moslems might have something to do with this , Bush needed cash , jobs and finaly tax to satisfy his lust for revenge , he did'nt care how he got it eg; from Oz Families we now learn via Vile Rats on commission in our Banks .

If we can't win a Morality war how can we possibly win a Religious war. Even Rudd who fights many wars is bereft of any Victories .

A super Power , England faught a religious war for 450 (?) years.
We should know better .
Rudd and Gillard froth at the mouth about WorkChoices , it's the same workers who are loseing their Homes , Pride and probably Health , do they care , do we care ?.........well I certainly do .

PS sorry about the spelling , I'm old you see and my darn spell checkers died . Any suggestions appreciated .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Bushbred.

Been having trouble getting in.

Is it okay now?
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 8:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

"governments can do nothing about climate change" Why can't they?

If climate change is caused by humans it can, in principle, be prevented by humans. As to the depletion of natural resources, the "so far so good argument" is not very intelligent is it? The reason that the private sector doesn't spend money on the problem, is that for most of our "industrialists" (who are,more usually, paper-entrepreneurs) next month's general meeting is the distant future. I'd rather listen to scientists' opinions than economists or lawyers. If economics were a science the opinions of economists would be worth considering, but it isn't,so they aren't. The reason neo-liberalism was so eagerly adopted by politicians is that they found it a ready excuse to opt out of the business of government, not for any intrinsic utility it might have possessed. It's far too early to make any judgments on the EU.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac, you say, "If climate change is caused by humans it can, in principle, be prevented by humans". Now take out the "IF" word and tell us which "scientists" you would rather listen to.

Don't know why I wasted a good post on this. When the question is asked we never get an answer.
Posted by spindoc, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:18:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc,

Here is a link to the results of a survey published in the earth science journal Eos in January this year, in which more than 10,000 earth scientists were asked whether global warming was real and whether people were largely responsible. They had a 31% response rate.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

As you can see, something like 97% of those actively involved in climate research said yes to both questions. If that isn't consensus to you, what would be?

My concern would be whether, say, Penny Wong has the necessary background to understand or evaluate what the experts are telling her. "The planet doesn't do political compromise."
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 2:03:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Peter McMahon has an excellent perception of the status quo in Australia.

As in the past, state and federal environment ministers (where never the twain shall meet,) have no idea about the environment.

Previous environment ministers have been bankers, lawyers, property and commercial consultants – bereft of any formal training in environmental toxicology or knowledge of Australia's fragile biodiversity. These ministerial appointments can be seen as potential conflicts of interest which are not in the public's interest.

Some would argue that these ministers don't take orders from pollutant industries but accept the advice from qualified bureaucrats in their departments and this is true to a degree. Unfortunately senior bureaucrats have a tendency to ignore ministerial appeal determinations which would protect the environment and citizens from fall-out. This dereliction of duty can be seen in the environmental catastrophes which prevail, where parliamentary enquiries have held these departments responsible – to no avail and Ministers continue to operate with impunity.

In regard to industrial hazardous emissions, there is no one document containing all of the various guidelines and standards used for the management of chemicals in Australia. Various guideline documents do exist for different environmental matrices (e.g. air, soil or water), though these are diverse and in many cases region specific. Again, these guidelines are ignored as are the consequences and these guidelines remain unenforceable.

A document leaked to the Sunday Times in WA last Monday revealed that Mining and Energy Minister Norman Moore, in conjuction with an "industry" working group proposed far-reaching recommendations to transfer Environment Minister Donna Faragher's powers to Mining and Petroleum Minister Norman Moore and the Premier.

Among the responsibilities that would be stripped from the Environment Minister and her department would be the management of waste and contaminated sites, control of pollution restrictions and her statutory right to approve or decline development projects.

The industry working group has suggested the public's right to appeal against assessment levels set by the EPA be removed.

Dracula’s in charge of the blood bank and Australia's citizens will remain asleep at the wheel.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 2:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could reckon that Peter McMahon's apparent insistence on world-wide discussions, could mean that a reorganised and even stronger UN is the obvious answer to our present global economic problem.

Without an organisation like the UN, it is quite possible that all you will finally achieve could be something not much better in a sense than a big blow-up of ragging and sniping not much different to our recent OLO typo duel.

However, except for modern communications, the above is nothing new historically, being the main reason Immanuel Kant got so upset after Napoleon, the young Enlightenment general decided after one or two military successes to go it alone like Caesar and many historical others.

In universities Kantianism is nothing new, except it is a product of later Enlightenmental Libertinianism containing that most interesting concept that not one leader alone should ever be allowed to make decisions without the will of the people.

But sadly it was Pax Britannica which first broke the Kantian Code with the League of Nations, Pax Americana committing the same crime with the United Nations, as proven more recently with US Minister of State, Candy Rice, US Minister of State usually showing up ahead of any UN rep in times of trouble.

Waste of time typing any further, except to again give reminder that it has not been the ideal of a Libertinian global government that is to blame, but of Democratic leaders trying to be little Hitlers.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 3:53:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras wrote: As in the past, state and federal environment ministers (where never the twain shall meet,) have no idea about the environment.

Dear Protagoras,

I am guilty of assuming that Penny Wong was appointed Minister for Climate Change and Water because she had an interest in or knowledge about the subject. Looking up her background I found nothing to substantiate that assumption.

“Penny Wong studied Arts/Law at the University of Adelaide and worked part time for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union while still a student. Penny Wong was an active activist during student days and was the National Executive of the National Union of Students. She joined the Australian Labor Party in 1988 and acted as a delegate to the party's state convention the following year.

She graduated in 1992 and continued working for CFMEU (Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) as an industrial officer. Penny Wong was admitted to the Australian Bar and began her law practice and also worked as a legal officer with the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union.”

I looked up the ministers concerned with environmental issues in Queensland Craig Andrew Wallace is Minister for Natural Resources and Water. His interests are cricket, fishing and rugby league. Andrew Ian McNamara is Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation. His interests are reading and swimming.

Protagaoras, I suspect that further investigation would yield more of the same.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 4:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

What's the point of your comment, why are the inverted commas around scientists? I would rather listen to climate scientists of course, not economists,political "scientists",social "scientists" or capitalists,whose credentials are no more appropriate than yours or mine.

Or,if you have qualifications in climatology,please indicate on what basis you dissent from the scientific consensus indicated by "Divergence". I've long been puzzled by the Right's hostility towards the notion of climate change,I presume it is because of the fear amongst capitalists that general acceptance would interfere in their money making schemes and force them to adapt.

So you have an answer.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 4:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for that information david f and I believe also that McNamara (LLB) was once president of the Hervey Bay Chamber of Commerce though I see he’s been dumped by Anna Bligh and replaced by 29 year old Kate Jones – profile unknown to me.

Wallace (BA) has been given another portfolio but he still "loves the North Queensland Cowboys!"

In NSW, Carmel Tebbutt (Bachelor of Economics, majoring in Industrial Relations) acts as Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate Change and the Environment and Minister for Commerce. Truly!

Profile for Victorian Environment Minister Gavin Jennings:

Factory worker. Actuarial clerk. Actor. Social worker. Policy analyst. Industrial officer. Ministerial Adviser to Hon. Kay Setches MLA 1988-90, Hon. John Cain MLA 1990, Hon. Joan Kirner MLA 1990-92. Industrial Officer, Public Transport Union, LHMU and ETU 1994-99.

In January, a riled Minister Jennings hit back at claims Victoria is the dirty state for its record on greenhouse pollution. The state’s emissions grew by 2.2 million tonnes last year with increases in petrol and brown coal pollution.

But then “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."(Winston Churchill)

Cheers
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 6:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could say suggestions from us insignificant OLO's probably don't get us very far.

But as a strong believer in a competent UN run by a democratically chosen body rather than by an interfering single strong nation like the US, must give reminder that the United Nations in the first place was organised to handle severe global problems both political and economic.

And if the oncoming financial depression plus global warming are not fit problems for a competent UN, what in blazes are they fit for?

A Rather Disgusted, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 27 March 2009 1:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't like the idea of a world governing body like the UN having control over us, not while the majority of its participant governments are so far from democratic, or even representative. Such a bunch of arrogant, corrupt, self-serving politico's are hardly likely to serve our needs well, are they? On any level.
Posted by Maximillion, Saturday, 28 March 2009 12:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our political system originated in the 19th century and has changed remarkably little since that time.

This is a wrong statement. The political systems of the United Kingdom Australia and the United States originated in 1297, when the Poms enacted the Magna Carta, so that all central governments had to get their laws enforced locally by local political meetings, with twelve locals sitting as the power, and a Justice as administrator. The United States and Australia Constitutions are both grown out of that system, which is itself rooted in Protestant Christianity.

Karl Marx and the Pope had a lot in common, because both believe that government should come down from the top, instead of being tempered and controlled from the bottom up. The Twentieth Century should be marked as the century of communism. Communism and Protestant Christianity are deadly enemies; one treasuring individuality and the other the collective.

Just as Russian communism has collapsed, so too has the communism in the United States. We do not need communism here but we got is when the Federal Court of Australia was created and it has never sat as an Australian court since its inception. We also got communism when Fraser modified the High Court and Bob Hawke made them inaccessible. Because we already had communism, Paul Keating was defeated when he started to abolish it, and the communist Liberal Party returned to power. The communist Liberal Party destroyed democracy in New South Wales in 1970.

The Australian communists cannot accept that the Australian Constitution is a Christian document guaranteeing democracy. In a true democracy, the democratic process is guaranteed by forcing the Sovereign, and all who exercise power in His name, to call a local political meeting together, before beating the crap out of anyone at all.

If KR is to govern for all Australians, his first priority should be to make the High Court work. The Federal Supreme Court should open its doors to all who would bring them a dispute. They should use S 44 Judiciary Act 1903 to send every complaint received back for retrial with a jury.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:56:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter the Believer wrote: Communism and Protestant Christianity are deadly enemies; one treasuring individuality and the other the collective.

Dear Peter the Believer,

The above is absolutely wrong. The three manifestations of early Protestantism are:

1. Church of England
2. Lutheranism
3. Calvinism

They all suppressed individuality.

The Church of England under Henry VIII remained essentially Catholic rather than Protestant in nature. Pope Leo X had earlier awarded to Henry himself the title of fidei defensor (defender of the faith), partly on account of Henry's attack on Lutheranism. Some Protestant-influenced changes under Henry included a limited iconoclasm, the abolition of pilgrimages, and pilgrimage shrines, and the extinction of many saints' days. However, only minor changes in liturgy occurred during Henry's reign, and he carried through the Six Articles of 1539 which reaffirmed the Catholic nature of the church.

The split between Lutherans and the Roman Church arose mainly over the doctrine of Justification before God. Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification "by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone," which contradicted the Roman view of "faith formed by love", or "faith and works". Unlike the Reformed Churches, Lutherans retain many of the liturgical practices and sacramental teachings of the pre-Reformation Church.

A master of the art of organization, Calvin had been able to transform a whole city, a whole State, whose numerous burghers had hitherto been freemen, into a rigidly obedient machine; had been able to extirpate independence, and to lay an embargo on freedom of thought in favour of his own exclusive doctrine.

Calvin held sway over the printing presses, the pulpits and the professorial chairs; as wax in his hands were the various authorities, Town Council, university and law-courts, priests and schools, catchpoles and prisons, the written and the spoken and even the secretly whispered word.

Protestantism was essentially totalitarian. It was only with the secular state which separated church and state that people were free to express their individuality
Posted by david f, Saturday, 28 March 2009 1:03:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently you have not much time for historical ideas brought in to plan for a fairer world, Maxmilliam.

A League of Nations or United Nations is not my idea, but a historical discussion point from volumes in university libraries.

If you have a better alternative as a seemingly studious person, would certainly wish you supply a well constructed alternative.

Regards, Bushbred.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 28 March 2009 1:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbred,

I agree with Maximillion,

A democratically elected UN might be bad news for the democracies since most of the world's population live under authoritarian regimes. The recent ominous decision by the UN Human Rights Council to condemn "Defamation of Religion"is an prime example of violation of the Western concept of free speech. Better the devil you know,that is, the nation-state system since it is our only protection.

We still should persevere with the UN, of course.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 28 March 2009 2:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Go ahead, Mac, but I must say as a historian, I have only hope left, not a great deal of faith.....?
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 28 March 2009 5:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's not forget that we're supporting billions of farm animals (that we're going to eat), and billions of domestic animals, when we can't even feed our human population.

This is economically (extra costs for feeding high-demand animals); environmentally (pollution, land and water degradation, ecological inefficiency); and ethically (third world hunger/western obesity, animal abuses associated with intensive farming) unsound and unacceptable.
Posted by tubley, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:48:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred, sorry mate, but just because I personally can't design an all-encompassing, efficient, equitable system to solve the worlds ills doesn't bother me in the least, nor do I have even an inkling of where to start. To my mind that doesn't invalidate my objections to, or thoughts on, the proposals of others. If we don't look for the flaws in planning, or the dangers implicit in a given power-structure, then we will deserve whatever we're saddled with.
The UN, and it's progenitor the League, have hardly lived up to our dreams, and have wasted enormous resources that could have been more wisely expended. Yes, they have achieved some great things, but at what cost? Look you to the Balkan wars, or the African ones, or Asian, they seem more concerned with following bureaucratic niceties than getting involved and saving lives. I accept you have to start somewhere, and I'm proud we tried, but that doesn't mean we should stick with a failed model. It's time to move on, agreed, but we need a new system, not a re-conditioned old jalopy that has largely made a mockery of the ideals of it's founders.
Posted by Maximillion, Sunday, 29 March 2009 12:50:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our political system has not worked for the eleven and a half years of the Liberal Government because the Liberal Prime Minister was a lawyer, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth was irrelevant; When Abraham Gilbert Saffron died in 2006, if his son is to be believed, than he took the secrets of his bribery of the Liberal Party with him. While he was alive he was effectively the King.

He reported that Abe was paying Norm Allen and Rob Askin $5,000 a week each in the 1960’s when wages was about $30 a week. This was an enormous amount of money and Abe wanted value. He got it when the Liberals abolished the grass roots political meetings held until them in the Supreme Court with twelve electors present and a Justice, and gave all power to a Barrister. They say the difference between a good lawyer and a brilliant lawyer, is this. A good lawyer knows the law, a brilliant lawyer knows the Judge.

Since 1970, we have had the best legal system money can buy for the criminals. We also have had the weakest bunch of scoundrels in the central government of the Commonwealth that money can buy, and when PK set out to reform the system between 1993 and 1995, the criminal element spent enormous amounts of money to defeat him.

If KR is a strong leader, he must assert the authority of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has permitted gross insubordination by the courts, judges and people of every state and must clamp down. He must assert the superiority of the Commonwealth assured by the Constitution. He cannot do that while the grass roots political meetings that used to sort out intergovernmental disputes are run by lawyers without electors to keep the proceedings honest.

Our political system is out of whack, because S 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903 which was inserted to make the Governments and the people equal, has been subverted because the Governments now appoint all Judges and Magistrates. None have granted a jury trial since 1970 in any important case
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 29 March 2009 5:18:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We voted in a "Yes Minister" Govt , don't despair you get a chance to correct that in a year and a half , be sure to hide away the fare to the Booth or you will have to walk .
Posted by ShazBaz001, Sunday, 29 March 2009 3:45:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are not talking about a global government, Maxmillian but a place where all nations can have representatives.

And in the case of Gobal Warming et al, also scientists, as mentioned about certain Democrats, but whom didn't have political expertese.

Might suggest that the reformed League as the new UN was sometimes called, had the capacity to include every organisation we have discussed, including both science and monetary divisions.

Why throw out the present UN, when a multilateral group of our premier governments, could reorganise the UN pretty well by ballot.

We must say again for the dozenth time, that the problem with both the League and the UN was single big powers calling the tune, as GW Bush did more recently with the UN, treating it as if he had more power than it.

Which in all truth in a decent law-abiding democracy he did not have.

Here's hoping once again, from BB.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 29 March 2009 5:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought our Western governing systems were short of cash, so instead of organising costly alternatives to the already set-up UN, why not sack the UN hierachy and start afresh.

If they won't allow it, just get Obama to tell - they - to jump in the lake, and tell him to do what's the right thing to do.

Getting more fed-up, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 10:39:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear Bushbred of WA. Your words of wisdom are appreciated on the the UN proposal but I believe charity begins at home. The state of the environment in your Western Australia is dire – salinity, desertification, lead, nickel, mercury, benzene, dioxin poisonings etc.

Now that the Emperor of Claremont (Barney Rubble) is on the loose, what does he have in store for you next? U308 – radon fall-out and its diabolical progeny?:

1. 2006:

Hazardous underground plume heading for river:

In February 2001, the industrial area of Bellevue was described as an Armageddon. The toxic inferno at Waste Control, a storage facilty, sent drums of exploding chemicals raining down on nearby properties spreading the fire.

The owner of the site was found to have breached government regulations for years and he did not provide a register of chemicals to authorities. The toxic underground plume is heading for the Helena River, which feeds into the Swan.

2. November 04, 2006

Environment Minister McGowan sacks hazadous waste committee:

BRIAN Burke and Julian Grill might have influenced a major Government climb-down on hazardous waste treatment in WA.

3. Apr 10, 2006

Fish kill raises Swan River concerns

Fishermen say the latest kill could have a long-term effect on the river's ecosystem.

Since Thursday more than 2,500 dead fish have been discovered between Bayswater and Guildford. Fishermen claim thousands more are rotting further upstream. Frank Prokop, from Recfishwest, says the river is on the verge of disaster.

4. 2007 Lead poisoning of Esperance WA

9,500 native birds killed by mining company's lead emissions.

The marine samples collected from the Esperance seabed showed lead readings between 3600mg/kg and 29,000mg/kg.

The environmental levels for lead under Australian guidelines are set between 50mg/kg and 220mg/kg.

The samples returned elevated nickel levels, with samples showing readings between 3300mg/kg to 6600mg/kg.

Environmental levels for nickel were between 21mg/kg and 52mg/kg.

The environmental levels are taken from the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000).

contd.....
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 3:53:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brought forward:

5. 2008

MINING giant Barrick Gold were fined a 'pittance' for spilling 4.5 million litres of toxic waste, toxicologists and Kalgoorlie residents say.

6 Jan. 2009

Four major parliamentary inquiries and audits since 2001, over significant industrial related environmental health disasters.

One complaint after another against the Department of Environment (and never a Minister to be seen!) Who’s actually running the state of WA anyway? Corrupt senior bureaucrats?

http://www.caps6218.org.au/documents/Ombudsman_Letter_to_CAPS%5B1%5D.pdf

7. 20th February 2009

The health of the Swan and Canning rivers has no chance of improving unless pollution entering the waterway is cut by almost half in the next seven years, a report for the Swan River Trust has warned.

8. 2009

Birds sick with a paralytic disease from the ingestion of toxins have been found in Perth lakes and parks.

The City of Belmont said several appear to have been affected by avian botulism, which causes paralysis of the legs, wings and neck.

Birds may drown, be predated upon or suffocate due to paralysis of the respiratory system.

9. March 30, 2009

Swan River polluted

THE Swan and Canning rivers are polluted with toxic levels of cancer-causing heavy metals, pesticides and hydrocarbons, a three-year sediment study has found.

Poisons including zinc, lead, copper, mercury and dieldrin were found to exceed guidelines at seven sites across Perth. Has the underground toxic plume from the Bellevue fire now invaded the Swan - a major catastrophe!

10. March 16, 2009

A look at how a Busselton beach went from pristine coastline to an environmental nightmare:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25196212-2761,00.html

Dear Bushbred. These are but few and WA is in danger of crossing the tipping points where it will become irreversible.

Alas, pollutant industry captive, Barney Rubble (like his predecessor) does not intend to tackle the recession and climate change together.

The political party system has failed. What coward would dare cross the floor and risk losing pre-selection for are they not all cowards? Can your fragile ecosystems in WA sustain this ravenous genus indefinitely?
Posted by Protagoras, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 5:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras

Thanks for the compliment, mate, but must say I am still concerned that the UN is being virtually chucked on the scrapheap when the true blame must surely be sheeted on the people who have ruined it - mostly those speaking on behalf of autocratic national leaders.

I guess that Immanuel Kant who devised the Plan for Perpetual Peace, as it was originally called, and even though a Doctor of the Church, had no room apparently for national leaders for Chair-People. .

But all the better, as far as we are concerned, because Kant as a historical philosopher surely realised that national leaders, either from Royalty or autocracy oftimes can steer policy for the wrong reasons, just by their presence.

Kant could have thus been very much against the way Condoleeza Rice as Minister of State under Bush was allowed to push in ahead of UN rep's usually in Arab-Israeli confrontations.

Finally must say that anyone like myself who has learnt all the above as an oldie in academics, does not feel like changing, in fact very distressed that the UN with all its auxillary facilities, including the environmental sciences, seems such a waste, especially when it is particularly so important save government money these days.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 8:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was reminded of this post when hearing all about the G20 over the last week.

Do you guys think this G20 summit is pretty much setting a precedent of replacing the UN as the world's key decision-making forum? And is this a good development, or just a stopgap for this current emergency?
Posted by Pat S, Saturday, 4 April 2009 4:52:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Pat'S.

I don't know whether you were giving praise to the thread just above you, matey, but many thanks just the same.

From BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 5 April 2009 1:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Protagoras

Found some of my old studies surprisingly fitted in with modern Wall St problems, matey.

As one who for years had spent too much time studying the fortunes of the Rockefellers and their roles in the US Federal Reserve as well as in the US based Trilateralists and also in the European based Bildebergers, must say right now, it seems as the proven keepers of modern US capitalism, the Rockefellers et al have been lately leaving the roles to the truly dishonest, not just to those only honest for America alone.

So we have William D Cohan's House of Cards, a tale of Wall St Hubris and Wretched Excesses.

We have already heard in the news about Bear Stearns, a so-called very honest Wall St profitmaker with $17.3 billion ready cash apparently mostly in hand.

But ten days later, Bear Sterns no longer existed, and thus the calamitious financial meltdown of 2008 had begun.

How this happened - and why - is the subject of Cohan's superb and shocking narrative detailing the end of Wall St's Second Gilded Age.

As backing for our rough country comments, it seems Rip, Sh't or Bust was pretty well spot on, like one looking to place bets at a hundred to one in race after race all too sure to win in the end.

Following Cowan's minute by minute account of the momentous March ten days one wonders how it took so long for the Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, New York Federal Reserve Bank President Tim Geithner, and Fed' Chaiman, Ben Bernanke for each to contemplate the horrors that must surely still lie ahead?

Would like some comments, Prota', but guess the whole thread's got a bit worn out.

Best of Cheers, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 10 April 2009 6:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy