Friday, July 15, 2005
So, you really want to fight terror and needless death?
Nobody could ever condone or excuse the cowardly actions of the vile animals that perpetrated the tube and bus bombings in London.
One consolation in this sad episode is that at least four souls are somewhere in the great oblivion thinking "Well, we were wrong about that weren't we. Golly I feel a bit stupid now."
I can't begin to understand the grief and sorrow of those that have lost loved ones and I offer sincere condolences to those bereaved by this atrocity.
What gets under my skin is that in the same week as the London bombings that will dominate our media for weeks, a suicide car bomber killed approximately 24 children and one US serviceman in Baghdad in an attack that targeted US personnel distributing sweets to local kids and we have had only passing reports in our media. In the same week, a triple train crash in Pakistan killed around one hundred and fifty people but only warranted a small item halfway through the paper.
It seems it only becomes newsworthy when people similar to ourselves are involved. We are rightly horrified when an ex-pat Aussie is kidnapped by extremists because the potential fate that he faced is horrifying to anyone with any pretence at claiming to be civilised.
I don't know the fellow and he may be the greatest philanthropist in history but it seems to an outsider he was in Iraq to make money from the rebuilding of that country. He was there to profit.
That doesn't excuse the actions of those that abducted him but there is a concept in law "volenti non fit injuria" which very loosely says that if you knowingly accept risk then you can't expect the law to protect you from the consequences.
Now via that round-about route I come to the point of this rant. If the governments that comprise the "Coalition of the Willing" were sincere about preventing needless death and suffering then they would put religious extremists to one side for the time being and concentrate on some real villains that cause hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of preventable deaths worldwide every year.
I speak, of course, about tobacco companies that still promote their products in countries that allow it to those least equipped to combat the promotion or the inevitable effects of their products. A report released the other day states that these companies actively target children as young as six years old as well as teenagers. The executives of these companies really are scum.
Don't get me wrong, I love a smoke and fully understand the power this drug exerts on addicts.
So called "developed" countries refuse to get serious about the tobacco industry and political parties continue to accept donations from the tobacco industry.
So, here is a challenge John Howard. Before you commit the 600 or so troops to return to Afghanistan to safeguard the lives of who knows how many Aussies here at home, how about you get in touch with the state premiers and save tens of thousands of Australians each year by outlawing tobacco.
I dare you to argue that this move wouldn't save more Australian lives than preventing ten New York or Bali or London atrocities every year.
Yes, it would be difficult to enforce a ban of this type just as the USA found out in the 1920's however the difficulties involved pale into insignificance when compared to a "war on terror".
Come On John - rebuttal please!
One consolation in this sad episode is that at least four souls are somewhere in the great oblivion thinking "Well, we were wrong about that weren't we. Golly I feel a bit stupid now."
I can't begin to understand the grief and sorrow of those that have lost loved ones and I offer sincere condolences to those bereaved by this atrocity.
What gets under my skin is that in the same week as the London bombings that will dominate our media for weeks, a suicide car bomber killed approximately 24 children and one US serviceman in Baghdad in an attack that targeted US personnel distributing sweets to local kids and we have had only passing reports in our media. In the same week, a triple train crash in Pakistan killed around one hundred and fifty people but only warranted a small item halfway through the paper.
It seems it only becomes newsworthy when people similar to ourselves are involved. We are rightly horrified when an ex-pat Aussie is kidnapped by extremists because the potential fate that he faced is horrifying to anyone with any pretence at claiming to be civilised.
I don't know the fellow and he may be the greatest philanthropist in history but it seems to an outsider he was in Iraq to make money from the rebuilding of that country. He was there to profit.
That doesn't excuse the actions of those that abducted him but there is a concept in law "volenti non fit injuria" which very loosely says that if you knowingly accept risk then you can't expect the law to protect you from the consequences.
Now via that round-about route I come to the point of this rant. If the governments that comprise the "Coalition of the Willing" were sincere about preventing needless death and suffering then they would put religious extremists to one side for the time being and concentrate on some real villains that cause hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of preventable deaths worldwide every year.
I speak, of course, about tobacco companies that still promote their products in countries that allow it to those least equipped to combat the promotion or the inevitable effects of their products. A report released the other day states that these companies actively target children as young as six years old as well as teenagers. The executives of these companies really are scum.
Don't get me wrong, I love a smoke and fully understand the power this drug exerts on addicts.
So called "developed" countries refuse to get serious about the tobacco industry and political parties continue to accept donations from the tobacco industry.
So, here is a challenge John Howard. Before you commit the 600 or so troops to return to Afghanistan to safeguard the lives of who knows how many Aussies here at home, how about you get in touch with the state premiers and save tens of thousands of Australians each year by outlawing tobacco.
I dare you to argue that this move wouldn't save more Australian lives than preventing ten New York or Bali or London atrocities every year.
Yes, it would be difficult to enforce a ban of this type just as the USA found out in the 1920's however the difficulties involved pale into insignificance when compared to a "war on terror".
Come On John - rebuttal please!
Monday, July 11, 2005
Leaders? Not!
I am infuriated and insulted when media reports refer to state premiers, the prime minister and their opposition counterparts as being our "leaders".
Under our system of government there is no such thing as a national or state leader as such. The nearest thing we have are the state Governors and the Commonwealth Governor General. If we are to be honest with ourselves, the only "leader" we can point to with any certainty is Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
The fact is our state premiers and the prime minister are not state or national leaders by any stretch of the imagination and nor should they be referred to as such.
None of our state premiers or our prime minister are elected as such by voters and any one of them can be removed and replaced by their respective parties without reference to voters at any time.
These people are not even leaders of the political parties they represent. What they are is nothing more than the leaders, elected by the parliamentary members or the caucus or whatever body in whatever party as applicable, of the parliamentary wing of their respective parties.
Given the state of some of the minor parties (e.g. the Nationals in W.A.) one has real reason to question whether there is any reason for pride (aside from the pay-cheque) in being "the leader" of one of our political parties.
Given the quality of the current current crop of ALP and Liberal pollies in Western Australia and the methods by which members from both sides were imposed upon people of that state, it's no great shakes to be elected "leader" of either of those groups.
From my point of view I don't want or require a "leader" of any calibre. I especially don't want a "leader" who is prepared to lie and cheat and get into bed with lobby groups to win office.
A real leader shouldn't need to work the "numbers" to hold their position. They should inspire others to follow their example by acts of integrity and honesty and bravery (even political bravery).
Perhaps if some of our state premiers, their opposition counterparts and their federal equivalents took this approach then some of us might be inclined to follow their example and they might just earn the title "leader".
"Leader"? Yeah right!
Under our system of government there is no such thing as a national or state leader as such. The nearest thing we have are the state Governors and the Commonwealth Governor General. If we are to be honest with ourselves, the only "leader" we can point to with any certainty is Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.
The fact is our state premiers and the prime minister are not state or national leaders by any stretch of the imagination and nor should they be referred to as such.
None of our state premiers or our prime minister are elected as such by voters and any one of them can be removed and replaced by their respective parties without reference to voters at any time.
These people are not even leaders of the political parties they represent. What they are is nothing more than the leaders, elected by the parliamentary members or the caucus or whatever body in whatever party as applicable, of the parliamentary wing of their respective parties.
Given the state of some of the minor parties (e.g. the Nationals in W.A.) one has real reason to question whether there is any reason for pride (aside from the pay-cheque) in being "the leader" of one of our political parties.
Given the quality of the current current crop of ALP and Liberal pollies in Western Australia and the methods by which members from both sides were imposed upon people of that state, it's no great shakes to be elected "leader" of either of those groups.
From my point of view I don't want or require a "leader" of any calibre. I especially don't want a "leader" who is prepared to lie and cheat and get into bed with lobby groups to win office.
A real leader shouldn't need to work the "numbers" to hold their position. They should inspire others to follow their example by acts of integrity and honesty and bravery (even political bravery).
Perhaps if some of our state premiers, their opposition counterparts and their federal equivalents took this approach then some of us might be inclined to follow their example and they might just earn the title "leader".
"Leader"? Yeah right!
