I’ve been surprised by the recent comments in the news from Professor Jake Najman, claiming that it is safer for people to use ecstasy than alcohol.  Whilst I am fiercely biased towards not using drugs, this is one that I have tried to look at objectively.  I’ve done a bit of a search online and found a few websties that describe the actual effects of both alcohol and ecstasy.  Both are disturbing, but I’m not about to stop drinking socially or start taking illicit drugs.  I’ve pasted some good extracts from some of the articles and also included the urls for those who wish to investigate for themselves.  It is an interesting and complex issue, but I have concluded that the opinions of Jake Najman published in the press are dangerous and irresponsible.

For a long time I have been opposed to the idea of harm minimisation with drugs, but also alcohol, as the approaches just do not work.  My opinions regarding drugs are stronger for the simple fact that most drugs used in these discussions actually fundamentally alter the way the brain works in the immediate short term.  Whilst alcohol does affect the brain during consumption and extensive long-term used literally turns your brain to mush (as well as damaging the liver and other organs), it’s worst effects are not immediate.  It can also alter the brain structure of adolescents, which is one of the many reasons we restrict it’s sale and consumption to those over the age of 18.  The effects of drugs on the brain seem to be quite different. They don’t merely slow everything down the way alcohol does, but actually messes with the way that your brain sends and receives signals from your body.  Ecstasy is no different – as you’ll see below.  The other thing to bear in mind as well is that on first taking drugs your brain does change when it starts to use receptors that it has not done previously.  The effects of drugs, including ecstasy are unpredictable, and in some cases extreme.  It’s the extreme biological and social reactions of people on drugs that makes the case for criminalising them compelling.  Also there’s part of me that thinks that there is more going for more naturally occurring compounds rather than something chemical and artificial is more beneficial (kind of like the argument in favour of organic food).  The other consideration is that drugs can also have immediate damaging psychological effects, such as psychotic or schizophrenic episodes and almost always causes some form of mental illness in the long term.  Ecstasy is a “young” drug as well, coming into being in the late 80’s so the long term impact to people’s health and well being has not been determined.  In fact, when you read some of the studies the impact of short term effects after the drug is no longer used is also yet to be determined.

Whilst I say no one had their first schizophrenic attack from their first drink, but they can get it from their first joint, for this I say no one had their muscles melt away from their first drink, but they can get it from their first Ecstasy pill.  Again, whilst the impact can be unpredictable (people may not know about underlying medical and hereditary factors that put them at risk when they take drugs), the dramatic impact of what can go wrong when it does go wrong is enough of a deterrent to discourage its use.

The other thing to realise, is that we can not say what the effects of people using neurotoxic drugs in the way that alcohol is used, will be.  For a start, researchers can not study the impact of Ecstasy in the way that can for alcohol or even therapeutic drugs.  It is unethical to conduct such research and I’m pretty sure Professor Najman knows that.  Whilst some data can be gathered, it can not be accurate or reliable as most people who take drugs, do not take just one drug.  And also the social effects can’t be determined the way alcohol can because it’s only a small portion of the population who use drugs to start with.  So we can not have any reliable information on cause of death etc.

One reason why people in authority may want people to take Ecstasy over drinking alcohol is that the mood of the consumer is either elated or anxious and depressed, but not aggressive.  Essentially making them easier to deal with when it comes to policing.  However no reasonable person could see this as a reason to introduce a drug with extreme and immediate adverse effects into the population.  It is usually concluded that people who have their first psychotic episode from marijuana have an underlying predisposition to it, and I believe the same is for people who become aggressive when consuming alcohol.  Generally, it slows most people down.  And this is more of a case for encouraging people to exhibit moderation when consuming alcohol, not the introduction of drugs.  Alcohol more than any other drug points to the fact that our policy of “harm minimisation” is actually an abject failure and needs to be revisited.  It also points to the fact that moderation will not be shown if people are allowed ready access to other drugs.

I want to say finally, that reading the research, the short term effects of using a small amount of Ecstasy is much less than the long term effects of alcohol abuse.  However most people use alcohol in moderation, and not to the point where it causes their brains and livers to shut down and their family home to be repossessed.  In fact most people who drink do not become aggressive or depressed or dangerous.  Whilst it needs to be treated with caution, it is a cornerstone of social interaction in our society and generally provides more good than harm.  The same can not be said of any illicit drugs.

www.therightmix.gov.au/pdfs/EffectsOnBody.pdf (Alcohol)

http://www.alcoholandwork.adf.org.au/browse.asp?ContainerID=health_effects_alcohol

Generally speaking, Australian men tend to drink alcohol more often and more heavily than Australian women. Of course there are individual men who drink lightly or not at all and women who drink at harmful levels.

Based on recent surveys, it has been conservatively estimated that:

• 12 per cent of Australian males drink alcohol every day, compared to 5.8 per cent of females
• 31 per cent of males drink at least once a month at levels placing them at risk of short-term harm (such as injury) from drinking
• 10 per cent of males are at risk of long-term health problems due to their alcohol consumption
• males aged 20 to 25 years are the most likely group to have consumed alcohol at risky or high risk levels for short term harm in the last week.

It has been calculated that 4 per cent of male deaths are alcohol-related, with the main causes of such deaths being alcoholic liver cirrhosis, road injury, stroke, suicide and alcohol dependence.

Health effects for young people

Many young adults do not drink alcohol at risky levels. However, if you are a young adult (aged 18 to 25 years), you are in the age group that is most likely to experience alcohol-related harm.

Young adults have the highest alcohol consumption in Australia and are the age group at highest risk of alcohol-related injury including road trauma, violence, unwanted sexual activity, falls, overdose related to a low tolerance to alcohol, accidental death (including drowning), and suicide.

Young people tend to experience many of the immediate effects of alcohol more strongly than adults and there is evidence that the earlier that a young person starts to drink alcohol, the greater the risk of alcohol-related problems in later life.

The Australian Alcohol Guidelines (Guideline 9) recommends that young people, aged about 18-25 years:

• are especially urged not to drink beyond the low-risk levels
• should not drink at all for at least several hours before undertaking potentially hazardous activities (for example, driving, swimming, boating)
• should not mix alcohol with other mood altering drugs.

Effects on brain function

However, there is another danger associated with young people drinking that has not received very much attention and relates to the developmental problems caused by alcohol. As a result of the changes in brain function that occur during adolescence, alcohol affects adolescents differently from the way it affects adults. Heavy exposure to alcohol during early adolescence may have a negative effect on healthy brain development. This can have long-term health and social consequences. (Drug Info)

Possible health benefits of alcohol

Research shows that moderate amounts of alcohol can reduce the risk of developing some types of cardiovascular disease. Death rates from coronary heart disease have been shown to be lower among middle-aged males who consume small to moderate amounts of alcohol than among non-drinkers.  The effect of alcohol in protecting against heart disease has shown to be relevant only for people over about 40 years. There is no evidence to suggest that it is relevant for younger age groups.

The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health has found that Australian women who drink in moderation have a higher level of education, exercise more often and have more acceptable weight than teetotalers.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/feb3/parr/parr.html (Medical report on the Anna Wood Case)

The effects of MDMA are numerous and complex, and severe reactions are unpredictable.¹ There have been many reports of MDMA-associated deaths caused by fulminant hyperthermia, coagulopathy and rhabdomyolysis,¹ and clinical awareness of these problems seems high. However, many other complications of MDMA ingestion, such as hyponatraemia, may result in death or serious morbidity and have received less publicity. Instances of hyponatraemia after MDMA ingestion have been reported, with postulated causes that include ingestion of large quantities of water, the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) and contamination of the MDMA with other chemicals.^4-9 Hyponatraemia raises a diagnostic dilemma, as its signs may be indistinguishable from those of MDMA intoxication. ¹⁰ There is evidence that morbidity associated with hyponatraemia is highest in children and women and is not related to either the magnitude or duration of the hyponatraemia.¹¹

To our knowledge, this is the first Australian report of a fatality associated with ecstasy in which hyponatraemia and cerebral oedema appeared to be the main pathological processes. However, dissecting out the various factors involved in the death is extremely difficult. The roles of MDMA, the dance party environment, water ingestion, hyponatraemia, cerebral oedema, hypoxia, hypotension and SIADH are intertwined. The dance party environment encourages heavy exercise in a hot environment, with the advice to drink plenty of water. In the presence of high salt losses, this may produce hyponatraemia. Water ingestion may become uncontrolled as the individual attempts to treat symptoms or as the MDMA impairs rational judgement or possibly stimulates compulsive repetitive behaviour.¹² Cerebral oedema as a result of hyponatraemia is well recognised and may result in tentorial herniation, respiratory arrest and cerebral hypoxia.¹¹ SIADH has also been implicated in ecstasy-associated hyponatraemia.⁹ Although the mechanism is unclear, animal research suggests that serotonin increases secretion of antidiuretic hormone.¹³

Given the many people who take ecstasy without apparent ill-effect, it has acquired a safe reputation. Among the many adverse reactions, we must now include life-threatening hyponatraemia, which may have the same symptoms and signs as MDMA intoxication. To avoid adverse reactions, individuals using MDMA at dance parties are often advised to rest, avoid overheating, wear loose clothing and drink plenty of cool drinks.¹⁴ However, there is no evidence that this prevents adverse reactions. Furthermore, because of the possibility of hyponatraemia, this advice should be modified to suggest ingesting only moderate amounts of liquids. The importance of seeking medical attention promptly for non-resolving symptoms should also be emphasised.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962923800.html

An animal study by Dr George Ricaurte and colleagues at John Hopkins University in Maryland published in Science last Septemberfound ecstasy damages the brain and causes a condition similar to Parkinson's disease known as Parkinsonas.

Ricaurte and his wife, Una McCann, have researched the drug for almost 15 years using animals.

The results of their work, damning long-term ecstasy use, were widely criticised, partly because multiple doses in animals do not simulate human exposure.

In Sydney, McGregor is recognised as a leading researcher into the long-term effects of ecstasy use. Like Ricaurte, he experiments on rats, but he is keen to avoid the same sort of criticism levelled at Ricaurte.

"We are very careful in our rat studies to give doses that are comparable to what a human would use," he says.

The most far-reaching aspect of McGregor's research is the finding that lab rats given modest amounts of MDMA still show effects three to six months later.

One of the effects is increased anxiety, even after small doses of the drug. "We put them in a new environment and they seem less confident in exploring that environment," he says.

"In the same test of social behaviour, rats display less social interaction than control rats who have never had the drug. It is almost like the social circuit of the brain is overactivated in the short term by ecstasy, but in the long term may become damaged or burnt out."

McGregor also found that ecstasy has a similar effect on rats to humans. "The immediate social effects of ecstasy are not confined to humans. Rats cuddle up just as much as humans do after using it. Rats also get hot and run around a lot after they have been given the drug," he says.

Paul Dillon agrees that the drug is less predictable than people think and "affects different people in different ways".

He cited the recent example of a man who shared an ecstasy tablet with his girlfriend. His temperature became so high that he suffered what Dillon calls a "melt down" and "lost part of his calf muscle. She suffered no apparent negative effects".

He knows young women who, after taking the drug, "have had panic attacks and haven't been able to function properly", but says that a pre-existing condition may have been exacerbated.

"Sometimes ecstasy can do terrible things to people, but it depends on the individual," he says.

Ultimately, "there are no common consequences".

http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/faq.htm

» Is ecstasy addictive?
Physically no, the body will not crave more, or become dependent with repeated use. There is a psychological danger, however, that users can start to like it too much and crave the emotional contentment that it provides. Craving the next party, mood swings and inability to concentrate on mundane tasks are common signs.

» Why doesn't it work anymore?
Many users feel Ecstasy isn't as strong as it used to be, though purity tests suggest the average MDMA content has changed little over the years. Users quickly build up a tolerance, requiring more E to reach the same highs. Also, the novelty and surprise qualities of a person's first few experiences are unlikely to be repeated, unless use is very infrequent (once or twice a year).

» How many people die from using ecstasy? Isn't it very risky?
The UK figures suggest seven ecstasy-related deaths per million users. This compares to 625 alcohol-related deaths per million drinkers. In fact, more people in the UK die from choking on peanuts than from taking ecstasy.

» I've heard E is "neurotoxic" - what does that mean?
'Neurotoxic' is applied to any substance which causes temporary or permanent changes in the brain. Animal tests have shown MDMA to be neurotoxic in large amounts. Nobody is sure at what level MDMA becomes neurotoxic in humans, but even moderate E use can cause memory-impairments. See our special report: Does Ecstasy Impair Memory (follow this link it has a good report).

http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/downloads/Prevention_Research_Quarterly/PRQ_05Dec_Ecstasy_and_related_drugs.pdf

Different studies examining the negative effects on users have largely produced consistent findings. These include loss of appetite, jaw clenching, teeth grinding, nausea, muscle aches, stiffness, ataxia (impairment of motor control), blurred vision, increased sweating, increased heart rate, insomnia and fatigue. Most of these side effects subside within 24 hours (Davison & Parrott 1997; Greer & Tolbert 1986; Topp et al. 2002; Liechti & Vollenweider 2000 Fry & Miller 2002).

The predominant toxicity patterns that emerge from emergency rooms and death reports are fulminant hyperthermia convulsions, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) (blood clotting in the blood vessels), rhabdomyolysis (dissolution of skeletal muscle) and acute renal (kidney) failure. In fulminant hyperthermia, the ecstasy user experiences high body temperature that leads to multiple organ failure, and in some cases death. In most cases, when the user’s body temperature rises above 42°C, the reaction is fatal (Cole & Sumnall 2003). There is also some evidence to suggest that hyperthermia caused by ecstasy intake may cause liver damage (Andreu, Mas & Brugura 1998; Jones & Simpson 1999).

Ecstasy intoxication has also been linked to hyponatremia, a condition to which young women appear to be more susceptible than men (Budisavljevic, Stewart, Sahn & Ploth 2003). The pathogenesis of MDMA-associated hyponatremia involves excessive water intake, and inappropriately elevated antidiuretic hormone (ADH) levels. Many ecstasy users participate in raves, dancing for hours, usually in large crowds and in hot temperatures. In order to combat dehydration, it was initially recommended to ravers that they be aware of water consumption (Finch, Sell & Arnold 1996).  Many ravers then drank water excessively, which in turn led to hypothermia and cerebral oedema (Box, Prescott & Freestone. 1997). Moreover, to strengthen the effects of the drug, many users also began to consume “energy drinks” containing vitamins and amino acids, which increase the potential toxicity (Maxwell 2005). Currently, ecstasy users in raves/clubs are advised to drink isotonic sport drinks and small amounts of water in conjunction with salty foods.

Most of the findings relating to the effects of ecstasy on the central nervous system focus on the serotonergic pathways. Laboratory studies have reported a decrease in the number of 5-HT sites in the brain (Reneman, Booij, Schmand, van den Brink et al. 2001; Semple, Ebmeier & Glabus 1999). However, these changes have been found to be temporary. Other studies have found lower levels of 5-HIAA in the CSF among ecstasy users, compared to those in control groups (for example, Grob 2000; McCann 1994). This may point toward some dysfunction in the serotonergic pathway among users. Overall, due to the ethical issues associated with the provision of ecstasy to users for scientific study, this line of research produces inconsistent results, and as such, long-term effects are not known.

Ecstasy users report a wide range of psychological effects, positive (as mentioned above) and negative, which include anxiety, depression, depersonalisation, confusion, perceptual side effects such as “flashbacks” and hallucinations, aggression and impulsivity, motivational deficits, panic attacks and paranoia (Montoya, Sorrentino, Lukas & Price 2002). Many of these psychological effects seem to be consistent with the cumulative evidence that ecstasy has toxic effects on serotonergic pathways in the brain (Morgan, Mofie, Fleetwood & Robinson 2002).

The most commonly reported symptoms are panic attacks/anxiety and toxic psychoses. Panic attacks usually tend to occur within the first hour of ecstasy consumption (Williamson, Gossop, Powis, Griffiths et al. 1997). According to McCann and Ricaurte (1991), individuals with genetic predisposition to panic attacks are more vulnerable to experiencing an attack while using ecstasy. In such cases, the risk is that ecstasy use may trigger panic disorder.

With regard to toxic psychoses, Gouzoulis, von Bardeleben, Rupp, Kovar et al. (1993) showed that ecstasy caused psychosis when given to a healthy volunteer. While other cases have been reported (self reports), it is known that these individuals also presented with premorbid psychological dysfunctions (Gamma et al. 2000). In another study, heavy ecstasy users indicated significantly higher scores on a psychological symptoms list, compared to nonusers.  These include obsessive-compulsive patterns, anxiety, psychosis, somatisation and loss of pleasure from sexual activity (Parrott 2001). Further findings suggest high levels of depression among users (MacInnes, Handley & Harding 2001; Verheyden, Maidment & Curran 2003). Gender differences were also identified, with women being more susceptible than men to “flashbacks”, hallucinations (Liechti & Vollenwieder 2001) and low mood following a weekend of ecstasy use (Verheyden et al. 2002; Maxwell 2005).

I've just read an article abou the opening ceremony, which  I didn't watch.  And it's made me realise my gripe with the Olympics this year (including all the publicity which I wrote about yesterday).

This year's Olympics seem to be more about China than about Internationalism and the spirit of sporting competition.  That's what it is!  Usually the Olympics a celebration of all nations coming together, not just the host nation!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-hidary/beijing-olympics---the-op_b_117688.html

I'm sitting here flipping through the channels tonight and there is yet another documentary on China.  I'm yet to figure out if this one is like the SBS stuff which seems to marvel at the country through it’s less recent history or something that explores the darker side of the dictatorship (which could take decades really).  They have briefly mentioned the genocide of the Cultural Revolution, to their credit.   It's suddenly occurred to me that every station has been flooding our screens with various forms of infotainment about China.  The stations did not show the same level of interest in other recent hosts of the games - Spain, America and Greece (I'll skip Australia as we need no introduction to ourselves).

Whilst China is a controversial at the moment, I'm not entirely sure the publicity is all made up of critical exposes.  I think that some of it is buying just a little bit into the propaganda that China is a fascinating, misunderstood place.  Whilst I am all for learning as much as possible about other cultures, it is important to maintain a critical view.  Other cultures, like our own, are not neutral and not without ideology, politics and agendas.  Equally, just because something is not the same as the way we do it, does not mean that it is naturally fascinating or better.  There are dangerous, perverse, subversive and destructive elements to all cultures.  I say this not in criticism of China, but also as someone who has lived in Japan.  Japan is a wonderful country and completely alien to everything in our culture.  And whilst it is fascinating, I could not throw myself into the culture the way others I knew over there did.  The culture is still rampantly misogynistic, somewhat racist and embraces some values which I do not.

As I have already mentioned, I don't really intend to embrace anything about this Olympics.   I think that the IOC has made a controversial and possibly damaging choice.  China is not a democracy, it is not a free country, it is not an open economy.  It is a dictatorship which centrally controls some things, and gives totalitarian power to regional bureaucrats, giving no power to the people or the workers.  China has grown rich off the open economies of the West, whilst remaining closed and failing to reduce the central command of the economy.  I am not saying that there is not good in the country and I am certainly mean no disrespect to the people.  However we do need to approach our media with cynicism at present, as there does seem to be an awful lot of propaganda out there at the moment.

The recent reports on convicted paedophile Denis Ferguson has had some interesting repercussions. Whilst I think that every parent would want to know what was going on in their community, especially if there children were at risk of being interfered with, there comes a time when media reporting can actually prejudice a trial.  We have seen that with the most recent charges concerning this man being appealed on the grounds that the man could not get a fair trial.  And now, we see that other magistrates are suppressing the names of those who are going to trial.  Which on one hand seems fair as you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system, however also means that people are not informed that they are in contact with some one potentially dangerous.  For example, I think every woman in Brisbane would want to know when the man attacking women on Northside walking tracks is found.  To extend this further, some friends and I were shocked one day to see in the news a woman who had left the Commonwealth Bank because she was facing fraud and embezzlement charges was turning up to court in the uniform of the bank we worked for.  We never figured out if the paper got it wrong or if our company had employed her.  Even if a new organisation did a police check, it would come back with nothing as she was yet to be convicted (again innocent until proven guilty) and it would be unlikely that she would have given referees who knew or would be willing to reveal what had gone on.  In fact if she had not yet been convicted would mentioning why she was facing trial be slander?

The other case which, I hope will go to court, that has been getting a lot of attention is the Belinda Neal incident at Iguanas “Nightclub.”  There have been some fairly detailed reports and interviews of what was supposed to have happened and also how she allegedly forced a staffer to change her stat dec.  That coupled with some general character assassination that has been going on, has made me wonder if this case could also be tried in a fair manner (assuming it goes before a jury, which it may not, I’m not an expert in those sorts of things).  I don’t doubt that Belinda Neal is a royal mother b!tch.  I’ve met enough politicians to know that whilst many are generally approachable and endearing (and the ones you really want to hate are actually usually quite charismatic), there are also some that seem to be rather self important because they managed to get more votes than someone else in an election.  Obviously it would be easier for some one in a fairly safe seat to do this (which I assume Neal’s is) and it would be easier again if you constituency were so deeply entrenched in their voting for a particular party that most of the person in questions time could be put towards improving their profile in the party.  I don’t doubt that Neal has lost touch with reality, and as you all know, I hate socialists.  But she and her husband are both still entitled to a fair trial, should it go that far.  And whilst I don’t have a lot of faith in our court system, being too expensive to be readily accessible, and too many laws being produced by a bunch of morons for any real sense of justice or fairness to shine through, I still think that the process is meaningful and should be followed to the letter.  Regardless of who is before the court.

A couple of Belinda Neal articles:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/06/17/1213468454572.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=589204

If you’ve dabbled in Christianity at any point (or even attended school in Qld where RE is still compulsory), you’ve probably come across the idea that some of the guys written about in the history sections of the Bible had more than one wife.  Which begs the question, why do Christians have a problem with it?  Some of the wisest guys in the Old Testament like David and Solomon had more than one wife.

The first guy in the Bible to have more than one wife, was called Lamech, he was the great great great grandson of Cain, the dude who committed the first murder.  The point of what is written between Cain’s murder of his brother until the flood, was to show that the world was growing further and further away from God and the state of perfection (aka sinlessness or innocence) that existed when the world was first created.  Lamech is the first person who has any sort of narrative in the genealogy, and the first, and therefore most significant thing mentioned is that he had two wives.  I’ve pasted a copy of the text from the NKJV:

Genesis 4.16-24

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.
19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
23 Then Lamech said to his wives:
      “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
      Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
      For I have killed a man for wounding me,
      Even a young man for hurting me.

 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
      Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

Obviously the dude was not a nice guy, and one of the issues with him was one too many wives.

More important, to Christians than the OT is the NT, and the message is pretty clear, although it is important to note some cultural changes.  Israel had been conquered by Greece and then Rome before Jesus arrived on the scene.  The Greeks treated monogamy as a rule, as did the Romans, and this influenced the people living in Israel/Judea as well.  Whilst the only instance that I can think of where Jesus deals with some one being married multiple times is when he is asked about a woman who was married to several brothers, with the question being who’s wife will she be in heaven.  However in that example they aren’t all married at the same time.  The other instance is when Jesus meets a woman at a well and when he asks her to go and get her husband and she replies that she has none, he observes that she has had several, and was living with a man at the time.  Again, the writing seems to indicate that she was not married to them at the same time.  Generally the text quoted to support the Christian idea of only being married to one person comes from Paul’s first letter to Timothy, when he describes the requirements (for a man) to be a bishop or elder.

1 Tim 3.2-6

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,^[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.

I’ve bolded the important bit, but left the rest of it in as it puts it in context (and is imho relevant to choosing leaders and people in positions of responsibility in a variety of fields).  So with this in mind, most countries which have had a Christian influence have forbidden polygamy, in the few instances it was actually practiced before hand.  But it is a fairly primitive practice, and as in my previous blog, and generally associated with societies which have a

It’s recently come out that there are people in Australia practicing polygamy.  Any men reading this, take a moment to cheer and then read on.  The argument goes that as Australia is altering it’s idea of domestic partnerships to include homosexual unions, it should embrace polygamy.  It’s including more Australians.

To be honest there are two belief systems which still embrace this practice – Islam and Mormonism.  I’m not favourably inclined to either of them, especially as they both came about when some uneducated, socially excluded guy decided to rewrite historically sound, and widely accepted Christian and Jewish scriptures.  I will make some concessions for  the small pockets in Africa where tribal lifestyles are still practiced and men have multiple wives.

The practice of having more than one wife stems from the idea that women are little more than property, on par with cattle and can be traded off into marriage.  It’s kind of demeaning and so primitive that it wasn’t even practiced in the middle ages.  In fact, from my limited historical knowledge, it has never been a common practice in Ancient Europe.  The European tradition has generally treated women a little better than their companions to the East, but by no means equitably until the last few decades.  Women’s rights and freedom from discrimination have been hard won and it would be extremely disappointing to see it abandoned now to appease a small percentage of the population who seem to want to drag us into the third world.

On top of that, whilst difficult to initiate in the past, we have a cultural system of divorcing one partner before moving on to the next, which is more respectful to the previous husband or wife.  It’s a way to ensure the ex-partner is treated equitably, especially if the person seeking the separation has already moved on to the next one, which is almost always the case.

It’s often over looked, but marriage is not just about two people who are in love deciding to spend the rest of their lives together (or as much as is possible given their respective circumstances and personalities).  As far as it goes legally, it’s about a system of property rights for life partners.  That’s why civil unions are such a big issue, they set out in law what is appropriate for the legal partnership of two lovers of the same gender.  In Australia, and most developed nations, when two people partner up (and sometimes now even shack up), what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine.  It’s why learning to share as a child is really important!  In this situation both partners have a say in what happens in the domestic dwelling, in terms of the ownership, sale, investments, who comes onto the property, who dwells in the property and who has contact with any common children etc.  A set up where one partner is allowed to have another partner raises questions relating to issues like property rights and access to children.  Would it be fair for a new partner to have an equal share in home ownership, especially if the existing one has contributed towards the home (and other assets as well), be that contribution financial or by way of care and maintenance.  What if the existing partner did not want the new one to have access to or influence over the children or what if the new partner was lumped with the duty of caring for children that were not theirs?

The other issue is polygamy is only men choosing to have more than one wife, giving the husband the decision making power.  That is not acceptable in a society which values men and women equally.  We could introduce the idea of polyandry as well, but that would raise the bigger issue of exactly who is married to who (is my second husband also married to my husband’s second wife?) and who owns what?  In fact, to me the idea of having more than one partner, also negates the need to have divorce, which is not such a good thing.  Divorce is not just about the splitting of assets, but ensuring individuals and their children are protected from abuse and emotional damage which may result from remaining in the partnership.

So whilst same-sex partnerships make society more equitable, polygamy is detrimental to women and indeed our social norms generally.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23919957-953,00.html

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/23/2282851.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/24/2283522.htm

Recently, the eyes of the world have been on Zimbabwe and their elections this year.  Zimbabwe, although democratic in the sense they have elections, the country has not been a free and fair country in my life time.  I first became aware of the country and the state that it’s in when one of my friends at uni was from South Africa.  She had relatives in Zimbabwe, who were white farmers.  It was a sore point for her and her family that they could not come to Australia as refugees, even though their land had been striped from them by Mugabe to be given to the terrorists who had assisted him to get into power.  Essentially the Australian government’s refugee policy at the time, a hang over from the Keating era, was that no one white could possibly be a refugee.

Australia also became aware of Mugabe and who he was when the 2002 CHOM meeting was due to be held in Australia.  People did not want him in the country.

Mugabe’s Presidency of the country has been a reign of terror, characterised by violence, the violation of the rights of the people, including their property rights, and to the detriment of the lives of the people of Zimbabwe.  (If you think we’ve got inflation, have a look at what’s happened there recently).  And in the midst of escalating unrest and dissatisfaction, Morgan Tsvangirai was, as far as I can see, elected President.  He got over 50% of the vote, which in most countries is sufficient to gain power.  However, he was supposed to go to the polls again soon.  During the time between elections the world has heard again and again how Mugabe and his cronies are harassing, intimidating and in some instances killing those who oppose him.  Some of this has been done by the military, which as made me wonder why the MDC has not blocked supply as they should now control the lower house and with another independent party hold equal numbers in the senate.

The thing that has only just occurred to me, now that Morgan Tsvangirai has claimed he will stand down next week (and I’m sure the whole world hopes that he does not) and sought refuge in the Dutch embassy in Zimbabwe, is that we know nothing of the ideologies which drive these leaders.  We just know that Mugabe is a dictator and Tsvangirai is standing up to him.  I was on the verge of being disappointed, finding out that he is actually a socialist.  My suspicions of this were first aroused when I noticed he use to be a trade union leader.  But then when I looked up where Mugabe stands in the political spectrum, it is also to the left of politics.  Which I guess makes sense given the way he has redistributed property and real estate.  He’s just authoritarian rather than liberal.  I don’t doubt that Tsvangirai will be better for the nation, giving people freedom to choose is always better.  The next step will be to get a leader or a party who can enable economic development (someone who is say on the libertarian right of politics).  Tsvangirai, I suspect will be a hero, but will not be in politics for long.  As with all people who agitate change, their end game is often the change, not what happens afterwards.

So like much of the world, I wait with eager anticipation as to what will happen in Zimbabwe, and especially what the outcome of Friday’s election will be, if it is held.

 http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23725949-953,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23728448-601,00.html

I’ve been reading the latest news about Turnbull and how he’s started to go off and start playing his own game whilst in opposition and have been bitterly disappointed.  What was a tight well run ship, with several ambitious, but well checked and used players when the Federal Liberals were in office, has descended into same dishevelled rabble that presents itself as the opposition in most of our state parliaments.  And there is a saying that rings more and more true each time I hear about another leadership joust or internal battle of egos when it comes to the Liberals in opposition, which is “It’s better to be king of the dunghill than a servant in the palace of the king.”

I hope that what Turnbull has done will be short lived and he will soon get back to the serious business of overcoming the smug Krudd and his armies of incompetents, because at the moment, he’s not doing the Liberals any favours.  Although I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not the only one with leadership ambitions and not the only one who will try and oust Nelson.  Just as there were many people who tried and succeeded in ousting Kim Beazley (although he just kept coming back!)  And I will make it clear that I’d be writing this about anyone who had done the same as he has, even if it was one of my favourite Liberals (eg. Downer, Abbot or the like).  I know that politics is a dirty game full of ego clashes with the ambitous, but what I don’t like is people from the party I support and want to see in power airing dirty laundry in public.

The timing in this instance is extremely poor.  Opposition is all about highlighting the government’s shortcoming and exposing their poor economic management skills – especially that to achieve their surplus they have had to increase taxes in ways that are likely to punish all Australians, not just the middle class who seem to be in the ALP’s hit list.  The focus should be on how deficient the budget it, not how that the Liberals can’t even agree on what they oppose in it and what they agree with.  The other thing that is concerning is that there is a leak.  I remember in a journalism class we had former Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley in to talk to us (well he wasn’t former at the time, but he is now).  He told us with glee that the only things that got leaked from his office were the things that he wanted to be leaked.  Heaven forbid that this has got out deliberately.  Only some one who wanted to destroy the Liberal Party would do that.

This is one of the huge shortcomings we have in our state parliaments as well, and whilst this seems to be an issue in every single state in Qld (illustrated by the fact that none of our current premiers are anything special, and all of them have huge operational problems, some of which could even be called corruption, in the services they provide and yet they can’t be beaten).  I’m sure none of us will forget any time soon that after the last Liberal leadership challenge, it took three days for them to decide as no one was big enough to step back.  It was extremely poor form, but then given that they have to work with Springborg, who can’t stick to a coalition agreement if his life (or rather livelihood) depends on it, they can be forgiven*. 

I don’t know why so many Liberals think that it’s okay to be so public in their battles, it does nothing for their prospects of getting back into government.  It may help them gain short term favour if their opinion carried slightly more weight in the eyes of the public, but that’s about it.  The other problem the right of politics faces is that all its divisions are internal and so must be careful in making sure they are only minor splits not wide gulfs.  Whilst there may not be nearly as many splits as the left side of politics, at least the unions can be treated as outsiders when it is politically expedient.

But back to that proverb, it is not really meant to be taken literally, but more to sum up the illogical thinking of those who would prefer to preside over squalor than aspire to grandeur.  Really, is it better to be Opposition leader, than to be a junior minister or even a back bencher.  Which one really has more of a say in how the country is governed and how many Opposition leaders have gone down in history?

*On this note I will also say I reverse my previous position on being opposed to a merger between the Liberals and the Nationals.  Whilst there is a coalition the Liberals will always be a minority party and the highest position they can hold is deputy.  If the Nationals join the Liberal Party we can finally have a decent (ie Liberal) Premier - thank goodness.

Share on Facebook

I  never thought I'd say this, but....

I love the Greens!

See here for explanation:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23707670-601,00.html

I thought a day ahead of the budget it was interesting to read  Bloomberg's article on how the Australian Economy is doing.  And it will be very interestint o see if it is consistent with what is said during the presentation of the budget.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a9mikBuOhVAM&refer=australia

Australian, N.Z. Dollars Decline on Signs Growth Is Slowing

By Ron Harui and Tracy Withers

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Australian and New Zealand dollars fell after reports today showed economic growth in both nations is slowing, undermining the case for the central banks to keep interest rates high enough to attract investors.

Australia's currency declined to near a one-week low against the U.S. dollar after the government said home-loan approvals fell more than economists forecast and an industry report showed business confidence slumped. New Zealand's currency slid to the weakest in more than three months after a report showed consumer confidence dropped to a record low.

``Signs that the economies of the commodity-producing nations can't avoid a slowdown will worsen investor sentiment toward their currencies,'' said Tsutomu Soma, a bond and currency dealer at Okasan Securities Co. in Tokyo. ``The Australian and New Zealand dollars may weaken.''

Australia's dollar lost 0.7 percent to 93.67 U.S. cents as of 1:05 p.m. in Sydney, from 94.35 cents late in New York trading on May 9. It reached 93.50 cents on May 8, the lowest since May 5. The currency weakened to 96.78 yen from 97.03 late last week when it reached 96.32 yen, the lowest since April 29.

New Zealand's dollar slipped to 76.40 U.S. cents, its lowest since Jan. 24, from 76.94 cents at the end of last week. The currency dropped to 78.94 yen from 79.13 yen.

Economic Reports

The Australian dollar weakened the most among the 16 most- active currencies versus the U.S. dollar as the Bureau of Statistics said the number of loans granted to people to build or buy homes or apartments dropped 6.1 percent in March from February when they fell 6.8 percent. The median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg was for a 0.8 percent decline.

Australia's business confidence index fell 4 points to minus 8 from March, according to a National Australia Bank Ltd. survey of about 500 companies released in Melbourne today. A reading below zero shows those expecting business to deteriorate outnumber those predicting an improvement.

Benchmark interest rates are 7.25 percent in Australia and 8.25 percent in New Zealand, compared with 2 percent in the U.S. and 0.5 percent in Japan, making the currencies a favorite for the so-called carry trade.

In a carry trade, investors get funds in a country with low borrowing costs and invest in another with higher interest rates, earning the spread between the borrowing and lending rate. The risk is that currency market moves erase those profits.

`Slowing Economy'

The New Zealand dollar was the second-worst performer of the 16 major currencies against the U.S. dollar as a record-high 44 percent of 1,100 people surveyed in the two weeks ended May 4 said it was a bad time to buy a major household item, up from 40 percent in a similar survey in late April, according to Roy Morgan. Thirty-eight percent said it is a good time to buy.

``Worries about the slowing economy will likely continue to hang over the New Zealand dollar,'' said Danica Hampton, a currency strategist at Bank of New Zealand Ltd. in Wellington.

The odds the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will cut its 8.25 percent benchmark interest rate next month were 34 percent today, compared with 12 percent a week earlier, according to a Credit Suisse Group index based on interest-rate swaps.

Central bank Governor Alan Bollard said last week the outlook for the economy has deteriorated while Finance Minister Michael Cullen said May 7 that households ``are under serious pressure'' and this month's budget will forecast slowing growth.

Australian government bonds rose for a third day, pushing the yield on the 10-year note down 4 basis points to 6.17 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The price of the 5 1/4 percent bond due March 2019 rose 0.262, or A$2.62 per A$1,000 face amount, to 92.80.

New Zealand 10-year government bonds were little changed. The yield on the 6 percent note due December 2017 was 6.32 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

Share on Facebook

I'm happy to see the police cracking down on the Mardi Grass festival in Nimbin.  I have been there and it's one of the most depressing places I've been to, with rubbish lining the otherwise beautiful landscape on the way in, the constant stench of pot and most depressing of all seeing mothers too stoned out of their brains to properly care for their crying children in the main street.  I don't believe for one minute that marujuana is harmless, and especially with studies coming out showing that if smoked by teens it alters their brain development, long term use will almost categorically cause schitzophrenia and I find a lot of people who display generally dysfunctional or irrational behaviours have at some point all smoked pot.

So here's to the NSW Police who have finally done the right thing and stood up to celebrating the use of a drug that is increasingly becoming socially acceptable in some circles.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23642647-3102,00.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/04/2234654.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/04/2234900.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/05/2235002.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/80-arrested-at-nimbin-mardi-grass/2008/05/04/1209839445675.html?s_cid=rss_news

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Many-arrests-at-Nimbin-Mardi-Grass/2007/05/07/1178390184260.html

Share on Facebook

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231223.htm

Just to prove that I do occasionally have a social conscience, I’m publishing a link to the ABC News site about the world food shortage we are currently experiencing.

This was actually raised in the Bloomberg news over the last few weeks – I’ve had access to this channel as I’ve been travelling – and is considered quite critical.  One thing that we all know is that there is enough food in the world to feed every one.  The biggest issue is how it is distributed.  Obviously the fairest way to distribute food (as with anything really) is to sell it, compensating the grower/producer for their time, costs of production and investment of capital in their activity.  This also means that produce is also only distributed as needs as money must be outlaid for the purchase.  The problem that we have now encountered is that to distribute food, you need oil, or more specifically petrol.  The price of oil, on the world market rather than at the pump, has increased by 60% in the last 12 months.  So now, in countries like India, there is enough food being imported, but people don’t earn enough to pay for it.  And this is in a country where wages are not static, but have been rising as rapidly, if not more rapidly than Australia.  Hence a food shortage caused by the inability to pay.  And before any one goes on any rant about dropping prices, bear in mind that price is not arbitrary.  It needs to compensate growers, cover the cost of transport and compensate those importing and selling the food before the final consumer makes the purchase.  The ABC article which I have published is also interesting as it cites that increased energy and production costs means that producers in developing countries can not afford to grow as much – hence are working at a level below maximum capacity.  This shows that not only the price that is being charged is fair, but was extremely low before hand, to the point that producers were not making enough of a margin to accommodate price fluctuations or even look at expanding production in the future.  Bloomberg also cited the drought we are having in Australia as one of the reasons why food production is less than is was.  Whilst we do export a lot, the second impact of this is that we potentially have to look at importing more food to make up the shortfall, depending on how drastic the drought really was.

Ban-ki Moon the UN Secretary General does make a good point that if this is prolonged, it may cause civil unrest on a global scale.  As Napoleon Bonaparte is attributed with saying, “Any society is only three meals away from revolution.”  And I do think that in this time, if we are to preserve the benefits of International Trade, it is time to consider how we can ensure it continue ensure it works for us all.  International Trade turns us into a truly global community so that success and failure (or more prices and supply) are no longer up to any one nation, if one part doesn’t work so well, the whole world feels the impact.  I’m not advocating aide or subsidisation, but I do think that every country will need to start considering the impact of food shortages on our trading partners and how that will shape their attitude towards trade in the future.

Share on Facebook

Further to my argument that Environmentalism is the new discourse to replace things like Capitalism during the Cold War era, the other bogeyman that I am absolutely tired of hearing about is China.  I remember some time ago a movie, The Art of War (2000) came out presenting China as the new “Other” to replace Russia in the post-cold war era.  That idea was put on the back burner after Terrorism became the new “Other” rather rapidly after a certain notable and over referred-to event in September of 2001.  Also the fact that in the mean time China has become the world’s factory and a major consumer or Australian exports has helped divert our attention from the less desirable associations with the country.  But now after a 7 year diversion we seem to be coming back to the whole China as the bogeyman concept.  And this year more than ever.

Opening the paper in the last few days one of the biggest news stories was that “China” wanted to buy a share in BHP, having acquired stock in Rio, as part of a strategic move to prevent the take merger of the two mining juggernauts.  A fair strategy as Korea has just agreed to pay triple the amount for iron ore for their steel manufacturing, and no mining company is going to sell for less to other clients now, especially if there is one major player in the supply market.  I found it unusual that no matter how many articles I read on the issue (which turned out to be a non-issue, with “China” having no intention to buy, but pushing up prices regardless), I couldn’t find out who “China” was.  A country doesn’t just buy stocks or manufacture goods or engage in trade.  Businesses and sometimes governments do that.  But there was no mention of who in China was interested in buying BHP.  It’s almost as if we were expected to think, “Oh China buying ‘our’ mining company, that’s bad, they’re not a good country.”  It’s the sort of ignorance which is unhelpful and the sort of parochialism which has no place in the free market – be it trade, stock or even derivatives.  Any one can buy or sell stocks in Australia as they please and we’re even looking at a set up where US players will be able to directly buy and sell shares in Australian companies so that companies don’t have the expense and effort of dual listing or choosing to trade in the US over Australia.  At the end of the day, it’s a stock market, it doesn’t matter who is buying and selling, as long as they have the cash.  It’s not a market for discourse about anything but investment, returns, yields, profits and losses.  Any money is good money.

But what was most amusing about this was Swann’s comments this morning that any interest in BHP, which “China” bought would have to be subject to a test of being in the national interest.  First of all he didn’t get the message that they were no longer interested and secondly he hasn’t got the message that the stock market is about raising funds for Australian Companies to carry on their business as executed by Australian managers, and generally, employing Australian workers.  The source of the funds should not be open to question in a free market.  Rejecting Chinese investment (regardless of which party is doing the investment – private or public sector) in our stock market is like the Salvos refusing to allow someone Jewish to door knock for the Red Shield appeal.  Sure they may not be the same group as you, but they’re willing to play on your team.

The other bogey is this whole Tibet/Olympic Torch Relay thing which is becoming something of a media circus.  We all know China has an appalling track record for human rights, not just in Tibet, but in their whole country.  Given their OHS standards, I dread to think how many workers died building the stadiums and facilities.  Despite it, the IOC has chosen Beijing as the venue for the Olympics.  And the violence which has happened in Tibet was obviously stirred up at a strategic time when the eyes of the world are on China, but that’s no reason to jump on the Tibet band wagon.  What about Nepal, they’re having an election in the midst of Maoist rebels agitating violence as well.  In fact that’s been happening for several years now.  And what do we hear about it?  Close to nothing.  We all know about Tibet, we don’t need day after day of protesters throwing themselves under the virtual regiment of police and security personnel running with the torch.  Make me wonder why it’s so important that they keep running.  It’s just a sodding torch, and we already know that the games are on.  It’s not like it’s Ancient Greece and we need a messenger to be sent around the country to let us know to head down to Olympia for some sports and games.  And I feel kind of sorry for those who were supposed to run with the torch.  I know a number of the legs of the run have been cancelled or shortened.  I also remember when the Sydney Olympic games were on there was a big deal about who was chosen to run and why and so on.  It’s hyped up to be an honour.  But it’s all because we’re trying to demonise China as the bogey man again.  I have to say our PM is well and truly on the band wagon and he is pretty brave telling one of our major trade partners to pull their socks up in their own language (so as to leave no room for doubt).

The fact of the matter is that China is a dictatorship, not a democracy.  And they may have many of the trappings of an industrialised, progressive capitalist economy, but they are far from a free market.  Really, what else do we expect?  If we’re so convinced that the country is evil and we should have nothing to do with it, what would be more meaningful than boycotting or protesting the games, it to stop buying stuff manufactured in China.  But we all know none of us feel strongly enough about it to refrain from consuming what is rapidly becoming the only affordable consumer goods in the world.

Share on Facebook

I was disappointed to read an artilce in the Australian today about the impacts of anti-depressants.  It is ignorant reporting and half baked reasearch like this that really makes my blood curdle.  The report claims that most people do not respond to anti-depresseants any better than to a placebo.  I'm sorry to say, that is not the case.

Most people who are genuinely depressed will generally respond to drug treatement (as is the case with most mental illnesses).  People who are feeling a little off or don't have problems with their body chemicals will not respond to drugs (or not respond well).  And not every one can take the same drugs in the same dosage.  The fine-tuning process can take time and is generally not done well by doctors (if at all).  One of the drugs in the study, Prozac, has actually been found to be effective in only 10% of people who are actually depressed.

Once again, not only mental illness, but also it's treatment is being misrepresented to the public and nothing is being done to address unhelpful stereotypes.

I'm off to fume now.  I'd write a nasty letter to the Australian, but I'm sure there are many psychologist and psychiatrists out there that are in a better position to argue the case.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23282771-2702,00.html

Share on Facebook

Foreign Direct Investment is a company or organisation having a direct investment in business operations in a foreign country.  It benefits both the firm making the investment, allowing them to expand their global footprint, open new markets and produce products in a more competitive arena.  It also benefits the country where the investment is made by providing jobs and creating new industries which service the company making the investment.  It can also potentially lead to a transfer of knowledge and skills into the new market, creating local industries and specialists. Additionally the extra capital and wealth which has been created and circulating around the economy more often than not will also lead to improvements in community standards as more infrastructure is developed.  Every one is a winner.

The only potential down-side relates to political risks, and some operational risks with regard to infrastructure and servicing.  These political risks arise, as well, when the government of the country where the FDI will occur, does not perceive international trade as a way to boost economic growth and productivity.  Some examples of this have been seen in African countries where capital can not be transferred out of the country to the parent.  More often than not, in these cases any money being returned on the investment is returned by way of licensing fees or loan repayments.  This also happened in Russia under the Communist regime.  FDI has also been limited in countries such as South America, where property rights are not upheld, meaning that the company who has invested it’s capital can not control it’s assets or it’s company.  Generally it prevents FDI except by the most ambitious with the most lucrative opportinities.

Obviously when governments put such limitations on Foreign companies, it marks the country as a poor site for investment and limits the amount of capital which cycles through the country.  It not only means that all the benefits of FDI are not realised, but also risks other countries restricting trade, either through quotas and restrictions or tariffs and taxes.

I learned about FDI in my Introductory Economics classes.  It’s a fair assumption that any one working in the business realm or who has ever learned anything about the economy and finance, would know it’s a good thing.

…Every one except our Federal Treasurer Wayne Swann.  Our buddy Wayne, for some reason, wants to restrict foreign investment.  I’m not sure if it’s total ignorance, misguided nationalism or pig-headed subscription to flawed socialist ideology.  But it’s disappointing to hear that the man who apparently will save our economy from inflation, actually knows nothing about the economy.  Even in his first few months, we’ve seen some misguided actions already – for example, Australia is THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD INCREASING RATHER THAN DECREASING INTEREST RATES TO COMBAT INFLATION.  Whilst this worked for Keating, we also had almost no economic growth and unemployment of up to 10% (23% for youth unemployment I remember – mostly due to the fact that my school teachers and parents quoted it at me for the reason I needed to go to university).  Rudd and Swann have also launched an enquiry into the bleeding obvious, by investigating why fuel and grocery prices have risen so much in the last few years.  A rabid monkey who knew the first thing about supply, demand and was vaguely aware of the drought, hyper-inflation in the property market and China’s booming economy could easily explain the price rises, but apparently our PM and Treasurer can not.  But I digress.

Swann wants to allow countries like China to invest in Australia, provided that they do not actually want control of their assets or investment.  I fail to see why any foreign firm would then put money into our economy.  Without control of an investment a firm might as well flush their shareholders money down the toilet or spend it all on a Vegas gambling tour for their executives as the next company outing.  Heck, they could just give all their money to charity, at least that would help someone at some point.

So my congratulations to Wayne Swann.  If we’re lucky in four or eight years we’ll get some one in office who actually knows something about economics or competitive investment.  Or even better, perhaps our academics will do what the German academics had to do for the government when the people elected the Greens into a majority and actually teach Swann and Rudd a few of the basics.

Share on Facebook

I've blogged about now next week's "appology" is an empty one if the government does not address the fact that Aboriginal people are still segregated from main stream society, discriminated against and only given access to second class services and facilities. 

Windschuttle goes one step further and says that the apology is empty without reparation.  But he also deconstructs the whole premise of the stolen generation.  He is controversial, but I do think that there is credibility and value in what he says.  I've attached the link to his article in the Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,%2025197,23182149-28737,00.html

Share on Facebook

I have to say this sorry thing is generating a lot of debate and discussion.  It’s due in parliament next week, and sadly I will be in the midst of travels and won’t get to experience the full question time broadcast.

I truly do have mixed feelings on the whole issue for a number of reasons:

• Fussy little me only thinks that apologies coming from the person who perpetrated the actions which need to be apologised for are valid or acceptable.  I would never find a ‘sorry’ from a agent or even a relative meaningful at all.  Kevin Rudd, to my knowledge, has not done anything untoward when dealing with Indigenous Australians.
• And, having some one say that they’re sorry when you’ve been wronged but they had nothing to do with it is more a sign of sympathy than anything.   And any Australian would do that for any other Australian who has been treated unjustly or unfairly.
• It’s pointless to apologise whilst government policy still segregates and alienates Indigenous Australians.  I believe that in some respects Indigenous Australians are experiencing a worse situation than apartheid in South Africa.  They have some of the worst standards of living, education and health in the world and we should all be ashamed and address this issue first.
• There is talk of the sorry statement meaning that the government admits liability for the wrongs perpetrated in the past and I don’t think that, should it go to court successfully, that it’s a good use of tax payer money.  As hinted at above, there are other ways that the government (and indeed those of us in private industry) could work towards raising the standards of living for Indigenous Australians.
• The premise of a stolen generation is yet to be established.  Not only has it been shown that it was not an entire generation of Indigenous Australians that were removed from their families and communities, but also this practice was not exclusively used on Indigenous Australians.  In that era, many mothers, from a variety of backgrounds, had their children removed for a variety of reasons.  They should not be excluded if the apology relates to his aspect of history.
• No matter what content Rudd puts in his statement, there will be some that are not happy and the wounds which have resulted in segregation will still exist.  Just words are not enough.

That being said, I’m still prepared to see what happens.

http://www.wesleymission.org.au/ministry/suter/051111.asp

http://www.cis.org.au/research/indigenous.html