3rd November 2006
Never has it been clearer on whose word one can rely. Excepting
for the USA and Australia, all of the OECD nations of the world have
PROMISED to reduce their carbon pollution. So far as I am
know, not one of those nations has kept to it's
promise. Only Australia and the USA were responsible enough not
to promise what they knew they would have great difficulty in
I prefer not to promise what I do not intend to
deliver. Greens and Labour notwithstanding. As stated in earlier posts, I
am unconvinced that the cost of global warming is as extreme as the
Stern report would have us believe.
The NSW Labour government has been pressuring local government in the
bush to only issue household DA's (Development Applications or building
permits) for farm blocks of greatly increased size. Unlike in the
USA, Australian state governments own local government. A
request originating from the State government to an elected local
government has status as an order.
Around Orange (central NSW) a farm must now be around 1000 acres before
DA will be granted. An economically viable farm in
that area could be as small as 400 acres. The reason given for
this increase is
that the state government "wishes to preserve the rural character of
the bush, and make sure that farms are economically viable".
Huh? Do they really think that is a convincing argument?
More likely it is that this is a payback for the
millions of dollars that state political parties are getting from
corporations. Those developers would naturally like to see their
developments as the only place that anybody can obtain a new house, so
all other new home opportunities are being closed.
This is an attack on the plans of many Australians
who would like to live on a hobby farm. Forget it baby
boomers. The Australian dream is not for you. If you want
country life you must live in Port Macquarie or near Taree or near
Wyong or somewhere in Western Sydney, because that is where
contributing developers have their stamping grounds. Or you might
spend millions of dollars and buy an existing commercial farm and sell
off the land you do not need. (Which won't be worth much, because
it will not get a DA).
John Howard has explained that the state governments are causing the
huge increase in housing prices by limiting the release of land.
This policy is an extension of the payback scheme to the developers.
- IRAQ -
Last post I wrote asking whether Riverbend was OK.
since posted, explaining that she has feelings of hopelessness about
the situation in Iraq, which feelings inhibit her writing.
Even Al Jazira is asking just what the Americans intend. (1 Nov.
"From the start of the Iraq war, it appears that the
Bush administration has done
everything in its power to lose the war, from not having proper post-war plan, to not having enough
Which shadows my own position in the last post:
I condemn the invasion because it
prepared. Somebody with intelligence and foresight
was not directed to foresee the difficulties which might (and have)
emerged. After Vietnam, one would have thought that military
& political planners would have anticipated the eventuality that
What do critics and liberals suggest? Green's senator Brown and
Labour leader Beazley suggest
that our soldiers be brought home nearly immediately.
Unfortunately, that would not return Iraq to status quo ante.
The milk is spilt. There are twenty million Iraqi (or should
that just be five million Sunni around Baghdad?) who risk
being murdered on a daily basis by thousands of terrorists.
So far 600,000 Iraqi are said to have been murdered by
A majority of those twenty millions are voting at every opportunity for
The partition suggested in an earlier post
is no longer likely. After the few years of freedom the Kurds
will not go to quietly into Turkey. Kurds will demand their own
state. Iran, Turkey and Syria all have Kurdish minorities, and
would not tolerate a Kurd homeland. The Sunni region around
Baghdad has no oil & would not be economically viable. And a
new Shia state in the south of Iraq would not be appreciated in Riyadh.
Perhaps the real answer may be to pour in more troops. At
some point a balance will be reached and violence diminish.
Perhaps the IDF ought to explain to Hamas their options.
Either return those Israeli soldiers & stop the rocket attacks, or
more of the same. viz:
Constant attacks on Hamas, and (although care is taken) an inevitable
toll on Palestinian civilians.
Hamas has already tried to finesse with Hizb'allah. Hizb'allah
claimed victory. If so it was a Pyhrric victory. That
strategy Israel has refuted. There is nobody else coming to
Of course it is very hard for Hamas to admit defeat, especially after
strategy has cost so many lives. Such admission would probably
mean the end of Hamas' political domination in Palestine.
That is why Israel should clearly explain the options to the
people of Gaza. Keep the hostages, and the IDF will keep hunting
down Hamas. Return the hostages, stop bombing Israel, and as quid
quo pro you will
and food and employment.
The deal needs to be spelled out in simple language.