Your Privacy
-indeed, all your rights as an individual- is important to us We will never
share any details you divulge to us to anyone without your express
permission.
Beat the A.
You could stock up on tasteless dried foods -and then have to be
constantly eating the rubbish to keep under the use-by date- OR, you
could stock up on Hydroponic Nutrients, and start growing and eating
your own tasty vegies! This simplest and easiest system uses no power.
Get the full
story Everything you need know
about Naked Hydroponics How to build your system How to grow your favourite vegies links to all the best
Hydroponics info $7.75 through PayPal for an
immediate download.
This
is an absolute
'must-see' vid on you tube, for anyone interested in the current
financial crisis. So if you're not sitting in a cave in the mountains
of Tibet, go here...
It appears history is repeating itself. Once again an Australian politician has committed political suicide by attempting to introduce an entirely new tax concept for a specific (and maybe even worthy) purpose. Surely we all agree that pollution is not a good thing?
Remember the GST? It was first suggested by Paul Keating, who was far too wily (and at that time, too vulnerable) a politician to try and implement it himself. He was content just to put the concept out there. John Hewson very obligingly picked up the ball and tripped over both feet trying to run with it; successfully managing to lose what many pundits considered an unloseable election.
The fact that Howard was able to make the GST a part of his platform during his second term a few years later simply demonstrates: a) It was no longer ‘an entirely new concept’; b) just how on the nose the memory of the Keating Government by that stage was; c) the fractured nature of the then Labor Party.
Hewson’s campaign was an act which I suggest is worthy of a new word in his honour.
Hewsonasia, nn: The politically suicidal act of attempting to introduce a new tax that no one (outside government) understands and no one (outside government) wants.
It appears Julia Gillard has just hewsonised herself.
Before it became a hip pocket thing, the majority of Aussies were prepared to follow the lead of the majority of climate scientists, and believe in Human Affected Climate Change (HACC). Many (like myself, and I would hope most scientists) might be a little sceptical of -with our current level of knowledge and understanding- anyone’s ability to make accurate predictions, but let’s face facts here.
World wide, we are currently using around 17 million tonnes of coal every single day.
About 84 million barrels of oil every single day
About 3,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas every single day.
Despite the fact that arguably the most ubiquitous material in our society today is plastic made from hydrocarbons, by far the greatest portion of these valuable, non renewable hydrocarbons is simply burnt, to produce heat and atmospheric pollution.
In the light of current knowledge that volcanoes, major fires and even the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere can produce measurable changes in local weather and temperature, how can burning all those fossil fuels possibly not have an affect on our planet’s biosphere?
One of the cutest arguments to bob up recently from so called ‘climate sceptics’ (denialists) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. I strongly suggest the advocates of this argument spend 3 minutes trying to breath the stuff. “But it helps plants grow!” They exclaim. In a world where we cut down one and a half acres of rainforest every second, this argument makes exactly as much sense as telling a farmer all he has to do to get a good crop is fertilise, even while he applies Roundup.
Bottom line: not only is pollution not a good thing, but burning valuable hydrocarbons is really stupid.Not only are these materials necessary to produce plastics and a host of other products, but the much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’, which has done so much to feed so many, is entirely reliant on hydrocarbon inputs.
Surely anyone who spares a thought for their children and grandchildren should be concerned about these matters, even if they don’t buy into the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ argument.
Perhaps of even more concern should be the statistics on just how much of these valuable non renewable resources are left. According to good old Wikipedia,
Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above (daily production through 2006)
Coal: 148 years
Oil: 43 years
Natural gas: 61 years
Equally stupid is the suggestion that the laissez faire marketplace, which is almost entirely reactive rather than proactive, could possibly counter this impending disaster.
The marketplace will simply react by increasing the prices of these products, until the food riots we are seeing now in just a few places around the planet, will be almost universal.
Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%.
How will you fair when your grocery bill more than doubles in the space of just 2 years? (And again, every 2 years after that.)
How much will your children be paying for food?
A tax on burning non renewable resources is as inevitable as death and, well, taxes. The only real question is how to best use that tax. Please note, I would like something a little more imaginative than taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other.
There are already viable alternatives to using non renewables. As I have suggested elsewhere, my favourite is wavepower, but for those terrestrially committed there are also thorium reactors, solar, wind, geothermal and maybe in the not too distant future, hydrogen fuel cells.
Domestically, some of these alternatives offer possibilities to individuals and families now. Unfortunately, only those with significant levels of disposable income can take advantage of these alternatives -and save money long term by doing so; eg. the cheapest hot water systems cost the most to run.
Installing solar panels will cut down on burning coal, and save you money, -if you have a spare $10k or so.
Converting your car to LPG will reduce pollution and save you money, -if you have a spare $3-$5k.
And so on.
Perhaps instead of hewsonising herself, Ms Gillard would have been better served offering Australians carrots instead of sticks, in the form of making all those desirable changes more affordable to the forgotten 50% of Australians who make less than $40k a year, so they can start saving money too.
You remember them, Ms Gillard?
They used to be called ‘Traditional Labor Voters.’
Here’s a simple one. Instead of ‘Cash for Clunkers’, how about ‘Cash for Conversions’? Currently LPG retails for roughly half the price of unleaded. Offer gas conversions for $0.00 up front and offer the opportunity to pay off the conversion cost by paying a 25 cent per litre levy on every purchase of LPG.
It would still be cheaper than using petrol; people could save money and reduce pollution.
And what about air ships? Lighter than air craft would be almost silent, not require long runways and use about a thousand times less fuel (or perhaps, no fuel at all). Yes they are much slower, but the trade off could be in being roomier and more luxurious; even including train style sleeping berths.
I would imagine starting up an airship manufacturing industry would not only offer large employment opportunities, but would possibly cost considerably less to start up than the NBN, and quite conceivably lead to export profits.
Everyone knows hydroponics is a complex science, right?
Everyone knows hydroponics is highly technical. You need a lot of knowledge, read a lot of books…
You need a lot of equipment, like pumps and lights and aerators and testing equipment…
What if I told you that’s all bull?
There’s no doubt, by spending lots of money and having lots of equipment you can get great results; but do you actually need it? We have spent several years proving that the answer to that question is a resounding
NO!
Leave all that crap to the commercial growers who can get their money back. As a home gardener, you can’t afford it, and -for salad veggies*- you don’t need it.
Naked Hydroponics is hydroponics stripped back to the bare essentials, starting with NO growing medium. It’s the roots of the plants that are naked, not -necessarily- the gardener. Because there is no medium, there is no need for aeration. You just have to replace fresh nutrient every fortnight or so, and top up with fresh water in between times.
No medium, no pumps, no expensive overheads, no electricity costs…
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just look at the photographs. We know it works, because we’ve done it; and believe me, we are remarkably ordinary people, and even more ordinary gardeners. If we can do it, anyone can.
In fact, this system is so simple, and requires so little in basic components, any handy man with a reasonable workshop and basic tools would have no trouble in making his/her own, and we’ll even help you do it! There’s no need to make mistakes we’ve already made. You can download a PDF file here
Read on and view our photo collection. Nothing is faked -for a start when it comes to computers I’m not that clever, and besides, why would I? I want you to succeed so you come back for more!
It really is that easy.
*This system is not recommended for root vegetables.
From birth to death…
Here’s another nice little vid, which is hard to argue with; called “your life according to the Government”. You’d think with Australia’s natural advantage, of being able to watch the Americans so we don’t have to tread in the same pile of shit every time, we’d do better. Continue reading From birth to death…
On the 27th October, 2008 Paul Keating wrote a ‘stinging’ letter to John Robertson. His closing sentence was:
“I am ashamed to share membership of the same party with you”.
As well Mr Keating should be.
John Robertson is actually a Labour man. Unions NSW secretary for seven years, Robertson led the successful campaign against the NSW government’s plans to partially privatise the electricity sector. Although he had previously ruled out a move into politics, Robertson allowed himself to be induced into the dirtiest game in town by -then- Premier, Nathan Rees.
In a letter to union officials, he said Premier Nathan Rees had managed to talk him around.
“I have been firm in my view that I would not be seeking a political career, until a series of discussions with the new premier this week,” the letter states.
“He has convinced me of his determination tobring the NSW Labor government back to representing the interests of working people (my emphasis) and in this context, has asked me to be part of his team.”
Mr Robertson said there had been a number of highlights during his time at Unions NSW, the major one being the Your Rights at Work campaign and the defeat of the Howard government’s Work Choices laws.
In other words, as I said, John Robertson is a bona fide, genuine Labour (with a “u”) man.
Whereas as the Right “Honourable” Paul Keating should go down in Australia’s history as the greatest hypocrite and traitor to any cause ever seen.
Paul Keating was, by any standard, a Neo Liberal.
During his tenure as treasurer, he privatised everything he could lay his hands on, deregulated the banks, oversaw the greatest interest rate rises in history which forced hundreds of home owners, small business people and farmers to walk out of their houses and off their land, forced Australian companies and workers to compete with overseas firms which had a cheaper labour force…
No wonder the Labor party misspells their name. These Neo Liberals have deliberately mislead the Australian people for too long. We need to just use our eyes!
Kevin Rudd was a millionaire, married to the owner director of a labour hire company, and was openly antithetical to unions and the labour movement, yet he was and is a member of the Australian Labor Party.
Madness.
At least the Liberal (conservative) Party openly admits which side they’re on.
Some more gems from the “Right Honourable” Paul Keating.
“Were Robertson to be elected leader he would have no moral vantage point to lead from,” he said last night.
Apart from being a stalwart defender of the rights and wishes of NSW working people, do you mean, Mr Keating?
Speaking to ABC TV’s 7.30 program, Mr Keating also launched a scathing attack on other members of New South Wales Labor, accusing them of “believing in nothing” and saying the move to install Mr Robertson was “sicko populism”.
This is how Keating describes being responsive to the wishes of constituents, as compared to Keating’s own strategy, of doing whatever the hell he pleased, and to hell with the People.
It used to fascinate me, how the German people were so taken in by Adolf Hitler. Here was a guy who spent all his time extolling the virtues of the “Aryan Race”, including their physical superiority. His epitome of Aryan Manhood was Max Schmelling, a tall blonde German boxer.
Why did no one notice Hitler was short, dark and very un-Aryan?
When are we going to notice our Labor Party is anti Labour?
It’s past time for a new thesis. I would suggest a new political party is required.
It could well be called: The Real Australian Labour Party.
I’ve just watched a great video on the incredible swindle which is our banking system. “The secret of OZ”
This vid by Bill Still and family demonstrates once again the criminality of the fractional reserve system, and gives a history lesson on how it all came about. I don’t know how real the symbolism in the Wizard of Oz is, and frankly I’m sceptical; it looks to me like another case of wishful thinkers putting more into a story than the storyteller himself ever intended. Nevertheless, the background is good, and the defence against the Gold Standard is well reasoned.
The only real advantage of a gold standard is that it is a limited commodity, which makes it difficult for a government to overspend -and thereby cause inflation. This is currently appealing to many in the current circumstances, when we are facing government run inflation on an unprecedented scale.
The disadvantage, of course, is that in being a scarce -and therefore valuable- commodity, all the power of money remains firmly in the hands of the very rich.
As this movie stresses, currency must be considered to be part of the Common Wealth, and therefore controlled by Common People -AKA the democratically elected Government.
Humans have a remarkable propensity for accepting what is, no matter how ludicrous, and being dubious of what isn’t or could be, no matter how sane.
The vast bulk of our money isn’t printed by our governments; it’s borrowed into existence, through our privately owned banks. If you had a license to print money, who would you pay first?
According to this article 2 boys aged 9 and 11 have been gaoled for at least 5 years for a sadistic attack on 2 other boys.
As a Comensalist, I hold that equality lies not in everyone being the same, but in everyone not getting a choice in the circumstances of their birth.
Certainly, it is unbelievable to think anyone would choose the parents of these children for their own.
Why are these parents not in gaol?
The article states :
“The court heard how the brothers watched ultra-violent movies as part of a “toxic home life” of “routine aggression, violence and chaos”, while one of them smoked cannabis from the age of nine and drank cider.”
What is most frightening to me is that in years to come, these ‘torture boys’ could become fathers of their own children.
Is it possible to rehabilitate someone who has strayed so far from the norm of human decency?
I have always believed there is a worse crime than murder. Worse than rape, worse even than child abuse.
That is the crime of teaching children to hate.
While the other -undeniably heinous- crimes affect one or a few individuals, teaching children to hate or despise on the basis of race, colour or creed can affect literally millions, for generations.
But this crime seems to be of a different order; not so much focussed hatred, as monstrous indifference.
This is the most egregious example of breaking that one most important law in human society;
“Do Unto Others, As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”.
I know a bloke who drives trucks for a living. Come to think of it, I know a quite a few blokes who drive trucks for a living. This particular bloke taught me a valuable lesson.
He’s only a young fella. He’s got a young wife, two young kids, a house, a mortgage, a shiny four wheel drive; he wants the best for his family. He wants to ‘get ahead’.
So he took on a job deep in the Outback miles to buggery from nowhere. He makes good money; over a hundred grand a year.
But he still wants more.
On his travels around whoop whoop he stumbled across some blackfella artists, creating big canvases of traditional themes. He did a bit of research, checked out some galleries and tourist dives, and discovered they sold this stuff for up to 10 or 12 grand a pop. One bloke told him he’d give him 3 or 4 grand a canvas, on the spot.
So he went back to the blackfellas, and offered them $300. for each canvas. After a little bit of haggling, they took the money.
As he said: “no one’s really being ripped off. To them, 300 bucks is a lot of money.”
Now what does that mean, exactly? Can you buy more, with $300 out there, than you can closer to the coast? Doubtful. It seems more likely the 300 bucks was a lot of money to ‘them’ because they had very little money, and therefore needed it more. If they had money, they wouldn’t have needed money so much, so he would have had to give them more money.
That’s breakfast cereal logic.
Now I find that total lack of morality (not to mention the prejudice involved) a little disturbing.
I’d like to think the two contenders in the recent election for the top job in this country, John Howard and Kevin Rudd, would also be disturbed by this story.
But obviously, neither of them would be.
Both pollies are in the top tax bracket of more than 180 grand a year. the PM currently gets around 330 grand a year, plus lurks and perks.
Both pollies think they are paying too much tax, but the workers’ mate Kevin was prepared to put off his tax cut for another year. (not give it up, just put it off).
We’re talking about roughly an extra hundred bucks a week in their pockets, by the way.
What sort of tax cut are they offering the battlers? About 10 or 15 bucks.
After all, that’s a lot of money, to ‘them’.
Isn’t this what capitalism is all about? Buy as cheap as you can, and sell as dear as you can.
This presents a problem. On the one hand, you want to pay the producers of goods as little as possible, to keep products affordable. On the other hand, you need highly paid consumers with plenty of money in their pockets.
Several companies, like Blundstone most recently, moved their production overseas; got ‘them’ to produce the goods, in other words; after all, to ‘them’ a smaller wage is still a lot of money.
Perhaps they are the more honest ones.
Once again we are falling into a two class system; producers and consumers. We are once more sinking into a world where those who produce, create or manufacture products, cannot afford to buy the goods they produce.
Perhaps the greatest -unsung- strength of the Westminster system of government is the division between the popularly elected representatives, and the public service.
The theory used to be, that representatives did not have to be lawyers, economists, business administrators or accountants. They could be carpenters, plumbers, shop owners and workers. Their most important attribute should have been simply that they were ‘average’.
They were representative.
Unfortunately, the most recent, and glaring example of this kind of representative was Pauline Hanson; but witness how quite remarkably popular she became; I would suggest in many cases despite, rather than because of some very dodgy policies (which the Liberal party were happy to adopt/steal).
The role of the representative was to formulate policy, based on the wishes of their constituents. Implementing that policy was the job of permanent public servants; the dreaded “Sir Humphrey Appleby”s. These public servants were supposed to be well educated, highly trained and experienced in their portfolios.
And as such, very well paid.
I would suggest the rot began with Malcolm Fraser, and his infamous “life wasn’t meant to be easy”. Only a few days after he told the producers (workers) in this country they had to tighten their belts, parliamentarians awarded themselves a hefty (was it 9%?) pay rise.
Currently, our politicians are in the top 5%, highest paid wage and salary earners.
Remember, our current PM, the ‘honourable’ church going Christian Kevin Rudd, “shocked and revolted” by looters in flood ravaged Emerald, earns more than $300,000. a year, plus expenses.
His wife is a millionaire in her own right. Clearly, Kevin’s church doesn’t dwell too much on Matthew 19:16-21, or Matthew 7:24. These politicians have become so non representative, they have to commission studies, to find out what ordinary Australians are suffering. We give these politicians the power to send our children to war. They expect our children to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country; their very lives.
And what are the pollies prepared to sacrifice?
Well, Kevin Rudd did nobly sacrifice that scheduled tax break for top earners such as himself. For twelve months.
We accept so many things, simply because, as the cow in the movie ‘Babe’ put it: “the way things are, is the way things are.”
Where is the justification? How do politicians justify pay rises as a percentage of their already excessive, non representative wages, rather than on a dollar for dollar basis? How do they justify their wages at all?
The classic justification was, “We need to offer more money, to attract the best talent”.
Does that not mean all the current crop of pollies, who were attracted by less money, are no talent bums who should resign immediately to make way for these talented people? What does that tell us about the likes of John Howard, who was in parliament for around thirty years, when parliamentarians’ salaries were considerably lower?
I don’t think we need worry about J curves, bell curves, fiscal or monetary policy to get a fairer go for the producers (workers) of this country.
If our self serving pollies were restricted to only getting more money -on a dollar for dollar basis- when the basic or median wage went up, we would see some very rapid changes.The remarkable thing is, in a democratic country, we (the majority) are letting them (the very small minority) get away with it.
Why?
If you can explain this to me, or have anything to add, please do.
As one who has on several occasions been forced to accept the dole, I know how pitifully inadequate it is to maintain a family. I was of course still very grateful to the taxpayers of Australia to receive it -as well as humbled if not humiliated, in the process.
So you might be surprised to learn that I honestly believe we should end the dole, forever.
I don’t understand the logic of forcing our children from a very young age to ‘work’ at school five days a week, plus homework on weekends, up to a certain age when they are able to get paid to sit at home watching TV, until such time as they can get a job. Is this a continuation of their education? How to adapt to conditions of poverty?
I have children at high school, and at TAFE. I have been constantly amazed at how much work they have to do, and the long hours they put in at their studies.
Without pay.
Meanwhile, I am at the other end of the spectrum. At 53, I have qualifications in several trades and skillsets; sadly all involving a certain amount of physical labour. I believe I have reached an age where I should be able to find a more sedentary occupation, but the money involved in doing extra courses is prohibitive, and if I have to take time off work to do them, almost impossible.
Howard, under the guidance of his Guru, George W., insisted that workers need to be more ‘flexible’, in the modern, rapidly changing workplace. All very well and good, but how?
The truth is, all of us are working longer hours than ever before, with worse conditions and less security. Where can we find the time or the money to further our education, and improve our lot?
Over a hundred years ago, Justice Henry Bournes Higgins declared that workers should be paid a ‘living wage’; ie a minimum sum which allowed a ‘decent’ standard of living.
It seems we were more civilized a hundred years ago, than we are today.
I suggest everyone over the age of eighteen be eligible for a basic wage -on an hourly rate basis. To earn this basic wage, they must perform community service, maybe army reserve, or do a course, at school or TAFE or university, to improve their chances of employment. The hourly rate gives them the flexibility to spend as much or as little time at their studies as they need, to either spend more time looking for work, or accelerate the process of achieving their qualifications.
Most -if not all- modules in tech courses these days have a time rating; how many hours it should take to complete the module. For those in remote areas, or who have reason to stay at home should be paid on a module completed basis.
This one basic rate should apply equally to all people, unemployed and pensioners alike; although in special cases, such as being over 65 or a carer, a certain number of hours a week would be considered to have been performed.
Employers would have to compete against this basic wage to get workers.
This would achieve a smarter, more flexible workforce. It would introduce school leavers to the idea of better recompense for application, and no free lunches.
It would take people off the poverty line, and give them a chance at a better life and a little self respect.
Schools could become more than places of education, but venues for networking between skillsets; putting potential accountants, lawyers and business managers in touch with tradespeople, inventors, innovators and small business proponents. Schools would also be de facto employment agencies, as the ideal venue for putting the right people into the right jobs, and offering a ‘one stop shop’ for employers.
Could we afford it? No, not under the current system.
So let’s change the system.
In the same vein, I think we should stop all cash payments in overseas aid; but that’s a story for another day.
One of the great problems with representational government is that some -very necessary- reforms are just never going to happen, and others will take a ridiculously long time.
Why? Because in our system, we have career politicians, and they ain’t ever gunna vote themselves out of a job, or vote themselves less money, or vote themselves less power.
Witness the Republican Debate. I would suggest a clear majority of Australians are in favour of an Australian Republic. So why did we vote against it? Because the only models on offer were those favoured by our pollies, and which supported their status quo.
We might consider Australia to be one of the most over represented nations on Earth, with pollies at the local, state and federal level, at a huge cost to tax payers.
Why not get rid of the states? Because our career politicians will never vote themselves out of a job.
Hence this category. People’s Initiatives. We the people need to be able to make demands of our representatives about what we want.
You want the world to change? You think the world needs to change? Well get off your butt and make it happen, cause no one’s gunna hand it to you.
Feel free to make a suggestion here. Who knows, if you tell enough people about it, and they agree with you, we might be able to put together a petition.
It’s high time average Aussies stopped just laughing about how useless and corrupt our pollies are, and started doing something about it – even if it’s only pressing a ‘vote’ button.
As a house owner, and one who fervently believes in the right of every person to own their own home -and start their own business, I am clearly not a socialist. Still, I have to question the sanity of all the valiant fighters against socialism, who defend our current model of free market capitalism.
How is working for a -democratic- socialist government any worse than working for a global corporation that is larger than most governments?
In a democracy, the rule is one person, one vote. In a corporation the rule is one share one vote, and the employees of the company aren’t even guaranteed a share in the company they work for.
How can anyone justify owning a thousand homes, when a thousand people can’t afford to own one? The arch capitalists claim the right to excel, and to profit from their excellence by unrestrained expansion.
Let’s look at this a little more closely.
If a small town has two tyre services, chances are one will be more profitable than the other.
If the town is relatively wealthy, the more profitable business may offer better service, but sell a slightly more expensive product.
More commonly, the more profitable company will offer the cheapest product; and the way it does this is by underpaying it’s staff (witness Walmart) or by cutting it’s service (witness Australian Telcos).
Current capitalist philosophy holds that this more ‘efficient’ company should be able to buy out the only other company in town. Then they can charge whatever they like; up to where it becomes cheaper for the consumers to drive to the next town to buy their tyres. At which point, the ‘successful’ tyre company is free to expand into that town also.
Under a system such as this, a lowering of the standard of service and an increase in profits to those who lower services, is inevitable.
And we have seen it.
Loading ...
There are several aspects of the current global economic meltdown, and more than a few problems. First is the idea that The Market Should Be Free To Regulate Itself.
This makes as much sense as saying There Should Not Be Any Road Rules, Drivers Should Be Able To Do As They Please.
The other essential problem is, these banks and corporations are simply too big.
Too big to be ‘allowed to fail’ in fact.
So how are they addressing this problem? “We’re not big enough” they tell us. GM wants to merge with Fiat.
This is the Great Lie of laissez faire capitalism. A system that relies on competition, yet to be successful, you must eliminate, destroy, buy out or merge with your competitors.
Our Ironclad creed:
To offer everyone the respect that we would enjoy.
To respect the right of everyone to be treated as an equal despite our
differences, and to recognise that although we are not
all 'created equal' we should all have equal rights to liberty, health
and opportunity; where such 'opportunity' does not include the right to
exploit, oppress or gain advantage at the expense of the rights of
others. I believe...
Loading ...
Recent Comments