Archives: Letters to the Editor

Every time I read this great humanitarian I feel a twinge in my heart and spring in my spirit. He makes me believe that one day more Jews will find their moral compass and come to the conclusion that what they are doing to us, the Palestinians, in the name of their religion, is wrong and ask for forgiveness. Until the day that Jews around the world, push aside the shield of Antisemitism, raise their hands and say, ‘Not In Our Name’, Palestine, Israel, The Holy Land – call it what you wish, will never see peace. Thank you, Mr Levy.

The classic cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This, as Lucy Hamilton identifies, captures the heart of the No campaign. Subjecting us to a litany of misrepresentations and fabrications, this Trumpian campaign imagines so many potential costs that could arise from a Voice, and so few potential benefits. As Hamilton explains, we are being subjected to these distortions of the truth by people on the taxpayer’s payroll. We are paying to be wilfully misled. This is an absolute abuse of public money. In this age where Donald Trump has led many to doubt the trustworthiness of key democratic institutions, the Australian Electoral Commission has not helped its own credibility by publishing the Yes and No statements unchecked. The Voice referendum may yet end as a case study supporting the critical need for truth in politics. We still have a long road to travel to make our democracy’s integrity secure from the cynicism which the No campaign exploits.

Many decades ago I was an honours student of anthropology at Sydney University. My thesis supervisor was W. R. ‘Bill’ Geddes. I was not fated to do outstandingly under him, but that’s another story. What haunts me now is his advocacy, not least in our one-on-one supervisory sessions in 1969, of assimilationism. It awakened no positive response in me – my family were of the left and always supported indigenous causes of another stripe.

Was Geddes in some political relation to this idea or was it a peculiarity of his anthropology?

The article is an excellent contribution to filling the memory hole, as are so many of the P&I articles. But filling the hole is only the first step; the acquired knowledge has to be converted into action to be of any value. Besides voting for one of the largely identical political parties every three years or so, what am I supposed to do with the knowledge? How can I, as a citizen, make a personal and effective contribution to the political process? The problem seems to be not only the hole, but our form of democracy; an issue that P&I does not really address.

Yes, a small bomb did go off in a marketplace, specifically at a time when the Han tended to shop there. But did it justify the obvious build-up of Chinese military strength on the streets and the imminent attacks on the Muslim religion itself – headed by the same enforced assimilation of Uighur children that Henry Reynolds article on what might have been the Australian model for the Han highlights so brilliantly.
Could it be that your over-enthusiasm for all things (Han) Chinese blinded you to the blatant unfairness of this Maoist take-over of this Turkic nation for its mineral wealth? Indeed the largest statue in the world of Mao himself glowers over the square in Kashgar where Uighurs and Han danced in the evenings – separately but peaceably.

This is particularly surprising given Chancellor Daubney’s stated hope that ACU would play a central role in the development of ethical and safe AI. The cuts would end the positions for nearly every academic working at ACU on ethical AI. We believe this is an oversight, but a sign that the change plan is incompatible with Daubney’s vision.

In his speech to the Assembly of Catholic Professionals, Daubney said, “As Chancellor of Australian Catholic University, I’d like to see our university playing a leading role as our society plays catch up in the formulation of legal and ethical frameworks for the development and implementation of AI technologies”. We want this, too. The cuts proposed hit the Dianoia philosophers who worked with the Center for AI Safety in San Francisco, the supervisors who helped an HDR student get a fellowship with this group, and an academic who presented his research on algorithmic justice to members of SACRU. More care is needed to promote Daubney’s ambitions.

Epistemology is the foundation of the scientific method, of all human progress, of the other disciplines defended by the author here, and we all exercise an epistemology, whether or not it is trained and philosophical. Epistemology is central to all western philosophy since Plato. A better education in this is essential in educating students in critical thinking and problem solving skills, and would also be an antidote against our post-truth, conspiracy theory vulnerable times, and against the undermining of genuine expertise. The Arts & Humanities have never been as strong in Australia as they have traditionally been in most other western education systems, and were already weakened by Dawkins. A public university such as ACU, which receives public money, has a responsibility to teach students outside of its own faith system as well as representing that historical tradition in our society. Post-modernism, like Modernism, was not invented by academics: it represents changing perceptions of and responses to our world occurring in that world across many areas of creativity and critical reflection and as reactions to historical turns. A more convincing response to it would be to use its own methods to question it, but we are already moving beyond it.

I have come to the conclusion that I am living in a country that admires the policy and procedures of a police state. I may be wrong but when I see footage of a helicopter crew firing machine guns into a group of men I feel deeply upset. Especially when the integrity of the footage is questioned by governments which collude to blame one Australian citizen who chose to post footage of this dreadful event. Against the wishes of those countries who may have been effectively committing a war crime. I am the son of a father who spent his time in Stalag 18a in World War 2. My father always told the truth no matter the repercussion. And it is beholden of my firm intention to feel compassion toward the plight of Julian Assange. Especially given the political nature of his internment. We all grow when we acknowledge the integrity of this case. And say enough is enough. Give this man his freedom. He has endured enough political irresponsibility.

In her article Elizabeth Boulton says: “It is surreal to imagine that the ONI report could predict anything [climatically] worse than what scientific reports already tell us” Quite so, but the non-release of the ONI report may have much less to do with the revelation of climate horrors as with the non-availability of sufficient funds to address the problems that it reveals because of prior AUKUS commitments.
Within 24 hours of Morrison announcing his ill-conceived and enormously expensive AUKUS submarine deal it was embraced unqualified by Albanese and his inner sanctum. One of the criticisms mounted against the AUKUS deal is that it will distract and divert money from us adequately addressing global heating. This could well be a factor in the Albanese government determination to hide the report by the Office of National Intelligence into the security threat posed by climate change. This report will very probably advocate multi-billion dollar expenditure on climate mitigation, adaptation and measures to deal with hordes of climate refugees and domestic unrest.
Labor may now realize Australia cannot afford to pay for both the subs and the sort of expenditure required to implement the recommendations of the ONI report.

The Albanese government is hiding the report by the Office of National Intelligence on the security threat posed by global heating. This report will say that by 2050 billions of people worldwide will suffer food insecurity and be on the move. It will advocate multi-billion dollar expenditure on climate mitigation, adaptation and measures to deal with hordes of climate refugees and domestic unrest. But largely as a result of toxic wedge politics such large expenditure presents Labor with a huge problem.
Within 24 hours of Morrison announcing his ill-conceived and enormously expensive AUKUS submarine deal it was embraced unqualified by Albanese and his inner sanctum: Labor gave an enormously complex project little or no thought. Australia is unlikely to be able to afford both the measures called for by the ONI report and the AUKUS deal. Additionally the ONI report will probably indicated that the threat posed to Australia by global heating is as great or greater than a war with China (think submarines). This is why the Albanese government will fight to keep the ONI report under wraps conveniently citing security rather than financial concerns as the reason.

Growing up in the Cold War, when nuclear annihilation seemed imminent, our choice was to rebel and have fun: ‘we’re not here for a long time, we’re here for a good time.’ As Mark Beeson’s account makes clear, many of us Boomers have not yet shaken off that attitude, preferring to pursue what Jethro Tull dubs our ‘thoughtless pleasures’ to securing a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren.
The danger of environmental collapse becomes more apparent each day, whether it’s melting ice-caps, devastating floods, or unprecedented bushfires. The continued and accelerating degradation of our environment, to support our ever-growing population in our unsustainable lifestyles, must stop – or it will be stopped, within the foreseeable future, as crossing climate tipping points makes our environment increasingly hostile to life. Mankind needs a healthy environment to survive. Our environment doesn’t need mankind – indeed it would probably thrive without us.
It may be, as Beeson suggests, that – as in the 60’s – it will be the young who rebel. It’s their world that needs to be secured. But we Boomers can push for the changes we know are needed. It’s not too late for us to leave a healthy planet.

The recent article by Bob Debus is a most useful summary of the value of our remaining native forests, and his call to stop logging them must be heeded (“A good start to urgent climate change abatement: end native forest logging now”, Sep 7).
According to the 2017 WWF fact sheet, Tree Felling in Australia, “of the 1,250 plant and 390 terrestrial animal species listed as threatened, 964 plants and 286 animals have deforestation and resulting habitat fragmentation or degradation listed as threats.” Since then, climate change and the 2019/20 bushfires have made the situation even more serious.
But Debus reveals another compelling reason to stop native forest logging in this country. Emissions reduction. That is, “the avoided emissions alone would be close to what is needed annually (15.5 Mt CO2) to achieve our national target of 43 per cent reduction on 2005 levels of emission by 2030.”
Why is this startling scientific finding not shouted from the rooftops?
Phasing out native forest logging would allow some breathing space for the community consultations that are sorely needed to gain a social licence for new transmission and renewables. Does Chris Bowen realise the winning card Tanya Plibersek holds?
Fact sheet: https://assets.wwf.org.au/image/upload/f_pdf/pub-fact-sheet-tree-clearing-in-australia-23may17_1?_a=ATO2Ba20

This what I like about Pearls & Irritations… a TRULY INDEPENDENT Media Platform. A BIG Thank You to Gregory Andrews.

Sadly, several MSM in Australia (the worst is Sky News, in my view) are biased, and deliberately misinformed / deceived the general public in their reporting.

Australia governments (Federal and State levels) have the responsibility to take down these malicious MSMs before they do further harm to our economy, the wellbeing of our citizens and damage to our international reputation.
Thank You

Watching the machinations of a furious, deeply flawed US Administration’s reaction to Chinese expertise would be pure comedy, farce even, if it were not so damaging and divisive. As an Australian citizen, recently returned to this country after 50 years abroad, I am terrified to my core that America will take us into a totally unnecessary, foolhardy war with China. Whereas this huge neighbour and trading partner of ours, our best customer and best supplier, can bring talent and technology at the highest level to our doorstep and at a fair price. Sandra Harris Ramini, former editor of Business Life Magazine.

Deeply conservative, non-inclusive, anti-democratic attitudes have been embedded in both American and Australian societies since the beginnings of their colonisation.

That disposition is not new, but it has arguably shaped how both of our societies have evolved over several centuries, and why neither of them are as inclusive, progressive, socially just as most other western societies have sought to be. Nobody is inclined towards a particular reactionary view for the sake of it: it mirrors anxieties, but when we write about these political trends, nobody is analysing our societies on those deeper levels, nobody is asking how as societies we could change and confront those anxieties. Why not?

When we call them “fascist”, we are ignoring the fact that fascism had enormous popular support, sometimes from the vast majority of populations, and that was for a reason, but we are now ignoring those reasons and ourselves only painting that tendency in paranoid terms.

The far more dangerous and fundamental problem here isn’t just about gender: it’s about why any human society reverts to an illusory idealised past in order to protect itself against perceived current threats, and what those perceived threats really are? Modern Islamic fundamentalism did exactly the same.

I read with interest the article by Abul Rizvi. I feel his deductions are correct, but I feel the reason the conservatives are against the Voice is far more sinister.

I have noticed that in Australian politics in recent years, there is far more impact of foreign powerbrokers in our politics. I was horrified when the Labor party supported Aukus, including buying badly designed US nuclear submarines. At any time 30% of these subs are out of service for repairs.

One would think that after all the other disastrous military purchasing decisions over the years that the government would be extremely careful about contracts with groups that have no idea about delivering on time & on budget a quality product.

To make matters worse, it seems we have agreed to accept the nuclear waste, when there has never been any area in Australia that wants to set up a nuclear dump. Talk about the cart before the horse!

Now to tie the above to the Voice referendum. The most likely place for a Nuclear dump is on First Nation´s land. If the First Nations people have a Voice, I feel they would be likely to not agree with this proposal.

Allan Patience provides an analysis of the behaviour of the majority of our politicians as well as of the debate on the upcoming referendum that would resonate with many Australians.

But he fails to ask the question: Why is this so?

We pride ourselves on having a well-functioning liberal representative democracy, so either this is not true, or then a liberal representative democracy in not all it is hyped up to be.

The politicians we get are a reflection of the political system and that applies to the Teals as well, so how would Mr. Patience like to change our political system?

In the midst of high inflation, growing homelessness and worsening food insecurity, it’s difficult to find the time and the mental space to think about the mega threats addressed by the Earth System Treaty.

However, the mega threats have grown out of the same inefficient, inequitable economic and political systems that are causing high inflation and a wide range of other security issues (e.g. insecurity relating to food, water, finances and nation states to name a few).

Could Pearls and Irritations commission a Q&A, or something similar, on why we need an Earth System Treaty and how the change in thinking it requires will also contribute to easing our current woes?

Change will not happen overnight, but, if we don’t start to implement solutions soon, the consequences will irreparably impact all life on Earth.

Like Peter Sainsbury, I am deeply frustrated by the distinct lack of action to protect our forests and prevent bushfires (“Environment: Sleepwalking into our fiery future” 27/8/23).

While governments continue to support logging of beautiful native forests and archaic ‘hazard reduction’ burn practices, the situation will only worsen. Not one of ten key recommendations from the 2020 bushfire royal commission has been implemented.

Yet, solutions exist.

Ceasing native forest logging in Australia would be sufficient for us to achieve our 2030 emissions reductions targets. Following the latest fire science and using drone technology to detect lightning strikes and put out fires at their source would allow us to avoid hazardous reduction burns. Plantation timber is a viable and important sustainable alternative source for timber products and job opportunities.

Where, however, are the policy makers? Sadly, missing in action.

Mike Scrafton is right. Our government is failing to address the climate crisis adequately because of its “obsession with growth” (The intergenerational report – a climate fairy tale, 26/8). The unholy link between the crisis and growth is evident from mathematics, my former discipline. It is found in the long-established equation, I = PAT, which describes an environmental impact (I) as the product of three factors (P, A and T).

Here’s how it applies to CO2 emissions from Australia’s energy industry. ‘I’ is the level of emissions, ‘P’ our population, ‘A’ (affluence) our per-capita use of energy, and ‘T’ (technology) CO2 per unit of energy.

The government’s effort is all about decarbonising our energy industry, the ‘T’ factor. But, as the equation shows, any improvement there is readily negated by increases in the other factors. Unless we simultaneously stop growing our population and energy usage, emissions reduction is impossible. It is simple mathematics.

Australian people must be encouraged to discuss and debate our “Force Posture” agreement with the U.S., because it contains deep, far reaching, irreversible dangers and commitments, and the risk of nuclear war.

The U.S. Policy, as promulgated in the U.S. Congress, is for “War with China once we have weakened Russia”; the contrived war in Ukraine is the U.S. process of weakening Russia.

The U.S. makes no secret of their intention to war with China, in about two to four years time; Australia will be obliged to increase the size of our military forces to comply with commitments in the “Force Posture”. Within two years, the Australian Government will be further obliged, to legislate, and introduce National Conscription, for men aged eighteen to thirty-two. They will need eighteen to twenty-four months of training, to meet the U.S. time-table.

Our population needs to understand the seriousness of the war we have now agreed to; once more we are going to war, based upon the whims and lies of the U.S. Our young people will be trained to kill or be killed, all in the cause of an enemy that does not exist for Australia, or the rest of mankind.

It’s the Same Old, Same Old. If a principled newer party wins enough votes to worry an unprincipled Old Party and bucks the status quo, the good-ole party calls the real democrats traitors or trolls. Not really as simple as that, though, is it, Bob? In the US, the undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system denies smaller players a chance. Green v, progressive voters sign up to only vote for Greens and progressive independents. Otherwise, they don’t sign up or vote at all. Hard for the ALP to grasp this but we’re different in Australia. (more…)

The military government of Mynamar is not a very competent one but that is not a reason to overthrow it.

I could point to many richer countries with incompetent governments.

When I visited Myanmar people freely complained about how little development there was but nobody was asking for violence. The so-called “democratic opposition… many different groups, armies, militias and individuals [with] …..substantial battlefield successes” seems to be even worse than Tatmadaw. Teachers being killed for working for the government, singers murdered for for the same reason. The reason for the lack of news about Myanmar in the Western media would seem to be that the behaviour of the Western supported “opposition” is so appalling, it would be an embarrassment to the West.

What is needed is not more violence but negotiation with all concerned parties and its neighbours, which doesn’t include the US or UK. They need peace and development, not war.

Anthony Albanese should concentrate on what his supporters want, not try to outwit or outmaneuver the opposition. (more…)

Evan would be loving the burgeoning success of Pearls and Irritations.

Congratulations Quentin and John!

I have been for some time reading Pearls & irritations and alarmed at what I read – how unaware my fellow Australians are, and even more alarmed at where our Politicians are leading us .

Like many Labor voters (not members of the Labor party) I am alarmed at the performance of the Albanese govt. A govt given a large majority large enough to make real difference early in its term of Govt during it’s honeymoon period. An opportunity missed because it was to timid protecting its position as a govt.

I am concerned that the many damning commissioned reports & the NACC will become like the LNP Royal Commissions. All political diversion with no action.  In short Liberal light selling off & selling out Australia.

What is truly concerning is how unaware in general the Australian public are, how difficult it is to inform them without being branded a lefty nutter or a conspiracy theorist.

At my age it is tempting to put my head in the sand and join the lemmings.

After all at 70+ i will be long gone before the China war or worst of climate change hits. MAYBE.

Bob Pearce

Marcus Strom’s article ties in with a key issue I have just raised with the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Two years ago Marise Payne and Peter Dutton met their French counterparts, and then assured us that the French submarines were going swimmingly, yet within days the Aukus Treaty was announced.

JSCOT have just informed me that the only part of the Aukus Treaty which has had detailed parliamentary committee review is the ENNPIA, which covers transfer of nuclear material.

That is a seriously concerning democratic deficit unworthy of the Albanese government.

With due respect for the Australian men and women who have been killed in war and are honoured on Anzac Day, I would like to send out a warning about the loose language of the current war mongering which has taken over sane debate in Australia.

It’s the obfuscation in the language used that upsets me. Does the industrial military complex think the Australian public is too stupid to see through the pompous language of fear-mongering? So that we don’t realise they’re setting us on a path which would only increase the risk of death for our sons and daughters in an international war ahead?

Anzac Day should be the occasion to remember the bravery of our war dead and argue for peace. The holiday should emphasise a need for pacificism between nations, not engage in belligerent chauvinist nationalism!

Although it was sobering reading, I thank Imogen Zethoven for outlining the Great Barrier Reef’s devastating reality.

While most Australian politicians and media focus on the latest UNESCO ruling, both climate and water pollution are ever increasing, worsening the Reef’s plight.

Australians need to face up to the fact that the iconic reef is in danger, grave danger. As a parent, I grieve for the life that we are so senselessly losing. I doubt my two young children shall ever experience the majestic colours and rich marine life within a healthy reef, and wonder when successive Australian Governments’ ineptitude on climate will finally catch up with them.

The Labor government is arguably worse than the Coalition. They accept the climate science but continue to approve and subsidise fossil fuel projects.

Zethoven explains it best “the system is on a knife edge. The Australian government must act. And it must stop approving new fossil fuel developments”.

The author writes, ‘…this article is not about homelessness but about how, in a changing world, countries choose their method of achieving prosperity’.

The PRC is currently suffering from homelessness, making it hard to grasp the point of this article.

The following Wikipedia article is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_China.

The term is of course hard to define, leaving stories like this: (https://www.quora.com/If-China-is-communist-why-are-there-so-many-homeless-people) open to doubt: young people sleeping rough hunting jobs may not be strictly homeless.

The poverty reduction campaign proclaimed a success prior to COVID took many visibly homeless off the street, and so on.

Yet it is tendentious to imply that, taking a ‘separate path’ via ‘security through prosperity’, the PRC is practising anything but state capitalism.