Greens might lose out on a structural reform of voting so maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do rather than the self-interested thing to do

Sebastian Andrei Tudor I've come across this post which sums it up nicely... "Firstly, the proposed optional preferential voting (OPV) isn't first past the post (FTTP) because it allows people to pick their favorite top 3, top 5, top 20 parties and then stop whenever. Secondly, the current system is being rorted with micro parties preferencing ideologically diametrically opposed parties on the proviso that the other micro party does likewise. This sees votes for socialist parties go to theocratic parties and vice-versa. And no- people rarely if ever search ahead to see who is preferencing what. Antony Green has some great analysis showing this. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/02/would-electoral-reform-deliver-the-coalition-a-senate-majority-at-a-double-dissolution.html   Thirdly, the rorting is producing ridiculous outcomes. As much as I've come to appreciate Ricky Muir's presence in parliament, having someone get elected off 0.51% of the vote is a sign something is wrong with the system. Fourthly, the guarantee that there will be some above-the- line votes that can be directed wherever has incentivised parties to create misleadingly named parties similar to opposing party names in order to redirect them to another party via automatic preferences. (eg Green Future party directing preferences to the Liberals) Fifthly, should the public turn out to treat this like a FTTP vote the proportionally representative system of the Senate should mitigate the worst aspects of FTTP. Advertising and election strategy can also be adjusted to promote a 1,2 vote. or a 1,2,3 vote. (eg Greens, Labor or Socialists, Greens, Labor) Sixthly, the writer is a micro party member and clearly partisan. He uses every opportunity to attack the Greens and the Democrats, for example he blames them for the failed republic referendum instead of Howard and uses bizarre segues to irrelevant matters like Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme and Julia Gillard’s Malaysia solution. Seventhly- if analysis shows that the Greens might lose out on a structural reform of voting *and they still support the reform* then maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because it's the right thing to do rather than the self-interested thing to do." http://greens.org.au/sa/policies/electoralreform http://greens.org.au/news/nsw/senate-voting-reform-%E2%80%93-greens-plan-protect-small-parties-voters%E2%80%99-decide-preferences http://greens.org.au/policies/constitutional-reform-and-democracy

We humans are just great big, clever, stupid, rubbish creators and destroyers of everything.

Years ago, maybe 7 years ago, Dr. Charlie Teo was warning us about mobile phones and radiation.

Hell...years before then...we Greenies... hippies...alternatives...whatever, knew there was a likely problem...even if it was just because computers and mobile phones were new technologies and we were racing headlong towards it. 

Once again human beings were going all out and grabbing something new with both hands well before we really understood what impact it might have on our health, or more importantly, on the health of our children....just like we did with cigarettes, asbestos, chemical insecticides, fungicides, radiation, plastics, fossil fuels, GM and a whole lot of things that we adopted way to quickly and enthusiastically and recklessly and that we now know make us and the planet sick. 





ANYWAY....as we humans have ALWAYS done, we've thrown caution to the wind and become completely dependent on satellites and computer technologies....completely dependent... and our little ones use phones ALL THE DAMN TIME!

I was telling, warning people about this even before Dr Charlie was poo pooed for being a naysayer and people were treating me as though I was an absolute idiot.

Dear God almighty! We humans are just great big, clever, stupid, rubbish creators and destroyers of everything....AAhhhh!

Here's a nice picture of the Earth... except it's not. It's a computer image of the junk that humans have left in orbit around the earth up 'til now and it's growing each day. Humans aren't satisfied with destroying the Earth. We want to destroy space as well.

Scientists have absolutely no idea what to do about this growing problem and it's going to get worse and worse as the bits of junk run into each other and create ever tinier and ever more deadly pieces of debris travelling at 8,000 miles per hour....preventing any kind of space vehicle leaving or entering Earth's atmosphere. Aren't we the clever ones?

My imagine runs amok. Will it create a cloud in space...around the Earth....blocking the sunlight?

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3568512.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/…/the-debate-about-mobile-phones…

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4407325.htm

That crazy deliberately misleading GM article with Richard Di Natale in the Farm Weakly: Pulleeese

About that crazy deliberately misleading interview by the Farm Weakly with Greens leader Richard Di Natale on GM GM crops: Greens consider policy change - Agriculture - General - Politics - Farm Weekly farmweekly.com.au Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics had this to say about the article on Richard Di Natale and GM from Sept 2015! Hi all: Pro-GM journo Colin Bettles created a phony story of division among The Greens on GM policy this week. He claims Greens' leader Richard Di Natale has no personal objection to GM crops (see the clips and here) because GM techniques are also used in research and medicine. http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/politics/greens-mull-rethink-on-gm-crop-policy/2750469.aspx?storypage=0. Bettles failed to report that the interview was conducted months ago, before The Greens reviewed and reconfirmed existing GMO policy. See: http://greens.org.au/policies/genetically-manipulated-organisms The Australian also promoted its pro-GM editorial policy by following Bettles' story (see attached). But the following Greens statement was unreported by any media: Hi folks, I was asked a couple of questions on GMOs in a wide ranging interview a few months ago, ahead of the The Australian Greens National Conference, which were reported this week. To be clear, we have not changed our policy. A high evidence threshold must be met to demonstrate that there are not any negative impacts of GMOs before we would consider supporting their use. The best evidence available tells us that GMOs have not yet been proven universally safe for our environment, agricultural systems or human health. The evidence that worries me most is the risk GMOs pose to our natural environment, the increased use of herbicides that often accompany GMO use, the contamination of neighbouring (non-GMO) crops and the lack of strong food labelling requirements to protect consumers rights - not to mention the appalling behaviour of agri-giants like Monsanto! In recent times, our Greens MPs particularly Senator Rachel Siewert have been very vocal about our concerns that regulators haven't been properly scrutinising new GM technologies. We will continue to advocate for strong regulations of GMO use in Australia.  Here's the official response from Richard Di Natale's office: "The precautionary principle guiding The Greens’ GMO policy was reconfirmed recently at the party’s 2015 National Conference. The Greens’ policies are reviewed on a regular basis, via a grassroots process. No further review of national policy, including GMO policy, is scheduled at this time. The Greens are proud of the work our MPs and supporters have done over many years advocating for appropriate regulation of GMOs. Australian Greens Agriculture spokesperson Rachel Siewert introduced a bill in 2010 to ensure GM foods were appropriately labelled. Only a few weeks ago the Greens spoke out about concerns that regulators weren’t scrutinising new GM technologies. While genetic modification can be an important medical technology, the Greens have concerns about GM application in agriculture. Caution in regard to GMO is appropriate and necessary. Regulation of GMOs should always be evidence based and in the best interests of consumers and the environment. The Greens understand the ongoing issues around preserving farmers’ choice, clear labelling so consumers know what food they’re buying, liability and the commercial ownership of intellectual property for specific GM seed products. The 2015 National Conference confirmed the Greens’ commitment to a safe food future including taking a precautionary approach to GMOs." WA organic farmer Steve Marsh AND to those who say the Greens are silent on GMOs and the relating court cases to do with contamination among other things: WRONG AGAIN. Greens are nearly always there but the media blocks us and environmental groups fear being political so they shy away from us. It's incredibly hard to be heard. Bob Phelps from Gene Ethics recognises our support and we are very grateful to him. Rachel Siewert is an excellent commentator on things GM. There was a landmark case in WA back in 2014 and the ABC reported her comment. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/greens-unhappy-with-gm-decision-affecting-organic-farmer/5485796 But according to ECO Watch you wouldn't know the Greens existed! AND that's just plan CRAZY considering the Greens are the only ones fighting against GM in parliament! Some people are never, ever happy....or they just can't see help when it comes their way! http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/12/monsanto-lawsuit-gmo-contamination/

Not holding my breath Daniel Andrews

Some members of the Warrnambool RAR group were waxing lyrical about Daniel Andrews' letter offering sanctuary to the Nauru refugees. So I emailed them.

I wasn't going to reply to this but just couldn't help myself.

All very well for Daniel Andrews to write a letter to the PM....but would he have written this letter if a Labor PM was in power? I think not! Labor refugee policy is equally as cruel as Liberal policy and even more so, considering the fact that Labor was the very party that actually introduced the cruelest refugee policies in the world! Why did Daniel Andrews choose to belong to a party with such cruel policies? How is he going to change them and why has he been silent 'til now? Pfffttt! Political maneuverings and machinations is all.

Oh, I know Daniel Andrews is in the State ALP and it is a little different from the Federal ALP, however he is still a part of the Labor Party and as such supports Labor Party policy. Just a few days ago, Federal Labor voted with the Liberals to deny amnesty for the very people Daniel Andrews was offering santuary. Why didn't he speak out then?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/…/coalition,-labor-unite-t…/7140948

Nevertheless, It would be a great thing for those 267 asylum seekers if the PM were to take Daniel Andrews up on his offer!  http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/greens-urge-pm-accept-victorian-offer-let-asylum-seekers-stay

But what about all the other innocent children in detention? What about all the other men, women and children living in disgusting Australian off-shore detention camps? This is our country and WE are all complicit in how they are treated but in my opinion, those who are members and supporters of the Liberal and Labor parties are much more complicit. Labor and Liberal have been treating asylum seekers cruelly for sixteen years and supporters have had plenty of time to force their parties to change their policies or to change ranks.

For about five years I worked in a group that had formed in Warrnambool after the Tampa crisis. It was called called South West Action for Refugees. My family accommodated refugees...both in our home and in our flat in Melbourne. I fought long and hard for individuals who were going to be sent back to what they believed and what probably would have been... certain death.

Many in our group burnt out....and were emotionally scarred by their experiences trying to help refugees who were being treated so cruelly first by the Labor government and then the Liberal government.

Then we were encouraged by Labor election promises and not exactly in this precise order but more or less when Labor won governmentt we believed they would release refugees from detention and close down the refugee concentration camps.

But when Labor won government in 2007, the situation became even worse than it had been when SWAR had formed during the Tampa crisis. It all went to hell for refugees. We were utterly grief stricken and it was then I realized how completely dependent we were on the government of the day; that all our hard campaigning and good community work was incredibly tenuous because it could all be swept away in an instant by one Prime Ministerial signature. One sweep of the pen can destroy years of work and recreate a living hell for a whole section of humanity.

This was Rudd's refugee deterrent policy and it looked nothing like his election promises.

SO I decided to try to get the right people into government, so they could enact good human rights laws, good environmental laws, good grass roots democracy procedures and ensure peace and non- violence. I immediately joined the GREENS and have been campaigning for them ever since 2007.

http://greens.org.au/news/sa/plan-change

If Daniel Andrews were not in the Labor party, I might take his offer seriously. For the sake of those desperate 267 asylum seekers, I do hope the PM will accept his gesture... and then it would give me much pleasure to see Mr. Andrews faint and to witness the look of awkward discomfort on Bill Shorten's pathetic little face. 

http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-releases/greens-urge-pm-accept-victorian-offer-let-asylum-seekers-stay

Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath.

Shooting nudists...

I was chatting/messaging on my phone (to David's niece), on which the auto correct is OUT OF CONTROL! 

Innocently I typed the story of how I took my dog to the vet and in the waiting room there was a mum with her four children under five and a puppy...yeow! When they saw my darling dog they all squealed 'Look mum it's Hairy Maclary from Donaldson's Dairy!'. Matilda...my dog...started squealing too and bouncing up and down on the spot as she does when she's excited (quite often!) and so did the little ones...bouncing, squealing at such a pitch the mother tried to shoosh them but to no avail. People were coming into the room to see what was happening. It went on and on....gorgeous. Good mum...reads to her kids and I thought of you.

BUT this is what my pathetic phone sent to David's niece!

'Our little dog was at the vet other day & a woman was there with her puppy & four little ones under 5. The oldest one pointed to our dog & squealed 'It's Hairy McClairy from Do Alison's Dairy! The dog started bouncing on the spot & so did the kids squealing at such a pit h...all of them & it went on & on & then mum tried to shoot them but on & on it went! Hilarious...dogs barking Matilda bouncing kids screaming...what a handful but completely adorable. Such energy. Hat off to that mum...'cause she reads to her kids...& they were gorgeous...thought of u!'

So I tried to fix it: Texting! Hairy MacLary from Donaldson's Dairy

Text fumble: nudism't try to shoot them..he he..but rather tried to shoosh them...ssshheee

This getting worse! Nudism? Ha ha! Shld read mother or she didn't or something....certainly not nudism! She didn't try to shoot them but to shoosh

AND I spelt Maclary wrong every time!

Anyway....we had a laugh. But honestly, that phone drives me utterly up the wall!