Putting Racism In Reverse

.
One of the sillier terms to come out is the term ‘reverse racism’ which usually refers to racism towards white people. It seems to imply that being racist towards white people is not the same as when white people are racist towards other ethnic groups and that only whites can really be racist. This is of course a disservice to genuine victims’ of racism everywhere and ignores the reality that racism is racism regardless of who the perpetrator is and who the victim is. 

The problem of racism will never be solved while racism itself is actually segregated into different groups based on people’s ethnic background.

If you can have reverse racism what other types of racism are there? If a Nigerian was racist to a Pakistani would that be first gear racism? If a Pakistani was racist to a Filipino would that be second gear racism? What if a Filipino was racist to a Japanese? Would that be cruise control racism?
 
The problem of racism is never going to be solved by creating new names to call people or treating them differently by their race but that is exactly what having reverse racism as an acceptable term is doing. The reality is that it is just as unacceptable to be racist towards white people as it is for white people to be racist towards others, racism between any groups is unacceptable.

.

But It's Only...........

.

Here's some basic economics which is often intentionally ignored by the some as they push on us their money grabbing scams. 

It will often be presented as only an extra $2 a week or only an extra $50 a quarter or only an extra $500 a year depending on the spin they want to put on it. 

They claim it's a good cause that would only cost you less than $2 a week with the inference that if you object to such a paltry sum of money being taken from you then you are heartless and mean. It's less than a cup of coffee, can't you give up a cup of coffee to help? 

Such a schemes may come across as a good idea but for many people it’s the last straw. They couldn’t afford an extra grab on their earnings. 

Oh but it’s only the cost of a cup of coffee…….. 

That coffee that someone has to give up could be the very cup of coffee they rely upon to keep working so they can earn the  very money that’s being taking from them. 

In any case there are limits to how much money someone has and no amount of creative accounting will change that. 

To put it basically if someone gets $500 a week and the lot is being taken from them you won't get a single cent more out of them let alone $2. If someone earns $50,000 a year with $49,900 already spent and you hit them with another $104.00 in costs they are $4 in the red and can't carry those costs over forever, especially as they'll be hit with inflation in the next year.

Thanks to all these grabs at our hip pocket the economy is struggling to recover. Where people had money left over to spend they now have new taxes and costs and all of them presented as an extra couple of dollars here are a few hundred dollars a year there. 

Costs need to be brought down and wages isn’t the only place as is often claimed. The increases in electricity costs in turn push up the costs of goods and services elsewhere, same as the increases in rates and water charges

Every dollar taken from someone is one less for them. They don’t necessarily have another one to take its place and even if they did others are not entitled to them to fund their scams and people just can’t borrow large sums of money and hand the bill to others. 

Next time someone tells you any sceme (or scam, the two words are often interchangeable) they’re supporting ‘only’ costs so much a week, a month, a year etc. and won’t affect you and everything is fine and rosy look them straight in the eye and point out if they actually worked for a living they would see we their version of economics is not based in the reakl world.

.

Remembering All Our Allies

Rhodesian servicemen.

On ANZAC Day we honour the brave soldiers of Australia and New Zealand who have fought bravely to protect our freedoms. And despite the day being mostly about our own brave people the soldiers of our allies are also recognised.

But whether it’s ANZAC Day or Remembrance Day one group is overlooked despite being one of the most distinguished. 

They fought for freedom with no hesitation, their contribution to WW1 and WW2 was higher per capita than any other Commonwealth nation and that includes Britain. Their future prime minister also fought in WW2 with distinction. 

They served with such distinction the Royal Family made a special tour of their country after WW2 to say thank you.

The country in question is Rhodesia which was a self-governing nation within the British Empire.

But despite fighting with Britain and the Commonwealth the Rhodesian's found themselves abandoned by Britain and the Commonwealth in their own time of need. 

The rise of so called African nationalism that was usually a flimsy front for vicious dictator’s and the ruining of stable African nations one by one launched itself against Rhodesia. Countries all around Rhodesia fell to this supposed majority rule that in reality unleashed absolute horror onto the continent.

When the refugees from these newly independent African nations went through Rhodesia they told of the looting, the mutilations, the rapes and the murders that they were fleeing from.

That is what majority rule brought to those nations so it’s no wonder the Rhodesian's resisted. To many in the West majority rule was a wondrous thing where everyone was happy and the majority ran the nation to greater levels of prosperity for all.

Of course many of the starry eyed idealists out there don’t let facts get in the way of anything.

“Britain has granted independence to more people than any other nation in history”, squeaked then British prime minister, the starry eyed Harold Wilson. The response by Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith was “Yes and in one instance this resulted in a million people being killed in 3 days”.

One problem for Rhodesia was the ambiguous status of its relationship to Britain. Not a colony, not a dominion but definitely governing itself, the Rhodesian's weren’t going to take a step back to appease the newly independent dictatorships that were flourishing within the Commonwealth. 

Having fought for freedom with distinction they weren’t going to give everything up for the convenience of a British government that was caving in to communism.

The calls for one man one vote and majority rule for Rhodesia were major acts of hypocrisy by Western nations especially since they recognised en masse African dictatorships where the majority weren’t allowed to vote or even speak out. 

In any case there was a way black people in Rhodesia could vote. If they meet certain employment or property qualifications they would be placed on the same voters roll as anyone else. This method was used in the country as they had no way of securing their borders, it would have been more than possible for someone to bus in supporters over the border. At least with property and/or employment they were demonstrating their commitment to the continued well-being of Rhodesia.

On top of that the tribal chiefs had a voice in the running of the nation so no one was totally disenfranchised. One person one vote was of no concern to people whose main concern in life was tribal custom and survival. Give them a how to vote form and they’d likely use it as a firelighter. And forget about ‘educating them’. Many of them didn’t want to know although that was changing and no one in the government was stopping them.

Of course all this was making the newly established dictatorships look bad. A country where the majority of people are happy? Can’t have that, makes the dictatorships look bad! A country where given time the black majority would be in a position to run a first world democracy? Can’t have that! Educated, democratic voters make life difficult for dictators.

When the so called freedom fighters launched a civil war in Rhodesia the Rhodesian's showed their commitment to freedom when they stood alone against an enemy that was determined to wipe them out. Abandoned by their allies they fought against the evil that had already enslaved most of Africa.

Their fight was justified and they certainly weren’t going to let the fact that it was an inconvenience to anyone stop them. They dared to stand alone at a time when many wanted to pretend everything was fine and everyone was happy. 

Because they dared make their stand for their country the Rhodesian's aren’t as widely recognised for their achievements but that doesn’t alter the fact that their contribution to fighting for freedom is outstanding.

They have done much to be proud of and just like all of our allies they deserve our recognition and gratitude. 

The Rhodesian's I have had the good fortune to meet carry on the true spirit of their great nation. They prefer to remain happy about what they had and achieved instead of remaining bitter about what they have lost.

They had a prime minister who fought for his country in war, served his country in peace and was only concerned with what was good for his country, not just himself.

While the sun has set on Rhodesia it will never set on Rhodesian's. The contribution they have made lives on and they helped make the world a better place.

Writer, Jeremy Michaels for the editor.

Debt Measures For The United States

Debt to GDP is misleading, your personal debt can't be measured against a collective measure such as the GDP so why should a governments debt be matched against it?

The figures shown are reasonable approximates which have been used due to conflicting numbers on various reports

Shown on the graph below is the United States yearly GDP, The amount of debt so far and the amount of the governments’ yearly income.

The debt is usually referred to as around 101% of the GDP. It is actually nearly seven years’ worth of government revenue and costing the US $1.2 Billion Daily a day in interest.

Countries like Greece, the UK, Ireland and Italy to name a few also have massively high debts and look at where they are now. The UK and the US are teetering on economic disaster and the others have had to be bailed out and are slashing services and pushing the cost of these disastrous debts onto their citizens, many of whom are in the process of losing everything. everything.
.

Debt Measures for Australia

Debt to GDP is misleading, your personal debt can't be measured against a collective measure such as the GDP so why should a governments' debt be matched against it?

The figures shown are reasonable approximates due to conflicting numbers on various reports.

Shown on the graph below is Australia's yearly GDP, the amount of debt so far and the amount of the governments yearly income.

When it's said the debt is 30% of the GDP. It is actually nearly one years' worth of revenue and costing Australia $8 million a day in interest.

Countries like Greece, the US, The UK, Ireland and Italy to name a few once had a debt that at one point was only 30% of their GDP and look at where they are now. The UK and the US are teetering on economic disaster and the others have had to be bailed out and are slashing services and pushing the cost of these disastrous debts onto their citizens, many of whom are in the process of losing everything.
.

Debt, The Real Picture

.
With accounting there are some very creative ways of presenting information in a way that can make something bad seem not so bad.

One of these creative ways of accounting that is accepted by reputable financial institutions and experts everywhere is the government debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measurement.

This method is actually considered quite acceptable to use but isn’t the best representation of how things really are.

I have selected Australia and United States for this to help demonstrate how this creative accounting is used and what the real picture is. Both are major economies and have debt.

The figures used are approximates as various sites list the figures with some variation on the amounts. The amounts used however are close enough to help get the point I want to convey across.

In Australia the debt to GDP comparison is around 30% of GDP.

That puts Australia’s debt at around $250 billion compared to a GDP of around $1.23 trillion.

Doesn’t sound too bad does it?

The United States debt is around 15 trillion compared to a GDP of $14.58 Trillion. It’s slightly over 100% of GDP.

Not good but not hopeless right?

And remember, this is the accepted and respectable way of gauging debt and helping show possible impacts on the economies in question.

Thing is governments do not possess their countries entire yearly GDP, the governments actual revenue stream is only a small portion of it.

From the Australian GDP of around $1.23 trillion the Australian federal government ends up with around $250 billion.

From the United States GDP of around $14.58 trillion the United States federal government ends up with around $2.6 trillion.

A debt to revenue stream measurement is a much more realistic way of measuring debt. After all if you borrow money the amount you can borrow is measured against your own income which is the revenue stream at your disposal, not, for example, against a combined income figure such as the income of your neighbourhood or of the company you work for.

A GDP is a combined national income figure. Since no one person or entity has that combined amount at their disposal no one person, entity’s or governments borrowings should be measured against it.

Based on an actual ‘revenue in possession’ measurement Australia’s federal government debt is at 100% of actual revenue and the United States federal debt is around 500%.

Now the debts sound worse than the previously mentioned measurements against GDP don’t they? That’s because it is a more realistic presentation of the debts and of the real impact on their countries economies.

Which is more realistic and paints an honest picture of the current fiscal situation?

The Australian annual interest payments of over $5 billion measured against the GDP of $1.23 trillion or the Australian governments’ actual revenue of $250 billion?

And for the United States, annual interest payments of over $148 billion measured against the GDP of $14.58 trillion or the United States governments’ actual revenue of $2.6 trillion?

And that’s the interest only, to reduce the actual debt it costs much more.

Now what do you think the real impact is of the borrowings of governments is having on their nations’ economies and the world’s economy in general?

How many problems in Australia such as hospital waiting lists could $5 billion fix? Or maybe it could help fund the construction of much needed infrastructure.

What could $148 billion fix in the United States?

Despite what some would have you think these are massive sums of money. Sure it doesn’t sound much when you talk in the amounts of trillions of countries’ economies but the reality is these are substantial sums of money leaving with others getting the benefit, not the people it’s supposed to belong to.

Government debt is not a bad thing when the money is borrowed to get something needed such as a bridge or helping the economy during economic or natural disasters but care needs to be taken.



And while these debts mentioned here are technically 30% and 100% of GDP respectively they are realistically presented as 100% and 500% of actual available revenue and don’t include the debts of states and councils.

Include those debts and the money going towards them and it’s a wonder any money is left in our economies.

.

.

Lest We Forget.

Learn

Lest We Forget

A Picture Always Tells A Story...

Nashville Newborn Baby Photographer | Landon

Taken by Inara Studios

04.01.2011

 

There are days when the honor of being a photographer is elevated to a whole new level.
Landon was just 12 days old when I met him for the first time. Just a few weeks before he was born, the unbelievable happened: his daddy passed away while serving his country in Afghanistan. It breaks my heart to think that Landon will never have the opportunity to meet his daddy, this side of heaven, but I am so thankful for men like him who willingly risk their lives for our safety.

It was truly a joy to capture this sweet baby’s first photographs.

It's A Piece Of Cake

There's always one which is why the 99% are not the full 100%.

Well if you are promised cake............

Who Has Integrity?

Unfortunately there are those who think doing the right thing actually means doing the wrong thing right in front of everyone.

.

Save Christmas

.
I have read various reports that Santa Claus was banned from a school because the non Christian children would feel left out.

I don’t know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

Santa Claus is not a Christian icon, he is a symbol of what Christmas has evolved into. For many people Christmas is a day for being with your family and friends and also giving them presents.

Quite simply while some Christians still celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus Christ many people don’t look at that side of it.

Christmas with Santa has been part of Australian tradition and culture for many years and there is no genuine reason for trying to suppress it.

Unless perhaps you’re trying to get your name in the news.

Demands are made for people to show tolerance to other cultures and traditions. For that to be taken seriously it has to work both ways.

Tolerance and respect must be shown for the culture and traditions that are already here and have been for a long time.

I don’t want a tradition I have enjoyed for many years to be suppressed because someone can’t tell the difference between a religious icon and a commercial one.
.

Some Attitudes That Undermine Safety And Supervision.

.
There's unfortunately a long list of tragic accidents that have happened through a simple lack of care or the use of self serving logic.

One such recent tragedy was in NSW where an 8 year old girl drowned at a swimming carnival. The teachers there were supposed to be supervising and there were some lifeguards there as well whose duties also included manning the pools canteen at the time.

If they are manning the canteen they aren't lifeguards, they're only lifeguards when they are they are watching over the people in the pool and doing nothing else. And I do not believe teachers receive lifeguard training so they aren't lifeguards either and therefore not qualified to supervise large numbers of children in a pool.

There's no real excuse for many of the tragedies that happen because we have all of human experience to draw upon to tell us what we should and shouldn't do.

Unfortunately other tragedies have happened and keep happening because some people will ignore the absolute basics that will prevent mishaps because they end up ignoring certain established safety guidelines or using self serving logic to justify to themselves unsafe behaviour.

Here’s a few of those attitudes and the reality of what can happen if these attitudes are adopted.

“It’s only for a second” as in a door that should be shut being open or children left unsupervised.

It’s not for a second, it’s always for a longer period. The only thing that takes a second is a child getting into some sort of trouble.

“It’s unlikely to happen” as in a particular type accident, bad situation or an abduction.

This “unlikely to happen” appears to be translated into “It can’t happen” because the “unlikely to happen” attitude is used to justify behaviour that undermines safe practices. Then what is unlikely to happen does actually happen.

“It hasn’t happened yet”, also as in a particular type accident, bad situation or an abduction.

The “It hasn’t happened” attitude is also used to justify behaviour that undermines safe practices. Then what hasn’t happened actually does happen it is too late to take the measures to stop it happening to begin with.

Be safe and be realistic, it really takes very little effort and can save a lot of grief.
.

Private land to be seized for housing

.
From the Sydney Morning Herald
MATTHEW MOORE URBAN AFFAIRS EDITOR
March 12, 2010

THE state government is rushing to prepare laws to create a development authority with sweeping powers to compulsorily acquire and rezone privately owned land for resale to developers.

With Sydney's population set to grow 40 per cent to 6 million in the next 25 years, the government has decided it needs a metropolitan development authority to buy privately owned land near rail and bus routes for medium- and high-density housing.

Legislation for the new authority, believed to be the first of its kind in Australia, will be introduced before June in an attempt to increase housing construction rates, which are the lowest on record even though the city's population is growing at the fastest rate since the 1960s.

(Full Story)

Stephen Albin, the chief executive of the Urban Development Institute, a developer group, said while landowners should receive some compensation for increased value from rezoning, they should not receive it all.

''Developers are taking the risk … these landowners are not taking risk. Government has decided for the good of the city, for the good of the community, development must occur.”

Someone can own something but he thinks they have to get less than is fair for it so someone else can make a profit from it.

Developers are taking the risk? Of course they are, that's how capitalism works, if they want the profit they take the risk. It's not down to private land owners to subsidise someone else’s enterprise.

These landowners are not taking risk? Well why would they? They didn't ask to be part of the venture.

The rationale behind the authority and the compulsory acquisition provision is community benefit?

Something that is for the benefit of the community is usually paid for by the community, not just a few of its members, in this case private land owners.

It's the same as acquiring land for a road or a railway?

No it's not, it appears it's mainly for the benefit of a developers profit.

People don’t buy homes so developers can benefit.

Taking someone’s land should only be for a genuine benefit to the common good such as when they built the Harbour Bridge or if the army urgently needs land during war time and the owners involved should be compensated fairly for the inconvenience such a venture places upon them. Such decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly and it should not be done just so someone else can profit.

Whether or not the housing developments can be considered for the greater good is debatable, one thing is certain and that is a developers profit is not for the common good and that profit is no one else’s responsibility but their own.

.