Google's Street View rubbishes Grafton

A Grafton street before the 'rubbishing'

There were a few wry smiles in the Clarence Valley this week as "The Daily Examiner" reported that Google's Street View camera car was recording Grafton streets right in the middle of council's curbside household rubbish collection last time it passed through.

Expect to see some Grafton streets sporting old beds, kitchen sinks, broken pedestal fans and discarded rugs on footpaths when snapped in the latest photos available on Google Earth and Maps sometime in the next six months.

How Scientology sees itself and how the world views this group in return

It's not unusual for there to be differing perceptions within society of a particular group or institution and this week Scientology was under the microscope once again.

Here are what might be characterised as the two faces of this quasi-religion.

The official Scientology website indicates how this group would like the world to see it:

In the five decades since the founding of the first Church of Scientology in 1954, Scientology has become the fastest-growing religion in the world.
Today, its scope extends across 164 countries, with 7,500 churches, missions and groups serving millions of parishioners in 53 languages. .....
Scientology is the only major new religion to emerge in the 20th century.......
Scientologists have always been a relentless voice in search of social reform and justice. We have brought to light such issues as the enforced drugging of school children, the dangers of psychiatric brutalities such as electric shock treatment and lobotomy; and the chemical and biological warfare experiments secretly undertaken against unwitting American citizens. Churches of Scientology also have championed the principle of open government and pioneered the use of the Freedom of Information Act to eradicate abuses.
It is because churches of Scientology and their members are so active, and because Scientology is a large and growing international religion, that Scientology continues to be a subject of significant public and media interest......
The Aims of Scientology, as stated by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard are:
"A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights."

The world's response to Scientology commonly features statements like these:

* Scientology. The name is a travesty of science. The reality is a burlesque of religion.

* Australian of the Year Professor Patrick McGorry has thrown his weight behind calls for a Senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology, saying the church's teachings are putting Australians' lives at risk.

* Some of us have lost our families due to Scientology's Disconnection Policy, some of us have experienced physical abuse, and some of us were denied a proper education.

* Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology.

* In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard, creator of Scientology, was convicted for illegal business practices, namely, making false claims about his ability to cure physical illnesses. He was sentenced to four years in prison, which was never served.

* The NSW Greens have lodged an official complaint over an advertising leaflet for a school in Sydney which they say fails to reveal the school's link to Scientology.

* Defectors Say Church of Scientology Hides Abuse

* Just three weeks ago the internet was buzzing with news of a new initiative from the organization. CoS had hired three prize-winning journalists to investigate the St. Petersburg Times, a newspaper that had been investigating them for over 30 years and won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage in 1980.

* Scientology has been hit by a fresh wave of allegations, likely to give added weight to calls for a Senate inquiry into the church.
Several Australians have spoken out for the first time about their experiences with the church, accusing it of forced abortions, holding slave labour camps and exploiting child workers.
Former rugby league player Joe Reaiche told ABC's Four Corners program on Monday of being coerced into spending $400,000 on spiritual books and being paid just $20 a week as an employee.

Monsanto's greed exceeds itself

Anyone who has been following the fortunes of biotech companies associated with genetically modified seed will recall Monsanto & Co's oft repeated claim that it's really in the business of feeding the world and not the simple pursuit of profit.

Once more in 2010 this monopolisitic multinational's actions give lie to the PR spin, as it is discovered trying to assert royalty rights over Cefetra's imported animal feed product made from GMO Roundup-ready soybean and accusing this company and others of infringing its patent.
The ruling mentioned below appears to be an interim opinion with the court's final ruling expected sometime later in the year.

The owner of a patented strain of herbicide-resistant soy can't collect royalties on soy meal imported from Argentina and used for animal feed, a European Court of Justice adviser ruled.
Though the soy meal contains residue of Monsanto's patented gene, it's no longer being used for its patented purpose of resisting pesticides.
Monsanto developed glyphosate, a broad-spectrum pesticide marketed under the name Roundup, along with Roundup-ready crops, which are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate.
Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, in response to a request for clarification from a Dutch court, advised the high court that a European Union biotech directive distinguishes between simple discovery and invention of genetic code.
DNA that simply exists isn't patentable under the EU directive, Mengozzi stated, because this would allow an "unspecified number of derivative products" to fall under control of the patent-holder. For a patent to be enforceable, the genetic information must be "performing the functions described in the patent," Mengozzi said.
The ruling shot down Monsanto's demand for royalties from Dutch importers of genetically modified soybean meal. Although the soy meal, used for animal feed, contains "residue" of the Roundup-ready gene, after harvest the code is no longer active in its purpose of resisting the pesticide, Mengozzi ruled.

European Court of Justice full interim opinion transcript here.

Hartsuyker the Hypocrite

This is what the Federal Nats MP Luke Hartsuyker is saying in his first 2010 e-newsletter sent this week:
"Many tertiary students have started their 2010 studies uncertain about the entitlement to Independent Youth Allowance and Commonwealth scholarships."
Of course they have Luke - you and your mates voted to block passage of the government bill which would have established the guidelines and payment schedule for these entitlements!

A little good news in New South Wales

According to the Weekly Greenhouse Indicator published by The Climate Group there is a little good news but New South Wales needs to do a lot better if we are to get on top of carbon pollution:

This week's (26 Feb to 4 Mar) NSW Indicator is 1.953 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the breakdown is as follows:

In tonnes:

Electricity from coal: 1.146 million; 58.7%

Natural gas: 0.126 million; 6.5%

Petroleum: 0.680 million; 34.8%

This week

NSW's emissions from energy were largely unchanged from last week.

Emissions sources

Emissions from coal-fired electricity, which accounted for 91% of electricity generation in NSW this week, fell by 1.3% or 15,000 tonnes. Emissions from gas were the same as last week. Emissions from petroleum products grew by 2.2% or 14,000 tonnes.

Demand & Import/Export

Electricity demand fell by 5.7%, with less demand for cooling in the milder weather. NSW imported 6% of its electricity demand from other states, which was the same as last week.

Comparisons

This week's Indicator is 6.5% lower than the same week in 2009 and total emissions to this stage of 2010 are 5.9% lower than the similar stage last year. This week's Indicator is 18% above the average equivalent 1990 weekly emissions and 1.0% above the equivalent 2000 weekly average.

How Aussies pick their political idiots

Given Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's recent creep up the Preferred Prime Minister ladder, this look at how we pick our pollies is worth considering.

Have a geek at those happy-go-lucky two percenters who told the Essential Report that they just tick and forget!

Factors determining voting behaviour in Federal or State elections

Q. When you vote in Federal or State elections, which of the following best describes how you decide who to vote for?

The overall policies of the parties was the first most important factor that determines voting behaviour for 43% of those surveyed, for 26% having a general preference for a party was the primary factor determining their voting behaviour.

25% indicated that the second most important reason determining their voting behaviour are the overall policies of the parties, and 22% indicated that the parties' policies on particular issues is the second most important reason.

48% of Coalition voters and 42% of Labor voters indicated that it is the overall policies of the parties that determine how they vote in a Federal or State election. 35% of Labor voters and 31% of Coalition voters indicated that having a general preference for a party is the primary reason that best describes how they vote in a Federal or State election.

People aged 65 years and over were more likely to indicate it is party policy that primarily determine how they vote in a Federal or State election (57%), while those aged 35 – 44 were more likely were more likely to indicate it is a general preference for a party that determines how they will vote (32%).

Thanks to Clarencegirl for lobbing this info my way.

Abbott intends to institutionalize economic disadvantage for newborns?

Leader of both the Australian Liberal Party and Coalition Opposition, Tony Abbott, has announced his 'official unofficial' parental leave policy with an initial broad brush annual costing of over $3 billion per annum.

This is what Abbott told ABC TV Lateline:

TONY ABBOTT: Well, the total cost of this will be about $3.8 billion. About $1 billion will come from the baby bonus, $2.7 billion though I'm anticipating will come from a levy on the taxable incomes of larger businesses.

So what exactly does this mean at face value?

Abbott intends a Coalition federal government to directly pay 26 weeks parental leave to one parent of a new baby or adopted young child and he will set the payment rate at the equivalent of that parent's normal weekly pay packet to a wage/salary ceiling of $150,000 per annum.

Abbott intends to fund this cash transfer payment by taxing the top 3,000 plus profitable Australian businesses and to withdraw a billion dollars annually from the existing federal Baby Bonus scheme.

It is highly unlikely that the majority of parents taking advantage of the proposed parental leave payment will be drawn from employees of those companies paying the new annual tax.
The majority will in all probability be the female parent and be employed by exempt businesses.

Leaving aside the looming problem of convincing his Liberals-Nationals colleagues and big business that a narrowly focused levy is the way to go, there are other matters Tony Abbott needs to explain.

Like why a woman on minimum wage should have all of the 26 week installments of the Baby Bonus (totally $5,185 at last reckoning) counted towards the minimum wage equivalent parental payment coming from the federal government, when a woman normally earning thousands more over the same period and already much better off financially will be losing a lesser bonus amount and receiving sometimes many thousands more in direct government payment for looking after a newborn/adoptee.

Abbott intends to directly subsidize the more financially well-off mother and child at a higher weekly rate because that parent was fortunate enough to acquire a tertiary degree or other form of higher education/training along the way to decent wages and conditions.

Bottom line - Abbott intends the infants of ordinary working class women to receive less than their more affluent cousins.

Talk about rampant inequity and inequality.