Twitter shows its heart is as dark as Facebook's when it comes to Donald Trump

As a businessman, television ‘personality', presidential candidate and now US president, Donald J. Trump has always used his Twitter account @realDonaldTrump to boast, misinform, openly lie, insult, incite, personally attack, defame and threaten.

Over the seven years his main account has been in existence I know of no instance where Twitter Inc has sanctioned this account for breaking its participation rules.

Having deliberately used this digital megaphone to bring the world closer to a nuclear war in 2017, Trump remains immune regardless.

It would appear that, like Zuckerberg and Facebook Inc, CEO Jack Dorsey and Twitter 
shareholders have been more concerned with profit margins than the harm they are enabling. 

In Twitter's case by allowing Trump to tweet with no genuine consideration by the company of a tweet’s context or content.

THREAD: Some of you have been asking why we haven't taken down the Tweet mentioned here: https://t.co/CecwG0qHmq 1/6

— Twitter PublicPolicy (@Policy) September 25, 2017

Associated Press,

WASHINGTON (AP) — Twitter cited President Donald Trump’s “newsworthiness” and the public interest as reasons why it declined to remove a tweet that added to the fiery rhetoric between the United States and North Korea.

Trump tweeted Saturday : “Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won’t be around much longer!” On Monday, North Korea’s top diplomat called the tweet a declaration of war. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded by calling the suggestion of such a declaration “absurd.”

Twitter’s rules state users “may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.”

The company responded to questions about why Trump’s tweet wasn’t removed Monday by posting in a series of messages on its public policy account that “newsworthiness” is one of the factors it considers in determining if a tweet breaks the platform’s rules.

“This has long been internal policy and we’ll soon update our public-facing rules to reflect it,” one message read. “We need to do better on this, and will.”

The company also stated it’s “committed to transparency and keeping people informed about what’s happening in the world.”

Calls on the company to curtail Trump’s use of the platform are not new . The company has said in the past that it doesn’t comment on individual accounts, but it has cited the importance of hearing from leadership in order to hold people accountable.

Trump’s account wasn’t affected in July, when Twitter announced that it was taking action, including suspensions, on 10 times the number of abusive accounts than it did a year before.

Excerpt from The Twitter Rules:

Abusive Behavior

We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.

Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.

Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:

if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;

if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;

if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and

if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. 

Indigenous Health 2017: "We are failing because the government is focusing only on the tipping point of suicide when we need to be looking at the causal narrative also"

IndigenousX, September 2017:

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has today released its 2016 Causes of Death data which includes annual national suicide information. Analysis provided by Mindframe revealed that 162 (119 male, 43 female) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people died by suicide, which is slightly higher than the 152 recorded in 2015.

Suicide was the 5th leading cause of death for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across NSW, QLD, SA, WA and NT, compared to the 15th leading cause of death for non-Indigenous people in these states. In these states, the standardised death rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (23.8 per 100,000) was more than twice the non-Indigenous rate (11.4 per 100,000).

Limited data is available for VIC, TAS and the ACT due to relatively small numbers in comparison to the other states.

According to Gerry Georgatos, a suicide prevention researcher and prison reform advocate, the data fails to take into account deaths classified as “Other”, which are often through drug or alcohol use, overdose or misadventure. The data, if it truly reflected the reality on the ground, would depict the real number as 1 in 10 Indigenous deaths is by suicide, not 1 in 18 as the national data suggests.

Georgatos says: “We are failing because the government is focusing only on the tipping point of suicide when we need to be looking at the causal narrative also. The causal narrative, of course is the deep, deep poverty and inequality.” He says that the government is doing next to nothing to address the fact that there is gross inequality not only between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, but even within Indigenous communities themselves.

“We need to not only address suicide and trauma, but we need to give people something to live for by lifting them out of entrenched poverty and support them through addressing their trauma with treatment from a place of opportunity,” he says.

Georgatos is of the view that the systemic failures are translating as clear toxic racism: “When you see remote non-Indigenous communities provided with services and infrastructure, but Indigenous communities a mere 50km away with nothing – it is a clear indication that racism is at play.”

Georgatos says that the crisis is not improving, as many governmental advisers and stakeholders tend to suggest, but worsening with children as young as 9-years-old taking their life through suicide, as well as countless others experiencing depression and suicidal ideation. He believes that we do Indigenous people a disservice if we continue with the falsehoods of improvement……

Read full article here.

Oh, it burns! It burns! #2

On 20 September 2017 first term Liberal MLA for Brindabella, Shadow Minister for Housing & Shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing Mark Parton rose to his feet and unthinkingly touched on the matter of male priviledge.

The match was lit.

He said in ACT Legislative Assembly:

MR PARTON (Brindabella) (11.21):…..

I know that much of this debate is about social inclusion. I get that. It is easy to say that this debate is not about taxes and charges. But I am here to tell you that when you feel the squeeze from all directions—when you feel the pinch from rising rates, rising land tax, rising electricity charges, rising rego fees, rising regulatory fees in every direction—and you are pushed into a financial space whereby you are struggling to breathe, you do not feel included. These people feel as though they have been left out; they do not feel included. 

On a broader level, I always find it fascinating that we focus on all of these groups who we are not going to leave behind. If you are a heterosexual, employed white male over the age of 30, you are not really included in anything. I know that those on the other side would say that heterosexual, employed Anglo males have opportunities aplenty, so we do not need to look after them; they will be okay. Madam Assistant Speaker, let me tell you that 75 per cent of suicides in this country are men, and overwhelmingly they are men aged 30 to 54. When we commit to inclusion, we should not be picking favourites; we should commit to including everyone.

She said in the mainstream media:

Virginia Haussegger (ABC News).....

Director of the women's equality foundation 50/50 by 2030, Virginia Haussegger, said Mr Parton's comments were "foolish" and "offensive to all those not part of that privileged class".

"As Mr Parton is aware, our federal Parliament is overwhelmingly run by white, heterosexual men aged over 30, who hold the majority of power, influence and key decision-making roles," she said.

"They dominate among state premiers and chief ministers, across all three defence forces, our judiciary, academia, local government [and] across all religious denominations.

"White men aged over 30 rule the majority of Australia's publicly listed companies, they overwhelmingly control the boards, our financial institutions and our banks and operate in workplace environments that severely lack gender and ethnic diversity.

"What's more, they get paid more than women to do it."

Ms Haussegger said if Mr Parton was concerned about suicide rates among men there were better ways to draw attention to the issue.

"To suggest heterosexual, white, employed men aged over 30 are somehow missing out on attention or inclusion is not only daft, it is damaging to the gender equity project and has a heavy whiff of backlash about it," she said.

"If Mr Parton is suggesting that a particular cohort of men is struggling with mental health issues, as a result of missing out on attention, then perhaps it would be best to invite serious discussion about that important issue, rather than take a swipe at minority and disadvantaged groups who are in need of focused funding initiatives."

We've been there done that, Tony, and no sensible person wants a repeat

This was Australia in 1949…….

“The Government then used the armed forces to work the open cut mines. The first time in Australia’s history. It was rumoured they would use arms if necessary.”

Apparently sacked former prime minister Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott wants to return us to this past…….

News.com.au, 28 September 2017:

TONY Abbott has been ordered by senior colleagues to cool it after he seemed to suggest the Army could invade the states which don’t expand natural gas production.

The former Prime Minister has said his successor Malcolm Turnbull could invoke “defence powers”, telling Fairfax Media the Commonwealth could then take management of resources from states.

This is not the first time Abbott has expressed a desire for military intervention – remember his push to allow the military a “shoot to kill” right on our streets?

SBS News, 5 June 2017:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott is encouraging the Turnbull Government to amend the Defence Act to allow specialist army regiments to take the lead on major domestic terror incidents.

Mr Abbott - who himself put a commando unit on standby during the Lindt café siege in December 2014 – has said on numerous occasions too many are concerned about “political correctness” and wants “shoot to kill” powers made a priority.

More evidence that the far-right in politics and industry are determined to drive working class Australians into generational poverty?

The Sydney Morning Herald

Wage fraud, wage freezes, cuts to penalty rates and companies scrapping enterprise agreements will reduce the retirement savings of millions of workers by $100 billion by the time they retire, a report has found.

The report, the Consequences of Wage Suppression for Australia's Superannuation System by the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work, says the government will pick up more than one third of the cost, equivalent to $37 billion in lost taxes due to lower super contributions and higher age pension payouts.

It estimates that three million people, or one in four workers, have experienced some form of wage suppression, which will adversely impact their super payout.

The author of the report, Jim Stanford, describes wage suppression as an economic "time bomb". He says while individual families are grappling with the immediate impact of wage cuts, the long-term impact when they retire is yet to play out.

[THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAGE SUPPRESSION FOR SUPERANNUATION, p.9]

Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, Jim Stanford, Ph.D., The Consequences of Wage Suppression for Australia’s Superannuation System, September 2017, excerpt from Summary:

Wages and salaries in Australia’s labour market are exhibiting their weakest growth in the history of the relevant statistics. Hourly wages are growing at less than 2 percent per year, and real wages (adjusted for consumer price inflation) are stagnant or falling. The unprecedented stagnation of wages reflects many factors, including chronic weakness in labour demand and the erosion of traditional wage-setting institutions (such as minimum wages and collective bargaining). But it also reflects, for millions of Australian workers, the aggressive efforts by employers (both private- and public- sector) to deliberately suppress wages below normal levels. These wage-suppression strategies take many forms: from the imposition of temporary wage freezes, to the unilateral termination of enterprise agreements, to the outright theft of wages through below-minimum payments. These pro-active measures to suppress labour incomes, breaking the normal link between labour incomes and labour productivity (which continues to grow at over 1 percent per year1), impose great harm on affected workers, their families, government budgets, and Australia’s macroeconomic performance.

There is another important consequence of these wage suppression strategies that is often not sufficiently understood by workers, employers, policy-makers and regulators: their flow-through impact on Australia’s retirement income system. When workers’ wages are unduly suppressed, then the normal flow of employer contributions into their superannuation accounts is also constrained. They will have smaller superannuation balances when they retire, and will consequently experience a lasting reduction in post-retirement incomes. Moreover, governments will share a significant portion of the resulting damage: they will collect less in taxes on superannuation contributions and investment income, and will pay out more in means-tested Age Pension benefits (since workers’ superannuation incomes will be smaller). These significant, lasting consequences from wage-suppression strategies should be documented and considered. They provide a powerful motive for all stakeholders to challenge employers’ wage-cutting initiatives. They also should be of direct concern to superannuation trustees and administrators – since the capacity of the superannuation capacity of the superannuation system to provide decent, secure retirement incomes for its members is being undermined by this growing pattern of wage suppression.

This report presents results from several quantitative simulations of the impact of wage suppression on superannuation entitlements of affected workers, their long-run retirement incomes, and corresponding fiscal effects on government. The report considers several specific scenarios, corresponding to different instances of pro-active wage suppression strategies that have been experienced by Australian workers in recent years. It traces through the impact of those policies on workers’ wages, superannuation accumulations, and retirement incomes. The simulations also describe the spill-over impacts on government (arising from reduced taxes collected on superannuation contributions and investment income, and increased Age Pension payouts). The simulations confirm that:

* Wage suppression undermines superannuation accumulations by automatically reducing employer contributions. Moreover, the damage is compounded over time due to the subsequent loss of investment income.

* Even temporary wage restraint measures (like temporary wage freezes) have lasting negative impacts on superannuation balances, by altering the trajectory of a worker’s wages for the rest of their career.

* The most dramatic instances of wage suppression – the termination of enterprise agreements by employers, and resulting large wage reductions as workers are placed back on minimum award conditions – can reduce the superannuation balance of a retiring worker by as much as $270,000.

* More modest wage suppressing policies (such as temporary nominal wage freezes, producing real wage reductions that are then sustained through a worker’s remaining years of service) reduce retirement superannuation balances by $30,000 or more.

* Government bears a share of the resulting losses, through both reduced tax collections before affected workers retire, and increased Age Pension payouts after they retire. In the worst-case scenarios, governments can experience fiscal losses of over $50,000 per worker (in real 2017 dollar terms).

* Millions of Australians have been confronted with one or more of these forms of wage suppression from their employers, so the aggregate impacts across the economy are enormous. Based on plausible estimates of the number of workers confronted with each form of wage suppression, the aggregate loss of superannuation balances on retirement (if the pattern of wage suppression is maintained) could ultimately exceed $100 billion (in real 2017 dollars) by the time affected workers retire, and the aggregate fiscal cost to government could reach $37 billion (in real 2017 dollars)………..

1 A recent Department of Finance research paper on productivity trends confirms that labour productivity continues to grow at typical historical rates – advancing at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent over the last five years alone. See Simon Campbell and Harry Withers, “Australian Productivity Trends and the Effect of Structural Change, “ August 28 2017, http://treasury.gov.au/ PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2017/ Australian-productivity-trends-and-the-effect-of-structuralchange

[THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAGE SUPPRESSION FOR SUPERANNUATION, p.10]

Surge in water consumption prompts call from Clarence Valley Council for people to be careful with their water use

Clarence Valley Council, media release, 27 September 2017:

Clarence residents urged to be water wise

A surge in water consumption has prompted a call from the Clarence Valley Council for people to be careful with their water use.

The council’s general manager, Ashley Lindsay, said figures for the same date for each of the past four years showed how much water people were using this Spring.

“On September 25, 2014, we consumed 12 megalitres,“ he said.

“On September 25, 2015 we used 14 megalitres, on that date in 2016 we used 15 megalitres, but on September 25 this year – Monday – we used 25 megalitres.

“That is more than double the consumption we had in 2014.

“All we are asking is for people to be mindful of their consumption. Our field staff has noticed a lot of residential properties where sprinklers are being used during the day, contrary to the permanent level one water conservation measures we have in place.

“We’ve printed a notice that is being dropped into letterboxes of the residences involved.”

Level one water restrictions are:

# Residential gardens - Fixed hoses and sprinklers are BANNED between 9am and 4pm. No

restriction on hand-held hoses or water efficient micro sprinklers.

# Car washing - No restriction. Do not leave hose running, consider using a trigger nozzle

.

# Washing of driveways and paved areas - No restriction. Sweeping and other dry methods are

encouraged. If a hose is required, please use a pressure cleaner.

# Swimming pools - No restriction. Consider a cover to reduce evaporation and minimal topping

up.

# All sports grounds (including public parks and gardens, school grounds), commercial

operations, industry, nurseries, orchards etc. - No restriction. Reduce evaporation by avoiding

watering in the heat or middle of the day and on windy days.

# All other essential water use associated with commercial and industry operations - No

restriction. Businesses should follow water-efficient practices and minimise water use, respecting

the restrictions that apply to the general community, as outlined above.

Copy of a card being dropped into the letterboxes of residents who have been using sprinklers outside of the recommended times.

Under Turnbull Government's new plan "38 out of 44 marine parks will be open to trawling, gillnetting and longlining, 33 will be open to mining, and 42 exposed to the construction of pipelines"

www.parksaustralia.gov.au

Canberra Times, 17 September 2017:

In the corridors of Parliament House that day, as I met MPs of every stripe, I felt a great sense of promise, even pride. And it seemed for a while such hope was not misplaced. In 2012, after an exhaustive scientific process and wide community consultation, Tony Burke declared a system of marine national parks, one of the biggest and best in the world, the most significant conservation gain in Australian history.

That took courage. Because it put science before politics, prudence ahead of expediency. And it was popular. But as soon as he came to power in 2013 Tony Abbott announced an immediate moratorium on these parks and instigated a review. The purpose was purely political. To delay implementation, corrode consensus and deny the science. A move straight out of the culture warrior's playbook.

After decades of forward-thinking leaders, the nation had fallen into the hands of a man whose loyalties were only to the past. It was a low moment. But Abbott's reign was as brief as it was fruitless. It was a relief to see him replaced in 2015 by a man who'd actually done things, who believed in the future. Malcolm Turnbull did not scorn science. He seemed to understand the value and fragility of our natural estate. So there was new hope the marine parks review would now be expedited and redirected towards real conservation outcomes. With coral reefs bleaching and miners pressing for even more coal ports and seabed to drill, the need for protection had only grown more urgent.

Well, that moment of promise is long gone. Turnbull's period in office has basically been a hostage drama. The bargain he made with powerbrokers rendered him captive to the party's most illiberal wing, and if his performance on climate, energy and marriage equality aren't evidence enough, last month's announcement that marine parks would be slashed beyond all recognition puts it beyond dispute.

The agents of inertia control his government. And what's worse he's looking like a hostage who's begun to identify with his captors. How else to explain his radical lurch backwards on parks? The draft management plans recently released for consultation by Josh Frydenberg don't just signify the gutting of the national system, they represent the largest removal of protection for Australian wildlife in our history. What the government is proposing is a nihilistic act of vandalism. Forty  million hectares of sanctuary will be ripped from the estate. That's like revoking every second national park on land. Under its new plan, 38 out of 44 marine parks will be open to trawling, gillnetting and longlining, 33 will be open to mining, and 42 exposed to the construction of pipelines. In total defiance of the scientific advice upon which the original system was designed, 16 marine parks will now have no sanctuary zones at all.

The science shows that partial or low-level protection simply doesn't work. What the government is putting forward will radically diminish protection of habitat. It will also undermine sustainable regional economic development. What began as a quest for excellence based on the best possible science is now so miserably degraded it's turned the greatest step forward in marine conservation into a regime that doesn't even aspire to be second-rate.

Draft management plans for Australian marine parks/reserves:

Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve draft management plan

                                                                         

North Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves management plan

South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves draft management plan

As one South Australian voter put it after reading about the Turnbull Government's intentions; FFS ! These guys are proof that there are no time machines. Otherwise someone from the future would come back and mulch the pr*cks. (quote supplied)

Voters in NSW North Coast electorates should be aware that:

* Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan supported this review and to date has never voted against his party’s position in the House of Representatives. Therefore it is highly likely that he will vote for any government bill which will reduce marine park and marine reserve protections.

*Nationals MP for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker supported this review and to date has never voted against his party’s position in the House of Representatives. Therefore it is highly likely that he will vote for any government bill which will reduce marine park and marine reserve protections.

* Labor MP for Richmond Justine Elliot does not support a reduction in marine parks and marine reserve protections.

Brief background

The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 July 2017:

The Turnbull government has released draft management plans for the nation's marine parks that amount to an "unprecedented roll-back" of protections, a coalition of 25 environmental groups say.

The long-awaited draft plans were released on Friday and propose changes to the 3.3 million square kilometres of Australia's protected offshore regions expanded in 2012 by the Gillard government.

The area of marine parks open to fishing would jump to 80 per cent from 64 per cent now, if the changes were to pass through parliament, WWF-Australia said.

"This is a huge step backwards for marine protection," Richard Leck, WWF's head of oceans, said. "Australia used to be seen as a global leader in marine conservation. That will no longer be the case if these proposals are implemented."

Other proposed changes would strip Shark and Vema reefs of  marine national park status, while Osprey reef - one of the world's premier dive sites - has lost more than half its protection, Tony Burke, Labor's environment spokesman said.

"Five years ago, Labor make the second largest conservation decision in history. Today the Turnbull Government announced the largest undoing of conservation ever," Mr Burke said….

Of particular concern to the green groups is the Coral Sea Marine Park, where a substantial area previously given the maximum protection had been reduced……

Ms Grady said the government had chosen to ignore the science contained in independent reviews that backed the original zones.

"All Australians will be justifiably distressed to know that science evidence supporting an increase in protections for marine life has been thrown out the window," Darren Kindleysides, director of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said.