Meme of the Week

@amnf_federal

Religious belief is rated the least important attribute that defines Australians' sense of who they are

Australia Talks is an Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) project that was created in collaboration with Vox Pop Labs's data scientists and social scientists. A panel of local academics also guided its creation and the University of Melbourne is an academic partner.

What stands out clearly in this online survey is that personal political belief is what principally drives a sense of identity for the majority of Australians who participated over nine days in July 2019.

The importance of political belief was closely followed by nationality.

Gender (with a marked difference between male & female scoring) and language were ranked third and fourth in order of importance to a sense of self.

Religion came in at a solid last with only 0.192 of a point difference between how males and females scored its low importance with regard to their own identity.
According to ABC News on 6 November 2019; Religious leaders were distrusted by a full 70 per cent of the population, with 35 per cent saying they did not trust them "at all" and Only 15 per cent of respondents thought the country would be better off if more people were religious.

While 60 per cent of the July 2019 respondents; would prefer that people keep their religious views to themselves.

The 29 April 2019 published results of a Vox Pop Labs Vote Compass survey revealed that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison only scored 3.45 out of 10 when it came to "trustworthiness".

Given this former advertising executive increasingly publicly positions himself as a religious political leader and is quite vocal concerning his Pentecostal faith, one wonders if there is now a class of person who actually ranks lower in the general public's esteem than politicians, pollsters and advertising executives did in the September 2019 IPSOS survey 

Clarence Catchment Alliance is hosting a petition opposing water diversion from Clarence River catchment & mining in the upper river

The Daily Examiner, 31 October 2019, p. 9:

In 2017 I solo kayaked the Clarence River from its source near Stanthorpe in the Great Dividing Range to where it empties into the sea of my lifelong home at Yamba. A couple of months ago I tried to do it again, and I couldn’t. It won’t surprise you to hear, that there’s just no water in the river.

Around the same time I learned there were 18 exploratory mining licences active in our headwaters and that drilling quietly begun some 18 months ago.

I also learned that there was at least one serious environmental breach of one of these licences, resulting in a stop work order and a $300,000 fine.

I also learned that talks of damming our headwaters had been revived by western municipalities. When I heard these things, I wanted to find out more.

I caught up with my childhood friend and lifelong valley local, ex world championship tour surfer turned high-performance coach and Patagonia ambassador Daniel Ross, and together we set out to learn more about these potential threats to our home.

We went on a journey upriver to the source of the Clarence, all around the proposed mining areas, speaking to indigenous Elders and locals all along the river, to see these issues through their eyes.

We learned of the fish kills associated with mining from the old copper mine at Cangai, how the Eastern Cod (which only exists in two places in the world - the Clarence and Richmond River catchments) was nearly completely wiped out by these practices. We learned how it was nursed back from the brink to enjoying a thriving population today, and we struggled to understand why consideration would be given to returning to these practices on an even broader scale. We perceived first-hand the proximity of these sites, on these incredibly steep ridge lines, angling down to the river and its tributaries, and failed to comprehend how mining could possibly be achieved safely.

The more we learn, the keener we are to understand the future plans for our valley, and the safest and best solutions for its strategic management so its splendours can be enjoyed for generations to come.

We are strongly of the heart that the risks from mining along the Clarence, the lifeblood of our valley, are too impossibly high to take, and that these risks cannot fit the profile of a healthy future.

If you agree, the Clarence Catchment Alliance is hosting a petition that our State MP Chris Gulaptis has said he will table in parliament if 10,000 signatures are garnered. The petition is available to sign in local businesses all across the Valley, or available online to download, print, sign, and return to the address on the petition.

Dan Ross and Hayley Talbot
Image: Clarence Valley Independent

Clarence Independent, 25 September 2019:

Dan Ross and Hayley Talbot are amid producing a documentary about the Clarence River – towards that end they have already interviewed Toowoomba’s mayor, Paul Antonio, who is also the chair of the Darling Downs South West Queensland Council of Mayors, which has applied to Infrastructure Australia to pipe water from the Clarence River “to Tenterfield Shire Council and Southern Downs, Western Downs and Toowoomba Regional councils”. Mr Ross and Ms Talbot gave a talk about the significance of Clarence River, maintaining its health and “how it affects all of us from the headwaters to the mouth”. “It’s not a ‘green’ thing, it’s commonsense,” Ms Talbot told those gathered at the Valley Watch tent at the Yamba River Market on Sunday, “sharing knowledge and getting the message out there.” 

Clarence Catchment Alliance’s Facebook page at  

https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Community-Organization/No-Mining-Clarence-Catchment-Alliance-641628286338621

In a 5 to 4 Clarence Valley Council vote a new building height precident was set for Yamba

Clarence Valley Independent, 30 October 2019:

Clarence Valley Council has approved the construction of 50 independent seniors’ living apartments at 56-58 Yamba Road, through to the adjacent Caroona aged care facility. There are 10 NSW Government Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAFH) units. Car parking is at ground level and the three levels of apartments consist of 32 two-bedroom units, four three-bedroom units and 12 one bedroom units. Vehicles will be restricted to only turning left when entering and leaving the two driveways. The Uniting Church in Australian Property Trust, which operates Caroona, is the owner. Images: CVC

The report to last week’s Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting advised councillors that one of the developer’s justifications for approving the construction of a four-storey building on Yamba Road was that it “will not create an undesirable precedent or cumulative effect” for future development proposals in Yamba.

Councillors Peter Ellem and Karen Toms disagreed.

Councillor Toms described the proposed height variations, which exceed the maximum heights in the Seniors Living State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) and the Clarence Valley local environment plan (CVLEP), as “the biggest I can remember”, and that approving four storeys would set a “precedent”. She held privacy concerns for a neighbour, who would suffer “a large loss of amenity”. Councillor Ellem reflected on a 2007 decision, by then planning minister Frank Sartor, to approve four-storey buildings at the Blue Dolphin Holiday Resort. “I editorialised against it [when the editor of DEX] … I’d be a bit of a hypocrite if I supported this one,” he said. “At that height, it will set a precedent in Yamba … and have severe impacts on the neighbours.” The CVLEP prescribes a maximum height of nine metres and the seniors SEPP prescribes a maximum height of eight metres. Fifty percent of the building will stand 11.7 metres high, not including an extra metre for the lift and skylights. The LEP says the nine metre maximum is meant to “maintain the low scale character of towns and villages in the Clarence Valley

[and]

protect the amenity of neighbouring properties…”.

Staff write in the report that “the main reason for the height variation appears to be maximising the unit yield by allowing the apartments on the first storey to be above the habitable floor area required for flood affected lots”. 

In other words, the first floor is car parking. 

After considering 12 of the applicant’s justifications, for allowing variations to the SEPP, LEP and development control plan (DCP), staff only highlighted one: “The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the CVLEP.” 

Staff noted that the height variation, “when considered against the first of the objectives of 4.3 of the CVLEP, would generally be inconsistent with maintaining the low scale character of towns and villages in the Clarence Valley”. 

Quoting the applicant’s ‘design verification statement’, which “likens the building to that of low-density buildings in coastal towns … [and advocates the] use of … horizontal emphasis and light and dark tones to additionally lower the visual scale of the buildings”, staff concluded: “In this respect the development is one that will dominate the streetscape in this location, though not be imposing, due to the overall design of the building [and] recessing or stepping of the upper level to around 17 metres from Yamba Road, [with] generous setbacks and provision of landscaping, which achieves reduced bulk and scale visual impacts.” 

On amenity and overshadowing, staff wrote: “Overall the proposal is considered to be consistent with the setback objectives of the DCP.”..... 

Councillor Grag Clancy, who said he was “not against the proposal, in principle”, spoke against; he focused on the building’s height. “I could live with something less than a one metre, but 2.7 metres in one category [LEP] and 3.7 in another [Seniors Living SEP]? … high buildings are not suitable for seniors,” he said.....

Predictably Crs. Richie Williamson, Richie's 'sock puppet' Arthur Lysaught and property developer Andrew Baker voted for the increased building height in the DA and, disappointingly, so did Mayor Jim Simmons and Cr. Jason Kingsley. Those who voted against were Crs. Peter Ellem, Karen Toms, Debra Novak and Greg Clancy.

Alan Jones gets told

Short and sweet.......

The Daily Telegraph, letters to the editor, 31 October 2019p.24:

Going against the flow 

Once again the master statistical manipulator Alan Jones has shot himself in the foot with ignorant claims about the annual water outflow of the Clarence River in northern NSW. As a riverside resident for the past 15 years I’d like to inform Mr Jones that there has been no five million megalitre per annum flows since March 2013 and for the past three years you can straddle the river with both feet upstream of Copmanhurst without getting wet.

Brian Gane, Grafton

Many of the cases of deficiencies or outright failings in aged care were known to both the providers concerned and the regulators before coming to public attention. Why has so little been done to address these deficiencies?

Opening page of the Royal Commission interim report on Aged Care in Australia......

Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, Interim Report, Volume 1, p.1: 

It’s not easy growing old. We avoid thinking and talking about it. As we age, we progressively shift our focus from work to the other things that give us purpose and joy: our children and grandchildren, our friends, our holidays, our homes and gardens, our local communities, our efforts as volunteers, our passions and hobbies. The Australian community generally accepts that older people have earned the chance to enjoy their later years, after many decades of contribution and hard work. Yet the language of public discourse is not respectful towards older people. Rather, it is about burden, encumbrance, obligation and whether taxpayers can afford to pay for the dependence of older people. 

As a nation, Australia has drifted into an ageist mindset that undervalues older people and limits their possibilities. Sadly, this failure to properly value and engage with older people as equal partners in our future has extended to our apparent indifference towards aged care services. Left out of sight and out of mind, these important services are floundering. They are fragmented, unsupported and underfunded. With some admirable exceptions, they are poorly managed. All too often, they are unsafe and seemingly uncaring. This must change. 

Australia prides itself on being a clever, innovative and caring country. Why, then, has the Royal Commission found these qualities so signally lacking in our aged care system? We have uncovered an aged care system that is characterised by an absence of innovation and by rigid conformity. The system lacks transparency in communication, reporting and accountability. It is not built around the people it is supposed to help and support, but around funding mechanisms, processes and procedures. This, too, must change. 

Our public hearings, roundtable discussions with experts, and community forums have revealed behaviour by aged care service providers that, when brought to public attention, has attracted criticism and, in some cases, condemnation. Many of the cases of deficiencies or outright failings in aged care were known to both the providers concerned and the regulators before coming to public attention. Why has so little been done to address these deficiencies? We are left to conclude that a sector-wide focus on the need to increase funding, a culture of apathy about care essentials, and a lack of curiosity about the potential of aged care to provide restorative and loving care—all of which is underpinned by an ageist mindset— has enabled the aged care system to hide from the spotlight. This must also change. [my yellow highlighting]

Left isolated and powerless in this hidden-from-view system are older people and their families. ‘This is not a life.’ ‘This is not my home.’ ‘Don’t let this happen to anyone else.’ ‘Left in her own faeces, and still no one came.’ ‘Mum doesn’t feel safe.’ 

This cruel and harmful system must be changed. We owe it to our parents, our grandparents, our partners, our friends. We owe it to strangers. We owe it to future generations. Older people deserve so much more. 

We have found that the aged care system fails to meet the needs of our older, often very vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care for older people. It is unkind and uncaring towards them. In too many instances, it simply neglects them.

Facebook Inc being exposed as placing advertising revenue ahead of safeguarding democratic election campaign processes

https://youtu.be/1iCVn_JvOiQ

The New York Times, 30 October 2019:

At the Capitol last week, Mark Zuckerberg didn’t have much of an answer to a question about addressing lies in political ads on Facebook.Credit...Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Not in the Cold War, not during Vietnam, not during Watergate did I ever fear more for my country. 

If America's worst enemies had spent years designing a plan to erode our greatest strengths, they could not have done better than what some of our fellow citizens are doing to the country every day for short-term financial or political gain. 

Prominent figures in government, politics and commerce are behaving in ways that are so destructive of the core institutions and norms that underpin our democracy, one can only assume that they take the country's stability as a given -- that they can abuse and stress it all they want and it won't break. 

They are wrong. We can break America, and right now we're on our way there. Not in the Cold War, not during Vietnam, not during Watergate did I ever fear more for my country. 

This moment "is like Wall Street before the financial crisis, when everyone just took for granted that the system was forever stable," remarked Gautam Mukunda, research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of "Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter." 

"So they kept taking bigger and bigger risks and pushing it harder and harder -- until they pushed too hard and it crashed and the government had to step in and rescue everyone. If they keep acting like this, Trump and his allies will keep getting short-term wins until the system crashes. Only there won't be any government to step in and rescue them, because they'll have broken it -- and the country along with it." 

What am I talking about? I'm talking about a president willing to sink to banana republic governing norms, including withholding aid to Ukraine to compel its leadership to investigate his political rival. 

I'm talking about Republican lawmakers who know that the president's Ukraine machinations are indefensible and impeachable, particularly after Tuesday's disclosures by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, that he personally heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine's president to investigate Joe Biden. 

Republicans now have a clear choice: let the constitutional impeachment process proceed or attack the process, i.e., our legislative-judicial order. Alas, a majority seem to be opting for the latter. 

They justify it with daily new conspiracy theories amplified by Fox News. They even stormed a secure room in the Capitol to mislead the public into thinking these hearings are totally one-sided -- when in fact both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and lawyers from the relevant committees are doing the questioning. 

In attacking all the diplomats, intelligence officers and civil servants who have stepped forward, at great professional risk, to bear witness against Trump, they are attacking the people who uphold the regulations -- and provide the independent research and facts -- that make our government legitimate and the envy of people all over the world, where many people have to bribe government workers for service. 

And, finally, there's the internet barons who for too long ignored the weaponization of social media, which is turning our free press into a house of mirrors, where citizens can no longer cognitively discern fact from fiction and make informed judgments essential for democracy. 

I watch it all and wonder: "Are you really doing that? Do you all go home at night to some offshore island where the long-term damage you're doing to America doesn't matter?" 

And what's even more frightening is that there are now so many incentives in place in media and politics -- from gerrymandering to unlimited campaign contributions to data systems that can ever more perfectly define us, divide us and subdivide us -- to ensure that these people will keep on hammering our system until they smash it to pieces. 

Look at Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who was questioned last Wednesday at a House hearing by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A.O.C. was trying to grasp why Zuckerberg thinks it's O.K. for politicians to run political ads that contain obvious lies, as the Trump campaign has already done in a Facebook ad about Biden viewed by some five million Facebook users. 

This is all about money for Zuckerberg, but he disguises his motives in some half-baked theory about freedom of the press -- so half-baked that he couldn't explain it even when he knew he would be asked about it by a congressional committee. 
Read it and weep: 

A.O.C.: "Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying they voted for the Green New Deal?" 

M.Z.: "Can you repeat that?" 

A.O.C.: "Would I be able to run advertisements on Facebook targeting Republicans in primaries saying they voted for the Green New Deal? If you're not fact-checking political advertisements, I'm trying to understand the bounds here of what's fair game." 

M.Z.: "I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head." 

A.O.C.: "Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?" 

M.Z.: "Congresswoman, I think lying is bad. I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad. That's different from it being -- in our position, the right thing to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you had lied." 

A.O.C.: "So you won't take down lies or you will take down lies? It's a pretty simple yes or no." 

M.Z.: "Congresswoman, in most cases, in a democracy, I believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying and judge their character for themselves." 

Yeah, right, as if average citizens are able to discern the veracity of every political ad after years of being conditioned by responsible journalism to assume the claims aren't just made up. 

Just once I'd like to see Zuckerberg look into a camera and say: "I will take Facebook stock down to $1 if that is what it takes to ensure that we're never again an engine for the perversion of democracy in any country, starting with my own. Facebook is not going to accept any more political ads until we have the resources to fact-check them all." 

I doubt he'll do that, though, because his priorities are profits and power, and he seems quite ready to hurt American democracy to get them......