Thankful to be a fallen, ignorant, parasitic unbeliever.....and female!

Sometimes religion spawns the truly scary individual and the Christian religion more than most......


We Need a Christian Dictator
Uploaded by OnKneesforJesus. - News videos hot off the press.

Language foibles

We have some refugees from the floods that have been camping in the local area - a mob of Angus cattle also colloquially known as black polls.

I have been referring to them as Japanese cattle since they move as a herd in one tight group. Even with the hundreds of acres they have available to them, you never see them more than 20 metres apart from one another. They are a tight knit group used to confined spaces.

This leads me to the meaning of the title for this little piece.

City friends who I had not seen for years rang and asked if they could stay for a night to break their journey north, and since their arrival would be at night I gave them all the usual warnings about the road into our farm house. Go slow: the bumps and ditches have been made worse during the rains, don’t be tempted to leave the track since you will get bogged and the new one watch out for - black polls on the road.

On the night of their arrival the wine was chilled, dinner was ready and the visitors arrived more or less on time.

When asked how their trip was their reply amused me; the number of cattle on our track had surprised and slowed them, but they never saw any timber on the road and wondered why I would warn them about ‘black poles’. They thought that the recent floods must have dumped burnt fence posts on the road into our place and were quite at a loss as to why we hadn’t removed the obstacles from the road.

It seems common language is not so common after all.

A media release concerning GMOs in Australia you may have missed

With so many media releases flooding into cyberspace on a daily basis it is easy to miss some which ask relevant questions.

Such as this one from MADGE on 28 December 2010 which asks why Food Safety Australia New Zealand cleared Monsanto and Co as a suitable company when it clearly has a number convictions which call its good governance/good faith into question.

Sadly, the answer to this might be the fact that Monsanto has also incorporated multiple times in Australia and therefore is probably quarantined from any fallout created by parent company convictions by what is really a form of legal fiction.

As to what FSANZ may not want MADGE to know about Monsanto's legal history in Australia, that is rather intriguing as Austlii kindly documents the more prominent court cases involving this company but not necessarily anything involving a criminal conviction.

Gene Regulator determined Monsanto a 'suitable company'

The Gene Technology Regulator has approved the release of an experimental GM canola owned by the company Monsanto1. This canola has been designed to tolerate higher rates of glyphosate herbicide, and has not been tested for human food (or pollen) safety.

MADGE would like to know how the Regulator determined that Monsanto was a "suitable company" to hold a licence for this release, as required in Section 58 (2) of the GeneTechnology Act2.

Companies applying for a licence are required to list relevant convictions or those of significant shareholders over the last 10 years.

"Many people are aware of Monsanto's record of human and environmental harm caused by products it claimed to be safe" said Madeleine Love of the grass‐roots group MADGE Australia.

"And in the last 10 years Monsanto has been charged with violating the foreign corrupt practices act and making false entries into its books and records3. It has been fined for misleading the public over the safety of its glyphosate herbicide4 and for misbranding genetically engineered pesticides5."

"As the Regulator had expressed an intention to approve the planting of this experimental GM product in earlier advice, MADGE assumed the Regulator had determined that Monsanto's record was not important."

"On inquiry to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) we received Monsanto's application, but with pages related to the declaration of convictions missing."

"We requested and received these pages, but the response to the question on convictions had been blanked out."

"When we asked to know the convictions Monsanto had declared, the OGTR replied that Monsanto had not necessarily reported any convictions and that they cannot provide any information about convictions, declared or otherwise."

"In response we asked what bodies have the power to apply scrutiny to the information provided by the applicant and to the decision made by the Regulator. "

"We received information that the OGTR may only be subject to scrutiny under the general principles of administrative law, and we were advised to seek our own legal advice."

"The Gene Technology Regulator knew little about this particular GM canola at the time of approval. The novel code had not been chacterised by Monsanto."

"This GM canola is certain to contaminate commercial canola crops, given the conditions applied to planting. It has a novel chimeric (man made) promoter constructed from viral and brassica material."

"There are many aspects of risk to this release which the GTR has decided to accept on behalf of Australians, in practical effect without their informed consent."

"The Regulator has placed full trust in the hands of Monsanto, which seems to be out of line with community expectations and values."

MADGE had put in a submission in the public review stage.

Contact: Madeleine Love 0447 762 284

1http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir105-3/$FILE/dir105notific.pdf

2http://www.frli.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/15067A4059EB4337CA25747500

1F9FEF/$file/GeneTechnology2000_WD02.pdf

3http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/garrett/monsanto.pdf;

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/January/05_crm_008.htm;

4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup#False_advertising_and_scientific_fraud

5http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6754B55AAEC2AEE18525775A0061F90B

And the Opposition flood spin descends into farce

If you thought Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s ''It seems the Prime Minister is going to call this a 'mateship tax' but mates help each other. They don't tax each other.'' was the height of juvenile stupidity, then you are going to love his sidekick's response to the following statement by the Australian Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 26 January 2011:

First, we will deliver a one-off levy. It will not include lower-income earners.

A levy of 0.5 per cent will be applied on taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000 and a levy of 1 per cent will be applied on taxable income above $100,000. Anyone earning under $50,000 will not pay the levy.

In other words it is not like the Medicare Levy, which for most taxpayers applies to all their income – it is like income tax rates which apply only above certain income levels.

Under this levy, someone who has an income of $60,000 will pay just under $1 extra per week. A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week.

The levy will apply only in the 2011-12 financial year and it will raise $1.8 billion.

People who were affected by the floods will not pay this levy.

Anyone who receives the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment for a flood this financial year will be exempt.

Shadow Treasurer and Liberal MP Joe Hockey on 27 January 2011:

It is patently absurd to tax homes that they themselves have been afflicted by the floods.
So their home's drifted down the river and now Julia Gillard comes along and says: good news guys, we're going to put a flood tax on you.

For all those retired teachers out there.....

....especially those who put their hearts and souls into teaching English as a subject in high school.



The original written review was apparently deleted but could still be seen on Google cache last Monday.

Williamson fights against an obvious political reality?

In a March 2011 NSW state election widely expected to give the Liberal-Nationals Coalition a landslide victory, Clarence Valley Mayor Richie Williamson is standing as an Independent.

In The Daily Examiner on 26 January 2011:

INDEPENDENT candidate for Clarence Richie Williamson has dismissed claims that if elected he would not achieve results for the electorate under a Coalition government predicted to win the March state election in a landslide.

Mr Williamson said being an independent he would not have to toe any party line and would fight for the people of Clarence.

“I am totally confident that if elected as an independent in the next government I would be able to get results for the people of Clarence ... I will be able to work with either party,” he said.

I rather suspect that Mr. Williamson is being encouraged to focus his energy and spend his money on this bid for the seat of Clarence by none other than certain elements within the Australian Labor Party, who see the possibility of independents winning seats as a form of moral spoiler on the almost inevitable Opposition victory.

Sadly, if Mr. Williamson should win he would be as politically impotent on the cross benches as the current sitting member has been on the opposition benches and Clarence will continue to be ignored by Macquarie Street for another four years. If at the same time he attempted to retain his position as a shire councillor he would also potentially become a political danger to the aims and aspirations of local government in the area.

The best hope for Clarence voters is if they run the ballot count so close to the wire that a narrowly re-elected Cansdell is thought by the Coalition to need buttressing by state funding largesse to keep the seat out of the hands of either Independents or Labor in 2015.