Almost weekly there is some sort of private-school-funding-bashing article in one of the tabloid newspapers, detailing how millions of dollars of government funding are going to this and that private school whilst some poor deprived primary school somewhere in Broadmeadows lies derelict and falling to pieces and what a huge shame this is for the government. But there has never been (with perhaps 2 exceptions) any sort of analysis of public school funding within the system rather than between the public and private systems. This is a situation that must be turned around.

In Victoria, there are what are called ‘Elite Secondary Schools’, which are essentially elitist public schools who try their hardest to be like private ones. These are generally (in no particular order):

• Melbourne High School
• Balwyn High School
• MacRobertson High School
• McKinnon Secondary College
• Bendigo Senior Secondary College

These are schools who receive priority in Victorian government funding and development programs and as a result, have the best facilities among public schools in Victoria, rivalling those of some private schools.

The problem with this? The fact that these schools receive tens of millions of dollars in public funding for building programs, “innovative” projects, etc, whilst schools like, say, Sunshine Secondary College, lie rotting with its facilities literally falling apart.

The reasons for this? Quite simple; the four schools listed above are essentially the top performing public schools in the state (along with University High School), with Melbourne High and MacRob often gaining the best performing results in the state, beating the private schools. When funding becomes available, it is channelled to these schools to become what is becoming official terminology within the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD); “model schools”.

What this exactly means is yet to be determined, but what it does mean for these schools is almost limitless funding for any “innovative project” or “curriculum & learning <insert PC term here>”, whilst other schools that need this funding lie rotting away, crumbling monuments to equitable state education.

Take Balwyn High School for instance. An elite public school almost surrounded by equally elite private schools (Fintona Girls’ School, Camberwell Boys’ Grammar, Carey Grammar, etc.), that obtains high VCE results and retention rates, in the midst of the leafy Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne. It received, for a single three-story building, $11.7 million in government funding, with another couple of million coming from the “school community”. The school already enjoys many clean, new and well-kept facilities, with the building project hardly being able to be considered ‘essential’.

The irony in this is, whilst it seems to cost the equivalent of buying about 20 mid-priced, decently sized, two-story houses to build a single building, many other secondary schools, who do not fit into this “model schools” category, lie derelict and forgotten.

What we need now is a drastic shake up of government funding. Give funding to schools based on the number of staff and students; not on how many “innovative” programs the school operates; not on how much sucking up the administration can do; and certainly not what the socio-economic status of the students, parents, teachers or immediate area is. If we do so, we create elitism, even within our public education system. If it does come to that, the decaying classrooms of Sunshine Secondary College and all of the other forgotten state education facilities, will become timeless monuments to the days of equality and the right to a decent education.

Now I’m not sure if our friends over at the BBC have heard of this natural phenomenon: El Niño. To put it simply: “…the term El Niño refers to the extensive warming of the central and eastern Pacific that leads to a major shift in weather patterns across the Pacific” (Bureau of Meteorology; 2010, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/elnino.shtml). This is, in very basic terms, the movement of huge masses of water throughout the Central Pacific Ocean which are at different temperatures. This causes less rainfall on the eastern side and more rainfall on the western side, due to warmer ocean temperatures, weaker than normal eastern trade winds and a low SOI (Southern Oscillation Index). El Niño also has a ‘partner in crime’: La Nina, which causes the same effects, except in reverse.

What does this have to do with sea lions leaving the Galapagos Islands? Well, it has quite a bit to do with it. As you can see in Figure 1, El Nino can change the water temperature dramatically.

Figure 1

http://sealevel2.jpl.nasa.gov/jr_oceanographer/oceanographer-perigaud.html

However, even El Nino can’t account for all of the temperature rise. The temperature rise quoted by this Peruvian Organisation (Organisation for Research and Conservation of Aquatic Animals) was 5C – from 17C to 23C over the last 10 years. This is interesting, because it’s not backed up by pretty much the only raw data available from the immediate area.

Figure 2 is from Nonura, Peru, close by to where the organisation’s temperature monitor is. It’s a graph documenting sea temperatures from 1984-2005, using oceanographic satellite measurements of nearby open water.

Figure 2

http://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/Nonura/seatemp

It is interesting to note that the 23C cited by the ORCAA is actually lower that the average temperature from 1981-2005, which was 24C.

It is also interesting to note the following information from the aforementioned website:

“Actual water temperatures close to shore at Nonura can vary by several degrees compared with these open water averages. This is especially true after heavy rain, close to river mouths or after long periods of strong offshore winds. Offshore winds cause colder deep water to replace surface water that has been warmed by the sun.”

Thus, it would appear that the temperature rise quoted by the organisation may, in fact, not be due to climate change, but to a number of perfectly normal phenomena.

UPDATE: It would appear that even the BBC have realised the fallacy of this connection. The day after the article was posted (and when I halfway through this rant), they posted a “correction” on the end of the page, correcting three major mistakes that they had made in the story. It would appear that even the otherwise mostly reputable BBC has no hesitation in rushing alarmist stories to the publishing stage before properly checking the facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8503397.stm

I’m no economist (in fact, I hated economics at school), but a couple of hundred millions dollars is no skin off any First World country’s nose. The total unpaid debt in the Third World is around $523 billion – only half of Barak Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package for the United States. It would not be that hard at all to cancel this debt to the Third World, and then really give these countries a chance at rebuilding themselves, making the world a more stable and safer place.

Want to help stop terrorism? Canceling debt, allowing these countries to develop, will in turn make them much more stable and less reliant on the West. This greatly reduces the ammunition of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, which thrive on hatred of the West among common people, in such countries as Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq. If we cancel the debt, and conditions improve thanks to the West canceling the debt, it would surely change or help change the opinions of a lot of people in these countries, and help them to see the West in a more favourable light.

But honestly – why should a country have to wait for a huge disaster like the deaths of a few hundred thousand people, in order to have something happen that should’ve happened many years ago? If I were leading a Third World country, I’d be thinking of faking some huge disaster in order to get more foreign aid and debt cancellations – it seems the only way!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8502567.stm

Every year we see the same story – the poor, poor ball kids, of whom over 300 work (that’s right – WORK) at the Australian Open over its two weeks or so of operation, are being “denied” their $42 per match for “fetching balls, handling the sweat-laden towels and, perhaps, verbal serves from surly stars”. The 2009 Australian Open was the first year in which ball kids were not paid their $42 per match, and didn’t that put the cat among the pigeons.

There were the soppy articles about how hard the ball kids worked and how unfair it was that while the prize money was going up, their salaries were being cut. And it wasn’t just their $42 per match that was being cut – their $20 daily meal allowance was cut to only $8, but they received a ‘lunch pack’ in compensation for this. This amounts to about $62 per day – $104 if they do two matches. This is more pay than most workers get in the adult world.

I have this message for them – QUIT COMPLAINING!

Take the St. John Ambulance volunteers, who toil through the two weeks also, but are not paid one cent for the work that they do (although they do receive $15 meal vouchers to use at the staff canteen). But that is it! And whilst the ball kids and their latte-sipping eastern-suburbs parents run around complaining of their taxing 45 minute shifts of rolling balls along the ground and holding sweaty towels (with one hour air-conditioned breaks) and how unfair it is that they’re not getting paid, these St. John Ambulance volunteers get 9 hour shifts (from 9am – 6pm), with most of it spent outside, and only one break in the middle of the day for lunch (around 40 minutes). The rest of their time is spent attending to the many injuries and ailments of the general public, and, sometimes, even the poor, deprived ball kids themselves. Last year, St. John treated over 3000 people over the 2 week period.

The work that they do is not even mentioned on the Australian Open website, much less in the media or other places. They’re not paid, not given nearly as many rest breaks as the ball kids, get meal tickets of lesser value, do a much harder and more taxing job and – get this – don’t complain about their situation.

However, this year, 2010, the organisers of the Open appear to have been somewhat persuaded by the angry soccer mums and their little terrors in pink, and now about 30 ball kids will receive payment for this year, making somewhat of a backflip on an excellent decision taken last year by the organisers. Thus, unfortunately, it looks like the whiny soccer mums are winning the day.

So in conclusion, we have these ball kids, who complain of 45 minute shifts, with 1 hour air-conditioned breaks between them, holding towels and rolling balls along the ground, being “denied the miserly per diem of $42 a match”, whilst much harder working volunteers, St. John Ambulance, who are barely recognised for their efforts and receive meal vouchers worth less than those of the ball kids as their only form of ‘payment’, rightly never complaining of their situation.

In the words of ‘Chopper’ Reid, “Harden up Australia!”

References/Further Reading

• http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-ball-boys-and-girls-ready-for-australian-open-test/story-e6frf7jo-1225818581459
• http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24473397-23216,00.html
• http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/blog-pay-the-open-ball-kids/20090121-7m1q.html?page=1
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/10/2387457.htm

I AM NOT A HOLOCAUST DENIER OR AN ANTI-SEMITE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION

There I hope that this will stop the comments that I usually get when I say these types of things…

Anyway, this is about how the Holocaust, during the reign of the Nazis from 1933 to 1945, has been misrepresented, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and how wrong this is.

At school, we are taught that the Holocaust was the systematic extermination of six millions Jews by the Nazis during World War Two. This is fine. However, what almost everyone forgets as a result of this and other references to it throughout our lives, is that there were between 4-9 million people of other races, countries, nationalities, disabilities, political beliefs, etc that also died as a result.

Poles, Slavs, Soviets, Greeks, homosexuals, liberals and gypsies were all also forgotten victims of the Holocaust. They too were gassed, euthanased, shot, burned, etc and yet, they are barely mentioned or remembered. Almost every single Holocaust memorial or museum around the world is exclusively for the six million or so Jews who died. This is wrong.

I cite a few examples:
WIKIPEDIA: “…is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II”

THE COLOMBIA GUIDE TO THE HOLOCAUST: “…the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II.”

JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY: “…the term that describes the murder of six million Jews in Europe during World War II that was orchestrated by the National Socialist (‘Nazi’) Party in Germany.”

We have to ensure that those others who were killed are remembered equally. It is simple not right by any stretch of the imagination to have people walking around thinking “Oh the Holocaust. Those poor Jews” and be completely oblivious to the other millions upon millions of other people who died.

This and other comments were made by Kevin Rudd’s speech at the Lowey Institute recently. Once again, dismantling an argument point by point is going to be fun :

-”The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.
First, the climate science deniers.
Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.”

ORLY??? So I’m either a mouthpiece for the evil coal industry, a ‘denier’, apparently “…as bad as a Holocaust denier” (he didn’t say that – some stupid BBC documentary guy did a couple of years ago – his name escapes me) or someone who agrees with the “science” but advocates inaction on the environment.

You flatter me.

He missed out a fourth type of climate sceptic – those who question the apparent “consensus”, the incompetency and illegitimacy of the IPCC, the link between carbon dioxide and temperature rises, the alarmist claims and the propaganda and do so for everyone’s best interests.

Like I’ve said 99999999 times before, I am not against viable renewable energy like solar power or making ourselves more environmentally friendly. I’m against a sudden dash down this “OMGZ!! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE DON’T PASS THE ETS AND SIGN COPENHAGEN OMGWTFBBQ!!! WE’RE ALL GOING TO DROWN…” etc path, that will only cause a catastrophe; not only for our economies and lifestyles, but for our environment and human rights.

Yes, we need to reduce our reliance on such energy production as coal and oil, but this can’t happen viably in five or ten years! Imagine the problems of resettling all those thousands of people who rely on such industries for their main sources of income and the social implications.

“But green energy will create jobs you SCEPTIC you…”, I hear you say. WELL there are a few problems with that:
1. It takes time to retrain thousands of people
2. Green energy needs much less labour, both directly and indirectly (think coal exports & cleaning bird poo off solar panels)
3. The political implications of this are too enormous to comprehend (think China)

We can do this, but only in, say, 25-30 years. I can’t provide an exact figure, but my humble opinion reckons around that time period.

I digress.

-”Together, these groups, alive in every major country including Australia, constitute a powerful global force for inaction”

Powerful? POWERFUL??? Give me a break. Count the number of alarmist lobby groups and organisations compared to the number of sceptic lobby groups and organisations.

-”As we approach Copenhagen, these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom.
Provoking fear campaigns in every country they can.”

More demonisation of the sceptics…

I beg to differ, once again, on us “Provoking fear campaigns…”. Ha. How many climate sceptic ads have there been throughout the world’s media? Barely any. Compare this with the scare campaigns of governments and organisations, and there is a massive divide.

I provide the links to just some of these alarmist scare campaigns here:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7FXKFsr8zQ
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvKBQsoyG9s
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM
-”Despite the clear scientific proof for manmade climate change, a small but dedicated group of climate sceptics from groups with clear vested interests (in heavily polluting industries) continues to circulate baseless climate myths” <— I love this quote. I’d love to have someone come and show me what my “clear vested interests” in heavily polluting industries are. Of course I’m in the pay of ExxonMobil and Shell! That’s why I have a 5 year old laptop with Linux on it and have a grand total of $200 in my bank account! And no one ever question’s Al Gore’s “vested interests”. He has business interest in ‘green industries’, he’s made millions from the jokingly called “documentary”, An Inconvenient Truth, as well as books, ads, etc. But of course, that is perfectly fine, because HE’S A “CLIMATE CRUSADER”!!!

Back to Kevin Rudd.

-”The tentacles of the climate change skeptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party and, once you add the National Party, its plan, the skeptics and the deniers are a major force.”

Ooo the “tentacles” eh? Like I said before, sceptics are NOT a powerful force! And please stop calling us “deniers” – it’s considered a derogatory term loaded with negative connotations.

-”And the most recent IPCC scientific conclusion in 2007 was that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and the “increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This is the conclusion of 4,000 scientists appointed by governments from virtually every country in the world, and the term “very likely” is defined in the scientific conclusion of this report as being 90 per cent probable.”

*takes deep breath*

Now. Firstly, the chapter on human causes of climate change was written by only 24 scientists. Around half of these were good mates with each other. Not the 4,000 (note that this number has mysteriously increased from around 800 a couple of years ago in the media, right up to 4,000 it seems now).

Secondly, the IPCC is not made up entirely of scientists. The name says it all: “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. Governments appoint people to be on the panel and be involved. Hence, environmental activists from groups such as Greenpeace made it onto the panel. And of course, these people don’t have “clear vested interests” at all, do they?

-“The climate change deniers now form the comfortable bedfellows of the global conspiracy theorists – in total bald-faced denial of global scientific, economic and environmental reality. These arguments – thinly veiled attempts to create a new climate change global conspiracy theory – are now being used in Australia.”

Subtle references to comparing us to Holocaust Deniers. Thank you very much. I’m flattered.

-“Like the arguments from climate change deniers, these arguments have zero basis in evidence…The truth is they offer zero evidence…”

Ah. So Vostok ice cores are not evidence? Temperature grap”hs from NOAA are not evidence? The University of Alabama is not evidence? The peer-reviewed studies published around the world by climatologists and paleoclimatologists are not evidence?

-“Instead they offer maximum fear, the universal conservative stock in trade.”

This one is laughable. He speaks of us creating “fear”, and yet in the same sentence, he uses scaremongering against right-wing people.

-“Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored. They are well resourced…”

Well resourced eh?? Well then how do you explain the thousands given in funding every year to organisations like Greenpeace the AYCC and absolutely NOTHING given to organisations like the AYCCC? And like I said, the majority of sceptics are not “well resourced” and backed by huge oil companies. Sure, there are some around the world who are, and they do have vested interests. But applying this negative stereotype automatically to every sceptic in the world is not going to do anybody any good.

Also like I said, if I’m well resourced, what am I doing on a 5 year old laptop with $200 in my bank account and $50 in my wallet?

-“For years – and then, with increasing intensity, in recent months – do-nothing climate change skeptics have been mounting a systematic campaign against action on climate change.”

Give me just one decent example of a “systematic campaign against action”.

-“When you boil down their arguments, their world government conspiracy theories and their back of the envelope calculations – that in its starkest simplicity and entirety is what is left: that the cost of not acting is nothing.”

Refer to my comment previously about credibility.

-“They cling to that single premise like a polar bear clings to a melting iceberg.”

Scaremongering anyone?

-“Climate change skeptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives. They are radicals.”

ORLY?? Well I don’t think that we’re the one’s advocating the complete disappearance of the Arctic Ice Cap in just two years or sea levels rises of “20 feet” in 10 years or the flooding of New York City, are we?

There are a small minority who engage in climate change conspiracy theories etc, but the vast majority are not alarmist in this way at all. But once you look on the other side of the political fence, you find such alarmist claims as above, and much much more. Who are the “radicals” now????

-“You are betting our children’s future and the future of our grandchildren.
You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition – on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”

I’m in complete agreement with you. You ARE gambling…oh sorry – you were talking about sceptics?? I apologise for this misunderstanding, but I believe that this applies much more prudently for the alarmists. I think your speechwriter got it the wrong way around.

And finally, here’s the link to a very good article about this: http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24062094-5016479,00.html

…and just as a final example of scaremongering, take a look at this webpage from the Sydney Morning Herald to “Find out which firms lobby for greenhouse gas emitting companies and peak industry bodies.”. I don’t see one for all of the environmental and green industry groups – do you? http://www.smh.com.au/national/duplicate/dbj/environment/not/used

Firstly, he said this:

“You have the ability to construct an Australian super-grid that will transmit that solar and wind and geothermal power straight to the cities . . . and in the process create lots of good new jobs.”

Now I don’t know if he’s visited Australia, but the distance from Perth to Darwin, from Darwin to Brisbane and from Brisbane to Hobart, not to mention the natural terrain issues, dictates that a “super-grid” is not viable in the slightest. He also fails to mention that the two most ‘viable’ geothermal areas are in the Barclay Tableland, near the northern part of the N.T/Qld border, hardly cosmopolitan, and in South Australia, a couple of hundred kilometres out of Adelaide.

It is well nigh impossible to efficiently and effectively, in practical, volume and financial terms, transport electricity from the Barclay Tableland to anything that could be considered remotely ‘inhabited’.

He also said this:

“Were I not to do so these same people would criticise me as a hypocrite.”

But you already are a hypocrite Al Gore. Here’s why:

• Your electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American’s
• Whilst campaigning for climate change alarmism, you flew around in your own private jet
• You recently made statements denouncing carbon capture techniques and geosequestration, and yet in September 2008, you urged action against coal power plants that did not have the ability to use carbon capturing
• You also made millions from a mine in Tennesee which released toxic chemicals into the environment

Before you go around making such comments, get your basic Australian geography right!

Dear aforementioned persons,

I will start with you, oh banes of my existence, who caused my ears to bleed during your very cohesive and syntactically correct outpouring of colourful language throughout my 30 minutes bus trip from Blackburn Road to my, and unfortunately also your, destination.

Now usually I can ignore such imbecilic morons as yourselves by thinking of creative ways to slowly and painfully liberate you of certain parts of your body, or of your miserable lives, but in this case, there was a small ‘playgroup’ of five to six year old children sitting in the front of the bus who absorbed your 30 minutes or so of your abhorrent swearing. Before this incident, I had thought that even people like you had a small ounce of decency left inside that almost impossibly sized brain of yours. I am disappointed that you have had to prove me wrong.

Upon your entering the bus, I distinctly felt a wave of despair and a sense of foreboding sweep over the bus’s unwitting passengers. Merely from your attire and manner of transporting your miserable bodies across this unfortunate planet we could all have some sort of idea of what sort of unfortunate event was about to befall us poor, unsuspecting citizens.

It mainly began from almost the moment you sat down and began pounding on the window that you were sitting adjacent to. I have no idea why you felt the need to swear at loud volumes when your fist began to hurt due to this pounding, but the little children up the front of the bus certainly had some ideas, and probably learned a few new words that day to take home to mummy and daddy, and maybe even use them in class to impress their teacher!

But I’m finished with you now. I’ll now move on to the man who sat in front of me on my way back, on the same day, from my destination travelling homeward.

People sitting in front of me don’t annoy me. People who sit next to me don’t annoy me. It’s just that YOU, sir, had just finished smoking your ye-olde-stick-of-death-and-lung-cancer probably minutes before you decided to drag yourself onto this poor unsuspecting bus, and had sadly neglected to leave your repugnant smell where you threw your cigarette. This smell wafted in my general direction as soon as you entered the bus (thank you wind…) and I immediately hoped and prayed that you would sit somewhere else, preferably in the radiator or exhaust pipe, where the smells there would match those emitting from you also, and spare me from having to endure this. But no. You had to choose the second most invasive position to sit in on the bus, despite the bus being only around one quarter full.

I now move on to the women who was out to made a quick $3:60 from Yarra Trams.

Whilst travelling to the city on the tram, you boarded the tram without incident and without special notice on my behalf. I was, in fact, busy reading a rather interesting chapter regarding the world’s only known communist government, in a mildly interesting book. You then proceeded to the ticket machine as the tram began moving off and I assume that you tried to buy a ‘daily’ ticket by inserting the required number of coins and pressing the necessary buttons; I presume quite an arduous task for such a small mind.

However, this relative peace was shattered when you began to loudly complain to the unsuspecting ticket inspector on the tram, complete with hand signals and gestures, that the machine had eaten up your $3:60 and had not dispensed the required outcome, a daily ticket. The poor man then tried to explain that as he nor the tram driver had no access to the inside of the ticket machine, he would not be able to recover the $3:60.

By this time, my reading had been interrupted. I hope you enjoyed making a complete fool of yourself when you steadily increased the volume, and might I add pitch, of your annoyingly whiny voice. You didn’t give up until about three stops down, when you stormed off the tram in a huff.

May all ticket machines that you use never dispense a ticket and may you never use the same public vehicular transport as I.

And finally, I must come to you, oh crazy Chinese women on the way to the city.

Once again, I was sitting towards the fore end of the tram, reading my book, a different chapter this time however, when you, of all people, had to come and sit opposite me, and proceed to prod at my school blazer logo and ask “What that say?”

Now at this point, I was a fork in the road. I could either ignore you completely, respond, move seats or run away screaming. As the last option was the least favourable, I decided to try a combination of the first two options and respond with a carefully accented “Pardon?”. You then proceeded to give me some sort of look bordering on confused/’non comprende’ and ask me the same question again, with the same level of grammar and syntax skills. I then told you what it meant, thinking that you would be satisfied with that response, as I had satisfactory fulfilled the requirements of your query, and returned to my reading.

However, this did not satisfy your apparent quest for knowledge of school mottos. You then requested of me to write down the motto and the meaning of it in your little notebook that you pulled out of I don’t know where. Interrupting my reading again, I proceeded to fulfil your hopefully final request in the neatest writing that I had produced for a number of weeks, and once again, returned to my reading, content that I had pleased yet another small and simply mind.

But alas, you inspected my writing and found it satisfactory. In fact, you found it so interesting, that you found grounds to strike up a conversation with me regarding the translation, the history of my school and the exact meaning of the motto (it’s metaphorical). And having no means of escape, I arose from my accursed seat and proceeded to disembark from the tram, after exchanging goodbyes, around 5km short of my destination and wait for the next tram, about 15 minutes away.

May you all never set foot on public transport again.

Now before I begin my ranting, I would like to point out that the 903 ‘Smartbus’ is a fantastic idea, in terms of frequent and modern buses arriving exactly on time at their ‘time points’ in a circular route around the metropolitan area, but I speak/rant here of the number of bus stops and the often ridiculous bus timetables.

Firstly regarding the number of bus stops. I admit that I haven’t travelled on buses extensivly, I’m more of a ‘tram person’ myself, but in my few experiences, I have come to notice a few things.about the bus stops that there is often a ridiculous number of bus stops – up to six or seven between two main roads. This causes the bus to be slowed down (as mostly it stops at around 3-4 of these stops). Why are there so many stops?

Take the tram for instance. Between two random main roads, there are only three tram stops, around 100m apart, as is usual on tram routes, on a length of road around 700 metres long. On the other hand, between two roads that, might I add, are about as close together, there are six bus stops, around 20 seconds apart (travelling at around 50km/h). Who on earth needs this many bus stops?

Sure, the elderly and disabled may benefit, but how come trams and trains aren’t the same? Why should we add an extra 50 but stops to a bus route streching from Altona to Mordialloc simply for the sake of a few wheelchair bound pensioners who have alternate transport anyway, and inconvenience the thousands of other people who travel along the route every day?

You may find a transcript of his speech here. I will be critiquing him from specific quotes from his speech. Enjoy.

• “Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?”

Just before I go on, I would like to point out that I am not anti-Semitic and a Holocaust Denier in any way, shape or form. I have relatives who were incarcerated, abused and almost killed by the Nazis and I have absolutely no intention of insinuating anything that would bring them into any disrepute or the like.

It is interesting that later on in his speech he talks about freedom of speech and the power of “democracy”, etc. As the quote often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire states: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It also fits in well with the quote: “The true test of whether someone believes in real freedom of speech is when someone can get up and criticise you in the most inappropriate, outrageous and ridiculous way, and for you not to prevent them from doing so”.  I need say no more.

• ” I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.”

He’s “proud”? Isn’t it just a slight oversight that he neglected to mentioned Israel’s high-tech military arsenal and that Israel have some of the most advanced military technology in the world? But of course, to quote him, “These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise”.

“Promise”? A promise of what? Bulldozing entire Palestinian villages, massacring the population, building a new Jewish settlement on top of it and pretending that the village never existed? A promise of further carnage? Of a further unmitigated massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians for the loss of one Jewish soldier? Mr. Netanyahu, please be serious with us for once.

• ” Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorises its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom? Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will<!– ad(quigo_intext_narrow,/news,news_story) sports_story_lower
  sports_page quigo_lower
  1482096
  871776 440 225 * –> the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world? The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?”

I have to take this quote apart again, but the theme is the same. Mr. Netanyahu appears to apply once piece of ‘logic’ to one situation and another to another situation.

He speaks about people standing for “freedom”, people “courageously standing up to this regime” and “regimes” gunning down protesters in the street. But did he ever stop to think if this ever applied to his country? Upon request, I could pull out many examples of massacres of Palestinians who were standing up for “freedom” – freedom from the Israeli occupation – and who “courageously” stood up to the “regime” of Israel. This is blatant hypocrisy of the worst sort.

He also speaks about nuclear weapons “endangering the peace of the entire world”. Oh really? Then why does Israel possess nuclear weapons? You can deny it all you like, but we all know that Israel possess nuclear weapons capable of hitting Iran. In fact, Israel has already attacked Iran, and got away with it.

What kind of idiotic cretin can possibly stand up in a place like the United Nations and say such things? Did  nobody realise? Have we forgotten about the plight of the Palestinians living the West Bank, Gaza and Golon Heights? Have we forgotten about the Arabs who make up 1/3 of the population of Israel and who have been slowly stripped of their rights? What kind of world do we live in?

• “In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.”

Hey, here’s a radical idea to get people to stop getting so angry at you and forcing them into the arms of regimes like Iran: how about stop bombing their families, stealing their land, stealing their food, stealing their water, razing their towns and villages and stop depriving them of basic necessities?

Oh wow! You destroyed 21 settlements! Do you want a medal? I believe that you yourself, Mr. Netanyahu, recently authorised the construction of new settlements in the West Bank, and are making next to no efforts to remove existing ones?

“Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.” Awwww you poor babies! Quick! Let’s invade and fire phosphorous at civilians, use civilians as human shields and kill over 1000 people, because we love human rights and the “advancement of peace” so much! So much for a “nightmare”!

• “Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population.”

Are you deliberately twisting the facts, or are you just plain stupid? Leaving aside the U.S attacks on Iraq, the Allies’ destruction of Dresden and the U.S invasion of Okinawa, the Gaza ‘Incursion’, as it is laughingly called, involved firing thousands of rockets and far worse things at civilians.

• “…when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.”

I have nothing to say other than Zionism is racism. Look at the Occupied Territories, the separated roads, the segregated schools, etc. I rest my case.

• “Ladies and Gentlemen, all of Israel wants peace.”

More rubbish. I refer to my previous comments about Gaza, the Occupied Territories, etc.

• “As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognise that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity. But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel. That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarised.”

Of course they want a home of their own! And you’re not exactly assisting them in this aim by destroying their villages and killing their residents!

He speaks about “…two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity” How can a nation seriously consider itself as having “dignity” without armed forces to protect it? It’s like a man considering himself to be of dignity without clothes. It just doesn’t make sense!

In summary, Mr. Netanyahu symbolises perfectly the ignorace, idiocy and blind nationalism that the vast majority of the Jews of Israel feel in their country. They would be much happier to see the Palestinians wiped off the face of the Earth, and seem to want to achieve this aim.