.gif)
Posts
Only idiots wolf whistle and whilst 99.9% are men it’s true it is thankfully very few men after all and on behalf of the vast majority I reject being tarred with the same proverbial brush.
Not only does does this behavior run the risk of offending the woman in question it shows the offender to be an aggressive purveyor of their own neanderthal attitudes and bad manners. Perhaps women should not so much be offended but feel sorry for the sad perpetrator, they’re obviously not too bright and poorly tutored/poor role models. That’s no excuse of course, there’s such a thing as free will and self-control.
Sure most men admire many women as they walk on past, not to do so would be both counter to inherent programming and unappreciative of beauty and grace. Also all human beings like to be liked, liked to be admired so that’s only natural.
Sure many women dress to make themselves look their best and that inevitably means they look attractive but they have every right to do so with out being verbally and so ineffectually hit-on/accosted by a wolf whistle. Above all it lacks good manners and thankfully there are more gentlemen out there than some might suggest.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pro-choicers vs Pro-Lifers
This is in response ot a piece on www.wangle.com.au today which had a real go at Peter Abetz MLA, I was moved to respond:
Always a dangerous topic, especially for a man but I think your challenge to “conservative” men is fair enough, in part at least: it is impossible for a man to really know how it is for a woman with the excruciating decision ahead of her in the context of considering abortion or indeed the aftermath.
A couple of things intrigue me though. Many embryos do not implant and thus do not become a foetus. But at what stage does a foetus become a baby? At what stage does a feotus become a human being? I truly don’t know the answer to this question but it always disturbs me when proponents of choice use words euphemistically to divorce that which is being aborted from humanity. Perhaps pro-lifers err in that same way at the other extreme.
Another issue that disturbs me is the question and language of “birth control.” Certainly abortion is birth control in the sense that a live healthy baby is not the result. Without getting into all the highly-argued and mostly-valid arguments re rape and dangers to the physical or mental health of women I think there is a need to limit the use of the term “birth control” and use something more akin to “pregnancy control.” Language is very powerful and a closer attachment of the consequences of unprotected sex at the outset might change some mindsets. Not much hope I know because of the very human aspect of getting carried away in this context.
And therein lies my challenge to the writer. I would hazard a guess that a substantial number of abortions are a function of it just not being the right time, not convenient just now and possibly not the desired father to have a baby just now. Where is the responsibility of one’s own action there?
If I may quote two of the paragraphs of the Wangle contributor:
“It is obviously not concern or compassion for women who experience an unintended pregnancy and it is obviously not personal experience of an unintended pregnancy!
Why can’t they trust women as autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings to make a decision about something as important as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?”
Sure it obviously take “two to tango” but I don’t think is is a lack of compassion for women by Peter Abetz and those of similar thought but I do think that they also have a very real compassion for the unnecessary loss of life because so-called “autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings” (both men and women) have not been that smart after all as to “tango” without thought or responsibility for their combined actions resulting in “unintended pregnancy.”
Undoubtedly women get the toughest yards here, both physically and emotionally but many a man has also been devastated by the abortion of their child.
Between the “Pro-lifers” and the “Pro-choicers” I am bound to make no friends at all on either side and whilst I do not pretend to have the answers I am sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere.
Cheers, Jonathan.
Always a dangerous topic, especially for a man but I think your challenge to “conservative” men is fair enough, in part at least: it is impossible for a man to really know how it is for a woman with the excruciating decision ahead of her in the context of considering abortion or indeed the aftermath.
A couple of things intrigue me though. Many embryos do not implant and thus do not become a foetus. But at what stage does a foetus become a baby? At what stage does a feotus become a human being? I truly don’t know the answer to this question but it always disturbs me when proponents of choice use words euphemistically to divorce that which is being aborted from humanity. Perhaps pro-lifers err in that same way at the other extreme.
Another issue that disturbs me is the question and language of “birth control.” Certainly abortion is birth control in the sense that a live healthy baby is not the result. Without getting into all the highly-argued and mostly-valid arguments re rape and dangers to the physical or mental health of women I think there is a need to limit the use of the term “birth control” and use something more akin to “pregnancy control.” Language is very powerful and a closer attachment of the consequences of unprotected sex at the outset might change some mindsets. Not much hope I know because of the very human aspect of getting carried away in this context.
And therein lies my challenge to the writer. I would hazard a guess that a substantial number of abortions are a function of it just not being the right time, not convenient just now and possibly not the desired father to have a baby just now. Where is the responsibility of one’s own action there?
If I may quote two of the paragraphs of the Wangle contributor:
“It is obviously not concern or compassion for women who experience an unintended pregnancy and it is obviously not personal experience of an unintended pregnancy!
Why can’t they trust women as autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings to make a decision about something as important as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?”
Sure it obviously take “two to tango” but I don’t think is is a lack of compassion for women by Peter Abetz and those of similar thought but I do think that they also have a very real compassion for the unnecessary loss of life because so-called “autonomous, intelligent and competent human beings” (both men and women) have not been that smart after all as to “tango” without thought or responsibility for their combined actions resulting in “unintended pregnancy.”
Undoubtedly women get the toughest yards here, both physically and emotionally but many a man has also been devastated by the abortion of their child.
Between the “Pro-lifers” and the “Pro-choicers” I am bound to make no friends at all on either side and whilst I do not pretend to have the answers I am sure there is a middle ground in there somewhere.
Cheers, Jonathan.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Refugees/asylum seekers
If we are seen to be a soft touch more people will attempt to enter illegally. It is simple as that. It is not a matter of how few have attempted this so far but more about strong borders as borders can and have collapsed elsewhere. Good or bad you only have to look at Europe to know that is true. Soft borders only encourage the people smugglers and they put people's lives at risk, again look at Europe.
Some quote numbers about numbers of boats pre or post a change of policy, others state the numbers of people entering illegally compared to the much greater number of legal immigrants. But what would be the case if we didn't set our own rules?
Australia has a very proud record of general immigration and refugee resettlement and it's one that should be valued and sustained. We need not "beg pardon" to anyone and we need not carry the corporate guilt complex so prevalent in Western society. We need not beat ourselves up or be "shamed" into something we don't want.
Australia has claim to be proud, a claim to be compassionate and is entitled to its sovereignty.
Before the rise of "ethnic" multiculturalism we just had Australians and New Australians and with every new arrival some of the the older New Australians just became Australian and what a great thing that was. Even our indigenous brethren were new arrivals once. We are an immigrant nation and those that want put up the barriers generally are those that are most exercised by illegal arrivals. Perhaps they need to reflect a little more deeply about their own heritage.
However, if you want to join a club you have to obey their rules, if you don't like the rules, don't join. Before any accusations of pedantry or "redneckiness", I am all in favour of high immigration and a diverse one at that. Remembering the root word I am also in favour of giving "refuge" to bona fide refugees or asylum seekers but it has to be on our terms.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Some quote numbers about numbers of boats pre or post a change of policy, others state the numbers of people entering illegally compared to the much greater number of legal immigrants. But what would be the case if we didn't set our own rules?
Australia has a very proud record of general immigration and refugee resettlement and it's one that should be valued and sustained. We need not "beg pardon" to anyone and we need not carry the corporate guilt complex so prevalent in Western society. We need not beat ourselves up or be "shamed" into something we don't want.
Australia has claim to be proud, a claim to be compassionate and is entitled to its sovereignty.
Before the rise of "ethnic" multiculturalism we just had Australians and New Australians and with every new arrival some of the the older New Australians just became Australian and what a great thing that was. Even our indigenous brethren were new arrivals once. We are an immigrant nation and those that want put up the barriers generally are those that are most exercised by illegal arrivals. Perhaps they need to reflect a little more deeply about their own heritage.
However, if you want to join a club you have to obey their rules, if you don't like the rules, don't join. Before any accusations of pedantry or "redneckiness", I am all in favour of high immigration and a diverse one at that. Remembering the root word I am also in favour of giving "refuge" to bona fide refugees or asylum seekers but it has to be on our terms.
Best regards, Jonathan.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Get the "good oil" from Senator Cormann on today's changes from the Government
Today Julia Gillard announced a series of changes to Labor’s deeply flawed super tax on mining. This is after the mismanagement and incompetence of this high spending, high taxing, big debt and deficit Labor administration has already done enormous damage to our economy.
Clearly Julia Gillard was desperate for a political fix. She desperately needed a political fix because the next federal election is getting closer and closer.
The question has to be asked though – would any ‘negotiations’ have happened at all if it wasn’t for the election fast approaching? What will happen after the election?
Given the track record of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government over the past three years – the $2.5 billion tax grab on our North West Shelf gas project in 2008, the failed attempt at a $120 billion great big new (Emissions Tax) in 2009 and the now failed attempt at a $12 billion Super Tax on Mining in 2010 – does anyone really believe that anything will change after the election?
Julia Gillard was part of all the decisions over the past three years – first as part of the so called ‘Gang of Four’ and now as the PM. This Labor government has sought to impose massive tax increases (with a nasty ideological bent to them) every single year they’ve been in power. Once the election is out of the way, what do you think will happen?
LABOR’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
If you’re interested in the detail you can find it here: http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/055.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=
You will note that the Orwellian reference to ‘super profits’ has gone (even though the profits from which the tax is proposed to apply has been increased by 7%).
In summary:
- the Government has decided to replace the so called Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) with a Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT);
- unlike the RSPT, the MRRT will only apply to iron ore and coal, with the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to be extended to onshore oil and gas projects (where at present it only applies to offshore oil and gas projects – ie those in Commonwealth waters – incidentally with the exception of the North West Shelf gas project, which will now also be included);
- the MRRT rate is proposed to be 30% and, depending on various conditions it is supposed to apply to profits at 7% above the long term bond rate (so from 12-13%)
The government is asserting that they can do all of this, while revenue will only go down by $1.5 billion (from $12 billion).
THIS NEW TAX ON OUR RESOURCES IS STILL BAD FOR WA!
Colin Barnett has already pointed out that there may be constitutional issues involved, given that this is a federal tax on State owned resources. Value based State Royalties ensure that the people of Western Australia get a fair return for their State owned resources.
Australia benefits because increased revenue from royalties for Western Australia means a reduction in our share of GST revenue allocated through the Commonwealth Grants Commission and consequently and increase in the share of GST revenue going to other States.
The suggestion in the Henry Review that State royalties should be replaced by a profits based resource rent tax would mean those mining ventures not making a profit would get access to our resources for free. Where is the fair return for the community in that?
The Commonwealth has said in the past that they will refund State royalties – though the detail of all the in’s and out’s of that under this new announcement are still a bit unclear.
I wonder how much of that $10.5 billion will be coming from Western Australia? And how much of it will come back to WA after it has made its way to Canberra?
THE REALITY IS THAT Labor’s proposal for a great big new tax on mining has caused great damage to our economy. Their mismanagement and incompetence has created two months of uncertainty, which has cost investment and jobs and has trashed our international reputation. It was this bad Rudd/Gillard Labor government which created this problem in the first place. Julia Gillard was centrally involved in the original mining tax decision. As Treasurer, Wayne Swan was a key architect of the tax.
This was a mess of a policy and Labor now wants to claim credit for abandoning its own destructive, unwarranted tax. This is no way to run a country.
OUR POSITION
-
- The Coalition opposes this new tax on mining. It is still a great big new tax. It is still a bad tax.
The Government wants a new tax. We don’t.
- In any form, this is a bad tax. It damages our economy and destroys our global reputation as an investment destination, costing projects and jobs.
- The fact remains that a $12 billion tax grab has turned into a $10.5 billion tax grab – a $10.5 billion slug on industry and jobs.
- This new tax proposal will still have significant additional impacts on the small and medium mining sector.
-
- Julia Gillard is proposing to give Australia one of the most complicated resource taxing regimes in the world.
There is a serious question mark about what this will do to the budget bottom line. Labor should release the Treasury modeling immediately so it can be properly scrutinized. They should also disclose the impact these changes will have on different types of businesses across the mining sector, such as on smaller miners and different minerals, and the broader economy.
Let me know your thoughts.
Best wishes
Mathias Cormann
Senator for Western Australia
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training
Level 38 Exchange Plaza, 2 The Esplanade PERTH WA 6000 | GPO Box B58 Perth WA 6838 |
PER 08 9325 4227 | CBR 02 6277 3457 | senator.cormann@aph.gov.au|www.youtube.com/mathiascormann|
www.mathiascormann.com.au/www.twitter.com/mathiascormann
Clearly Julia Gillard was desperate for a political fix. She desperately needed a political fix because the next federal election is getting closer and closer.
The question has to be asked though – would any ‘negotiations’ have happened at all if it wasn’t for the election fast approaching? What will happen after the election?
Given the track record of the Rudd/Gillard Labor government over the past three years – the $2.5 billion tax grab on our North West Shelf gas project in 2008, the failed attempt at a $120 billion great big new (Emissions Tax) in 2009 and the now failed attempt at a $12 billion Super Tax on Mining in 2010 – does anyone really believe that anything will change after the election?
Julia Gillard was part of all the decisions over the past three years – first as part of the so called ‘Gang of Four’ and now as the PM. This Labor government has sought to impose massive tax increases (with a nasty ideological bent to them) every single year they’ve been in power. Once the election is out of the way, what do you think will happen?
LABOR’S ANNOUNCEMENT:
If you’re interested in the detail you can find it here: http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/055.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=
You will note that the Orwellian reference to ‘super profits’ has gone (even though the profits from which the tax is proposed to apply has been increased by 7%).
In summary:
- the Government has decided to replace the so called Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) with a Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT);
- unlike the RSPT, the MRRT will only apply to iron ore and coal, with the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to be extended to onshore oil and gas projects (where at present it only applies to offshore oil and gas projects – ie those in Commonwealth waters – incidentally with the exception of the North West Shelf gas project, which will now also be included);
- the MRRT rate is proposed to be 30% and, depending on various conditions it is supposed to apply to profits at 7% above the long term bond rate (so from 12-13%)
The government is asserting that they can do all of this, while revenue will only go down by $1.5 billion (from $12 billion).
THIS NEW TAX ON OUR RESOURCES IS STILL BAD FOR WA!
Colin Barnett has already pointed out that there may be constitutional issues involved, given that this is a federal tax on State owned resources. Value based State Royalties ensure that the people of Western Australia get a fair return for their State owned resources.
Australia benefits because increased revenue from royalties for Western Australia means a reduction in our share of GST revenue allocated through the Commonwealth Grants Commission and consequently and increase in the share of GST revenue going to other States.
The suggestion in the Henry Review that State royalties should be replaced by a profits based resource rent tax would mean those mining ventures not making a profit would get access to our resources for free. Where is the fair return for the community in that?
The Commonwealth has said in the past that they will refund State royalties – though the detail of all the in’s and out’s of that under this new announcement are still a bit unclear.
I wonder how much of that $10.5 billion will be coming from Western Australia? And how much of it will come back to WA after it has made its way to Canberra?
THE REALITY IS THAT Labor’s proposal for a great big new tax on mining has caused great damage to our economy. Their mismanagement and incompetence has created two months of uncertainty, which has cost investment and jobs and has trashed our international reputation. It was this bad Rudd/Gillard Labor government which created this problem in the first place. Julia Gillard was centrally involved in the original mining tax decision. As Treasurer, Wayne Swan was a key architect of the tax.
This was a mess of a policy and Labor now wants to claim credit for abandoning its own destructive, unwarranted tax. This is no way to run a country.
OUR POSITION
-
- The Coalition opposes this new tax on mining. It is still a great big new tax. It is still a bad tax.
The Government wants a new tax. We don’t.
- In any form, this is a bad tax. It damages our economy and destroys our global reputation as an investment destination, costing projects and jobs.
- The fact remains that a $12 billion tax grab has turned into a $10.5 billion tax grab – a $10.5 billion slug on industry and jobs.
- This new tax proposal will still have significant additional impacts on the small and medium mining sector.
-
- Julia Gillard is proposing to give Australia one of the most complicated resource taxing regimes in the world.
There is a serious question mark about what this will do to the budget bottom line. Labor should release the Treasury modeling immediately so it can be properly scrutinized. They should also disclose the impact these changes will have on different types of businesses across the mining sector, such as on smaller miners and different minerals, and the broader economy.
Let me know your thoughts.
Best wishes
Mathias Cormann
Senator for Western Australia
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training
Level 38 Exchange Plaza, 2 The Esplanade PERTH WA 6000 | GPO Box B58 Perth WA 6838 |
PER 08 9325 4227 | CBR 02 6277 3457 | senator.cormann@aph.gov.au|www.youtube.com/mathiascormann|
www.mathiascormann.com.au/www.twitter.com/mathiascormann
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
