Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
This is basically the Webmaster's indulgence. Opinons expressed herein are all mine and have no external endorsement whatsoever. They are NOT necessarily even endorsed by SOS-SA. You have been warned!
Notwithstanding the proven dishonesty and incompetence of the Federal Liberal Government, they have been reelected with an increased majority. I can see only two "silver linings". First, maybe having suffered an uncontrolled right wind ideologue for three years the Australian people will learn their lesson and never do such a silly thing again. Second, as economic conditions will deteriorate shortly, the Liberals cannot do anything but accept the blame - every increase in interest rates will expose their scare campaign agains Mark Latham for the sham that it was.
40 very senior and experienced, but retired, Federal public servants are so worried about the Howard Government behaviour that they have issued a public statement detailing their concerns. John Howard has dismissed that document on the basis that the signatories were all people who had retired some time ago.
I hope all retirees realise that Howard holds their opinions in contempt, when it comes to casting their vote at the forthcoming Federal Election.
It saddens me that it should be possible and justifiable for a website like JohnHowardLies.com to exist. It saddens me even more that the opinion polls suggest that it is possible that this deceitful government might be reelected. What ARE people thinking of?
In about 400BC Socrates said that people should not accept any statement made by a person in authority unless they had first tested that statement against their own knowledge and experience and by questioning. He was speaking in Athens - the cradle of modern democracy. His reward? Death by compulsory but self-administered poisoning. Seems to me he would suffer the same fate today.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Thinking before voting isn't illegal in this country, yet.
I get pretty fed up with people demanding their "rights" without any thought for their responsibilities. Twice in succession, the electors have chosen as Mayor a person who showed by their behaviour that they were unsuitable candidates. The current Mayor was elected notwithstanding the fact that they had NO previous experience as a Councillor or Alderman. The “E-Mail Affair”, as it has become known, has shown that this inexperienced Mayor has been unable to act as a coordinator and trusted leader as the job requires. Not surprisingly, the Council has floated the idea that they should appoint future Mayors from among their number rather than rely on uninformed electors' judgements.
Uproar! Undemocratic! Etc, etc.
If people will not properly inform themselves before voting and/or will not vote on the basis of “the best person for the job” regardless of other affiliations, than what do voters expect Councillors to do when they are saddled with a completely unsuitable leader time after time?
Peter Lewis used his unique position to force through a compact with the SA Government which would commit them to significant and worthwhile changes to the way that government operates. What has happened to it? Politicians do themselves no credit when it is clear that political power plays are more important to them than effectively representing their electors.
Let's be quite clear about this. Speed, of itself, causes no deaths whatsoever. There is even some evidence that police obsession with speed and speed limits is counter-productive.
It's COLLISIONS that can cause death. For a collision to cause death or severe injury many factors contribute, of which the speed at impact is just one. For good evidence of this, consider Formula 1, Rally or V8 Supercar racers, who survive horrendous crashes at speeds FAR higher that those on our roads “without a scratch”.
Obviously there would be some problems and cost overruns making domestic cars with no useful boot space, no room for more than the one passenger and drivers needing to climb over a roll cage structure to enter the driver's seat! However ...
The rail system had NOT been allowed to run down? All inter and intra State goods could then be transported by train rather than by truck. That alone would make our roads much safer. It would reduce the need for road maintenace, too.
All hazardous “roadside furniture” was protected by crash barriers so that a loss of control on a bend would not inevitably lead to deadly impact with a tree or stanchion?
Roads weren't just made, but were designed with drivers in mind? Things like unobscured vision, visual indicators of the speed and location of vehicles on side roads, safe escape routes beside roads, good lighting, avoiding sun glare, and so on, are important.
Four wheel drive vehicle drivers had to pass a truck driving test?
Cars were not advertised as “engineered for excitement” “vroom vroom” “unbreakable” “more powerful than ever” and the like?
Cars were not regularly shown on television, in games and on film as fast, powerful and above all, exciting?
Our society did not make the less advantaged and the over-stressed feel they have to assert themselves by driving dangerously?
Our roads were funded on a kilometre/tonnage (ie usage) basis?Not on the basis of expediency and vote-catching.
So many pubs weren't designed for you to drive to them? Alcohol and large car parks don't mix very well.
Local shops weren't destroyed by huge shopping centres, so a car is essential? How many vehicles would no longer be on our roads if we walkeds to go shopping? How much fuel would be saved?
School buses were the norm instread of myriads of private cars? Buses would save huge volumes of fuel and be MUCH safer, too.
Public transport was fast, efficient, comfortable and safe? That way people would hardly need a car in the city at all.
Etc., Etc.,
Overall, we argue that there is a multiplicity of reasons why crashes occur. Not least of them is that our roads are not designed for the density and diversity of traffic that now uses them. Quite simply, in many cases, drivers cannot cope with the conditions they are obliged to face – they need help and consideration, not oppression and blame. Still less do they need jingoistic simplistic pseudo-explanations for the road toll.
Our media worry me. It seems they obtain all their information, which they pass uncritically to their readers, comes from (mainly government) press releases.
Typical is the summary of the Free Trade Agreement proposed between ourselves and the USA in The Advertiser of July 24th. It claims SA will benefit by “millions of dollars” and enjoy “a future of export opportunity”. On page 19 there is a summary which contains significant detail about agriculture (nearly all of it bad), but the longest and most contentious of the FTA chapters - Chapter 17 concerning Intellectual Property - is dismissed in three bland sentences. Could one guess that the writer(s) haven't read the FTA and still less have they sought to understand it?
I really can't see the great value in accepting this agreement in its present form – even if the pharmaceutical “intellectual property” and patent problems are completely addressed.
So far as IT is concerned, an article by lawyer Brendan Scott in the Sydney Morning Herald, states
“... a large number of software patents in the US had been granted for processes or algorithms which are exceptionally vague or, even worse, quite obvious to most competent software development practitioners.”
"They should not have been granted in the first place, as they are not 'novel'. By degrading Australia's patent system to match the US approach we will handicap our local developers needlessly."
The record of the huge US corporations is very poor in that they regard it as a legitimate business tactic to pursue a smaller innovative competitor by threatening legal proceedings over a purported patent infringement. The small organisation then has a choice - go bankrupt defending costly litigation or close down.
So, for example, we could all be obliged to use Microsoft products on Intel-powered machines because all the competition has been removed by vexatious legal action. NOT desirable! Not progressive nor innovative, either.
All the evidence worldwide indicates that gun laws are actually counter-productive. Yes! That's right! The more restrictive gun laws are the greater the incidence of firearm related crime. You might like to look at a summary of the extensive research on this subject done by John Lott.
We have undergone the silly and expensive exercise of two gun buy-back schemes and one has cause to wonder how it could be that the removal of firearms from law-abiding citizens could possibly reduce crime. Did YOU see that queue of criminals offering to surrender their guns? Neither did I. Are our gun laws in any way cost-effective? Ask John Lawson, who investigated this issue on p27 – in the Review of December 1999.
Incidentally, the infamous Martin Bryant of Port Arthur fame, was never , according to the Tasmanian Attorney General, issued with a Tasmanian firearms license of any class. Yet he had a .223 Rem. Calibre Colt self loading rifle Model AR-15, a 308 Win. Calibre Fabrique Nationale (FN) self loading rifle Model (ie two assault rifles) both used in the “massacre” and a 12 guage Daewoo self loading shotgun. So much for the effectiveness of licensing systems.
The situation reminds me of the absurd police posturing about speed and alcohol on our roads. It's unbalanced in the extreme and does absolutely NOTHING to solve the real problem – indeed it obscures it.
The new dog laws make sense to me. They encourage desexing, microchipping and dog obedience training. I'd like more emphasis on training and some insistence on an enlightened attitude to unleashed dogs as is shown by some Councils (such as Port Adelaide Enfield). But it's a good start.
Now about cats ... they really are a MUCH greater nuisance than dogs - how about it?
I mention the Police specifically because I have direct experience of their constructing the law they wish to administer, but there is ample evidence that other Departments are well able to do this, too. Frankly, it's a worry. Public servants have ample time (the whole of every working day, indeed) provided at our expense, to lobby their Minister. The members of the public who might be involved would generally be able only to find some spare time in their busy lives to do the same thing, and would be confronted by the Minister's "minders" in so doing. How do you feel about this?