|
News Report Issue
40
Index
1. Thought for the day - Neil / Carl
2. Opinion: Totalitarian WTO - Antonia.
3. Opinion: Shame Australia, Shame - Antonia
4. Opinion: GST Farce - Antonia
5. Opinion: Free Market - Define it (Inflation) away -
Forwarded by Omega
6. Opinion: Haidar - The Austrian enigma - Forwarded by
Omega
7. Opinion: WTO rules against US on tax aid to business -
Forwarded by John
8. Life Sciences: More gene therapy experiments are
suspended - Forwarded by Veronica
9. Feedback: Mandatory Sentencing - Martin
10. Feedback: Labor's Policy - Doomed to failure - David
11. Feedback: The State of the Justice System - Bob
12. Feedback: Various Issues - Peter
13. Meetings: Thurs 2/3/00 - Abrahams, Bankstown Councillor at
Rockdale Dinner
14. Feedback Contacts:
15. Editorial Policy:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thought for the day:
"After 2 years of experimentation and failure, Stalin
launched an all out campaign to spread this disastrous (collective
agricultural) system to the rest of Russia. "In the space of 6
weeks (Feb/Mar 1930) collective farms increased from 59,400 with 4.4
million families to 110,200 farms with 14.3 million families. All peasants who
resisted were treated with violence....... This process was called "the
liquidation of the Kulaks"..... 12 years later, in 1945, Stalin
told Churchill that twelve million peasants died in this reorganisation of
agriculture.
The industrial portion of the First Five Year Plan was
pursued with the same ruthless drive as the collectivisation of
agriculture and had similar spectacular results.... ("Tragedy and Hope -
A History of the World in our time" by Professor Carroll Quigley pp 396
- 398, MacMillan, New York )
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thought for the day:
Corporate Interpretations:
1. It has long been known........................... "I
didn't look up the original reference"
2. A definite trend is evident....................... "These
data are practically meaningless"
Carl Wesley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Totalitarian WTO
Most people think it would be enough to 'tame' the WTO into taking social issues into account. But Canadian Professor Michel Chossudovsky thinks the WTO not only stinks, it's actually illegal, and he makes a good case for his view. He explains how the WTO was established by the 1994 signing in Marrakesh of a "technical agreement", which had been negotiated by unaccountable bureaucrats. He claims the heads of national delegations who signed in Marrakesh knew little about the statutes of the WTO they were agreeing to. That's not hard to believe. It seems that the signing of what was officially called "The Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations" - aka the Marrakesh Agreement - on 15 April 1994 by pig-ignorant national delegates actually established the WTO. It'd be interesting to know which multinational lap-dog signed on Australia's behalf, wouldn't it. Does anybody recall any public consultation about the Marrakesh Agreement? Neither do I. According to Chossudovsky, most nations either rubber-stamped it, or didn't even bother ratifying it in their parliaments, yet it is supposedly now part of international law. Well sorry, but most people think such by-passing of the democratic process counts for nothing, morally and even legally. For a start, the English-speaking countries have this funny notion that governments depend for their legitimacy on the consent of the governed. We Australians could set an international trend in demanding that the Australian government withdraws from the WTO which is indisputably increasing the gap between rich and poor both nationally, and on the global scale. It's up to us. (Chossudovsky's article, "Seattle and beyond: disarming the New World Order", 15 January 2000, is well worth a read. With a name like that he should be easy to find.) Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Shame Australia, shame
If there's any more potent example of what's wrong with economic rationalist policies - apart from the fact they're sending people out backwards - it must the revelation that even the Australian flags to fly at the Olympic Games will be made in the US (Sun-Herald, 27/2/00). What on earth has happened to national pride? Gone the way of the dodo obviously. Our 'leaders' are so crass themselves, they think that all we care about is the bottom line - the dollar. They think we're clones of the Americans, where this attitude really does reign. They think that as long as Australia wins a few sporting medals that's enough to keep us happy. Bread and circuses for the masses. But it's not true. Too many Australians still care about Australia. They strongly object that it is being divided into pre-ordained winners and losers because such an ugly concept is so foreign to their way of thinking and to their heritage. All those men commemorated every ANZAC Day didn't die to see this horrible 'development'. They would turn in their graves to see it. Shame, successive Australian governments who've brought us to this disgraceful pass, shame. I usually limit the blame to Hawke, Keating and Howard. But Fraser was what they now call a wannabe: he would LOVE to have participated at the time but he didn't dare, so he joins the hall of infamy. Antonia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ GST farce Naturally enough in these economically rationalist times, experienced staff at the Australian Taxation Office are economically rationally deserting the public service ship for the far more lucrative pastures of private industry where they can earn big bickies advising business. Consequently the ATO isn't getting enough quality applicants after advertising for desperately needed staff to cope with GST problems. Well I for one don't have much sympathy with the ATO or the government. Given the opportunity, why would anybody be surprised by the former ATO staff's actions in jumping ship? The government has extolled the dog-eat-dog philosophy as the pre-eminent 'virtue' in its ugly vision of Australia's future. What did they expect? Loyalty? Antonia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FREE MARKET
Define It (Inflation) Away People made fun of Gerald
Ford's buttons that said "WIN," meaning "Whip
Inflation Now." The buttons and the accompanying propaganda campaign
implied that consumers' bad vibes were the cause of
inflation. Ha, Ha.
Now, the White House, members of both
parties, and their court economists have done Gerry one better. Lacking
any strategy for getting rid of inflation, they intend to redefine
it. Their new formula will show prices going up more slowly. This will help
the government, but for anyone trying to keep tabs on unceasing monetary
destructionism, it's a terrible, even dangerous, idea.
Redefining the Consumer Price
Index will have large and immediate repercussions. Thanks to a
Nixon-era change, Social Security benefits are increased automatically
by inflation. The higher prices go, the larger the checks.
A deliberate dumbing down of the CPI is a way of saving
money. That – supposedly – is why Republicans support it.
Cutting spending in times of
$1.7 trillion budgets is, of course, a moral obligation. But there are
better ways. Why not cut or eliminate cost-of-living adjustments themselves? It
turns out that the American Association of Retired Persons opposes this direct
route, but won't oppose changing the inflation rate.
A seedier side to this scheme has to
do with taxes, and Republicans are hushmouthed about it. If government
statistics reveal less inflation, the tax brackets won't adjust
to price movements. The difference between actual and official
inflation will net billions for the government. And here we see a
secret purpose: to extract more wealth from the American people in ways
they won't detect.
From the taxpayer's point of view,
then, the proposed change means higher taxes, better disguised, although the
Republican supporters of the plan won't tell you that.
To drum up support, backers
are quick to reassure us that all good economists say the current CPI
understates the real inflation rate. But if economists could know the
real inflation rate, there would be no need for a CPI. We'd only need to consult
the financial fortune tellers.
In the old days, only
Austrian School economists criticised government economic data. They
refuted the idea that economic activity can be accurately quantified and
debunked the gizmos economists use to pretend it can.
But nowadays, there's a
raging debate on the CPI. Every theory is shot down by someone else,
and on seemingly solid grounds. There are hundreds of formulas and
strategies for determining the direction and range of price movements.
There's the "geometrical" formula, the "harmonic average" formula, and the
"arithmetic" formula currently in use. Moreover, everyone has an idea of
what should and shouldn't be in there and how much it should count.
Why so much debate? Because
every attempt to discover an inflation rate is necessarily flawed. We
can't just measure inflation the way we measure the height of a tree.
Prices reflect too many variables. We can't be sure what
accounts for changes. It makes no sense to lump together price changes
for incomparable goods.
Nor is there a "price level"
in the sense that there's a sea level, and the desire to make it stable
(monetarism was the most elaborate) is a futile exercise.
Let's say: liver transplants are going up in price, computers are going down in
price, and milk remains the same. What can we conclude about movements
in the overall price level? Honestly speaking,
nothing.
There is no "average" price
for goods and services because there are no "average" buyers of goods and
services. There are only specific consumers who
purchase specific products and services. People who buy college
tuition for five children experience a different "inflation rate" than
twenty-something techno-hermits.
Neither is there a definite
"inflation rate" waiting to be unveiled. Even when the government is
goosing the money supply, inflation affects different goods and sectors
at different times and to varying degrees.
All that said, we do need some way to
gauge the effects of monetary policy on prices. The index number, for
all its faults, is about the best we can do. The CPI, like all
index numbers, is generated by comparing the data from one "basket" of goods in
period A with the data from the same basket in period B, and formulating
the change.
The results will be fraught
with errors. To retain some modicum of honesty,
we must adhere to two rules. The formula must be inclusive of many
goods, sectors, regions, etc., and it must be
consistent. The best and practically only way to
render an index number utterly useless is to change its definition in
mid-course.
That, of course, is
precisely what the politicians are planning to do, and not because
the current CPI is wildly inaccurate. The problem, if anything, is that
it is revealing the wrong thing: that prices keep going up. What the
government wants is a measure – any measure – that
shows less inflation.
The Federal Reserve always
promises that it's working to bring down inflation, but, as Murray N.
Rothbard shows in "The Case Against the Fed", it never
does. Since the Fed came into being, the dollar's value has
plummeted to less than a penny, and even at a 3% inflation rate, prices
will tend to double every 25 years.
Now we can tell why the Fed supports
the CPI change. It wants to cover its crimes by appearing more
successful at "battling inflation." What the Fed doesn't want to talk
about is the real cause of inflation: not greedy consumers,
avaricious workers, or price-gouging corporations, but the central bank
itself, and its power and practice of creating money out of thin air.
If the government and the Fed really
want to lower inflation, there's an easy way to do it. Stop the
printing presses with a gold standard. With no artificial increases in
the money supply and a growing economy, prices would tend to fall over the long
run. The norm in the computer industry would become economy wide under sound
money.
A truly inflation-free
economy would spur savings and growth, be free of business cycles, restrict
government power, and restore living standards. To reduce inflation by
defining it away, on the other hand, is like eliminating debased coinage by
readjusting the scales. It's something only government would
do.
Commentary by Lew
Rockwell
Reprinted from The FREE MARKET Published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute Website Forwarded by
Omega
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Haider - The Austrian Enigma
NewsMax.com. Just as
in Europe, prominent people here are still busy striking moral attitudes about
Joerg Haider, the Austrian head of the Freedom Party now being treated
as the greatest menace to Austrian decorum since the Turks besieged Vienna in
1683. Try this one from Paul Fireman, chairman and CEO of
Reebok International, handed down from Reebok headquarters in Stoughton, Mass.,
on Feb 11, 2000.
"In 1994, I learned from an associate
in London that Joerg Haider appeared in an Austrian video wearing Reebok
products. Upon learning of this, I ordered an immediate investigation, and found
that an employee in Austria, acting on his own behalf, without any knowledge of
Reebok International, had provided product for this video. This
individual's actions were a clear violation of Reebok's code of conduct, and
totally against what we stand for. I asked for his immediate dismissal
from our Austrian subsidiary. Reebok responded quickly and responsibly to
a deplorable situation. Reebok has never supported Haider.
His opinions are abhorrent to me personally, and in direct
conflict with the values of human rights that form the
core values of this company."
Reebok just closed a factory in
Indonesia, firing 4,000 workers. When
Reebok's lawyer was asked about severance, he
is reported to have replied, "Over my dead body." So, here we
have a company that makes its money off the sweat of ill-paid
Asians, many of them teenagers, and its boss strikes a great
moral posture about his "core values," firing the unfortunate fellow
who gave Haider a pair of Reeboks six years ago.
If Bill Clinton or Madeleine Albright
appeared in Reeboks, what would Fireman do? After all, Haider - so far
as I know - hasn't actually killed people. Clinton and Albright have had a hand
in the deaths of millions, starting with kids in Iraq finished off
by sanctions.
People want a token Nazi to
wave around, and I guess Haider fills the bill. Reams get written about
him, and actually existing, murderous Nazism marches on
undisturbed. Bill Clinton and Congress send a fresh billion to
death squads in Colombia, and the Brits nix tetanus vaccines for kids in
Iraq.
Lou Reed protested
Haider by cancelling his concert in Austria, though he had no equivalent
compunction about singing in Germany, France and other Euro-states with
plenty of recent blood on their hands. So, why disappoint the fans in
Vienna, most of whom are doubtlessly utterly opposed to
Haider?
As retailed in the press,
Joerg Haider's crimes are thus far unimpressive, particularly when
compared with those of the leaders of the European Union, who invoked
sanctions against Austria for daring to abide by the consequences
of a democratic election. In the same week that Haider's Freedom Party
helped form a ruling coalition, these same E.U. leaders stood accused by
Human Rights Watch of presiding over war crimes against
Serbia.
Now, for all I know, each weekend
Haider dresses up in full Hitlerian rig in the Carinthian castle his uncle seems
to have acquired in the Second World War at a forced knockdown price from
its Jewish owner. But we must stick to the known record,
and in Haider's case, it's not meaty. He's said that the
Waffen SS (the military arm of the SS) were brave
patriots. Reagan went all the way to that cemetery in Bitburg in
1985 to make the same point.
More recently, Germany's
Green Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, unleashed the
Luftwaffe on Serbia's civilians, so Haider seems to be
securely inside the official moral margins of the Western alliance.
There are no doubt Waffen SS vets in
Carinthia, with uniforms nicely pressed in the bedroom closet, and pensions
rolling each month from Bonn, but Haider is mostly honoring the long-dead. They
were very much alive, with blood fresh on their hands, when the
commander in the U.S. zone of vanquished Germany, Gen. Lucius Clay, was forced
by his own government to reverse denazification, thus, engendering a Nazi
renaissance so pervasive that, by 1947, 40 percent of all higher civil
servants and 30 percent of private industry owners in the Western zones were
former Nazis.
By 1950, two-thirds of West
Germany's teachers had more than trivial Nazi pasts. The State
Department's George Kennan advised against
denazification on the grounds that, first, the elimination
of Nazi influence in Germany "is impracticable," and
second, "we would not find any other class of people competent to assume
the burdens (of leadership). ... Nine-tenths of what is strong, able
and respected in Germany has been poured from those very categories which we
have in mind, (i.e.) more than nominal members of the Nazi party."
Haider's pledges to restrict
immigration should scarcely make him a pariah in Europe, where Haider's
prime critics in Germany and France and the U.K. have all discriminated
viciously against immigrant workers. High on the bill of indictment
against Haider is his hearty commendation of Hitler's economic policies,
particularly regarding employment.
Who is Haider supposed to
praise - Herbert Hoover - THE deficit-hating FDR of 1932, before he
started applying policies borrowed in part from Mussolini? In 1933, when
Hitler became chancellor, unemployment stood at 40 percent, and savage deflation
was in progress. By 1936, German unemployment stood at 1 percent, a recovery
achieved - contrary to persistent belief - without the
stimulative effects of arms spending. Hitler launched a construction
boom, in housing and autobahns. He told the bankers to
stop whining about deficits, and kept interest rates low. So,
he was a Keynesian. Haider most certainly isn't. He's said he
admires Margaret Thatcher and that epitome of Thatcherism, Tony
Blair.
COPYRIGHT 1999 CREATORS SYNDICATE,
INC.
Alexander Cockburn is the editor of
'Counterpunch', a well-known political newsletter.
Alexander Cockburn,
February 23, 2000
Reproduced with the permission of
NewsMax.com. All rights reserved. Website forwarded by
Omega
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WTO Rules Against U.S. On Tax Aid To
Business System for Exemptions Is Illegal, Panel Says In Upholding Decision ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Barry James International Herald Tribune, Paris, Friday, February 25,
2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------ BRUSSELS - The United States suffered perhaps its biggest loss ever under international trade rules when the World Trade Organisation announced Thursday that it had upheld a ruling that billions of dollars of tax breaks for U.S. corporations are illegal. In its ruling, the appellate body of the trade organisation said the United States must end a system that allows U.S. multinational companies to avoid U.S. taxes by channelling sales through offshore subsidiaries, mostly in the Caribbean. That arrangement, said Pascal Lamy, the trade commissioner of the European Union, ''had a major negative effect on international trade to the detriment of European companies.'' Although the United States has now lost both the original case and its appeal, U.S. officials made it clear that they would continue to contest the matter. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers told The Associated Press that the U.S. government was ''clear in our commitment to finding a way to maintain the important incentives for U.S. exports that have been provided in the past.'' The United States has until Oct. 1 to change its laws, after which the European Union would be authorised to take retaliatory measures. Officials said the EU was not contemplating such measures at present. The World Trade Organisation has not ruled on the amount of possible damages. The European Union argued that the U.S. multinational companies were getting the equivalent of a multibillion-dollar subsidy in federal tax savings. Boeing Co. alone saved about $130 million in taxes in 1998, giving it a critical advantage against its European competitor Airbus Industrie, the EU contended. The U.S. delegate to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, Rita Hayes, said the appellate panel was wrong to side with the European Union in the dispute and pledged, ''We will seek a solution that ensures that American firms and workers are not disadvantaged relative to their European counterparts.'' But it was unclear what sort of deal could be worked out. Though several European officials made conciliatory comments, others ruled out any agreement that would allow the United States to continue the tax system. The dispute has lingered since domestic international sales corporations were created in 1971 to promote U.S. exports and reduce the trade deficit. The World Trade Organisation's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ruled in 1971 that these tax breaks were illegal, and the United States in 1984 introduced the legislation allowing exporters to set up the foreign sales subsidiaries. The legislation was justified as a response to the rebates on value-added tax that European companies receive when selling goods outside the European Union, although the world trade mechanism has ruled that this arrangement does not amount to a subsidy. The European Union formally opposed the subsidiaries at the trade organisation in 1997 after years of failed challenges. The European Union finally won its case in October 1999. It costs only about $2,000 to set up a foreign sales corporation, according to banking sources. Such corporations enable U.S.
companies to shield their foreign earnings from domestic taxes. As much as 65
percent of the subsidiary's income and all of its dividends are exempt from
taxation. The benefits apply to industrial goods, including computer
software as well as agricultural and mining products. According to U.S. Treasury
estimates, the U.S. cost of the exemptions in 1999 amounted to at least $3.5
billion.
The European Union estimates that the set-up would save U.S. corporations $17.5 billion in taxes over the next five years if it were allowed to continue. Forwarded by
John Massey
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life Sciences:
More Gene Therapy Experiments Are
Suspended
Hospital, Patient Groups Cite Safety Concerns, By Deborah
Nelson Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, February 8, 2000;
A Harvard-affiliated medical centre and two patient advocacy
groups have temporarily halted gene therapy experiments because of concerns
raised by the September death of a Tucson teenager undergoing treatment at the
University of Pennsylvania.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston decided last week to suspend its gene therapy program, while the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Muscular Dystrophy Association have placed a hold on three human gene experiments they are sponsoring. Representatives of all three institutions cited general safety concerns about gene therapy that surfaced in the months following the death of Jesse Gelsinger at Penn, rather than any specific problems with their own experiments. "The reason that we decided to temporarily hold our clinical trials is that we put patient safety first," Michael Rosenblatt, interim president of Beth Israel Deaconess, said yesterday. "We want to benefit from the national discourse." Gelsinger's was the first death attributed to gene therapy, a 10-year-old science that has attempted-so far without success-to treat cancer, AIDS and inherited diseases by altering people's genetic makeup. Since then, the Food and Drug Administration temporarily suspended Penn's gene therapy program after uncovering numerous safety lapses in the clinical trial that killed Gelsinger; the National Institutes of Health discovered that gene therapy researchers elsewhere had failed to promptly report more than 600 illnesses and deaths among gene therapy volunteers to the agency as required; and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) initiated hearings last week on whether the federal government's oversight of gene therapy is adequate. The decision by Beth Israel Deaconess came less than a week after The Washington Post reported that the hospital had failed to immediately notify the NIH about three deaths and one serious illness among the first seven volunteers in another gene therapy experiment involving terminally ill cancer patients. Both Rosenblatt and the researcher said they did not know they were supposed to notify the NIH, which makes such information public, in addition to the FDA, which does not. Federal regulations require researchers to report all deaths and serious illnesses among gene therapy volunteers to the NIH regardless of whether they are caused by the gene therapy, the underlying illness or something else. In this case, the lead researcher decided that earlier health problems caused the three deaths shortly after treatment, but that the therapy likely caused high fever and severe heart problems in a surviving volunteer. The medical center suspended the experiment following the serious illness last summer and had planned to restart it this month with an improved protocol. Now, however, Rosenblatt said, the experiment won't resume until he gets some sort of signal from the FDA and the NIH that they consider gene therapy safe and will continue to support it. In addition, he said, he has stopped the one other gene experiment at the medical center, involving haemophilia patients, even though there have not been any deaths and only one serious but unrelated illness eight months after treatment. NIH and FDA officials are exploring whether they need to improve the way gene therapy experiments are approved and conducted, as well as whether they should change the way adverse events are reported to the public. "What we will be looking for is a reaffirmation of the commitment [to gene therapy] from these agencies," Rosenblatt said. Representatives of the Muscular Dystrophy Association and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation also said they are waiting to see what comes out of regulators' discussions and the Senate hearings before proceeding. The Muscular Dystrophy Association stopped an experiment it is sponsoring at Ohio State University that used a genetically engineered virus manufactured at Penn. The study was the first, long-awaited gene experiment on people with muscular dystrophy. The FDA action against Penn had already stopped one of the two gene experiments sponsored by Cystic Fibrosis Foundation that used the same type of altered virus that killed Gelsinger. Ronald Crystal of Cornell University Medical College suspended the other one at the request of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. (c) Copyright 2000 The Washington Post Company Articles Forwarded by
Veronica Griffin Ph.D..
Kerawa Qld.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
Mandatory
Sentencing
For once John Howard is correct in avoiding over ruling the rights of States / territories to make laws within their states / territories (States Rights). Of course it is possibly because he doesn’t want to be seen to be doing the bidding of the (dis)United Nations- what a "hero". Jackboot Johnny was quick enough to stamp on states rights with the Uniform Gun laws. He didn’t oppose parliament revoking the Northern Territories Euthanasia laws. Possibly it is because he likes the idea of mandatory sentencing. Perhaps he could introduce Uniform Mandatory Sentencing so that all states uniformly throw people in prison. With 2 gun convictions so far I would be up for my third strike quite soon. Personally I don’t think that building more prisons to hold more people for longer is a reasonable thing to do. Unlike the bleeding hearts brigade I don’t think that letting offenders off is a solution either. I think we should be finding solutions to the problems of family break up, poverty (Howard induced), and drugs. All problems that governments see as too hard. They prefer the politically expedient quick fix of imprisoning any one that ceases to be within the government accepted "Norm". I think Johnny's stand on Mandatory sentencing brings his government to new heights of hypocrisy and lies. Possibly we should have mandatory sentencing for politicians. 3 lies or backflips (just when is a backflip a lie) or bodgie hotel bills and they’re imprisoned. Probably have to convene parliament in the nearest prison. Martin Essenberg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
Labor's Policy - Doomed to Failure.
The Labor parties employment policy, Called workforce
2010, is designed to provide education and training to workers in
conjunction with a National Workforce Forecasting Council, who will identify
companies that may face liquidation.
This well meaning radical policy is sadly doomed to
failure as it seeks the co-operation of employers, who traditionally
resent government intrusion into their business. Decisions by
company directors to liquidate can happen overnight, after all other options
have been exhausted, leaving no time for elaborate re-employment plans.
By selecting year 2010, the Labor party has given
itself ample time to face 2 or 3 elections before it starts its radical
employment plan. In this age of computer aided production methods, we are
presented with an ever decreasing workforce, or the option of employing
a full workforce at reduced hours.
A reduced and overworked workforce offers the employers less
insurance, labor and administration costs. They regard the people on
welfare as not of their concern. In this fact of life scenario, it
behoves the incumbent government to take the bull by the horns and adopt a
positive stance.
Employers are the key to the employment problem and
they must participate in any scheme to solve the problem. They can be
provided with a subsidy to offset training, wages, and any material costs.
The scheme can begin with a "school to work" program which
inducts all school leavers directly into industry of all types on a basis of one
school leaver to ten existing employees. School career officers and job
providers can facilitate this. Apprenticeships to be available to all who want
them.
Other unemployed people to be offered choice of full time or
job sharing. A re-examination of working hours & overtime will be required.
Failure by any employer to cooperate (given the government subsidy) to be
treated as applies to tax avoidance cases and face a heavy fine or jail
sentence.
Regards,
David
Rydstrand +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
The State of the Justice System -
Broke!
I had to go to the Police station yesterday and
whilst talking to the Detective about a previous case, I was told some alarming
information.
The case involved a false stat dec and
documentary evidence virtually proving an attempted fraud. The matter was,
despite quite good police work on our part, "no billed".
In other words the DPP was not going to proceed with the
case.
I was told that in all probability, the
case would have required a lengthy case and the Department was over
budget, so the case was probably dropped to save money.
So much for justice in this
state.
Regards
Bob Laidlaw +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback:
Various Issues
Peter H Davies - A little more on the deliberate bastardry inflicted on us by the likes of Keating -- Guess what is happening to our old used analogue phones --- They are being exported to the USA! Amazing but true. Why? - because digital simply does not work efficiently without MASSIVE and EXTENSIVE infrastructure - which means it is unaffordable. Given similar land mass to Australia with a greater population, hence more ability to offset new infrastructure costs - WHY did Keating and all the lemmings so inflict us? This is but another example of fools in a self serving system which is leading US astray, and THEM into being "Eminent Persons" or positions for their stable future. "The Honourable" - MY ARSE!! AND re issue 38:
Who is riding the horse: - Pinocchio? - a Cake of soap? You bet - their doctrines have no concern for Australia, for their responsibility is to the creation of what will eventually become a new governing entity. They are creating a brave new world of division, intolerance, organised selfishness, enforced trade, and dog eat dog. LOVELY!! WHY SO?? Tony Lee - Well said - Am heartened that others can see that
the system and those who protect, live within and encourage it are THE problem.
THEY are the cause of violence, not guns. THEY are the
substantial cause of the ills of society you identify, simply because of their
preoccupation with 'their system'.
NOTHING will change in Australia until the SYSTEM is
replaced. History shows the only time such happens within countries is
Civil Uprising.
Do-gooders, most media and transient political pawns are
hell-bent right now on preventing people the means to resist, whilst empowering
policing entities with punitive threats to counter any resistance - of course
for the health and wellbeing of society - for the safety of - for the
.....
Peter Cunningham +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Meeting: Community
Consultation on Immigration
WHEN:
This Wednesday 1st March
2000
WHERE: Joan Sutherland Centre, Penrith CONTACT: Colin Easton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 02 4777 4956 (a/h) GUEST SPEAKER: The Hon P. Ruddock, Minister for Immigration COST:
No Cost.
TIME:
7.00 p.m.. Information received via press release from Jackie
Kelly, who told us how the program was working and we were getting our
quota of skilled migrants. Another is, this is the ONLY ONE in
NSW. You are supposed to book a seat with his office.
A 1800 number was given, but I don't have it with me.
A few of us are going to let him know what we think. Any
pertinent points that need to made could be emailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am gong armed with
'Among the Barbarians' by Paul
Sheehan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dinner
Meeting: One Nation,
Bexley Office
WHEN:
This Thursday 2nd March
2000
WHERE: Rockdale Tennis Club, 79 Illawarra St., Rockdale CONTACT: n_baird@netset.net.au Ph 02 9599 5126 (wk) GUEST SPEAKER: Clr: Lindsay Abrahams, Bankstown Councillor COST:
$20 per head, incl. 3 course dinner.
TIME:
7.00 p.m. for 7.30 p.m..
If you want tickets please call me and make your booking.
Neil
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let us know what you think. Feedback is important. Comments
on articles read would be of value. Do you agree / disagree? Can you add more or
a different perspective. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
Send this email on to as many as you can.
The more that read it the merrier. In time email communication will make
government censorship impractical and the newspapers will have to start
reporting it as it really is, rather than the smoke and mirrors tricks they
currently indulge in, or loose readership, and therefore advertising monies.
While we have a long way to go before that happens, each epic journey
must start with a single step.
Antonia Feitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Editorial Policy
If you wish to raise an issue without being
identified as such, please make it clear that this is your wish, either by
marking the correspondence Private & Confidential, in which case nothing
will get printed, or by just stating that while the issue can be raised, your
name is not to appear with it. Failing which all items received relating to the
News Report are considered publishable (subject to a common sense
test).
Disclaimer.
Opinions posted on the News Report are those of
the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the News
Report or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright
law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted
works. |
