Right Pulse

In response to Cardinal Pell’s call for an increase in the Australian fertility rate, ‘your’ ABC recently reported:

…prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs says the global population is rising too dramatically.

“The planet, everyone can feel, is just right at the limits right now in terms of food, in terms of energy supply, in terms of land use,” he said.

Professor Sachs says population projections, which also take falling fertility rates into account, are already too high at around an extra 2.5 billion people by 2050.

“I do think that the world would be very wise on its own welfare and for saving the physical earth to be trying to stabilise through voluntary means the world’s population at around 8 billion, not the over 9 billion which is our current trajectory right now,” he said. “It’s a serious problem.”

Economic doom and gloom forecasts, how original. Thomas Malthus would be proud. People are always the problem for the left, never part of the solution. Can you feeeeel it? And you sure will if the fertility rate does not increase, with an increased tax burden to care for the elderly falling on a smaller group of workers. And speaking of Malthusian policies, study this article and then decide your feelings on the matter:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China, puts much of the blame on Beijing’s one-child policy, which took effect in 1979.

The policy encourages late marrying and late childbearing, and it limits the majority of urban couples to having one child and most of those living in rural areas to two. Female infanticide was the result, he said.

“Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China,” Mosher said. “But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls.”

Have you felt it yet? The article goes on to deal with selective abortion and other gender selection practices.

However, China has pledged to keep its one-child policy in place until the year 2050, a policy which it admits is “related” to the large sex imbalances in the country.

“The implications are potentially disastrous,” Mosher said. “The answer is economic development, not restricting the number of people.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Avid readers may remember my earlier post about conservatism and happiness, linked here. The basic story, as pioneered by Arthur Brooks, is that conservatives demonstrate many of the charitable characteristics that their small l liberal friends don’t; Charity leads to happiness, so the more liberal you are the unhappier you are. Well a similar study has just been released that confirms the same story, entitled Makers and Takers by Peter Schweizer. He writes:

Those surveyed were asked: ‘Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?’ Of those describing themselves as ‘conservative’, 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed. To the question: ‘Do you get happiness by putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own?’, 55 per cent of those who said they were ‘very conservative’ said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were ‘very liberal’.

So liberals are less likely to be concerned about the welfare of others, including children, because they see it as the states responsibility. That’s one explanation. Others include the socialistic preoccupation with class envy, victim hood and resentment. Relativism may also have something to do with it - honesty becomes subjective. Schweizer outlines his thesis in this video.

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go. The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others…

Billionaire Ted Turner, a self-described socialist, publicly regrets that he had five children. ‘If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many,’ he says. ‘But I can’t shoot them now they’re here.’ All of this should not come as a surprise to anyone watching the drift of progressive thinking over the past 40 years.

Starting with British anthropologist Edmund Leach, who said: ‘Far from being the basis of a good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all its discontents’, feminists, progressives and others have seen the family as an oppressive force. Feminist Gloria Steinem says on behalf of women: ‘The truth is, finding ourselves brings more excitement and wellbeing than anything romance can offer.’

Scary. I recently browsed through a great site called Kevin Rudd Lies. And he does lie like a great leftie should:

“It’s critical that when we say to the Australian people that we want to construct an alternative vision for Australia, that they know the values for which we stand. Socialism isn’t one of them…I am not a socialist. I have never been a socialist and I never will be a socialist.” - Kevin Rudd, The Age, December 14, 2006. “I am an old-fashioned Christian socialist.” - Kevin Rudd, Australian Financial Review, February 2003.

Yes, a little embarrassing. Rudd also once harped on about the golden socialist ideals of “equity, solidarity and sustainability” during an October 2006 article in The Australian. So who is kidding who?

We all know The Greens party obsession with drugs. He is a taste of their policies from the WA branch:

…decriminalise and regulate cannabis cultivation and possession for personal use, while monitoring its health effects, particularly on young people; continue to research, seek expert advice and encourage public debate on the most socially responsible options for the use of cannabis; and allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for specified medical conditions such as chemo-induced nausea, AIDs wasting syndrome and chronic pain.

But what does the latest research say on the matter:

Brain scans on 15 men who smoked at least five joints a day for more than a decade show for the first time that they have structural brain abnormalities not seen in non-smokers.

The researchers from the University of Melbourne say their findings should settle the historic controversy over the long-term effects of cannabis use with solid proof of the damage it causes.

Which probably explains a good deal about The Greens and their policies. Only the mentally deficiant could support them.

Recently from the ABC by Aboriginal activist Lowitja O’Donoghue:

Every now and then I will be bursting into song, and that is really to bring to the attention of the heads of churches and that community that I am from a Stolen Generation, and bringing back some of the memories of what happened in the children’s homes and we were of course, removed from our land, our family, our mothers and our culture and our language.

So O’Donoghue is a member of ‘the’ or ‘a’ stolen generation? I’m not sure how significant that distinction is. This may provide insight, reported by Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun:

Stolen Generations Alliance co-patron Lowitja O’Donoghue in 2001 admitted to me she wasn’t actually “stolen”, after all, but was given away by her father:

“(My father) didn’t want to be straddled with five kids,” the former Australian of the Year said, sobbing. “I haven’t forgiven him…

“I don’t like the word ‘stolen’ and it’s perhaps true that I’ve used the word loosely at times… I would see myself as a removed child, and not necessarily stolen.”

Asked whether it would be better to state clearly that she wasn’t a member of the stolen generation, Dr O’Donoghue said: “I am prepared to make that concession.”

So who is stealing the truth now? I see this a concession. Saying as O’Donoghue does that she is a member of a stolen generation indicates the weak factual foundation of ‘the stolen generation’ claims, the apology and therefore reconciliation generally. Who is a member of ‘the stolen generation’? Why not have a judicial inquiry to identify and verify members of this supposed generation? It is a reasonable proposal which would help to get to the truth of the matter - but some how I don’t think O’Donoghue and her fellow actors for victim hood would be willing to front up to such an inquiry.

A topical issue addressed by Dinesh D’Souza:

In overturning the California voters’ ban on gay marriage, the state’s high court argued that homosexuals are a special class, somewhat similar to blacks and women, and deserve special judicial scrutiny for the protection of their rights. At the same time the court insisted that gay marriage must be allowed because gays deserve, no less than anyone else, the equal protection of the laws. Read the rest of this entry »

Old Soviet Communists are not happy with Cate Blanchett, you know the same Cate that has reviled the USA and was a leader at the communist style Kevin Rudd 2020 Summit. With regard to the latest Indiana Jones movie, the Communists say:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull stars Harrison Ford as an archaeologist in 1957 competing with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.

“What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathised when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame,” said Viktor Perov, a Communist Party member in Russia’s second city of St Petersburg…

“Harrison Ford and Cate Blanchett (are) second-rate actors, serving as the running dogs of the CIA. We need to deprive these people of the right of entering the country,” said another party member, Andrei Gindos.

Feel the sense of irony? The Communist Party must feel deeply let down and betrayed by Cate.

An original and thought provoking story from CNN regarding the recent earthquake in China:

As a result of the one-child policy, the quake — already responsible for at least 15,000 deaths — is producing another tragic aftershock:

Not only must thousands of parents suddenly cope with the loss of a child, but many must cope with the loss of their only child.

China’s population minister recently praised the one-child rule, which dates to 1979, saying it has prevented 400 million children from being born.

And which is the greater tragedy?

From the Government’s “Closing the Gap” policy:

The Government will provide $15.7 million over four years to improve counselling and other services for Indigenous people. The funding will provide for 20 additional Bringing Them Home counsellors by 2010‑11, targeted towards areas of need, and will enable over 1000 members of the Stolen Generations to reunite with their families through access to Link‑Up services.

People who have never had their claims verified either in a court of law or by an tribunal. Still it won’t stop the Government providing for more future ’stolen’ children:

The Government will provide $28.9 million over four years towards the construction and operation of three new boarding colleges for Indigenous secondary school students in years 8 to 12 in the Northern Territory.

Mmmm, this should come as no surprise. Apparently “Sting’s” charity gives only half of what it raises to the causes it champions:

Sting’s Rainforest Foundation, which has been rated one of New York’s worst charities by watchdog Charity Navigator, also faces allegations it hoards donations and inflates ticket prices to its events so they can be used as tax write-offs.

The foundation’s 2006 concert, which involved Lenny Kravitz, Sheryl Crow and Will Ferrell, raised almost $2.3 million, but less than $940,000 or 41 per cent of money raised was given to the charity’s eight programs that support native land claims and forest preservation in Latin America and Africa, the New York Post reported.

The Rainforest Foundation has been in trouble before, making false and missleading claims about the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, as caught out by Prof. Philip Stott of the University of London:

As detailed in the recent TV special, Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting the Myths, Landsat data indicate that 87.5 percent of the forest is still intact. Of the 12.5 percent that is deforested, one-third to one-half is in the process of regeneration, meaning that up to 94 percent of the Amazon rain forest is left to nature…

…according to the Institute for Research in Amazonia and other eco-scientists, the Amazon consumes as much oxygen as it produces, and Stott says it actually may be a net user of oxygen. “In fact, because the trees fall down and decay, rain forests actually take in slightly more oxygen than they give out,” says Stott. “The idea of them soaking up carbon dioxide and giving out oxygen is a myth. It’s only fast-growing young trees that actually take up carbon dioxide.”

Ahhh, but Sting’s foundation knows better:

“It’s very easy to romanticize these things from a distance, as long as it’s not your children who are dying without medical care.” Laurie Parise, the executive director of musician Sting’s Rainforest Foundation, doesn’t dispute that the Amazon is nearly 90 percent intact. She counters instead that the intentions matter, “I know in my heart that we’re doing the right thing.”

Regardless of the facts.

From the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney regarding homosexual ‘discrimination’:

“Personally I remain concerned about the impact of the gay lifestyle on our community, and I don’t believe any of us should be forced to accept it,” Dr Jensen said on ABC radio.

Don’t speak too soon. Seems there is a serious undermining of religious freedom in this country, brought on mostly by the homosexual lobby and their friends in state quasi-courts. The NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled recently that:

Homosexuality as an intolerable sin was not a doctrine of Christianity, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal ruled last month, because there were many dissenting views on the subject among Christian groups generally, and specifically within the Uniting Church.

So we now have these de facto kangaroo courts effectively telling religious organisations what doctrines they can and cannot believe in and as a result, what services and membership restrictions they can impose. When your entire world view is secular, rights and wrongs have limited meaning, all truth is relative so discrimination becomes the catch phrase for any one who dares to point out a moral wrong. From the ‘court’ ruling itself, with regards to a homosexual couple who were attempting to be foster parents through the Wesley Mission:

142 Given the diversity of views among adherents of the Christian religion about homosexuality, the prohibition against homosexual foster carers applied by Wesley Mission cannot be said to be necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of the Christian religion.

143 Similarly if the alternative definition were to be applied it could not be said that the prohibition against homosexual foster carers is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of the religion of the Uniting Church. In reaching that conclusion we note the range of views within the Church on the issue of homosexuality. We also note the evidence that a designated agency operated by the Uniting Church (not Wesley Mission) has authorised as ‘authorised carers’ persons who are openly homosexual and placed children in their care. There is no evidence that this has caused injury to the religious susceptibilities of the members of the Uniting Church.

Section 56 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act provides an exemption on religious grounds on the condition that:

(d) any … act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

Firstly, the court defines the religious standing of the church (decides what religion it is, even if the Church objects to the ruling) and then establishes or tells the Church what their religious view on a matter is. In this case the tribunal rules that homosexuality dose not go against ‘religious susceptibilities’ in the Christian world. They do this based on the experience of the Uniting Church and their acceptance of homosexual foster parents.

So because there happens to be a favourable minority view of homosexuality (the Uniting Church), within the Christian religion (which is a pretty broad category but the court decides), the state can force the homosexual world view on church operations because such a decision will not upset the religious susceptibilities of everyone in the religion (there is always bound to be someone that will disagree with their own church or with another denomination), regardless of what the leadership or majority of the religion or churches members might have to say on the matter. So the fact that the within Christian world there are various conflicting denominations is irrelevant. Religion is defined in the broadest sense to provide the best outcome for the quasi-court’s secular friends, the homosexual lobby.

Is this religious freedom? I think not.