I have been known to kill things. Never humans but a variety of other animals have met their end at my hands. Cows, sheep, dogs, chooks, ducks, turkeys, snakes, rats, mice and even a bird or two.
I don't enjoy killing things. Most of the animals I have killed have been eaten by me or mine. Some have been in great difficulty and needed to be put out of their misery and a couple have been a threat to me or mine that couldn't be dealt with any other way.
The point is that I have nothing against killing animals provided that there is a purpose, the animal is given proper respect and there is no threat to the species. I can understand that others don't share this view and will abhor killing of animals or, perhaps, some animals.
I know that some will react with horror but what precisely is the difference between a whale and a cow, or a dog or any other animal? Why are whales sacrosanct? Certainly those that are threatened or endangered should be protected along with every other animal that is similarly under threat but what of those that are not?
I have seen many whales in their natural state. I have enjoyed watching them leap out of the water, slap their tails, look after their calves and generally swim about. I have also enjoyed watching cows with their calves mooching about the paddock, chooks scratching about in the gravel and dogs playing in the floodwaters.
Is it that we don't like the idea of eating whales? Certainly, we seem to be offended by people who do eat them and seem to enjoy doing so. Japanese, Icelanders, Inuit, Norwegians and Jamaicans all cop a flogging because they like to eat the flesh of whales. Do Indians who regard cows as sacred get upset with us? Do we get upset with Chinese who eat dogs - and a raft of other things that we don't?
Or are we simply demonstrating our insensitivity for other people's cultures? We don't do it so no one else should. Are we cultural imperialists? It sounds like it to me.
Wednesday 20 February 2008
Sunday 10 February 2008
Public Servants Beware
The apology to the Stolen Generation has been discussed by so many that almost every point that could be made has been. There is one area that hasn't had much coverage though and I think it is worth putting down a few words.
First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.
But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.
I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.
It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.
The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.
I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.
The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.
I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.
They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.
Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.
It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.
The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.
If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.
I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.
The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.
Better get on with it.
First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.
But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.
I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.
It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.
The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.
I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.
The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.
I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.
They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.
Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.
It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.
The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.
If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.
I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.
The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.
Better get on with it.
Thursday 7 February 2008
Much of a Muchness?
For better or worse the presidential election in the USA is importance to Australians. Perhaps not quite as important as it would have been if JWH was still in the seat. We wont necessarily have all of our foreign policy decisions made in Washington any more but the Americans will continue to be our 'close friends'. We will still watch a lot of their TV programs, listen to their music and suck up some of the sillier elements of their culture.
The question then is which one should we support? It might not matter all that much given that we don't have a vote but I shouldn't let that bother you too much - on past form the majority of citizens who have the right to vote wont bother anyway.
Those of us used to the nice little short cut of party politics need to get used to the system in the USA. They do have parties and these parties have broad policy positions but no discipline. Unfortunately, they are so broad as to be pretty much useless as a method of determining a preference, unless your level of interest is pretty basic. If that is what you are after then the most progressive mob are the Democrats and the Republicans (or the GOP) are the right wingers.
For more precise policy positions you need to go to the candidates.
This is where it can get tricky. You would be forgiven for concluding on the basis of most of the coverage that policies are really not what this is all about. Barack is young and black, Hillary is a bit older, white and a woman and John is even older, a Vietnam vet and POW and very long term legislator. It is really all about the race between these three. Their policies aren't apparently all that important. Whether they stumble, speak well, act like leaders and say the right things about God are all important.
In the way in which we sometimes set up tests for others, I have had the view for some time that the USA might just be starting to grow up when it has the courage to elect a black or a woman as President. With Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State there has been the chance that the Republicans could get the double up. That possibility didn't do a lot for my test but I still like the idea that the President may not be an old, white man.
It looks as though there are now three viable candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have checked out what seem to be their policies against some criteria of my own.
Propensity for War Mongering
John is the son and grandson of admirals and was a navy man himself. After he experienced a bombing - friendly fire - on an aircraft carrier where over 130 people were killed he said that we wondered whether he should keep dropping these things on the North Vietnamese. He was able to put that view behind him and now supports the Iraq War, jokes about 'Bomb, bomb, bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran' (to the tune of the Beach Boys tune). He suggests that the US could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Barack didn't support the invasion of Iraq - but he generally doesn't mention that he wasn't in the Senate when the decision was taken so didn't have a vote in any case. He wants to get out of Iraq but he doesn't really put up much of a plan for doing so. Curiously, he has said that he would invade Pakistan if it was necessary to get at terrorists.
Hillary voted to allow the invasion of Iraq. She now wants out but her plan for getting out doesn't seem to be much more coherent than Barack's. She does have the benefit of some pretty skillful policy advice on the issue.
Universal Health Care
Millions of people are uninsured with millions more under insured.
John is going to rely on private insurers to do better.
It looks as though Barack is going to require that children be insured, assuming that if they have to insure their children then people will automatically insure themselves. The logic is not strong.
Hillary is looking for a universal system - although hopefully slightly more effective than the one she tried for last time she was in the White House.
Death Penalty
John supports it.
Barack supports it.
Hillary supports it - but she has sponsored a bill that would require positive DNA results for all before execution. Not really the point but it could do some good.
Education
John thinks schools are heading in the wrong direction.
Barack and Hillary are strong on education and are supporters of public education.
Abortion
John has been a long time supporter of Roe v Wade but has recently shifted his position to say that it should be overturned.
Barack is on record as supporting Roe v Wade.
Hillary supports Roe v Wade although she is personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.
Firearms
John is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Barack is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Hillary rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Commitment to Free Trade
None seem to make any comment that gives a lead.
Experience
John was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and has been a Congressman or Senator ever since. Ran for President in 2000.
Barack was elected to the Senate in 2004.
Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was in the White House as First Lady for 8 years.
There are many other criteria that could be listed.
I suppose some of their positions say more about the USA than the candidates themselves.
The question then is which one should we support? It might not matter all that much given that we don't have a vote but I shouldn't let that bother you too much - on past form the majority of citizens who have the right to vote wont bother anyway.
Those of us used to the nice little short cut of party politics need to get used to the system in the USA. They do have parties and these parties have broad policy positions but no discipline. Unfortunately, they are so broad as to be pretty much useless as a method of determining a preference, unless your level of interest is pretty basic. If that is what you are after then the most progressive mob are the Democrats and the Republicans (or the GOP) are the right wingers.
For more precise policy positions you need to go to the candidates.
This is where it can get tricky. You would be forgiven for concluding on the basis of most of the coverage that policies are really not what this is all about. Barack is young and black, Hillary is a bit older, white and a woman and John is even older, a Vietnam vet and POW and very long term legislator. It is really all about the race between these three. Their policies aren't apparently all that important. Whether they stumble, speak well, act like leaders and say the right things about God are all important.
In the way in which we sometimes set up tests for others, I have had the view for some time that the USA might just be starting to grow up when it has the courage to elect a black or a woman as President. With Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State there has been the chance that the Republicans could get the double up. That possibility didn't do a lot for my test but I still like the idea that the President may not be an old, white man.
It looks as though there are now three viable candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I have checked out what seem to be their policies against some criteria of my own.
Propensity for War Mongering
John is the son and grandson of admirals and was a navy man himself. After he experienced a bombing - friendly fire - on an aircraft carrier where over 130 people were killed he said that we wondered whether he should keep dropping these things on the North Vietnamese. He was able to put that view behind him and now supports the Iraq War, jokes about 'Bomb, bomb, bomb - Bomb Bomb Iran' (to the tune of the Beach Boys tune). He suggests that the US could be in Iraq for 100 years.
Barack didn't support the invasion of Iraq - but he generally doesn't mention that he wasn't in the Senate when the decision was taken so didn't have a vote in any case. He wants to get out of Iraq but he doesn't really put up much of a plan for doing so. Curiously, he has said that he would invade Pakistan if it was necessary to get at terrorists.
Hillary voted to allow the invasion of Iraq. She now wants out but her plan for getting out doesn't seem to be much more coherent than Barack's. She does have the benefit of some pretty skillful policy advice on the issue.
Universal Health Care
Millions of people are uninsured with millions more under insured.
John is going to rely on private insurers to do better.
It looks as though Barack is going to require that children be insured, assuming that if they have to insure their children then people will automatically insure themselves. The logic is not strong.
Hillary is looking for a universal system - although hopefully slightly more effective than the one she tried for last time she was in the White House.
Death Penalty
John supports it.
Barack supports it.
Hillary supports it - but she has sponsored a bill that would require positive DNA results for all before execution. Not really the point but it could do some good.
Education
John thinks schools are heading in the wrong direction.
Barack and Hillary are strong on education and are supporters of public education.
Abortion
John has been a long time supporter of Roe v Wade but has recently shifted his position to say that it should be overturned.
Barack is on record as supporting Roe v Wade.
Hillary supports Roe v Wade although she is personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control.
Firearms
John is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Barack is rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Hillary rated by the NRA as an enemy.
Commitment to Free Trade
None seem to make any comment that gives a lead.
Experience
John was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982 and has been a Congressman or Senator ever since. Ran for President in 2000.
Barack was elected to the Senate in 2004.
Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was in the White House as First Lady for 8 years.
There are many other criteria that could be listed.
I suppose some of their positions say more about the USA than the candidates themselves.
Wednesday 6 February 2008
Back Into the Fray
I have been essentially off the air for the last 6 weeks or so. My computer decided that it was time for a rest. Screen started to flicker uncontrollably. You could still use it - sort of - but it was difficult and even more frustrating.
Over Christmas my technologically aware son decided that he would try a fix by cleaning up the software, that is, to remove everything and reinstall. He did so and it made a bit of a difference for a while. Not for long though and back it came with a vengeance and now some of the keys weren't responding.
My normal method of dealing with equipment that is not working as it ought is to apply mild percussive pressure. If that doesn't work then I might apply substantial percussive pressure. This is a risky business occasionally resulting in the destruction of the device, but it can be satisfying and it occasionally works. I decided on this occasion that I would not use this method. Computers still have me a little bit bluffed.
Off to the computer repair firm. Told me what I knew. Keyboard buggered and screen loose but at least now it was confirmed that it was a hardware issue and now, a month and many phone calls later, I have the computer back and it seems to be fixed.
I have had access to a computer, of course. TWOMD has a nice little lap top but, while very compatible in almost every other way, we are not compatible in terms of computer set up and usage.
Anyway, I am back now although I have developed habits of work that might restrict my time on this machine. Should find a bit though.
Over Christmas my technologically aware son decided that he would try a fix by cleaning up the software, that is, to remove everything and reinstall. He did so and it made a bit of a difference for a while. Not for long though and back it came with a vengeance and now some of the keys weren't responding.
My normal method of dealing with equipment that is not working as it ought is to apply mild percussive pressure. If that doesn't work then I might apply substantial percussive pressure. This is a risky business occasionally resulting in the destruction of the device, but it can be satisfying and it occasionally works. I decided on this occasion that I would not use this method. Computers still have me a little bit bluffed.
Off to the computer repair firm. Told me what I knew. Keyboard buggered and screen loose but at least now it was confirmed that it was a hardware issue and now, a month and many phone calls later, I have the computer back and it seems to be fixed.
I have had access to a computer, of course. TWOMD has a nice little lap top but, while very compatible in almost every other way, we are not compatible in terms of computer set up and usage.
Anyway, I am back now although I have developed habits of work that might restrict my time on this machine. Should find a bit though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)