Sunday 24 October 2010

Newspapers worth the money

It's Sunday morning & the rest of the house is in bed sound asleep. That's not unusual here. Yesterday was a perfect day. We started the day with a 10km run (the team - Gene & Ange & me) in warm conditions followed by a swim at Bondi & breakfast at the beach, then home to the eat more food, give the yard a quick clean & troop up to the Junction to do the weekly shop. All good. We came out of the shopping centre into a major thunderstorm - lightning, heavy rain & strong wind which would have been fine except that it's still overcast, windy & raining this morning.  The plan for today was to start with a swim but that's been put on hold, hence the blog.

The training has been slowly ramping up again.  I was in Wagga Wagga during the week & managed a 10km run along the river bank which went well in hot conditions.  The knee has continued to give me problems but is slowly improving.  Last Tuesday I went back to track for the first time in ages & just ran the track while the guys did their sprints. Again that felt good with no knee or archilles problems. And I managed to squeeze in a session on the bike as well which always feel good.  The next event is a 10km race that finishes in the Olympic Stadium & we've all entered to do that.  It's on today fortnight giving us an incentive to push things a bit over the coming two weeks.

Work took me to Brisbane this week to a Forensic Laboratory in a large hospital to start the preparation of a Conference, then back to Sydney & then off to the bush for a conference there. The coming week will see me back in Brisbane & also in Canberra for two days so it'll be a deal squeezing in the exercise.

But back to Sunday morning: I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this morning & was so impressed by the quality & the variety of the stories that I just had to tell someone - & you're it - as the rest of my listeners are all still sound asleep.

To start in the Spectrum section, Ross Fitzgerald (an old prof at the Uni of NSW & himself widely published) reviewed a just released book titled Power Crisis by Rodney Cavalier. The book chronicles the demise of the NSW Labor Party (& Govt) & asks " how can a small cadre of union officials, some (most) of whom have never toiled in any industry, continue to wield such power in the ALP when only 19% of the current workforce are union members and when in 2010 trade unionists comprise a mere 8% of NSW voters?"

I knew Cavalier as the Education Minister when I was a teacher at Cabramatta High School in the 1980s. I lead the industrial action against the then Government for better conditions for refugee students, which resulted in 39 of us getting the sack. The first & last time in this state's history that teachers had been sacked for taking industrial action. They were tense times, and Cavalier was a tough & smart political operator. He ended up loosing his seat & retreating to the Southern Highlands where he's become one of the most astute commentators on state & federal politics in the country. I'll definitely be buying the book & will let you know what he has to say.

The newspaper ran the review by Fitzgerald.  It's not the New York Review of Books, but it got me in.

And then there was a short piece on Endurance Running by Lissa Christopher which sparked an interest & I learned that Pat Farmer, a 48yr old former politician, is an ultra-runner & in 2011 will be attempting to run 21,000km from the North to the South Pole without taking a day off. The research tells us that daily running, even at what are extreme distances such as running every day for 70 days in the Trans America Footrace, is less dangerous than spending 70 days doing nothing & lounging around the house watching the box.

The newspaper ran the story. It just so happened that it hit the mark for me.

Then there was a piece by David Lesser that Gene drew my attention to: Two for the Road about a couple of mates who spend 10 days in Ireland & come away richer for it. As Lesser concludes: "George Bernard Shaw wrote that Ireland was "like no other place under heaven; no man can touch its sod or breathe its air without becoming better or worse". As Gene & I are going to be spending more than 10 days in sunny Ireland in December/January I'll let you know whether we come away better or worse.

Again the newspaper ran the story & it makes you want to go there.

There are quite a number of other pieces worth reading in the weekend paper.  To finish that theme however, I always read the obituaries by browsing through the list of fellow human beings who are no more. I look at each person's name, then scan for their age (it annoys me when the age is not mentioned) & read a selection of those who die young, those who die around my age or thereabouts & those who manage to die after they've hit the golden century. Today we saw Phyllis Watts from Drummoyne who died at 102 yrs of age, from old age (I guess).  That's quite an innings.  There was nothing about her life however expect that she died peacefully. Then we had Susan Coghill who died at 53yrs of age from cancer, which is always distressing & difficult for families & friends. And finally we had Alexander Krzeszkowski who took his own life at 19yrs of age. The family asked those coming to his funeral in Canberra next Tursday to wear bright coloured clothes, a baseball cap & to bring their favourite photos of Alex to pin to a photo wall with comments. That's about as tough as it gets for families & friends.

And again the newspaper told me these things.  That's good value don't you think for $2.50. BTW this isn't a paper owned by that ratbag, sad-arsed, pathetically unhappy & insecure Rupert Murdoch.  (Maybe it was his mum's fault for calling him Rupert in the first place - that would take a lot of getting over for most people. Though I do know a Rupert who's nothing like him . . .)

Here's hoping you get a chance to read a good newspaper this week

4 comments:

  1. John, My older sister only ever watches Foxtel. "Murdoch is the only one who tells the truth" she says. Thuth, strewth?
    Anyway my latest effort set out below. Can I get your support?





    Under our political system all three arms of Government exist separately yet none may have unbridled power unto itself or untrammeled power over any other. This is known as the doctrine of the separation of powers.
    This division of power is intended to stop one person or group of people taking over all the power to govern Australia.
    So it comes to my mind, strange indeed, that a Prime Minister, any PM, can take it on himself or herself to make a decision to send our armed forces to war. To send our people into harms way, with out the checks and balances established by the separation of powers.
    We are not living in a dictatorship, but this situation is not a democratic one. We need to be above the law when we risk going to war and losing our children in service to their nation.

    The Australian Constitution vests ‘command in chief’ of the Commonwealth’s military forces in the Governor- General who exercises this power on advice of the Prime Minister.
    Decisions about war and the deployment of Australian forces, have therefore, ultimately become matters solely for the Prime Minister of the day.
    The powers of the Prime Minister should be set out in writing instead of being so loose that he/she can apparently do anything they like. Originally (in England) a prime minister was only ‘first among equals’ and his role was restricted to chairing Cabinet meetings in the absence of the King. Successive PMs have grabbed more and more executive power so that now they have puffed themselves up into some kind of presidential head of government.
    The constitution explicitly states that executive power is vested in the Queen and exercised through the Governor-General with advice from the Queen’s MINISTERS OF STATE. There is no mention of a Prime Minister.
    I believe now is the time to raise this issue as a part of the national debate on the Afghan War.
    Our service men and women face legal jeopardy, when a Prime Minister overreaches his or her authority under the law I am particularly concerned, regarding the flouting of the doctrine of the separation of powers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do not presume to lecture on the doctrine; rather I describe the doctrine to make my case.
    Under our political system all three arms of Government exist separately yet none may have unbridled power unto itself or untrammeled power over any other. This is known as the doctrine of the separation of powers.
    The separation of powers is a convention we adopted from the United States of America as part of our constitutional arrangements.
    The doctrine of the separation of powers was described by Montesquieu in his L’Esprit des Lois in 1748. In this political treatise Montesquieu advocates constitutionalism and the separation of powers, the abolition of slavery, the preservation of civil liberties and the rule of law, and the idea that political and legal institutions ought to reflect the social and geographical character of each particular community.
    He said that a nation’s liberty depended on the separation of the three types of power, legislative, executive and judicial with each having their own separate institution.
    This doctrine is central to the Australian Constitution.
    Under the Federal Constitution the people of Australia are the sovereign power. It (the Constitution) sets out the legal rules and functions of the three arms of government.
    They are; The Parliament (Senate, the House of Representatives and the Queen).
    The Executive (The Prime Minister, the various Ministers and their Departments),
    and The Judicature.
    The system works in this way. Parliament makes the law, the Executive carries it out and the Judiciary, (in this case the High Court), determines the law is legal and constitutional.
    The High Court is charged with the responsibility of determining whether a Government is acting legally and within the Constitution.
    This division of power is intended to stop one person or group of people taking over all power to govern Australia.
    I find it strange indeed, that a Prime Minister, any PM, can take it on himself or herself to make a decision to send our armed forces to war, without the checks and balances established by the separation of powers.
    I believe that, as the Constitution was being written, the framers of the constitution were focused on building a federation of colonies to create the Commonwealth of Australia.
    The concepts of World Wars and the changes that came with twentieth century were beyond the imagination of the Australians of the 1890’s.
    If England went to war, we went with her, just as we had done in the Boer war.
    On 31 July 1914, the day after the Governor-General received official advice that war was imminent, both Andrew Fisher (ALP) and Joseph Cook (Liberal) pledged support to the Empire. Fisher delivered his famous phrase, repeated in many speeches:”Australians will stand beside our own to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling”. Four days later, Britain declared war on Germany. For Australians, this meant their nation too was at war.
    Menzies broadcast to the nation, announcing his; “melancholy duty to inform you officially that, in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war on her, and that, as a result, Australia is also at war”. This practice almost became a convention.
    International law is moving closer and closer to the point where national leaders like Tony Blair are coming under forensic scrutiny and it would certainly be prudent to put our house in order now.
    The Question to be asked is. What if in the future, decisions to go to a war are found to be illegal and service men and women, who are in need of compensation or legal protection, are put beyond the protection of the law by an action of one person?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ----- Original Message -----
    From: Ludlam, Scott (Senator)
    To: johnward154@bigpond.com
    Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:57 PM
    Subject: war powers bill

    Dear John,
    Thanks for sending through your thoughts on the war powers bill that the Greens have taken up from the Democrats.
    I understand you have spoken to Senator Milne who passed on some of your documentation.
    As I see it, your proposal is complementary to, rather than at odds to the approach we have taken (apart from your suggestion that it be a joint sitting of Parliament which warrants further discussion.)
    The proposal to tie deployments to Security Council resolutions I believe is complementary to with the idea of Parliamentary approval – I think it’s the approach favoured by our Greens colleagues in New Zealand. It has favour in some military circles as it would provide legal cover for armed forces personnel in ensuring the action was in line with international law.

    Please stay in touch, I intend to give these issues a further airing when the debate on Afghanistan takes place hopefully later this month.
    Regards,
    Scott
    SENATOR SCOTT LUDLAM

    FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/SenatorLudlam
    TWITTER @senatorludlam
    WEB www.scottludlam.org.au
    PERTH: Tel 08 9335 7477 | Fax: 08 9335 7499
    8 Cantonment Street, Fremantle, WA 6160
    CANBERRA: Tel: 02 6277 3467 | Fax: 02 6277 5821
    S1.36, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete