The Koala and the Lizard

 A koala is sitting up a gumtree  smoking a joint when a little lizard walks past and looks up and says ”Hey   Koala !  what are you doing?”  

The koala says: “Smoking a joint, come up and have some.”So the little lizard climbs up and sits next to the koala and they have a few joints.After a while the little lizard says his mouth is ‘dry’ and is going to get a drink from the river. But the little lizard is so stoned that he leans too far over and falls into the river.

A crocodile sees this and swims over to the little lizard and helps him to the side, then asks the little  lizard: “What’s the matter with you?” The little lizard explains to the crocodile that he was sitting smoking a joint with the koala in the tree, got too stoned and then fell into the river while taking a drink.The crocodile says he has to check this out and walks into the rain forest,finds the tree where the koala is sitting finishing a joint, and he looks up and says “Hey you!”

So the koala looks down at him and says: “ Shit dude! How much water did you drink!!!!?”

Male Strippers

Like many people I get sent a lot of jokes via email.  I am going to post my most favourite ones here.  I have no idea where they originated but I do know I did not make them up myself…I’m not that clever

******************** 

Male Strippers

Last night, my blonde friends and I went to a Ladies Night Club. One of the girls wanted to impress the rest of us, so she pulled out a $10 bill.

When the male dancer came over to us,
my friend licked the $10 bill and stuck it to his butt cheek! Not to be outdone, another friend pulls out a $20 bill.
She called the guy back, licks the $20 bill, and sticks it to his other butt cheek.
In another attempt to impress the rest of us, my third friend pulls out a $50 bill and calls the guy over, and licks
the $50 bill.
I’m worried about the way things are going, but fortunately, she just stuck it to one of his butt cheeks again. My relief was short-lived. Seeing the way things are going, the guy races over to me!
Now everyone’s attention is focused on me,
and the guy is egging me on to try to top the $50. My brain was churning as I reached for my wallet.
What could I do?

The woman in me took over! I got out my ATM card, swiped it down the crack of his butt,Grabbed the eighty bucks,and left!!!!

Were Australian convicts a criminal class or victims of circumstance?

 A vast number of Australians view our European beginnings as a penal colony as uniquely our own. Yet a larger international flow of forced migration was occurring from Britain with a staggering 250,000 convicts alone being shipped after 1820 throughout the British colonies.[1] Therefore we can assume that convicts were being used as a free forced labour through the world during the 19^th century. Which brings us to the question of what kind of people were convicts. Many Australian historians believe that convicts were a result of a criminal class emerging in Victorian England.[2] However, others such as George Arnold Wood and Stephen Nicholas believe that convicts were ordinary working class people who brought skills with them to the new colony for a better life.[3] However this encourages us to ask did British policy dictate which convicts were sent out to NSW in the best interests of the new colony or was it to remove from British society a criminal class?

 

I was lucky to be given the opportunity to do a study based on evidence from a cross section of convicts from the First Fleet kept at the NSW State Archives. I concluded from this evidence that the majority of convicts were victims of social times and that they were from the working class with useful skills. The crimes encountered in this study were petty non-violent crimes. What is also important is that most did not reoffend at the completion of serving their sentence. In fact once they had served their sentence they were rewarded for good behaviour with offers of conditional pardons, tickets of leave and certificates of freedom. Therefore when given certain social, economical and political environments they can have a negative impact on the way people live forcing them to into situations they would not normally find themselves such as a life of crime.[4]

 

This supports Nicholas’ statement that the convicts were working class people forced into petty crime due to circumstances beyond their control and that they were not a new criminal class. What is also important to note is that Nicholas has based his research on the Convict Index and compared the statistics with those of the English working class of the same time.[5] Other historians such as Manning Clarke, L.L. Robson and A.G.L. Shaw base many of their findings on their own class factors and those of social standing of the day which detracts from their argument.[6] [7]

In August 2006 I undertook a study whereby I selected 10 convicts from The Clyde which sailed from England on the 27^th August 1832 under Captain Daniel Nisbett.[8] The convicts were selected at random and their personal details gave an overview of a cross section of transportees for that time. While some of the comparisons are not exact, they are very similar with the findings of Stephen Nicholas.There are some similarities between both Nicholas and Robson’s findings of the characteristics of convicts. Both found that most convicts were single, were male and in their 20s, two thirds were Protestant, one third Catholic and that most came from cities or industrialised towns.[9] They also came to the conclusion that the majority were convicted of theft.[10] My studies are also similar in that the majority were male and in their 20’s, 80% were single, most came from cities and towns that were affected in some way by industrialisation being located either near rivers, railroads or ports. [11] [12] [13] We could also draw from their personal information they were healthy as they would not have lasted the voyage.

In looking at the crimes of the convicts we can see what kind of criminal they were. For example Eris O’Brien claims that as most of those transported had been sentenced to hang and had their sentences converted, they had been guilty of more serious crimes.[14] Nicholas on the other hand found that most first offenders were guilty of petty crimes and had been employed as free workers prior to conviction and their crimes were work related.[15] In my study, all offences were petty theft that resulted within the work place as a crime of opportunity regardless of how many times they had offended.[16] However, three convicts out of four first offenders – Welch, Abnett and Dollamore – had stolen grain, rabbits and fowl which suggest they stole out of hunger and not for greed.[17] This is quite obvious in the case of Thomas Welch who was a father of 13 children and aged 52 at the time of his crime which was to steal grain.[18] Not only was this a time of industrialisation but also when enclosures were common and the Poor Laws had an effect on society with job losses and work related injuries.[19] For example a convict, Thomas Summers aged 14, was disabled in his left arm which may have been from working on a machine.[20] 

Many of the convicts had been employed in England even though Schedvin states that they were a criminal sub-culture which looked for easy ways to make money and were idle as well as self indulgent.[21] Nicholas argues that the convicts in NSW were on par with the skilled free English working class in Britain which included building and farming skills.[22]   My studies confirm this with 20% holding building skill occupations, 30% agricultural skilled workers, 20% with navigational skills as boatmen and 30% unskilled labourers.[23]

While it has been suggested that that many convicts were unemployed at the time of sentencing and wrote down their last occupation as their present one, it would mean they would be unfamiliar with their skills. Notwithstanding, it would be fair to say that we can still claim that these convicts had been employed at some point and were not idle. 90% of those convicts I examined remained in the area of their birth with the exception of one, a man called WilliamWisey whom was born in St. Helena but sentenced in Kent.[24] Therefore the majority of convicts were from the working class and many of them were literate. While he argues that literary evidence from Convict Indents could be misrepresented with only rudimentary ability, Nicholas also points out in Unshackling the Past that convicts held a higher literary rate of 75% as compared to 58% of the English working class.[25] [26] The evidence I found suggested that 60% of the convict population were literate which while below Nicholas’ figures shows that over half of the convicts were literate.[27]

 Literacy and education are important from an economist’s point of view. This human capital helps enable economic development within an environment. Some economist claim that a 40% literacy rate is all that is needed for economic survival coupled along with skilled labour.[28] Skilled labour proved to be an important commodity within the new colony. Convicts upon arrival were allocated to a master as free labour.[29] Nicholas states from his findings that many skilled convicts were placed in workshops such as blacksmiths, carpenters etc to help the economy grow which were also in line with what was happening in industrialised Britain.[30] However, many have said that the allocation of convicts was like a lottery draw as the convicts were unskilled. Kent and Townsend in their book The Convicts on the Eleanor dispute this. They claim that convicts with agricultural skills were in high demand as supply was scarce and convicts had to be rationed.[31] Such was the demand for skilled convicts that Governor Macquarie was criticised for retaining too many within government employ which is in keeping with his emancipation policy where Francis Greenway is a shining example.[32] In fact the Bigge Report of 1822/23 reported back to England on the increased demand for labour and the need to have it supplied and soon the rural economy matched British penal policy.[33]This in turn led to better protection of the rights of the convict with a better standard of health care and better accommodation than what they would have had in England.[34] Nicholas states that the convicts worked hard when rewarded with extra rations, clothing, indulgences, training and time for their own personal work rather than corporal punishment.[35] This leads us to an important point – if the convicts’ skills they have are in demand and they are encountering better living conditions, will they return to a life of crime which would be expected if they are from a criminal class or will they rise to the occasion of being an opportunity to succeed as an individual?

The behaviour of convicts after transportation could be taken as a measure of their moral character suggesting that their new environment provide them with opportunity if they chose to take it.[36] My studies also show that while only three convicts in the case study were granted Tickets of Leave, six received Certificates of Freedom out of the seven convicts that were eligible, as three of them had been given life sentences.[37] Out of ten convicts only one – James Abnett – reoffended but was granted a Certificate of Freedom four years later.[38]In perusing the statistical data that is held by State Records NSW regarding convicts and comparing it with Nichols’ data on the English working class, we can conclude that the convicts were indeed victims of the social, economic and political influences of their time. These convicts from the working class had skills that were not needed in an ever growing British industrialised society but were in demand for a growing colonial economy. The calibre of their skills, along with their age, health and literacy levels made them look attractive to a government who wanted to encourage and sustain a strong colonial economy as well as explore its interior to utilise the raw resources to supply mother England. The convicts were not a criminal class which has been proved by one convict of out ten reoffending, an offence that allowed him only four years later to receive a Certificate of Freedom. They were members of a working class caught up in circumstances beyond their control who, when given the right environment worked to their best of their ability, bettering themselves in the process.

**************

Bibliography

Butlin, N.G., Cromwell, C.W. and Suthern, K.L. (eds) General Return of Convicts in NSW 1837. Sydney: ABGR/SAG, 1987.

Garton, S. ‘The Convict Origins Debate: Historians and the Problem of the “Criminal Class”’ in Whitlock, G. and Reekie, G. (eds) Uncertain Beginnings. Brisbane: UQP, 1993.

Kent, D. and Townsend, N. (eds) The Convicts of the Eleanor. Australia: Pluto Press, 2002.

Nicholas, S. and Shergold, P.R. ‘Unshackling the Past’ in Nicholas, S. (ed.) Convict Workers. Melbourne: C.U.P., 1998.

Shead, J. Inland Waterways of England & Wales. http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/jim.shead/Inland-Waterways-of-England.html. [Access Date: September 2006].

State Records NSW. Index to Convict Indents, 1818-1842. X634 (Fiche 700).

State Records NSW. Index to Certificates of Freedom, 1823-1869, http://www.records.nsw.gov.au.indexes/searchforum.aspx. [Access Date: September 2006].

Abnett, J. The Clyde, CF No. 39/1272 and CF No. 64/1

Dollamore, W. The Clyde, CF No: 39/2179

Mawson, T. The Clyde, CF No: 40/1430

Randall, A. The Clyde, CF No: 47/0387

Summers, T. The Clyde, CF No: 38/0584

Welch, T. The Clyde, CF No: 39/2169

State Records NSW. McIntyre, P., ed. Convict Pardons, Tickets of Leave NSW 1810-1875.

Abnett, J. The Clyde, X634 p. 700 (Fiche 700) 36/1541 925 4/4106

Bridgeland, W.The Clyde, X634 p. 700 (Fiche 700) 40/2568 938 4/4145

Randall, A. The Clyde, X634 p. 700 (Fiche 700) 39/2319 935 4/4135

UK Camping Site, http://homepage.mtlworld,com/mark1968/images%20Camping/map-england.gif. [Access Date: September 2006]. (This map was used to show where the rivers and waterways of England were located to show that crimes were committed due to job reallocation and high unemployment due to industrialisation).

Truth and Rhetoric in the Greek ideal – Pericles, Gorgias and Plato

Truth and Rhetoric in the Greek ideal of Periclean Athens.

In Ancient Greece, Athens was considered to be one of the most powerful and influential city-states. Athens was a democratic society which was seen as the Greek ideal and included freedom of speech. This ideal also meant being an active citizen through education of both the mind and body. This encouraged the participation of Athenian citizens, not only in the protection of the city-state by defending it in battle but also through the public arena in policy making. The ability to speak in public was an important quality in Periclean Athens. Part of the Greek ideal as citizen, was to be able to debate in public while appearing sincere.

From a very young age male children were prepared to become active citizens. While the training of the body occurred mainly within the gymnasium, the training of the mind was left in the hands of the Sophists. People hired sophists to prepare them for the Assembly. To do this, citizens needed to learn oratory and rhetorical skills (techne) for public debate. In Athens, this training was important as these skills gave you the power to influence fellow citizens when voting. In perusing the writings of Pericles, Gorgias and Plato, we can understand how reason, truth and rhetoric are each used to achieve the Greek ideal of active citizenship within Athenian society through oration. By doing so, we will also be able to see how the use of rhetoric and reasoning are used within the public arena.

Only males were classed as citizens and were viewed to be equal before the law regardless of their income and were allowed to participate within the government. Citizens were able become part of the decision making and be heard even if they were outvoted. This decision making included various areas of public life such economics and military which were important for the well being of the city-state while at the same time giving a sense of community. In turn, this led to citizens respecting the decisions made by the majority due to the democratic processes in play. This was done knowing that if a wrong decision has been made, they would have a chance to change it at a later date through rhetoric. This was providing they could convince the majority an error in judgment had been made. However, this was not the case with Socrates who believed that the use of rhetoric did not allude to the truth and was critical of the Sophists. He believed they debated on only what seemed probable than what was the truth.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates was imprisoned and sentenced to death upon being wrongfully found guilty. Crito appears at his prison cell to help him escape and knowing it will be difficult, he decides to use his oratory skills on Socrates through the use of rhetoric. Crito appeals to him to escape by using him as an example of injustice in the verdict, yet Socrates out manoeuvres Crito’s persuasive skills in using his method of reasoning or dialectic. This is done through the process of question/answer as a logical way to show the truth.

Even though Socrates has unjustly been sentenced to death he chooses to uphold his punishment and the laws of Athens. He considers the jurors at fault with the wrong judgement and not the law itself. By condoning Crito’s proposal, Socrates sees this as reaffirming the jurors opinions of him regarding the charges brought against him:

‘You will confirm the opinion of the jurors, so that they’ll seem to have given a correct verdict – for any destroyer of laws might very well be supposed to have a destructive influence upon young and foolish human begins’ (Plato 2003:94).

Socrates has already proven in the Apology, that he would continue to argue what he believes is just, by the fact that he accepted his punishment of death. He continued his defence despite knowing he could have changed the outcome if he used rhetoric to win the argument instead of the basis of truth. He has Crito agreeing that:

‘Whatever the popular view is, and whether the consequence is pleasanter than this or even tougher, the fact remains that to commit injustice is in every case bad and dishonourable for the person who does it’ (Plato 2003:88).

According to Plato, Socrates therefore is guided by reason in the pursuit of truth finding virtue in this knowledge. In not accepting his punishment he will blemish his honour whereby he would be going against what he stands for (ethos) – searching for the truth through reason. This is also ironic as Socrates was always in search of the truth but allows his position as a citizen to override his morals.

Standing up for your morals and what you think is right as a citizen in the public sphere, could find you liable for your actions and punished as was the case of Plato’s Socrates. Therefore the Greek ideal of freedom of speech in active citizenship was not always true. On the other hand the Sophist movement aimed to use reason to argue any topic using reason and rhetoric, no matter how pointless or extreme the argument. It was a skill in high demand. An example of this extremeness is seen in On Nature by Gorgias, who uses anti-logic to prove that Sophists can argue any point and make it seem reasonable to a certain degree.

On Nature by Gorgias is an example of a Sophist using rhetoric to prove a point that may or may not be true. In other words, the text is an exhibition of arguing that there is no point and showcasing the importance of the Sophists in the public sphere of debate. Gorgias claims three points in this reading. The first is that nothing exists. ‘Nothing can come to be either out of what is existent or out of what is non-existent’ and this transpires to if anything does exist it is either created or uncreated and therefore cannot exist (Dillon, Gergel 2003:71). Gorgias’ second point is that if something exists it cannot be known as we do not know if it is real. While this seems an oddity and not making sense we are given the example of a man flying and chariots running over the sea (Dillon, Gergel 2003:73). Gorgias demonstrates that just because we think of these examples does not mean they actually exist. The third point is if it could be known then it cannot be communicated. The example used to explain this is on the basis that we have no conception of what anything is as language is the only way we can show representation of anything. You cannot ‘see’ a colour through description or ‘hear’ a sound being explained through language as everyone has a different way of seeing (Dillon, Gergel 2003:75). Therefore because we can only ‘imagine’ what things are like through the representation of language it does not actually exist and that language is a form of deception. Gorgias, in this respect, shows us a non-traditional style of rhetoric using reason which does not necessarily end in the truth. This is contrasted to the Defence of Palamedes which is more structured.

The Defence of Palamedes is by Gorgias. It refers to Odysseus’ framing Palamedes for treason as revenge on Palamedes revealing how Odysseus attempted to be exempted from service (Dillon, Gergel 2003:84). This text is more structured in the sense that Gorgias follows a pattern of rhetoric. This pattern includes using logic and reasoning, through consequential events occurring whereby Gorgias plants doubt in the jurors’ minds through credible arguments. This is then followed by Gorgias agreeing that the implausible has transpired in assuming that what did not happen in fact happened (Dillon, Gergel 2003:86). He then eliminates its possibility of being through deductive reasoning. This in turn is followed by showing respect for the Greek jurors while remaining calm and unemotional at the same time:

‘For while to recapitulate what has already been said at length may be sensible before bad judges, it is not appropriate to assume that a body comprised of the most eminent of the Greeks does not pay attention nor remember what has been said’ (Dillon, Gergel 2003:93).

In effect Gorgias is playing to his audience to win them over with his traditional style of rhetoric and logic. This style is similar to what is experienced when reading Pericles’ Funeral Oration.

Here we see Pericles giving a eulogy to a deceased warrior. While he is addressing all Athenians, he is only speaking directly to the men. However, instead of talking about the warrior, Pericles gives us a rhetorical speech which praises the citizens of Athens and he extricates honour and glory as being components of an active participant. This is reinforced by the warrior who died an honourable death in battle. Pericles states ‘…a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all…’ (Pericles 2003:`47).

Athens, he claims is leading by example as a ‘…democracy and a centre open for trade to everyone including foreigners’ (Pericles 2003:146). Pericles also emphasises the greatness of Athens in comparison with Sparta. He remembers his ancestors, and the freedom they had fought for. This introduces tradition to the speech, giving a connection to the past that must be continued.

This speech entails what it means to be an Athenian and Pericles uses emotive language in what could be seen as a propagandist piece of writing. Everything is for the city-state as he writes ‘…fix your eyes every day on the greatness of Athens as she really is, and you should fall in love with her’ (Pericles 2003:149). He also extols the virtues of Athens in being a free country. Yet not all in Athens are free, only the citizens and not women or slaves. This gender division is apparent as women only addressed towards the end of the piece, delegated to a domestic role (Pericles 2003:151).

All three of the texts above are different to each other, serving different purposes, yet all of them also contain the Greek ideal within them as envisioned by their writers. From the characteristics of Athenian citizens being revered in a funeral oration to the practicing of the Sophists to the ideal of being true to ones self in gaining knowledge – they all reflect a truth.

Through the use of rhetoric and reasoning of Ancient Greece, we can only determine that truth in ancient culture is what we have been persuaded to believe as a representation of the truth. However we must also remember that the fact we have knowledge does not always allude to a real representation of the truth, just our experience of it. The use of language in oratory and rhetoric skills allows us to decipher through reason what each above respective writer found important as to what their idea of the Greek ideal is.

Bibliography

Gorgias, (2003) ‘Gorgias Selection’ in Dilllon, J. and Gergel, T. (eds) The Greek Sophists, London: Penguin, pp. 67-93

Pericles, (1972) ‘Pericles’ Funeral Oration’ in Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War, Ringwood: Penguin, pp.143-151

Plato, (2003) ‘Crito’ in Tredennick and Tarrant (eds) The Last Days of Socrates, London: Penguin, pp77-96

Trade Agreements: The Push for Political Power in the Asia-Pacific Region

Australian and East Timor have been negotiating a treaty for gas and oil in relation to the Greater Sunrise Gas Field within the Timor Sea. The East Timor Government is disputing the existing maritime boundaries with Australia. East Timor is asking for international law via the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to apply. This will enforce the boundary to be drawn midway between the two countries, a more equitable proposition. Australia however, is insisting there is to be no change to existing boundaries agreed upon by the previous occupiers of East Timor, Indonesia. The result would see East Timor gaining control of the majority of the Greater Sunrise Field including any royalties. Australia has offered East Timor a larger profit share of royalties provided they do not challenge the legality of the maritime boundaries for a conditional period of time.

It should be no surprise that East Timor would want the UNCLOS to apply in the Timor Sea if current negotiations with the Australian government fail. This enforcement would see the royalties of the gas field be taken from Australia to East Timor. The small nation would see a rise in living standards, a start for eradicating poverty whereby their economy will become more viable on an international scale. There are a number of issues for Australia regarding this matter.

Firstly, there would be an economic loss. Australia would lose royalties from the gas and oil due to losing control of the field through loss of territory.[1] This would have a carry on effect with a decrease in employment as well as income for Australia. In 2002 the ACIL Consulting Group estimated 4,400 Australian jobs were being created through an onshore Greater Sunrise Gas line.[2]

Secondly is our position on an international level of promoting democracy and fair trade. Australia supported the liberation of the East Timorese, helping extensively with peacekeepers and foreign aid. By refusing to acknowledge the sovereignty of the maritime boundary, Australia will be seen as hypocritical. In withdrawing from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), so that it did not have to legally acknowledge a new boundary, Australia is being seen in a weak position. Foreign Minister Downer perceives the debate to be about the principles of our boundaries and not the money.[3] The UN, however, estimates that on gaining control of the area in question, East Timor could gains $US30 billion which is a substantial amount to gain or lose. [4] East Timor’s President Gusmao also agrees with the UN stating that his country should not have to give up sovereignty of gas reserves that are rightfully theirs.[5]

The third issue of contention is political as there has been a shift in the international climate. There has been an increase of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) especially with the United States and Australia that could be seen as ignoring the Asia Pacific region.[6] As suggested by the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, strong economic links within a region will promote regional stability and prosperity.[7] As US trade relations with China seem shaky as of late, Australia should work towards becoming a trusted trading partner to both the Western and Asian sectors. In times of economic unrest, Australia could enhance its position by negotiating between conflicting countries thus increasing its political status and power. The way we negotiate with East Timor on the Sunrise Treaty could show our willingness to become an Asian trading partner.

East Timor is a developing nation but well within its rights to legally claim the disputed boundary according to international law. East Timor may gain the royalties from the Sunrise Gas Field but they lack the infrastructure to secure it. It is here Australia should explore trade opportunities in a positive way while at the same time enhancing its status as a fair trading partner. Australia should work on constructive ways to become economically and politically powerful, not only with East Timor but the entire Asian region to enhance its stable trading relationship with the West. Establishing a free trade bloc in Asia would give Australia access to almost half the world’s population allowing Australia to pursue trade deals in new markets.[8]

---

[1] The Timor Sea Justice Campaign, “FAQs’ The Timor Sea Justice Campaign, http://www.timorseajustice.org/faqs.htm cited August, 2005[2] Clare Martin, “Address to the Institute of NT Economic Development Wednesday 8^th August 2002’ Northern Territory Government, http://www.nt.gov.au/dc/otd/publications/oil_gas/cm_institute_econm_devt_address.pdf cited August, 2005[3] Alexander Downer, ‘East Timor, Aust gas deal ‘fair’’, ABC news Online, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1407637.htm cited August 2005[4] Dennis Shanahan, Nigel Wilson, ‘Gas deal sealed with extra $8bn’, The Australian, July 7, 2005 p.1.

[5] Nigel Wilson, “Gusmao ready to give in over gas share’, The Australian, July 22, 2005 p. 23.

[6] Access Economics, ‘The Costs and Benefits of a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/aussing_fta_cost_benefit_study.html cited August, 2005.

[7] Mark Vaile, ‘China and The Global Economy: Strategic Directions’, Minister for Trade http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2003/030213_china.html cited August, 2005.

[8] Scott Murdoch ‘Downer’s Asia trade vision’ Herald Sun,

Useless Facts

I am sure there are many but I was in a discussion with an American who stated there were more deaths from hair dryers in America than guns (yes I wondered what he was on also), so I decided to google. I only found out there were between 4 and 18 deaths each year from hair dryers mainly through electrocution when I came across this gem.

“Over 2500 left handed people a year are killed from using products made for right handed people.”

http://www.yrfn.com/facts.html?PHPSESSID=84ca577e41c5fc0d9bcac2832a8bd4bc

Since I’m left handed I better put down the right handed scissors and tin openers…I don’t want to tempt fate

As for gun deaths…I didn’t get that far as yet…

Khaju Bridge

 

The Khaju Bridge is located in Isfahan (Iran) and was built in 1667. This bridge is a great example of a Roman Arch bridge. The bridge is a semicircular structure with abutments on each end (part of a structure that bears the weight or pressure of an arch). The arches shift the weight from the bridge deck to the support structure. The force of compression is pushed outward along the curve of the arch toward the abutments. An arch bridge does not need cables or additional supports and are usually made of stone.

The Khaju Bridge is approximately 132 metres long and 20 metres wide. Along the length of the bridge are watchtowers. Contained in 2 storeys, it includes 23 intersecting arches with 21 larger, and 26 smaller inlets and outlet channels.

Not only is it a bridge, but also acts as a dam and sluice gate. On the eastern side of the bridge there is a high sill, which collects the water. This provides a basin from which irrigation water for the surrounding area is drawn off in a series of channels.

On the western side there are steps over and between which the water pours and on which people collect to do their laundry or meet as a social event. The lower storey arches are fitted with locks which act as sluice gates. These sluice gates help regulate the flow of the river. When the sluice gates are open, water level is raised upstream so that large quantities of water were available for irrigating the surrounding gardens and to create an illusion of water for the Shah of the time.

Original 17^th century paintings and beautiful tile work are still viewable on the bridge today. An octagonal pavilion is set in the centre of the bridge that now houses an art gallery and teahouses. Originally the Shah Abbas and his courtiers would sit and admire the views, while below them people would congregate on the steps enjoying the coolness of the flowing water. This bridge offered an oasis against the heat in the middle of the desert.

Today, even though there are drought problems, the Khaju Bridge has withstood the tests of time. Structurally sound, the bridge is still in working order even though it is around 350 years old. Existing inscriptions suggest that the bridge was repaired in 1873.

Palace of Versailles

 

The gardens of the Palace of Versailles (1632-1671) are a classic example of French Renaissance gardening. Andre Le Notre designed this spectacular piece of landscape that is still seen as a classic today. No other garden in the world has had more influence in landscape design after it’s completion than the garden at the Palace of Versailles, as the original land was a swamp and marsh area.

The designers conformed to the principles of symmetry and balance on which the Italian landscape was founded. They maximised these forms to develop the multi-axis and complex woven patterns. Parterres of intricate design, flowers of many colours, long vistas, and tree lined alleys and garden walkways became the symbols of traditional French landscapes as well as optical illusions. This was done with architectural geometrical designs and water features connecting the “Sun King” to Greek and Roman Gods as well as sculptures and architectural monuments.

The immense area of the garden covers almost 3,000 acres. Commissioned by King Louis XIV to create “heaven on earth”, it took around 33 years to build, 18,000 men to create it and cost at least 25% of France’s GDP to run. These gardens were built to convey Louis’ importance and to show his dominance over nature.

Water played an important role for its use as a design form. Expansive reflecting pools, canals, and ornamental water features became a major part of the French-style garden. There wasn’t enough water to run the water features so a machine at Marly-Le-Roi was built at the Seine River. 64 pumps pushed water into a higher up reservoir then another 69 pumps pushed the water into a second reservoir that was higher again. The third series of 78 pumps pushed the water higher up again, a total of 162 metres to an 8-mile long aqueduct, by gravity flow 3 miles away. In a 24-hour period a total of 25,000 cubic metres of water was pumped but 6.2 million litres of water an hour were needed to run the water features. Paris often went without water when the fountains at Versailles were running due to the running of the 1400 water features (607 exist today) using seven times more water than the city of Paris used.

The first greenhouse ever built, the Orangerie faces south and is double glazed as it is dug into the slope and is sheltered. It remains at between 5* and 8* Celsius all year round. 2,000 citrus trees were potted here and 1,000 rose bays. The King was able to extend the season of his vegetables by six months.

No expense was spared in building this great garden but its extravagance cost Louis XIV his life. Not only did 10,000 plus people die building his “Eden” but his people starved. The legacy of his frivolity is a classic French Renaissance garden which remains unequalled today, with its design copied all over the world today. This visual splendour shows a balanced harmony between architecture and nature.

Janaury 2007 – The Role of the Media – a Brief Observation

The media “…are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical and social consequences that they leave no part of us un-touched, unaffected, unaltered…” [McLuhan, 1967]

The television media play an important role in the shaping of the public’s perceptions of our global and local communities. Not only are our political thoughts influenced by television, but also our social and cultural ideals.

News and current affair programs infiltrate our thinking processes daily on a subconscious level; we need to ascertain how the media manipulates visual and language tolls to achieve this. In determining the role of the presenter reviewing treatment and production values, identifying the codes and conventions that generate representations and stereotyping, realise how the media, through discourse, conditions our ideologies and cultural attitudes. Comparing news and current affair formats together with the program content of commercial and public broadcasters, we can discover which delivers informative and accurate reporting.

While there are no complete definitions for news or current affairs, it is generally accepted that the time frame given to each story as well as the depth of interpreting and analysing the item determines whether or not a story is news or a current affair program. There is a distinctive pattern of difference between the way commercial broadcasters and the public broadcasters present current affairs.

New is a commodity and its function is to deliver items of interest within the last 24 hours both locally and globally in a short time frame to give the audience a general overview of what is occurring in the world. Commercial television often presents news as “drama”, human disasters, war, celebrities and royalty entices the viewer to keep watching, increasing the ratings.

The function of current affairs is to present issues affecting the social, cultural and political climate of the day in a format that allows comment and analysis between two opposing views to allow its audience to make “informed” conclusions regarding the topic through the interviewing of “expert” guests.

News and current affairs are constructed by the gathering and manipulation of information into a digestible construct for consumers and by doing so they create an intentional/unintentional bias regardless of which angle the issue is shown in. Taking one issue and comparing how both commercial and public broadcasters present the story can prove this.

Commercial television is a powerful medium that has the ability to affect the way people in the public gaze respond to its scrutiny. Politicians modify their behaviour due to the small time frames they are given to discuss issues as there is no time for debate and most of their time is spent issuing denials and making claims. People make assumptions based on this with no background given to the issues.

“Free-to-air television remains the most used source for news and current affairs, with nearly 88 percent of Australians using it” [ABA, 2001]

Commercial programs such as Meet the Press are dedicated to a longer time frame in which political analysis and discussion can occur, however these programs generally occur only once a week. Therefore we can assume commercial stations are trivialising the importance of analysing politics for public consumption, by only giving lip service to quality political comment. Politics was given more coverage in the lead up to the last election but the emphasis centred around the two leaders and instead of concentrating on the policies and issues at hand and how each political party would deal with them.

The public broadcasters SBS and the ABC give political comment and analysis more coverage with daily and weekly programs such as Lateline, the 7.30 Report and Statewide.

A commercial television owner can exert through the power of television, bad publicity towards politicians if they pass unpopular media policy. Although this is not openly recognised, in 1975 in the print media Murdoch brought down a Government in this way.

Journalists generally agree that commercial station owners do not impose on them what angle they should report on a story but most acknowledged that there was an unwritten rule they should follow a slant that their employer would find favourable. Due to the low numbers of television station ownership in Australia, most conceded that it would be pragmatic to go against the tide. So therefore, the public assumes that there is interference in the way “newsworthy” stories are being selected for news and current affairs due to the political leanings of other corporate interests the television station may also have.

“Public broadcasting, as opposed to commercial broadcasting, is the only form of broadcasting where the actual aim of the programming is to educate, inform or entertain.” [Davidson, 1996]

The common view held by most Australians is that public broadcasters remain independent and un-editorialised as they are not as ratings driven for monetary purposes as the commercial broadcasters.

The Charter for the ABC regarding news and information stipulates:

• no editorial stand
• avoid conflict of interest
• news accurate and, in context, balance, authority for editorial decision and directions will be vested in editorial staff.

People become a marketable commodity when they select which television shows they watch. Commercial television has a monetary bottom line and their programming reflects this.

The shareholders of commercial broadcasters expect a profit and as there is no Government funding, capitalists and corporations play an integral part of the running of a commercial station. Advertising is important as the proceeds help cover production costs. It is therefore important for the networks to increase ratings by widening its audience scope to entice advertisers to spend large amounts of money in marketing their products during prime time, which is the news/current affair time slot.

“Total media expenditure for 1999, Telstra – $130-$135m, Coles Myer – $120-$125m” [The Media and Communications in Australia, 2002]

Through market research, commercial networks can ascertain which news and current affair programs an audience demographic is watching and can gives their advertisers a cross section of the gender, age, disposable income of the targeted audience. There are rumours of advertisers also having editorial licences to put pressure on the commercial networks to not do an “expose” on their companies or they will withdraw their advertising which could be worth millions a year.

A code and convention which commercial stations rely on within a current affair/new item is stereotyping through representation. This is achieved by identifying the differences between the majority (main stream public) and the minority (ethnic groups, minority groups, subcultures). Differences in appearances and behaviours such as religious practices, ethnicity, work habits and job status are emphasised in a negative light.

Positive traits are often ignored. It is assumed that the audience watching the commercial networks have a certain level of intelligence and are impressionable to the effects of visual and linguistic codes and conventions, disregarding the accuracy of the facts being presented.

Television consistently stereotypes people through word association linguistics such as welfare bludgers, the little Aussie battler, single mothers, ethnic groups, shifty salesmen, shonky builders and the elderly as weak. Factors of alternative lifestyles are also magnified for example vegetarians, homosexuals, and followers of non-Christian religions. This serves to prejudice the audience into perceiving this lifestyle as freakish, emphasising the normality of the viewers’ life by accentuating the differences of alternative life choices. The media concentrates on the contrasting social and cultural characteristics dictating how the public should perceive these groups through encoded prejudices delivered subliminally through codes and conventions to the audience.

A recent expose on food practices in food courts for example centred on workers of Asian appearance at the rear of a shop premises, while at the front the owners refuting the journalist claims in broken English and showing no facial expression.

This representation of people of Asiatic backgrounds plays on our ignorance and intolerance of other cultures within our own community by sending the message that Asiatic people cannot speak fluent English, show no emotions when confronted with allegations so therefore they cannot understand our health legislations in food handling, so our food is prepared in unhygienic conditions. In not knowing or understanding their language we feel threatened and the journalist plays the fear factor.

If the audience cannot relate to a presenter they will switch to another channel. As presenters of news/current affairs act as a link between stories and the audience the presenters need to be likeable, trustworthy and familiar to the audience to be allowed into their homes every night. The presenters look authoritative in the way they dress, their speech and their mannerism, a professional touch.

The presenters on commercial stations become celebrities in their own right, commodities. Channel 9 had a slogan “Brian Told Me” which sold its news program on the popularity and trustworthiness of Brian Henderson. Henderson had been with the station since its inception and was a familiar, recognisable face and viewers believed him. The station could not buy this kind of marketing and he was a great asset to the network in the ratings war.

However the presenters have no real authority to give us their view of the issues on current affairs and news. They have a narrative function and read an autocue prepared by an editor and producer who have “editorialised” the material. This gives the audience a brief overview of what the following story is about and halts the audience from questioning stories, having the thinking already done for them.

Codes and conventions are used to enable journalists, especially on commercial networks, to portray the intended meaning of a story to the audience. These help sensationalise a story to attract the interest of the audience.

The studio is set out with a presenter who links journalists with the audience. There is usually a background picture to set the tone for the next item, which begins to shape the viewers take on the subject matter subconsciously.

The journalist is well dressed in a suit, speaks formally and looks straight at the camera to give the illusion that he/she is speaking directly to the viewer. The journalist is often “on location”, gesturing for the camera to pan to the “left or right” to give the impression that the audience is actually at the scene, to give them the impression that they are at the cutting edge of television.

On the spot interviews or live video/satellite feeds add to the “authenticity” of the broadcast which, often unbeknown to the viewer is mostly staged in studios with pre recorded sound/voice overs and interviews which are widely used due to time constraints and budgetary costs of commercial television.

A journalist will often take one point of view and emphasise this with an eye witness, the comments of someone working within the field being shown, or statements from authoritive figures such as a politician, policeman, officials, which the audience perceive to be “experts”.

Great “investigative” journalism will involve conflict of some kind or an expose. The use of spy camera’s secretly recording a person, or a journalist interviewing a subject at their front door or at the side of their car to give the impression that they are hiding something as it is hard to view their face makes for captivating television and keeps the audience interested and watching.

Another technique used is “on-the-run stories” which involve chasing a person through a building and cornering them in a room or chasing them down a busy street and trapping them when they to their car, bombarding them with questions and then accusing them when they refuse to answer. The fact is the “journalists” refusal due to budget and time restraints to examine the circumstances of the issues behind the story, turn the victims into the perpetrators.

The commercial stations rely on subject content which will attract viewers, sports stories, weight loss success stories, baby food exposé’s, the pensioner who lost their life savings to shifty salesman, the builder who built a faulty house and the family are living in despair are great human interest stories but not hard hitting. Where are the “real” stories such as the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or the inability to find a cure for the common cold or cancer? Commercial stations seem to have a “infotainment” layout or that of a tabloid then serious news/current affair reporting, similar to reading the Daily Telegraph, high on quantity but low in substance.

A human interest story is used to wrap up the bulletin for current affairs show to give you a positive resolution to a dilemma which is to coax you into feeling good and to keep watching the following shows so they hold onto their ratings.

A catch cry or slogan is often used to sign off at the end of a show to signal to the audience the show is ended for the evening, this carries the familiarity for the viewers with the presenter, a feeling of routine. For example at the closing of his Channel 9 news broadcast Brian Henderson ended with “and that’s the way it is for this Monday 8^th November 2004, I’m Brian Henderson, good night”. Ray Martin likes to use “I’ve enjoyed your company”, personalising his narrative to give the audience the feeling of inclusion.

Issues such as objectivity, accuracy, balance, reliability and lack of bias give credibility to a current affairs or news programs. Sometimes we do not realise the power the programs have in forming our ideologies and shaping our values and the way we look at our world. Through codes and conventions they can, through repetition of language and visual pictures influencing the way we view things.

The ABC has a “no frills” policy on codes and conventions due to being funded by the Government and not through advertising. Their budget is mainly directed towards producing high quality programs with quality content from journalists who spend hours researching and investigating an issue so it is presented as informative and balanced, enabling the audience to make informed and unbiased judgements.

The programming is straight forward with the simplification of codes, usually one presenter, use of formal language and giving longer time periods to discuss and analyse issues. Correspondents are scattered around the world and not manufactured in a studio while video tape and satellite live feeds enable up to date reporting which gives the ABC authenticity in their content and integrity to their journalists, unlike it’s commercial competitors who pre record scenes and source information through syndication to save on productions costs due to budgetary and time constraints, as money is their bottom line. This undermines their integrity as does cash for comment and cheque book journalism, which loses its impartiality and objectivity by chasing ratings.

The ABC news and current affairs content speaks for itself, the presentation of facts from accredited experts from either sides of the issue being debated allow for unbiased analysis by the discerning audience. It is common knowledge that the ABC audience has a higher level of intellect then those that watch commercial networks. They can understand formal dialogue and have a background in issues regarding current events and are able to make judgements of their own without the overuse of codes and conventions to sensationalise issues in a particular slant to dictate to the audience what their thought processes “will be.

Bias is not as obvious in news reporting, but by giving more air time live feeds and images of irate/violent protestors (sensationalising) as against the calm, even tempered official of an organisation, corporation or politician we have to accept this is a low form of bias.

Clive James believes that a large number of channels leads to “universal ignorance…the more that the information explosion continues, the more that we should protect public service broadcasting.” [James, 1996]

News and current affairs do construct our beliefs and ideas about issues through the use of codes and conventions. The quality and credibility of the facts used to shape our ideologies through the media will depend upon which broadcaster you choose to enjoy. As commercial networks are vying for a large bottom line through ratings driven programming, public broadcasters are the only choice you can make to form your own unbiased and balanced perceptions of the local and global communities.

January 2007 – Is the Constitutional Monarchy Relevant in the 21st Century?

Is the Constitutional Monarchy Relevant in the 21st Century?

Written in 2004-05

With the guillotine is safely hidden in the dungeon, we have a constitutional monarch and her family who while thumbing their noses at moral and religious values, are kept in obscene luxury by the public. In return, the Royals attend 2,300 official engagements a year. They give speeches, attend openings and do charity appearances. The monarchy is not relevant to the 21st Century. The only place the Royal Family has in Australia or England is one of historical reference.

The monarchy should immortalise respect for moral and religious values to show stability for their people. This is not the case with the current British Royal family who are finding it extremely difficult to justify their currently tax funded, frivolous, self indulgent, opulent existence.

The majority of constitutional monarchies are democracies, which have a symbolic Head of State with limited powers. These democracies are governed by a Prime Minister and ministers, who in turn are accountable to the parliament which in turn is representative and accountable to the people. Why do we have a Queen who is powerful and influential but she has no democratic mechanism that justifies her power and influence?

Other Constitutional Monarchies

Belgian

British

Canadian

Danish

Dutch

Japanese

Jordanian

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

Monaco

Moroccan

Nepalese

Norway

Spanish

Swedish

Thai

In 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was born. Australia became independent, and in 1986 with the introduction of the Australia Act, our legal ties to Britain ended. The Queen cannot exercise any of her powers in Australia except through the Governor General. The only advantage in retaining the Queen is the safeguard she provides to make sure our constitution is protected for example dissolving a parliament or dismissing a prime minister and/or his government but only on ministerial advice and only during a crisis. If you look at the Governor-General’s duties (which are mainly ceremonious) they are the same as the Queens.

The Governor General of Australia

· dissolves the Parliament and issues writs for new elections;

· commissions the Prime Minister and appoints other Ministers after elections;

· gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament

· acts on the advice of Ministers through the Executive Council to issue Regulations and proclamations under existing laws; appoint Federal judges; ambassadors and high commissioners to overseas countries and other senior government officials; issue Royal Commissions of enquiry; exercise the prerogative of mercy; and

· authorises many other executive decisions by Ministers such as raising government loans or approving treaties with foreign governments

· receives/entertains visiting heads of state, government and other prominent visitors to Australia;

· opens new sessions of the Commonwealth Parliament;

· receives the credentials of Ambassadors and some High Commissioners

appointed to represent their countries in Australia;

· conducts investitures at which people receive awards under the Australian Honours system for notable service to the community, or for acts of bravery; and

· receives and formally entertains many Australian citizens and representatives of organisations active in the life of the community.

· travel widely throughout Australia, visiting the capital cities, regional centres, rural districts, Aboriginal communities and disadvantaged groups;

· accept patronage of many national charitable, cultural, educational, sporting and professional organisations;

· open and participate in conferences where topics of national importance are discussed – such as educational, health, cultural, welfare, defence, economic and rural issues; and

· attend services, functions, commemorations and exhibitions of local significance, lending their encouragement to individuals and groups who are making a substantial contribution to their communities.

In 1999 Australia voted in a referendum to become a republic and remove the monarchy. Although the vote for a republic was lost, opinion polls showed that most Australians (77%) had no wish to remain a monarchy. Many voted against a republic, however, because they did not like the proposal that the president be appointed by parliament.

Monarchists argue that Royals bring in the tourism dollar. This is not true as most tourists visit other areas of cultural significance also along with the residences of previous Monarchs and the Changing of the Guard. Tourists would still visit these royal sites even without a current Sovereign, and by opening the palaces to the public by downsizing the monarchy, more tourist dollars could be generated.

Can England honestly condone this extravagant waste of money in an age where they have a public system that is falling down around their ears especially in the education and health areas?

The yearly cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayers is approximately £37 – £54m. Commonwealth countries do not subsidise the Monarchy except for the security of Royal visits. The French and Irish presidencies cost around £2m pounds, a saving of between £35m and £52m per year. By electing a Head of State the salary would be reduced to around £163,000. If we pay a pension to previous presidents this could fall to £80,000. For example, say they receive a £120,000 pension, and at anyone time there could be at least five former presidents being pensioned. If you took into account the current elected Head of State’s salary as well, the most you would pay for five previous presidents and the current Head of State would amount to less than £1m a year. The cost of the extended Royal Family parasites would be abolished as a president is just one person, a monarchy carries with it an entire family.

During June 2001 (the Keeper of the Privy Purse) Michael Peat proclaimed that as the Government receives the profits of the Crown Estate, the Royal Family costs the country nothing and that the taxpayers were in fact making a profit off the Queen‘s Estate. The Crown Estate is owned by the people. The Estate was created when King William the Conqueror commandeered large amounts of property in the eleventh century. This land was seized in the name of the state. The rents earned from the property have always financed the administration of the country.

The Crown Estate

Property holdings £4,033M

600 London properties £2,626M

274,000 acres of farm land and forest.

The profit from these properties in the 2001 – 2002 financial year was £163.3M, up from £147M the previous year, based on a rental income of £220.5M.

If the Windsor’s did manage to make the Estate their personal property (which they can’t) the taxpayers would lose a source of annually increasing income in return for being freed from the declining “burden” of the Civil List – in current terms it would give the Royal Family £148M a year and they would forgo £35M.

The Cost of Royalty

Food £ 330,000
Alcohol £ 45,000
Flowers £ 24,000
Presents £ 14,000
Press cuttings £ 15,000
Garden parties £ 442,000
Salaries for 284 full-time flunkies £ 6,057,000

Other spending covered by the taxpayers included:

Utility charges £ 1,500,000

160 palace staff £ 500,000

Security costs eg: cost of police protection £ 30,000>

Salaries for queen’s husband and mum (now deceased) £ 1,000,000

Transport £ 4,936,000

Maintaining the royal palaces/gardens £16,452,000

Welfare payment Queen Mother £ 643,000

Charles to visit by train the Eden project in Cornwall £ 25,829

Family member flying to a golf tournament £ 2,565
Charles to fly to London for a movie £ 2,938
Phillip to relax at a cricket game. £ 1,200
Visit by Charles to Wembley Stadium £ 1,500
A prince to travel 110 miles – Salisbury to Birmingham £ 33,000

Charles and Diana’s Wedding in 1981 £56,000,000

Frederik and Mary’s Wedding in 2004 £34,000,000

The Royal Family refuse to disclose their personal wealth and claim that outside estimates are over exaggerated. The Queen is estimated to have a personal fortune of £300M and the Windsor family in total at £10bn in 2001.

In 1993 the Queen agreed to pay income tax on her personal income. Prince Charles started to pay a year later. Both exempt from paying death duties which other people of Britain must pay. The Queen paid no death duties on the £50M left to her by the Queen Mother. The royal palaces are owned by the state not by the family the exception of Balmoral and Sandringham.

The defence of a hereditary head of state is that the Monarchy does not take sides in political debate or show disregard for morals. The Queen had let it become known that she did not agree with the Margaret Thatcher governments ideas towards South Africa. The Queen Mother proved to be a little too right wing in her political views by supporting apartheid in South Africa and appeasing Nazi Germany. Edward VII abdicated the throne in order to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee and both were Nazi sympathisers. The Duke of Edinburgh is well known for his racist and national slurs. The Prince of Wales doesn’t escape either. He has used his influence towards modern architecture in Britain as well as in the debate with genetically modified food. He advocates buying from Britain but buys overseas himself.

Australia and like constitutional countries can and do govern themselves. We do in fact have our own head of State who costs about the same as a Supreme Court Judge ($AU365,000). If the Governor General is the Head of State in Australia where does that leave the Queen?

The Windsor’s represent a cross section of the society they represent as they are very dysfunctional. Looking at the instances of adultery, x-rated taped telephone calls to lovers, divorces, pot smoking, binge drinking and toe sucking, we can assume that they have too much time on their hands. An example is of Prince Phillip’s gaffes below.

Prince Phillip’s Tact and Diplomacy

• March 2002 – Liz and Phil travel to Australia as part of the Golden Jubilee “World Tour”. After taking in a performance by an Aboriginal dance troop, Phil wisely avoids racial stereotypes by deftly asking an Aboriginal leader, “Do you still throw spears at each other?” Yeah, that’ll help the monarchists down under.

• August 1999 – whilst being shown around a high-tech electronics factory in Edinburgh, Phil notices a fuse box that’s less advanced than other equipment that’s around. So naturally, the completely unbigoted and misunderstood Duke automatically says, “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” Thereby offending an entire sub-continent.

• May 1999 – Phil visits the new Welsh Assembly, eventually coming across a group from the British Deaf Association. Upon seeing some young people with hearing impairments standing near a band, the Duke remarks: “Deaf? If you are near there [the music], no wonder you are deaf.” What an enlightened and educated man he is, eh?

1997 – there’s something about India and Indians with Phil. On an official visit to Jallianwala Bagh and the ‘Flame of Liberty’ (a memorial to unarmed men, women and children who were butchered by General Reginald Dyer’s British forces in 1919), the Duke reportedly said the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy was “vastly exaggerated.”

• 1995 – never one to rely on stereotypes, Phil asks a Scottish driving instructor: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?”

• 1993 – Phil tells a Brit in Hungary: “You can’t have been here that long—you haven’t got a pot belly.”

• 1993 – Phil visits Lockerbie, scene of the Pan Am air disaster, where eleven locals died (killed by wreckage) along with those on board. For some strange reason, the locals are offended when Phil says: “People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle.” Insensitive, inappropriate and idiot are three words that spring to mind.

• 1992 – animal lover Phil declines to even touch one of Australia’s most loved species, the Koala bear: “Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.”

• 1986 – on a tour of China, Phil single-handedly tries to end Sino-British diplomatic relations. He describes Beijing as “ghastly” and told a group of British students: “If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed.”
• 1986 – whilst it’s true to say that the people of Hong Kong and China choose their ingredients from a wider selection than us in the West, Phil oversteps the mark during a World Wildlife Fund conference: “If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.”
• 1984 – upon being presented with a gift from a very obviously female Kenyan the ever gracious and courteous Phil inquires: “You are a woman, aren’t you?”

 

• 1981 – at the peak of the recession, Phil sensitively jokes that: “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.”

In conclusion, the constitutional Monarchy does not actually have a functioning role in the 21st Century. Society has out grown this feudal, class dividing way of governing. Australia and like constitutional countries can and do govern themselves. We have a head of State, the Governor-General, who costs a fraction of the cost of a constitutional monarch. The time has come for these sponging, free loading, and accidental aristocrats by birth to find employment and support themselves. The world will continue to advance without them.