A " Royal " for governor general ?

It has been suggested that Prince William has been dropping hints that he would like to be appointed governor general of Australia. This follows a similar approach by his father, Prince Charles many years ago.
The idea has been firmly rejected by monarchist John Howard, just as Republican Bob Hawke vetoed any idea of a similar appointment for the Prince of Wales at an earlier time.
It is understandable that younger Royals would welcome a breath of fresh air from the cloying,class ridden English society in which they live - but the era when the job of governor general was reserved for some titled Pom has long passed.
There is every liklihood that a renewed push for this country to become a republic and drop the monarchy is in the offing. There will be a general election later this year - and if republican minded Kevin Rudd wins office it is almost certain that one result will be a new referendum to decide that question.
The last referendum was lost 45/55 - but the result was skewed by the choice of who would be governor general being left for politicians to decide. This was totally unacceptable to the general public who very clearly made it known that such an office would be decided by the people casting a vote for their person of choice.
Should a referendum be held with the choice of governor general decided by popular vote it is almost certain that a republican majority would romp home.
Few have any quarrel with our present queen and most agree that she does a good job, but the idea of being subject to a monarch who lives thousands of miles away - and is not even a citizen of this country - is both quaint and against the evolvement of Australia as a sovereign nation.
The post of governor general is the highest this land has to offer. Surely it should be available to one of our own who can claim that honour by popular vote !

Changing crime trends.

One snippet of information released by the police crime unit should make householders prick up their ears and take notice. It seems that households that have experienced a burglary have a very good chance of a repeat performance several months later.
In a way, that stands to reason. During the initial burglary the culprit has made off with valuable items ranging from cameras to plasma screen TV's. Logic suggests that after the Insurance company has settled the claim the householder has replaced those items with new - virtually guaranteeing a returning burglar a lucrative swag of loot.
This information would cause many to think in terms of turning their home into a fortress - but that also presents problems. Bars on windows and deadlocks on doors may help to keep an intruder out, but they can also turn the home into a death trap in the event of a fire. There is no safety factor in fumbling for keys in a smoke filled house.
House alarms are another option - but then think about the alarms every householder hears from time to time - motion alarms in homes nearby and car alarms that may be activated by a gust of wind. Do you see other neighbours rushing to catch the burglar ? Of course not ! The usual response is to assume that somebody forgot to put the cat out when they left - or that the alarm had a faulty operating switch.
These days you are more likely to be sued by the burglar who claims that the screeching siren gave him or her a migraine !
The best defence for any home owner is a good relationship with neighbours - who take note of suspicious car numbers in the street and challenge any person on your property by being seen by the intruder. Few burglars will proceed if they know that they have been observed by an alert neighbour.

The rumour mill !

This week police supported by Army infrastructure workers moved into Aboriginal villages in the Northern Territory. Their initial objective was to establish communications with the Indigenous people and allay suspicions caused by the plethora of wild stories that were circulating.
The rumour mill was running on overdrive. Despite Kevin Rudd's solidarity with John Howard on this issue, cynical elements within the Australian Labor party were suggesting that the " national emergency " was an election stunt dreamed up to create a focus similar to that generated by the " Tampa " affair.
Even wilder stories were running riot in the Aboriginal community. There were suggestions that this was a stunt to wind back Aboriginal land rights and to reclaim land for the benefit of white society. There was talk of Aboriginal children being removed from their parents and spirited away to white run camps where they would be " brain washed " to deny their Aboriginality.
A solid band of indigenous people spoke out to dispel these rumours - and it was suggested that the source of such wild yarns was originating from those who had the most to fear from an investigation of child sex abuse. There was certainly an air of panic in some quarters - and a suggestion that some families had abandoned their villages in the Northern Territory to escape what they believed was a coming purge.
It seems that this attempt to put things right in our Aboriginal community will not be restricted to the Northern Territory. The states are coming onboard - with varying degrees of enthusiasm - and at long last there seems to be a consensus of thinking that we have an obligation to the original inhabitants of this land to improve their standard of living, look after their health problems, protect their children from abuse - and offer them the privileges that are a right for all Australian citizens.
Neither side of Federal politics nor any state government can escape the shame of knowing about this problem for decades - and doing nothing ! That problem is now in the glare of the national spotlight - and it is not going to go away.

Famous ? - or just moronic !

During the dark years of the second world war there was a much loved song that began with the words " The last time I saw Paris ..... "
It referred to " the city of light " occupied by a foreign army.
These days hardly a news broadcast or a newspaper fails to mention another " Paris ".
This one's claim to fame revolves around money - lots of it. She has the good fortune to be the heiress to the fabulous Hilton hotel fortune - but that is not the reason that the media finds her so newsworthy.
The world seems fascinated with a young woman bestowed with beauty and the body of a model - but sadly lacking in brain power. It is said that the juvenile mind does not reach full development until age twenty five - but Paris Hilton can not claim this excuse because she is now twenty-six.
She has adopted the vacuous life of a moron. She has the money to buy the most opulent cars in the world - and then proceeds to get behind the wheel drunk and bend them around solid objects. She displays arrogance by continuing to drive after a court has suspended her license - and as a result a wrathful judge decided to teach her humility by way of a little jail time.
That led to an interesting confrontation between money and justice. Justice won - and Paris was forced to endure a few days behind bars.
So - where does Paris Hilton go from here ? She can continue the pointless life of the super-rich and no doubt she will still be courted by the media, but if the legacy of the brains that accumulated the Hilton fortune still reside in her head she is capable of using her money to achieve something of lasting significance.
All that takes is the will to succeed !

The gathering storm.

Ask the average person to name the most dangerous country in the world and you would probably get a variety of answers - North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq - and a host of middle east states.
It could be that one of our allies in the war against terrorism is in the process of change - and just as Iran under the Shah was our close friend decades ago - internal change can convert friend to foe with bewildering speed.
The country at the cross roads is Pakistan. President Pervez Musharraf is locked in a constitutional battle with his iconic Supreme Court Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaundhry.
Musharraf came to power by way of a coup and holds both the positions of president and chief of the armed forces. He has ambitions to serve a third term as president, something that is barred by his country's constitution. There is also pressure for the positions of president and military chief to be separated.
Chaundhry is a highly respected juror and the one man who may prevail in stopping Musharraf, but that may be at the price of another coup - and this time the emerging powers could be the sections of the army who have strong sympathy and support for the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan - and lean towards the ideology of al Qaeda.
There is no doubt that many in Pakistan are anti the west - and in particular the United States - and despite Musharraf holding the country on a secular course are giving aid and shelter to those engaged in jihad. If Musharraf falls - his replacement is unlikely to be a friend to the western powers.
That would bring into force a chilling scenario. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Not only has it tested a nuclear weapon but it also possesses rudimentary rocket delivery systems capable of reaching it's near neighbours.
The biggest fear is that a radical Islamic government might be tempted to supply a nuclear weapon to terrorists. The logical target would be an Israeli city such as Tel Aviv - and the repercussions from such an attack would be impossible to gauge.
Fortunately Pakistani nuclear weapons are not believed to include thermo-nuclear hydrogen weapons, but a bomb the size of that dropped on Hiroshima would still kill many thousands of people - and might even trigger world war three.
The emerging struggle in Pakistan should be watched with more than passing interest !

The lure of " instant gratification ".

There was a time - a long time ago - when people saved money to buy something they wanted. Then came " Bankcard " and a whole range of instant credit allowing them to gratify their desires instantly - and pay later !
Now that sales strategy has taken several steps further. The media is saturated with advertisements offering " No deposit - no interest - until a date from eighteen months to several years in the future ".
The message is " You can have it all now " - and huge numbers of people are falling into this debt trap. It is probably manageable for those who have a sensible budget plan and start reducing the loan with regular payments to eliminate it before that distant future date, but many reach that date with the money still owing - and then find that a vast amount of accrued interest falls due.
Another " buy now " scheme is rife with both pay TV and broadband offerings. There are inducements to sign up now - which include free or subsidized installation, free modems - and a very attractive price tag - until you notice that this is for a period of several months.
Most of these offerings have a requirement in the fine print that the contract is for twenty-four months. When the " el-cheapo " introductory offer expires the normal rate cuts in - and the buyer is stuck with that for the rest of the contract period.
Buying with extended credit - which is what most of these schemes really are - is a perilous venture. You are committing your income to an uncertain future and inviting financial calamity should there be an unplanned pregnancy in the family - removing a wife from the workforce - or some form of job loss or injury occurs to the main bread winner.
The first law of commerce applies to all these schemes - and that is - " Buyer beware ! ".

Union Thuggery !

Kevin Rudd is desperately trying to achieve separation between the Australian Labor party and the worst elements of the union movement. Union leaders who have resorted to violence and those that have been found to use extortion to achieve their ends have been kicked out of the party - but the weakness of that approach is that they still retain their union power.
Rudd knows that there are many paid-up union members who are leery of a Labor government in power in Canberra if it means that power is shared with union heavy weights who are little more than criminal gang leaders.
The union movement is big business and those in the seats of power control an army of lesser satraps who extend that power to the workplace floor. Union meetings are closely monitored and the traditional show of hands deters many from expressing an opposing point of view.
Union members face a bewildering choice when they weigh up their options. The Federal Labor party has a preponderance of ex-union leaders in both it's front bench and back bench - and even more are standing for safe seats in the coming election.
How will these people view politics once they find themselves removed from the union floor and actually part of this country's government. Will union dogma prevail - or will they rise to the challenge of delivering sane and fair policies to the twenty-one million residents of this country ?
It could be that Rudd's chance of becoming prime minister may depend on how the voters read his resolve to stand up to the union movement - and whether they believe that he has the backbone to keep a firm lid on Julia Gillard and the party's left wing and it's desire to implement a draconian socialist agenda.
The more the union movement resorts to bully boy tactics and the more it's massive advertising campaign reeks of desperation - the thinking unionist must wonder whether a change of government will let loose a monster that will devour sanity and change the face of Australia forever !