Friday, November 30, 2012

How booze rots your baby's brain

BABIES born with brain damage from their mothers' drinking should be given the same government benefits as Down syndrome or blind children, a parliamentary inquiry has concluded. 

Children born with the "invisible birth defect" of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) do not automatically qualify for disability support.
FASD can "masquerade as naughty behaviour, poor parenting, lack of discipline or simple-mindedness", Labor MP Graham Perrett, who chairs federal parliament's social policy committee, said yesterday.
Australians with FASD should be classified as having a "cognitive impairment" so they can automatically qualify for a disability support pension, the committee recommends.
This would place alcohol-affected children in the same category as those born blind or deaf, or with Down syndrome or cerebral palsy.
The alcohol-affected brain of a baby of the same age.
Their carers - usually the mothers who drank during pregnancy - would also qualify for a carer's allowance.
Criminals with disabilities may also be given reduced sentences due to "reduced culpability".
The committee has published a shocking photo of the shrunken brain of a six-week old baby whose mother drank heavily during pregnancy.
Its report says that when a pregnant woman drinks, the alcohol is passed directly to the foetus through the placenta, where it can kill the growing baby's cells.
"The foetus is unable to break down alcohol in the way that an adult does and so the blood alcohol level of the foetus becomes equal to or greater than the blood alcohol level of the mother," it says.
"Defects caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol have been identified in virtually every part of the body, including the brain, face, eyes, ears, heart, kidneys and bones.
"... alcohol exposure can have serious and permanent effects on the developing foetal brain."
A mother's drinking can disrupt stem cell growth, and shrink parts of the baby's brain, affecting lifelong memory, learning and emotion.
Drinking in the last three months of pregnancy can create problems with a baby's vision and hearing, the report says.
Booze babies

The inquiry concludes that all pregnancy and ovulation kits - as well as cans and bottles of alcohol - must be labelled with warnings for women not to drink while pregnant, within a year.
It rejects the alcohol industry's claims that warnings might scare some women into aborting their babies.
The report, tabled in parliament yesterday. warns that 60 per cent of Australian women drink during pregnancy.
Women in their 40s are more than twice as likely as the under-25s to drink while pregnant.
And the wealthier and better-educated the woman, the more likely she is to drink at some stage during the pregnancy.
The inquiry says these women "may be accustomed to enjoying alcohol in moderation at social events, or in the context of an evening meal".
The committee criticises an "alarming and irresponsible lack of awareness" by some doctors and midwives who continue to tell pregnant women that moderate drinking while pregnant is safe.
"The committee considers this a devastating failing in our health system," its report says.
The prevalance of FASD in Australia is not known, but the parliamentary report cites a Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services estimate that at least two in every 100 babies are born with FASD.

heraldsun.com.au  30 Nov 2012

Not only does alcohol contribute to deformities in unborn children, so does smoking, and antidepressants.

Mothers who knowingly drink alcohol, should be charged with child abuse.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

US weather agency NOAA responds to demands to nuke hurricanes

NO: We will not nuke hurricanes. And a US weather agency has responded to public pressure by explaining why.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has led its Hurricane Research Division's frequently asked questions page with an extraordinary - even for America - statement: "During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms."

Simply?

Put nuclear winter aside for a moment.

And even the political - and radioactive - fallout.

NOAA's carefully worded response gives a more practical analysis.

Meteorologist Chris Landsea attempts to put the task into perspective.

First up: don't think the shockwave will have any effect, as it does in the movies.

"Such an event doesn't raise the barometric pressure after the shock has passed because barometric pressure in the atmosphere reflects the weight of the air above the ground," he writes.

"To change a Category 5 hurricane into a Category 2 hurricane you would have to add about a half ton of air for each square meter inside the eye, or a total of a bit more than half a billion (500,000,000) tons for a 20 km radius eye. It's difficult to envision a practical way of moving that much air around."

And while we're on the subject of scale.

"The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required," he writes. "A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x1013 watts and converts less than 10 per cent of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes."

Have a headache yet? We know why.

He goes on to say the scale of energy needed isn't the only problem. There's also directing and focusing that energy.

What about nuking hurricanes while they're still little?

Landsea pours cold water on that idea, also, by pointing out that about 80 tropical depressions form each year - but only five become hurricanes.

news.com.au 6 Nov 2012

It is literally unfathomable that the (uneducated?) masses request such an act to be carried out against nature.

The general populous should be aware of the effects of detonating a nuclear bomb, as the toxic and deadly effects can be seen from two bombs that the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, during the Second World War.

HAARP is a much more effective weather engineering tool which has also been around for many years.

Rinehart copes with pain

GINA Rinehart might be the richest woman in the world but she says her personal journey has not always been easy.

The 58-year-old - Australia's richest person, with a mining fortune worth nearly $30 billion - said in a television interview that her life had been constantly marked by difficult situations that she had to cope with.

"For instance when I lost my parents, my husband ... I had young children, the company was in terrible trouble and all you can do is cope," Ms Rinehart told the Ten Network.

Ms Rinehart holds a stake of about 10 per cent in the network and is a director.

She rarely grants interviews despite being written about on an almost daily basis, and on Monday described media cartoons of her as sometimes very clever.

Ms Rinehart launched a book last week, Northern Australia and Then Some, as a tribute to her late father Lang Hancock and manifesto for their shared vision for Australia.

The book contains pictures of her youngest child Ginia, who accompanied her on the book tour and who Ms Rinehart told Ten had given her permission to use.

She is estranged from her three old children who have sued her seeking to have their ousted as trustee of the multi-million-dollar family trust.

Despite preferring to lead a more private existence, she said she was speaking out as the book was launched because she was concerned about Australia.

"What we really have to focus on is ways to create revenue, ways to earn income and think of that focus before we just think how to spend," she said, also calling in her book for cuts to tax and red tape she says prevents investment in Australia's north.

Ms Rinehart is hoping to complete her landmark $10 billion Roy Hill iron ore project in Western Australia's Pilbara by 2014-15.

news.com.au 26 Nov 2012

It is a well known fact within the corporate media, that certain subjects are off limits to report on, i.e the passing of information to the general populous.

In the secret world of banking and finance, the world's riches are kept in the hands of the very few.

The finance industry would be all to aware that one of the world's richest banking family are the Rothschild's, who's name spans many generations at the top of the banking and finance circles.

To not appear in the lime light currently the Rothschild name appears in the Forbes rich list with Nathaniel Rothschild sitting in at position 1153 at $1Billion.

There is a large difference between established wealth and new gained fortune.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, may be referred to by Forbes as (officially) the 25th or 26th richest woman in the world, but coming from a long bloodline of rulers, her true wealth and power  is (deliberately) not reported.

Whilst Rinehart's $30 Billion (paper) wealth may sound impressive, yet temporary, this new found wealth is hardly a match for the established wealth of the Queen.

Smart meters coming to NSW


"The NSW government recognises that certain customers may benefit from smart metering technology" ... Minister for Energy Chris Hartcher. Photo: Louise Kennerley

WITH little fanfare, the O'Farrell government is moving towards the introduction of the controversial ''smart meters'' in NSW.

On Tuesday, the Minister for Energy, Chris Hartcher, will release a discussion paper on the introduction of smart meters, which let electricity companies intervene directly to cut household electricity use at peak times.

The federal government wants all state governments to introduce the meters, which also give electricity companies updated information on power consumption.

Victoria is in the middle of the mandated introduction of the meters, at an initial estimated cost of $800 million, which has increased to more than $2.3 billion amid controversy.

Bruce Robertson, the electricity industry critic from consumer activist group Manning Alliance, who exposed industry overspending on its infrastructure, said the meters combined with flexible tariffs were the next ''gold plating''.

Mr Hartcher said the NSW government remained opposed to a mandatory national introduction of the so-called smart meters.

"Though the NSW government remains opposed to a mandatory national roll-out of smart meters due to the inevitable cost impost on customers if forced upon them without their choice, the NSW government recognises that certain customers may benefit from smart metering technology,'' Mr Hartcher said.

''Customers need to understand and believe in the benefits that smart meters can offer.

''And when these products are made available, customers should be entitled to choose.''

The meters are promoted as an aid to reducing electricity use during peak periods, which may assist in cutting the need for some investment in new power stations and on upgraded power networks, helping to take pressure off power prices.

However the NSW regulator, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, has warned the federal government the benefits must outweigh the costs and households themselves are best able to decide when to install these meters.

''We support the take-up of time-of-use and/or smart meters through a competitive market and at the discretion of the customer or their retailer,'' IPART said in a submission to a recent federal government inquiry into electricity.

''The benefits from deploying … smart meters [should] … exceed the costs.''

Initially, households that can shift their usage should be targeted, it said.

However, a number of households, such as families with young children or invalids could be affected adversely.

''In moving to smart meters those most disadvantaged need to be catered for and special policy measures put in place so they can also benefit from any gains from the technology,'' said Edward Santow, the head of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

A report yesterday by his centre and the Physical Disability Council of NSW found there were approximately 1.1 million people in NSW with a physical disability.

A substantial number of them use electrical aids and equipment to assist with mobility, communication, breathing and life support, which leaves them exposed to rising power prices.

theage.com.au 27 Nov 2012

The word 'controversial' means the public do not want this 'spying technology' installed in their homes.

As mentioned in the article, the objective of the installed meters is to turn off appliances in peoples homes.

People will the the power awaken away from them, taking away the luxury of choice.

This is a clear violation of one's civil liberties.

The corporate media is reluctant to tackle this issue.

The installation of smart meters is another step to enslave the masses, which the sheeple are so conducive to.

Also the government is forcing the masses to have these meters installed in Victoria.

So much for a democracy.

Judge allows mum to keep obese nine-year-old son

A FATHER has asked for custody of his "chronically obese" nine-year-old son, blaming the child's weight on his ex-wife. 

The man subjected his son to repeated weigh-ins before and after visits to his mother to document the boy's weight ballooning close to 43kg.

The Family Court heard when his parents were together the boy was a healthy 21.5kg at age 5.
But after their separation the boy's weight almost doubled in two years.

The father, 43, described his son being in a "bloated state" after time with his mother, and said he had stretch marks on his upper body.

He complained the mother fed their son too much junk food and did not take him to his swimming or martial arts classes, which were integral to his fitness.

A dietitian told the court she had not seen a child that obese and he was above the 95th percentile for his age, height and weight.

The mother, 35, argued that their son was not severely obese, but "a tall, broad, growing boy whose diet just needs to be maintained".

She said the father had been weighing the child without her knowledge, oblivious to the effect it could have on him.

The mother, who has a gastric band to combat obesity, denied her own problems were having an impact on the boy.

A doctor told the court the reasons for the child's weight gain were "more to do with conflict" between his parents than anything else and the father had put an extreme emphasis on the problem, which was not good.
Justice Stuart Fowler said the father had shown an obsession with the weight issue and had been completely insensitive to his son's feelings.

Justice Fowler ordered that the boy live with his mother and that both parents adhere to a dietitian's advice on his diet.

perthnow.com.au 28 Nov 2012

The law (for the masses) works against the male counterpart in family law or child custody matters.

The primary objective is to rule against the male, part in order to feed the legal  system's lawyers through emotionally driven fathers.

This is a deliberate policy, as this keeps the masses occupied.

In this instance, clearly one parent (the mother) is not capable of  looking after her son, causing more damage by her ignorance, rather than the father's pinpointing the issue.

Other cases in family law show that a drugged up mother incapable of looking after herself, exposing her children to drug is allowed to keep them.

In other cases a 75kg morbidly obese 9 year old child is allowed to be cared for by a drugged out mother, clearly a matter of child abuse.

The law puts on a show that there is so much care towards child abuse, whereas the actions speak louder than words, indicating quite the opposite.

 The legal system (or government for that matter) does not care about the children of the masses, as they are an expendable commodity.

The more broken and dysfunctional families there are, the better for governments.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Skin cancer statistics falsified

Statistics can be manipulated (and generally are, when it comes to politics) when it comes to pushing an agenda.

Last year there was the very public exposure of the government falsifying Melbourne's crime statistics, to paint a rosier picture than it actually is. This resulted in the resignation of Victoria's 'top dog' cop, Simon Overland. This falsifying of figures had no financial impact on literally anything.

The government's current road advertising campaign 'Speed Kills' is also based on falsified information, which the corporate media neglects to expose on a nationwide scale.

A NSW whistleblower has mentioned that police are urged to falsify reports that speed was the contributing factors when attending accident sites, where in reality the main cause of accidents is driver error.

The implications in this case are financial, as the government rakes in millions of dollars annually from speed fines.

The government also falsifies unemployment rate data, where currently the jobless rate officially sits in the mid 5% range, whereas the real figure is in the high 9's.

This is an important figure that is falsified by the government, as it has economic implications on a national level, which effects industries, banking and finance and interest rates.

The corporate media is reluctant to red flag the government for the falsified information, furthermore supporting the government lie.

The above examples listed are only a drop in the ocean, as to the government's falsified figures.

Skin cancer statistics published by government are also falsified, to portray a more optimistic figure.

Sunscreens are causing cancer on a mush wider scale than the masses would be aware of.

The lucrative (multi billion dollar) pharmaceutical industry works on installing fear into the masses, to keep away from the sun, or use their products to stay in the sun for lengthy periods.

The toxic chemicals used in certain sunscreens are actually doing more damage than good, to the human body.

The focus is that only melanoma type skin cancers are used in the statistics, whereas any other type is not used for analysis, therefore misleading the general populous with respect to skin cancer.

Official reports suggest melanoma type skin cancers are caused by the sun, whereas the deadly toxic chemicals that react with sunlight causing other cancers are not considered, quietly supporting the pharmaceutical's toxins for the masses.

Another falsified figure goes quietly unnoticed.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Toxic carcinogens in sunscreen

Annually, the pharmaceutical industry a multibillion dollar industry. Companies produce products with cancer causing ingredients for the public to consume, with full approval from overseeing bodies like the United States’ FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 

To make matters worse what other countries classify as not fit for human consumption,  for the cancer causing properties in the substance, the FDA approves it to the masses.

Bribery and corruption is rife in the industry, as once substances have been approved, the pharmaceuticals stand to make billions annually from the unsuspecting masses.

Sunscreen lotions carry deadly chemicals which are either toxic or carcinogenic in their native state, or once combined with ultraviolet rays from the sun, form deadly toxic carcinogens.

The skin being the largest organ, absorbs whatever is put on it, which then is distributed throughout the body.
Some chemicals that can be found in sunscreens are listed below:

AVOBENZONE (PARSOL 1789):
Unstable ingredient that breaks down into unknown chemicals in sunlight, especially in the presence of octinoxate.

BENZOPHENOMES: 
First used in sunscreens in 1950’s. Free radical generator. Associated with allergies, dermatitis, rosaccea, burning, itching and erythema.

ENSULIZOLE(Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid):
Known to produce free radicals in sunlight, causes DNA damage, may cause cancer.

HOMOSALATE:
A weak hormone disruptor, forms toxic metabolites.

MENTHYL ANTHRANILATE
Produces free radicals, not for use in Europe or Japan.

OCTOCRYLENE
Produces free radicals in UV lights.

Octyl MethoxycinnamatE (or OMC):
Most prevalent ingredient, shows estrogenic effects, causes disruption of thyroid hormone and brain signalling, reacts when exposed to sunlight.

OCTYL SALICYLATE
A penetration enhancer that may increase the amount of other ingredients passing through the skin.

OXYBENZONE (Benzonphenone-3):
Associated with photoallergic reactions, significantly absorbs through the skin and can cause hormone disruption and cancer. Not recommended for children.

PABA
A widely used active ingredient in sunscreen, and is only allowed up to concentrations of 5% in Europe, whilst in Australia under the TGA 1989, PABA is listed as a permitted active ingredient in concentrations up to 15% . Conversely, PABA is prohibited in countries such as Canada due to PABA’s ability to affect the DNA in human, increasing the risk to skin cancer.

PADIMATE 0 (Octyl Dimethyl PABA / PABA Ester):
A paba derivative, releases free radicals, damages DNA, has estrogenic activity, causes allergic reactions in some people.

PSOLAREN:  
In 1994, researchers at the Havard Medical School found this ingredient to be an extremely efficient carcinogen. People with psoriasis are at greater risk than others, as their squamous cell carcinoma was found to be 83 times higher than that of the general population.

The pharmaceuticals, like the tobacco industry, are fully aware that the carcinogens they produce are detrimental for human consumption.

The concerning part about all this is that the authorities are supporting the consumption of these carcinogenic products, with the support of silence from the corporate media.

It is clear that the (billion) dollar is more important than the life of the peasant slaves.

Govt to phase out solar subsidies early

THE federal government will wind back its subsidies for solar electricity panels earlier than expected because high take-up is pushing up power prices.  
 
The federal government will phase out subsidies for solar electricity panels earlier than expected.
 
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says this could reduce power bills by up to $100 million next year.
He said there was still high demand for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, so the federal government would phase out its Solar Credits mechanism six months early, on January 1, 2013.
"This will lower the impact of the high uptake of solar PV on electricity costs for homes and businesses," he said in a statement.
He said that would strike a balance between easing the pressure on prices and supporting the households and suppliers who install solar.
"The overall reduction in electricity bills is estimated to be in the order of $80 million to $100 million in 2013," he said on Friday.
Mr Combet said the installation of small-scale systems and solar hot water heaters continued to be supported under the Renewable Energy Target scheme, with solar PV systems benefiting from generous arrangements that provide support for 15 years worth of generation upfront.
The Energy Networks Association said the government had realised the average electricity customer was paying a high price to fund subsidies for domestic solar systems.
But the Australian Solar Council slammed the decision as unnecessary and badly timed.
Demand for household solar has fallen sharply since the government reduced support for solar and state governments wound back feed in tariffs, and there are no indications demand would have picked up, says John Grimes, chief executive of the Australian Solar Council.
"This is a knee-jerk reaction to a non-existent problem and a pre-emptive strike on Australian families who want to install solar to cut their power bills", Mr Grimes said.
Clean Energy Council spokesman Russell Marsh said the cost cuts stemming from the announcement should effectively mark the end of the review of Australia's 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target.
"The changes remove the effect of the multiplier for solar panels and erode all arguments for further changes," he said.
"The solar industry now urges the federal government to wrap up the current review of the scheme to deliver much-needed stability to the sector."

heraldsun.com.au 27 Nov 2012

The installation of solar electricity is supposed to help the environment, lighten the load from electricity companies hence making electricity cheaper?

Another lie perpetuated by the authorities.

Once people install Photovoltaic cells on domestic roofs, the electricity tariff rises, something that the government does NOT tell you about.

The Queensland government quite clearly stated that it is not installing solar panels, as it is too expensive to produce electricity via that format.

Clearly actions speak louder than political lies, and the government is not serious about the so called reduction of a 'carbon footprint' as coined by the political leaders.

It is difficult to believe that the corporate media has not debunked this fraud publicly, something the general populous are all to aware of already.


Another lie that no corporate media outlet is prepared to tackle.

Smart move - but consumers pick up the costs

DO WE really want to check our smart meters every time we turn on the dishwasher, take a shower or toast a slice of bread?

Has anybody wondered why almost every power company and lobby group in the country is pushing for the introduction of smart meters? It is worth pondering, for government, it seems, is about to fail the public again over energy policy.

    In my view, smart meters combined with flexible tariffs are the next 'gold-plating'.
    Bruce Robertson

First it was a faulty regulatory system which gave rise to ''gold-plating'', or overspending on networks, and spiralling power bills. The increase in ''peak demand'' remains the industry catch cry to rationalise its rampant spending, even though peak demand has actually been falling for three years.

But as the myth of peak demand is now harder to propagate, industry is pushing for smart meters. The smart meter is the next big ruse.

Smart meters and ''flexible pricing'' merely shift the business risk from the company to the consumer. Like mobile phone bills, their sheer complexity will enable the promoter to game the customer.

Who will pay for the devices? Who will pay for the software upgrades? Where should the metering company sit, in an offshore structure? Should the device be company-specific?

The power lobby has done a first-rate job of spruiking the smart meter regime to governments so far, despite the issues in Victoria, the only state where they have been installed.

''In my view, smart meters combined with flexible tariffs are the next 'gold-plating','' says Bruce Robertson, the industry critic from consumer activist group Manning Alliance who exposed the ruse of overspending.

''The generators already game the NEM (National Electricity Market) by withholding supply at peak times and so on. Smart meters combined with time-of-use pricing open up a whole new range of gaming possibilities.''

The consumer takes on all the business risk for a start, says Robertson. If a power station, for example, suffers an outage for whatever reason, consumers pick up the cost.

Wholesale electricity prices can be extraordinarily volatile (they can be as high as $12,500 per megawatt-hour; although, perversely, the price per megawatt-hour can also be negative). Under a flexible pricing regime the customer pays for this, says Robertson.

''Just how much fun is it to get the family together to eat a turkey at Christmas only to find it will cost $50 to roast it because some technician at a power station dropped a spanner in the works?''

This story really only deals with the economic and market aspects of the smart meter. There is a human cost. In lifestyle terms, the implications of constantly checking, or worrying about not checking a meter, will affect a lot of people.

Who wants this hassle, when a simple peak and non-peak regime could be introduced? The customer would simply know that taking a shower at peak periods costs more.

Smart meters don't come cheaply, as Victorians have discovered. Originally slated to cost $800 million, the state rollout is now shaping up at a cost of $2.3 billion.

Instead of seeing how things turn out in Victoria, however - and there have been a host of other concerns raised, from safety issues to privacy - the government seems intent on rushing headlong to push them into every part of the country.

A leaked letter to the Prime Minister from Martin Ferguson's standing committee of energy and resources last week eulogised the smart meter as the solution to high energy prices.

''A confidential draft of a blueprint for Julia Gillard to take to next month's Council of Australian Governments meeting reveals the Commonwealth is proposing to encourage a rollout of smart meters and other advanced systems so that consumers could sign up to packages with 'time-of-use' tariffs,'' said a newspaper report.

There is little evidence yet that smart meters lead to lower energy bills. While we don't know if they work, we do know that they are expensive - and that expense is borne by the consumer.

As IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) says in its submission to the Senate inquiry, the logical thing to do, before rolling them out to the entire market, is to wait and see the results in Victoria. The rollout is scheduled to finish in 2013 and flexible tariffs will be introduced. What is needed is a cost/benefit analysis. What is the rush?

''The rollout of time-of-use meters should be at the discretion of the customer or their retailer rather than being mandated by governments or distributors,'' says the submission. It is worth noting that, when it comes to the furore over electricity prices, IPART has consistently been on the right side of the debate.

For industry, smart meters promise enormous returns - and not just via tricky pricing opportunities and the transfer of risk to the customer.

As it is likely the devices will spur a fall in consumption at times of peak demand, the power companies can expect a rise in profit margins.

The smart meter is a golden opportunity for electricity retailers in particular, says Robertson. The customer pays for the metering, not the retailer. And as the device can be read remotely, labour costs are reduced, bills are more regularly produced and the retailer can quickly terminate supply to customers who are unable to pay, hence lower bad-debt charges.

''Demand management'' initiatives and energy efficiency are the answers to lower power bills, not smart meters. There are plenty of savings to be gained from reducing consumption - it is already happening in fact - rather than installing millions of superfluous bits of hardware.

The report by the Senate committee into electricity prices says smart meters enable ''the use of in-home displays, dashboards and web portals so that consumers can access detailed information about … electricity consumption''.

Do we really want our lives to be run by an industry that simply can't control its costs and can't deliver a product at a reasonable cost?

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has already said Australians are paying more than they should for a safe and reliable electricity supply. Soon, it seems, we may be paying, both with our dollars and our time, for the cost of uneconomic investment.

smh.com.au 26 Nov 2012

The masses are forced by governments to use whatever corporations tell the masses they must use.

The masses must pay for surveillance devices used against them.

The masses are told this is for their own benefit, which is a BLATANT LIE.

This goes against the very  grain of what one is taught about what a democracy is.

Australia is a microcosm for the new blueprint for slavery.

Another win for the corporatocracy.

FOI documents show how Peter Ryan's office spends taxpayer money on flowers, flights and ... a 24 cent thimble

DEPUTY Premier Peter Ryan has splashed more than $210,000 of taxpayer cash on everything from a 24 cent thimble to expensive charter flights. 
 
Documents obtained through Freedom of Information reveal Mr Ryan's ministerial office expenditure in its first 18 months in power.
Mr Ryan and his staff have spent more than $5200 on floral arrangements between December 23, 2010, and the end of June this year.
Mr Ryan routinely approved "weekly flowers for the office" at a cost of $223.73, from Fitzroy florist Flowers Vasette.
In a single day in January last year, the office submitted invoices for $668.19 from the florist.
Documents also reveal $166,077 was spent on air travel and charter flights including more than $27,000 billed in June for travel to Bairnsdale and $3950 for "air charter" on January 3 last year.
 
In June, Mr Ryan's office also spent $170.50 on "milk for tea room" from Treasury Cafe.
It was one of several claims from the cafe near his Treasury Place headquarters, including a $132.50 sum last October for "tea room supplies" and two separate bills of more than $120 last July.
Other expenses revealed include:
A $271.82 vase in March;
TRAYS and bowls for $247.18 in March last year;
A CERTIFICATE frame for $124 in August last year;
MORE than $700 on Sale accommodation for his ministerial driver in August last year; and,
A $77.50 bill at city cafe Mamma's Boy for a "pre- community safety committee meeting" last year.
A spokeswoman for Mr Ryan, Clare Siddins, said it was his responsibility to visit regional Victoria.
But Opposition government scrutiny spokesman Martin Pakula said Mr Ryan was on a "spendathon". "Clearly, public service belt tightening doesn't extend to the Deputy Premier's office," he said.
The 24 cent thimble was put on the public purse in January last year in a single expense claim alongside three others costing no more than 29 cents each.
Mr Ryan's office ordered Scarborough Fair green teabags, Lipton Sir Thomas peppermint breeze herbal teabags, Dilmah teacup bags, and Moccona coffee.

theaustralian.com.au 25 Nov 2012

Whether it be money laundering, bribes, misuse of public funds, credit card fraud, theft of public funds, obtaining property by deception, the police does not charge politicians as the police is not going to go against the very hand that feeds it.

Corruption in government costs taxpayers staggering amounts that the mass media is reluctant to report on.

The best criminals in the country are politicians and law makers.