Monday, 29 January 2018

'Super blue blood moon': stargazers prepare for rare celestial event

Extract from The Guardian

Blue moon, super moon and blood moon combine to create moment not seen in the skies in more than 150 years

The trifecta will take place on 31 January and will be best visible from the western hemisphere. The last time the three elements combined at the same time was in 1866.
A “super blue blood moon” is the result of a blue moon – the second full moon in a calendar month – occurring at the same time as a super moon, when the moon is at perigee and about 14% brighter than usual, and a so-called blood moon – the moment during a lunar eclipse when the moon, in the Earth’s shadow, takes on a reddish tint.
Stargazers living in the US will be able to see the eclipse before sunrise on Wednesday, according to Nasa. For those in the Middle East, Asia, eastern Russia, Australia and New Zealand, the event will be visible during moonrise on the morning of 31 January.
“For the [continental] US, the viewing will be best in the west,” said Gordon Johnston, program executive and lunar blogger at Nasa. “Set your alarm early and go out and take a look.”
What is the supermoon? The science behind the lunar wonder
“Weather permitting, the west coast, Alaska and Hawaii will have a spectacular view of totality from start to finish,” said Johnston. “Unfortunately, eclipse viewing will be more challenging in the eastern time zone. The eclipse begins at 5.51am ET, as the moon is about to set in the western sky, and the sky is getting lighter in the east.”
The eclipse itself is expected to last about an hour and a quarter. For anyone unable to watch the event in person, it will be streamed live online.
Nasa said the eclipse will offer scientists a chance to see what happens when the surface of the moon cools quickly.

“The whole character of the moon changes when we observe with a thermal camera during an eclipse,” said Paul Hayne of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado Boulder. “In the dark, many familiar craters and other features can’t be seen, and the normally nondescript areas around some craters start to ‘glow’ because the rocks there are still warm.”

Privatisation is deeply unpopular with voters. Here's how to end it

Extract from The Guardian

It is striking that, given the near-universal political consensus in favour of neoliberalism, and particularly privatisation, that the public has never embraced this idea. Indeed, far from becoming accustomed to privatisation, voters have become more resolutely hostile, as numerous Australian governments have found to their cost.
Voters have had a couple of decades of experience by now in having all manner of things sold off: from the national airline to public transport systems, ports, railway lines, the Commonwealth Bank and even the national telephone network. We get it. But rather than allaying concerns, familiarity with privatisation has bred contempt in the electorate. Public views on privatisation are firmly negative and consistently so.
Advocates of privatisation often ask, rhetorically, whether their opponents would support reversing past renationalisation. The opinion poll evidence suggests that, for most voters, the answer is yes. Until recently, however, it was an open question whether such responses to opinion polls would be translated into votes.
Since no major party would advocate renationalisation, the question remained unanswered until Labour’s 2016 election campaign in the UK. Leading a deeply divided party, and without a coherent policy on the central issue of Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn went to the polls on a platform that included renationalisation of the water, electricity, gas and rail industries. The pundits were united in predicting disaster, but Corbyn achieved a huge swing and came within a few seats of winning office.
The remaining trump card of those who oppose renationalisation is the claim that it is “unaffordable”. Renationalisation, it is suggested, would use capital that could otherwise be invested in schools and hospitals. Economists of all persuasions have always understood that this is nonsense. Investments in assets that do not return an income flow to the government, such as schools and hospitals, must ultimately be financed by taxation. By contrast, as long as the earnings of a government enterprise are sufficient to service the debt needed to acquire or create it (which will be true if public ownership is more efficient than the private sector alternative), there is no additional requirement for taxation.
Voters have reached the same conclusion by a different route. For decades they have been sold privatisation on the basis that it would provide finance for desirable public investments. For just as long they have been told that, despite all the past privatisations, more austerity and belt-tightening is needed. As a result, according to a 2015 Essential survey, most reject the claim that: “Selling government assets frees up money to reallocate to other services and infrastructure.”
Still, the widespread acceptance of spurious arguments, at least among the political class, means that it is important to consider the financial structure under which renationalisation should take place. British commentator Will Hutton recently proposed a way of renationalising enterprises without explicitly buying them back. The key idea would be to convert existing firms into a new category: the public benefit company (PBC) – which would write into its constitution that its purpose was the delivery of public benefit to which profit-making was subordinate.
The idea is appealing, but the role of shareholders remains problematic. In Hutton’s model shareholders would notionally retain votes, but the non-executive directors would be appointed by the government and would be answerable to consumer challenge groups and other stakeholders. In this setting it is difficult to see how shareholders could exercise their voting power. Similarly, while shareholders would receive dividends paid of out of company profits, the whole idea of the proposed structure is to subordinate profit-making to public benefit.
Australia has, or had, a better solution: the commercial statutory authority, of which Telecom Australia (before it became Telstra) and Australia Post (until it was corporatised in 1989) were prime examples. At the state level, statutory authorities supplied essential services like electricity and water. These authorities serviced their own debt and financed new investment out of sales revenue, as well as providing a modest return to the government.
Crucially, the statutory authority model breaks with the idea that a corporate model, with directors responsible to shareholders is the best way to provide services to the public. In the statutory authority model, the public service objective is built into the governance of the organisation, rather than being imposed. Before corporatisation, Australia Post was run, not by boards and CEOs but by public commissions, including representatives of customers, workers and the community at large, and charged with meeting “the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services”. Over the 15 years of operation as a statutory authority, the real cost of postal services was reduced by more than 30%, a reduction that compares favourably with the period since corporatisation.
It’s true that the debt issued by statutory authorities counts as part of the gross debt of the public sector. It’s now fairly well understood, however, that gross public sector debt is a meaningless measure, since it fails to take account of income generating assets. The relevant measures are net worth (which takes account of the value of government businesses) and general government net debt, which focuses on the operations of government that must be financed by tax revenue. Public ownership of business enterprises increases net worth and has no effect on general government debt.
A lot of things have changed since the late 20th century, and it may be that we need new models of for public enterprises in an era of renationalisation. But the successes of the statutory authority model suggest that it is a good place to start.

  • John Quiggin is an economist at the University of Queensland

Tony Abbott's razor gang considered welfare crackdown on 'job snobs' under 30

Extract from ABC News

Updated 8 minutes ago

Tony Abbott's "razor gang" considered banning anyone under 30 from accessing income support in a radical proposal ahead of the 2014 budget, according to cabinet documents obtained by the ABC.

Key points:

  • Options included cutting off under-30s entirely, just those in areas with job opportunities, or with no work history
  • Most extreme proposal would have saved $9 billion over four years
  • Kevin Andrews expressed "significant concerns" about proposal

The expenditure review committee was made up of then-prime minister Mr Abbott, then-treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.
It requested then-social services minister Kevin Andrews look at how to ban "job snobs" from receiving the welfare payments.
In one document marked "protected", "sensitive" and "cabinet in confidence", Mr Andrews proposed three options to permanently or temporarily halt income support for job seekers under 30.
They included cutting off under-30s entirely, cutting off under-30s in areas with employment opportunities, and limiting income support to young people with a work history.
There was also an option to roll out an income-managed basics card to "lessen the harshness of the measure".
The most extreme proposal would have saved the federal government nearly $9 billion over four years.
But Mr Andrews, a strong factional ally of Mr Abbott, also anticipated a backlash.
The documents reveal he may have been responsible for killing off the plan.

Concerns plan could lead to homelessness, youth crime

In a draft letter to Mr Abbott and copied to then-employment minister Eric Abetz and then-human services minister Marise Payne, Mr Andrews expressed "significant concerns" about the razor gang's request.
"This is a fundamental change to Australia's universal social security system … it is not clear that there is a strong evidence base for this approach," he wrote in the attached proposal.
"Young people in financial hardship could experience homelessness, be driven to crime and other antisocial behaviour, family breakdown and possible criminal flow-on resulting from removing the social security safety net."
He noted that there was already a crackdown on youth welfare factored into the 2014 budget and suggested any further changes be part of a broader review of welfare.
Senator Cormann and Senator Payne declined to comment.

Mr Abbott, Mr Andrews, Senator Abetz and Mr Hockey have been contacted for comment.

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Shields and Brooks on Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller, ‘America first’ at Davos

Podcast from PBS Newshour

Saturday, 27 January 2018

'People are starting to understand': huge Invasion Day protest stuns Melbourne

Activist Gary Foley tells a crowd of up to 60,000 that ‘if we keep mobilising these numbers, governments cannot ignore us’



Melbourne’s Invasion Day rally begins on the steps of Parliament House on Spring Street, 500 metres from where the city council has blocked off the route of the official Australia Day parade.
The events start at the same time, and until a few years ago only one was accommodated. Before 2015, the Invasion Day rally was seen as just a group of hardcore activists; they didn’t register in the minds of the flag-waving crowd that turned out to watch the official proceedings.
That was then. On Friday, when the Invasion Day march reached the barricades that had been pushed aside after the parade moved on, it significantly outnumbered the Australia Day event.
Crowd estimates were between 40,000 and 60,000 people. It stretched the length of four city blocks, picking up stragglers and people who were on the street only because they had watched the official parade.
Spectators for one event stayed to watch the next, filming a rally themed on the abolition of Australia Day while still holding plastic flags that had been waved joyfully minutes before, as if observing the second act of an annual national performance: the pageant, then the protest.
Organisers armed with megaphones called out to the crowd: “Why are you waving Australian flags at us? Why are you celebrating our genocide?”
A police officer, one of the dozens flanking the marchers, gave a speculative look down the street when asked to guess the size of the crowd, which had disappeared around a bend.
“More than was expected, that’s for sure,” he says.


Given their surprise at the turnout, the police presence seems excessive. There are about a dozen mounted police ahead of the march, and more police on foot stationed at regular intervals. There is nothing for them to do except watch.
As the march moves down Swanston Street towards Flinders Street station, where it will stop for speeches from grassroots political leaders Gary Foley and Jenny Munroe, an Aboriginal police liaison  officer leans on the barrier to have a chat to a young Koori man who split off from the crowd to shake his hand.
It’s sweaty and friendly and polite. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are here to talk. Non-Indigenous people are here to listen.
Before leaving Spring Street, Bill Nicholson, a Wurundjeri man who gave the welcome to country, says the size of the crowd, and the mix of Indigenous and non-Indigenous protesters, gives him hope.
“People are starting to connect, people are starting to understand, and I’m just blown away seeing all you people out here supporting us,” he says.
Speaking from the back of the ute that doubled as a stage, historian and writer Tony Birch says those who built Victoria’s parliament in 1856 would be shocked and dismayed to learn that Nicholson and other Wurundjeri people had survived and thrived 160 years later.
“If there is anything to celebrate today it’s the fact that Bill Nicholson and his mob are here,” Birch says.
Birch says the message is “abolish Australia Day” because Australia has not yet come together in a way worthy of celebration.
“To those who are suggesting that we change the date, for those who are suggesting we hold this event on another date, this country does not deserve a day of national celebration in any capacity,” he says.


Among the marchers are Serena Thompson and Ethan Taylor, two young Aboriginal people. The crowd represents solidarity and safety for Thompson, two things she says Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have not always been sure of in Australia’s 230-year history.
“Historically it is a very violent day, so it’s actually having people and having a space where you know you’re going to be safe,” she says.
Taylor marches for survival.
“To join in the rally demonstrates that we are here, we’ve survived, that we are resisting all the injustices that have been done to us,” he says. “We as a people are strong and we are going to fight against what has happened to us.”
Candice Pears has brought her sons Hunter, seven, and Kyan, eight, to the march. Hunter is holding a bouquet of flowers to be laid on the steps of parliament, commemorating the 80th anniversary of the day of mourning protest. As an African-Australian, Pears says, she has sympathy with people who have been displaced.
Asked if she is concerned about disappointing prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who said he was disappointed in anyone who sought to change the date of Australia Day, Pears says: “Not even close.


“I’m happy to be here and I would be here tomorrow if I have to be. I think it’s been a very poor indictment on the government that they’re not willing to listen to the people we need to listen to.”


 
Calla Wahlquist (@callapilla)
Partners Alan and Kelvin are here because they do not support Australia Day. pic.twitter.com/qRSGwzPyk0
January 26, 2018
Paul Kidd, an LGBT and HIV activist, arrived with a group of young queer activists, bearing signs saying “Homos against Nationalism”.
“We can’t really celebrate pride in our own LGBTI rights achievements on land that was stolen from other people,” Kidd says.


 
Calla Wahlquist (@callapilla)
“We can’t celebrate our equality on land that was stolen from Aboriginal people.” #abolishaustraliaday pic.twitter.com/X4STrqx8VR
January 26, 2018
When the march reaches Flinders Street station and spills over the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral and into Federation Square, Foley, once a Black Panther and now professor of history at Victoria University, climbs on to the back of the ute.


“I haven’t seen a crowd like this since the 1970s, the heyday of the Aboriginal political movement,” he says. “If we keep mobilising these sort of numbers, governments cannot ignore us.”
With a captive audience of up to 60,000 people, Foley delivers a history lesson, running through Indigenous protests from the 1938 day of mourning to the tent embassy in 1972 and opposition to the bicentennial in 1988.
“This is the stuff you don’t get taught in schools,” he says. “This is the sort of history that you need to make an effort and educate yourself about, so that you’ve got a greater understanding next year, when 100,000 people turn out here.

“Next year, you’ll be able to educate that extra 40,000 people as to the serious true meaning of what today is all about and what the history of the Aboriginal resistance has been.”

Invasion Day marked by thousands of protesters calling for equal rights, change of date

Updated about 10 hours ago


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people marked Friday as Invasion Day, or Survival Day, with tens of thousands of people marching around the country.
An estimated 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their supporters marched from Parliament House in Flinders Lane in Melbourne, calling for equal rights and an end to Australia Day being celebrated on January 26.
Protesters shut down Melbourne's city centre, shouting "always was, always will be, Aboriginal land".
Organisers said Australia Day should be abolished, while others supported calls to change the date.


Nora Young, a Yorta Yorta and Gunditjmara woman, said she was rallying in remembrance of her ancestors.
"I'm here to recognise my people and what Australia Day signifies — for me that's when European people invaded," she said.
Wurundjeri elder Bill Nicholson said Indigenous people deserved the same health, housing and education prospects as white people.
"We want equal rights, we want full access back to our land," he said.
"We don't want it all we just want what is important to us and what is the areas we want our children to grow up in."

Brisbane march attracts record numbers

About 3,000 people are marching in Brisbane from Queensland Parliament house to Musgrave Park through the CBD, with attendance numbers up significantly on previous years.


Lionel Fogarty said now was the time to unite the country on choosing a different date.
"The feeling today is to unite together and understand that this is not the true date for the Australian people. It's a convicts day for them but for us it's a resistance day," he said on Friday.

"I want to say to the Australian Government today understand what sovereign is in the heart, it's not this economical slave running of our people in this country."
Ruby Wharton said this year there were more young people attending the march in Brisbane.
"We are the power, we are the strength, we're going to march. Today is not a day to hold it down, you let it all out," she said on Friday.
"I couldn't be any prouder to stand here today. The marches are getting bigger and bigger. And everyday there are more young ones. They're our future."
Indigenous woman Joy Brimble was passionate about the cause.
"I'm here to stand for my rights and my people. I woke up this morning with motivation to stand here today and represent my culture and who I am," she said on Friday.


In Hobart, as many as 2,000 people turned out to protest, with Aboriginal leaders, politicians and arts and cultural groups addressing what is understood to have been the city's largest rally on the issue.


Chanting "Australia Day is not OK, we won't celebrate Invasion Day", a crowd marched through Hobart's city centre to Parliament lawns on the waterfront.

A march and rally was also held in the state's north-west for first time.
In the nation's capital, nearly 1,000 people took part in the annual march, gathering at lunchtime before walking to the Tent Embassy at Old Parliament House in Canberra.
The group briefly stopped traffic as they marched on the Commonwealth Avenue Bridge over Lake Burley Griffin.
During a smoking ceremony at Old Parliament House, organiser Roxley Foley told the group their campaign for change will never cease.
"There's a long history of resistance in this country, a history of resistance we have to remember," he said.
"And no-one knows resistance better than my people."

Sydney protesters mark Day of Mourning

Meanwhile, thousands walked through the streets of Redfern to mark the 80th Anniversary of the first Day of Mourning protest and call for a treaty between Aboriginal people and the Government.
They walked from Redfern Park chanting "treaty now".


Australia is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty with its Indigenous population.
Rod Little, co-chair of National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, said people in Sydney joined many more around Australia calling for a treaty with Australia's First Peoples and to self-determination.
"We've had conversations about changes tens of thousands to the constitution to have our recognition that have fallen on deaf ears," he said on Friday.
"We've been raising these matters of sovereignty, treaty and a whole range of other things that are impacting on our people today, but no-one is listening.
"Governments, successive governments, not just this current one, have not listened to our words and worked with us to find solutions so our people can live equally in this country.


"What we're saying now is a treaty would be able to do those things."
A twin Australia Day protest was held at The Block in Redfern, with more than 3,000 people spilling out of the park and joining the walk to the Yabun Festival held at Victoria Park.
Many signs read "no pride in genocide" and "230 years and we're still here".

The crowd roared when speakers called for a treaty.
At the Metro Aboriginal Land Council in Elizabeth Street in Sydney, descendants of the men who first declared the Day of Mourning attended a separate commemoration.
At the event, NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley promised a treaty for NSW if he is elected — the first time a NSW Labor or Liberal leader has ever done so.
Barbara McDonogh, the great-granddaughter of William Cooper, watched on.
Mr Cooper was one of the original Aboriginal activists of the 1930s whose work planted the seeds of the 1967 referendum.
Ms McDonogh said she was very proud of Mr Cooper, who "fought for his people peacefully".


She said the country must find a way to settle its past.
"What happened in the past happens through all cultures, but governments need to apologise for the loss of our culture, our land," she said.
"It's going to take a lot of discussion to reach reconciliation and it may not happen in my lifetime.
"But it needs to happen because everyone's so divided. It's no good, this separation. We need to be on the same page — everybody."


In Western Australia more than 200 people attended a rally in Perth's Forrest Place.
Noongar elder Ben Taylor said that when he saw the Australian flag, he was reminded of dispossession.
"They oppressed us, ever since I was about that high, and they're still doing it today," he said on Friday.
"So now we must stand together and get this date changed."
Earlier in the day, a march organised by Reclaim Australia and other groups for "all patriotic Australians" attracted about 30 people.

The Glory Days of Shortwave Radio

SWLDXBulgaria

Published on Aug 30, 2012

Historical recordings of interval signals from former international broadcasters. Back in the days the shortwave bands were the only window to the rest of the world.