MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr’s DREAM IS NOW A NIGHTMARE
By Kevin Glancy – October 2018
In his landmark speech presented at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC in 1963, the late, Martin Luther King Jr pleaded with America. ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.’
At the time he was fighting for freedom and equality on behalf of his fellow black Americans and those conscious of their struggle, particularly liberal minded US Democrats, applauded his words. As a conservative in Australia, I certainly did but how times have changed. Changed by the very people on the left side of the political fence who supported those words and who have clearly forgotten their meaning and intent.
His dream has become a nightmare in this era of identity politics where people are no longer assessed by their character or on merit. Instead they are to be judged, promoted, praised, defended or condemned based on their colour, gender, country of origin or even, their political leaning.
With the dominant left leaning media if you’re a conservative with a public profile you can expect derision and assorted labels such as homophobe, redneck, deplorable, sexist, misogynist, extremist, hard-right, alt-right and even marked as some kind of Nazi.
Facts are disregarded and for the most part, journalistic integrity is non-existent. It’s a murky, narrow minded western world in which double standards, hypocrisy, quotas, affirmative action and virtue signalling reign supreme. History will look back at a time when the world lost its way. Dragged by those on the left with little real resistance into socialism and ultimate despair as we’ve seen so many times before on the eastern side of the planet.
Those who demanded tolerance have now become the intolerant. Alternative opinions silenced or crushed by name calling and bullying at the hands of the twittering socialist class. Then there’s the right to present a different view denied by the Human Rights Commission. Here is a group, funded…
ABORTION IS WOMEN’S BUSINESS BUT….
By Kevin Glancy
I’ve always considered and not withstanding religious views, that in the abortion debate it’s a woman’s decision and not much business of mine or any male’s for that matter, political or otherwise. Although I do believe that at the very least; when an abortion is being considered that the decision is one made with the father if a relationship exists.
In fairness to women and putting aside the availability of modern birth control, we males can throw our seeds around without much care at all. Getting pregnant is not a problem we face, so how would we know what it encompasses, emotionally or physically. However, I can’t help but hear a BUT.
It’s been triggered by the fact that in Queensland there is a bill before parliament to amend the abortion law to allow females to legally obtain an abortion up to twenty-two weeks during their pregnancy.
Five months into a pregnancy seems like a long time to decide the fate of a potential human being. Some genetic scientists believe that week twenty one is when the foetus may be regarded as a baby but aside from that view; at the point of conception a human life is being formed. It is with this in mind, that I’m afraid the change being sought got me thinking about a subject that I would normally view as none of my business.
Currently, abortion is lawful in Queensland when a doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger. Now that criteria is not infallible and can be a subjective life or death decision made by a doctor. It’s a huge call for any doctor to have to make. Under the state’s existing law; rape, incest and…
WATER EVERYWHERE AND OUR GOVERNMENTS FLOUNDER
By Kevin Glancy
In this time of drought that sees Australian farmers struggling for survival, it’s a reminder of the collective failure of our federal and state politicians since federation to provide practical, long term drought proofing solutions. They are available.
A plan I reported on seventeen years ago and was presented to the then National Water Commission and ignored is featured below. Designed by a highly experienced engineer and powered by solar energy, the intent was to reduce salinity and reduce the impact of droughts and flood. It incorporated rainwater harvesting/collector hubs, pipeline grids and its cost was to be subsidised by its own horticultural and salt export projects. These would provide employment and were projected to earn conservatively, around $600 million per year. The initial pilot programme was to construct a water grid 100 square kilometres in size and situated on degraded and ‘infertile’ land. The initial cost to taxpayers would have been $200 million with the rest provide by private investment. That was back then in 2001 and think of the money we’ve spent and wasted since then.
Yet, regardless of the merits of that plan and I’m sure there are many others, what astounds me is this; when you arrive on an island the first thing a sane person does is to secure the water supply. Well over two hundred years on and we are still floundering.
We have more than enough water to go around but it’s simply not being harvested or delivered to the right places. It’s claimed that in northern Queensland alone, 48% of the rain that falls ends up in the sea and..
WHEN CRITICISM BECOMES RACISM
By Kevin Glancy – October 2018
The recent defensive uproar and cries of racism and sexism on behalf of Serena Williams, with regard to Mark Knight’s accurate and humorous characterisation of the tennis player in his cartoon, is a classic example of identity politics at work. You can add to that blatant double standards and hypocrisy.
Serena has form. Once threatening to shove a tennis ball down a line’s woman’s throat amongst other episodes of abhorrent behaviour. Her own claims of sexism completely ignored the facts. Over the last twenty years in Grand Slam tournaments, code violations and the like have been handed out to male tennis players at a rate, four times more than those handed out to female tennis players. So where is the bias? If anything it’s against males.
Knight’s cartoon highlighted an aspect of Serena’s character. Her behaviour at the US Open was disgraceful. By their very nature, caricatures are usually an exaggeration of one’s appearance. As for colour? What would have been the point of illustrating a white version of Serena. Forget humour, how about accuracy? Did Serena call the umpire a liar and a cheat? Did she threaten that his career would be destroyed? Did she smash her racquet? Did her coach use hand signals? Did she completely spoil the victory celebration for Naomi Osaka, who outplayed her on the day? So, is this where we are now? Serena, one of the wealthiest sporting personalities in the world is beyond criticism, just because of her skin colour?
The reaction to Knight’s cartoon by many on the left side of the political spectrum highlights their hypocrisy. One law for them but…
WHEN BEING A CONSERVATIVE IS THE BIGGEST SIN OF ALL
By Kevin Glancy – October 2018
Then there’s the obscenity of the Democrats and their supporters in the US with their slanderous, self-interested and vile promotion of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations about Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. It’s yet another classic example of identity politics. Ford is a woman, so can do no wrong and must be believed. She’s a registered Democrat and as any intelligent person knows; anything related to Donald Trump is fair game for that mob, whether real or imaginary.
On that basis alone her claims and their timing must be held under suspicion. After all they relate to something that allegedly happened in the early or mid-1980’s, depending on which account Ford has proffered on different occasions. She doesn’t seem sure about when or where, exactly.
Kavanaugh has been in the public eye for many years and Ford could have chosen to take him down and to ruin his life, long before now. Surely, an intelligent woman who claims her life was destroyed on that distant day would have done something about it either at the time, by reporting the alleged ‘assault’ to the police or in the decades since. Certainly, you would expect an educated, American professor of psychology, who more than likely provides life-improving advice to her clients would seek help to improve her own life if her allegations were true. Bear in mind; by her own wavering testimony it’s difficult to determine whether her allegation is true or not.
As for Brett Kavanaugh? Even if he was partial to the drink in his teenage days and…
DAVID TAKES ON GOLIATH IN A FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS
By Kevin Glancy
One should never underestimate Professor David E. Flint AM, particularly when he is on a mission. Quietly spoken, articulate and highly intelligent, David’s passion for the challenge ahead lies just under the surface but there’s no mistaking its presence.
As our conversation turns towards the task at hand it begins to burn bright as he reminisces about a group of people who gathered in Corowa, a small town perched on the southern edge of New South Wales on July 31st 1893.
When David Flint talks, you listen. You can’t help it. His knowledge of Australian history is fascinating, extensive and detailed, but he doesn’t waste words and this was no idle journey back into the past. He was simply making the connection between where we were then and where we are now and he had my attention. After all, this is where it all began.
In 1893, the people had assembled for the conference in the Corowa Court House, brought there by grand ambition to plot a democratic course for Australia. It’s difficult to know how confident they were on that July morning so long ago but in six short years, thanks to their efforts, Corowa would become indelibly marked in Australian history, to be regarded forever as the birthplace of Federation.
It should not be forgotten that in effect, their humble conference had been Australia’s first real demonstration of people power with regard to how we are to be governed.
But as David explains, what was also significant about that particular conference was the motion accepted by all who attended and it is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago. In effect it was an example of direct democracy by the people through the conference process, the very process that David wants to see reinstalled.
The motion passed in Corowa adopted a novel process that all future Federation conference delegates should be elected by the people, instead of being representatives of the various governments; that they should draw up a constitution and that this be referred to the people and not the parliaments for acceptance or rejection.
The point was made. 1893 was about the people directing politicians to act on their behalf. In effect, Australian politicians were to be held accountable and to be responsive to the people’s wishes. Unfortunately, to the country’s detriment, since those pioneering days that right has been gradually eroded, to the extent that it has now, all but disappeared and as David says.
“Australians need to re-connect with that same Corowa spirit. It illustrates how the power of the people through representative democracy can influence change.