Caring about the world

Peter Leahy, Principal Executive International Programs, from CARE Australia writes: Re. “We have a shameful record when it comes to Timor aid” (Tuesday, item 10). Dr Michael R. James associates CARE with the practice of selling discounted food aid and heavily subsidised American farm products in African countries. However, the New York Times article he links to clearly shows that CARE in fact raised concerns about this practice in 2007 and had phased out open-market monetisation in Africa by 2009. The quote from the linked article in the piece also discusses this but is quoted out of context in Dr James’s article.

CARE is a global, not for profit and non-governmental organisation that depends on the generosity and trust of the public to carry out its work with the most vulnerable communities throughout the world.

CARE supports food security strategies that incorporate three core considerations: efficiency, flexibility and gender equity, critical issues that imported food aid often does not support. CARE’s concerns regarding the potential humanitarian harm the practice could cause in Africa led to the organisation turning down US$45 million a year in funding, beginning in 2007.

Wherever CARE works, our sole concern is for the humanitarian needs of the people who we work with and accountability to our donors, who as a charity, CARE cannot operate without.

Tunnel vision

Murray Arundell writes: Re. “Brisbane’s tunnel vision: numbers look like pie in the sky” (yesterday, item 13). If Peter Quick’s sense of direction is anything to go by then it’s no wonder Brisbane’s traffic is a complete mess. Firstly there is no Prince of Wales Hospital in Brisbane. It would seem Mr. Quick is referring to the Princess Alexandra Hospital or PA as it is known. Secondly why on earth he did not turn left off Ipswich Road into Stanley St then take the freeway across the river and bang into the middle of Paddo? Taking the Story Bridge is going completely in the wrong direction.

Businesses connect to NBN

Rob Pickering: Re. “One poll-driven economic disaster — NBN — remains from horrific Rudd era” (yesterday, item 23) In regards to Adam Schwab’s piece about the NBN, I have said it before and I will say it again, businesses will drive the uptake of the 100Mbit network as soon as it is ready and could possibly subsidise the cost of the connection for home users as well.

If it is as he says, that a 100Mb connection will cost $120, then every business larger than a few employees would be mad not to sign up. There is no single business in Australia with a fibre connection even in the CBD who is paying less than $500 per month so at $120 a month for a faster connection this is a bargain. Even a stock standard SHDSL or EFM connection at between 1 and 10Mbit is costing between $200 and $1500 per month currently now.

Further, using the argument that $120 is more than double what home users pay is true, but they’re currently only getting between 4-8Mbits at the moment on average, the fabled 24Mbit is only achievable for less than 5% of the people in a given exchange, if that. So basically you’re getting 10-15 times the bandwidth for twice the cost, again, seems pretty reasonable to me.

But the problem I have most with the article is that to focus on the business case for the NBN for personal users is specious at best, SME’s and Corporates will drive adoption at more or less any price for those sorts of bandwidth availability.

Definitely moving forward with slogans

Denise Marcos writes: Re. Jim Hart (comments, yesterday) expressed confusion whether the Prime Minister is moving forward or going forward. Her deputy, interviewed on ABC’s Lateline last night, clearly stated, on no less than six occasions, “as we move forward”. The trite phrase leaving no doubt that Wayne is on the move.

This could turn into the same game (good clean fun for all the family) as counting the frequency of PM Gillard’s “obviously”, Kevin Rudd’s “And can I just say something…?” or Tony Abbott’s “…but but but but…”

The pseudo-statesmanlike talk of moving our nation forward is pure blather. It distracts from pragmatic issues such as a climate change policy or a carbon tax. We are moving nowhere until we establish consensus on that policy— which, it is inferred, the Australian electorate failed to do in November 2007.

Les Heimann writes: I just can’t get enough of that Get Up video. We should all club together and put it on TV.

What is it with the commentariat when it comes to this government? Nothing but criticism, sniping and negativity. What about the other mob, the “loyal Opposition” who, under Abbott have taken with relish to a literal interpretation of their position.

With the election looming (I voted for 21 August and I still think that is by far the most appropriate and propitious date) maybe Crikey will commence another reader “survey” on why vote/ not vote for Labor, Liberals or Greens. Let’s say three one sentence “whys” and three one sentence “why nots” for each party.

Then we can all sit back and see how many of our slogans are actually picked up in their campaign.

I proffer the following by way of example:

Labor

For: Saved the economy
Governs for all Australia
Makes the best fridge magnets

Against: Nanny party
Soft on innocent people
Can’t shoot straight

Liberal

For: Rich get richer
Spends as little as possible
Governs for those that count

Against: Rich get richer
Spends as little as possible
Governs for those who can count

Greens

For: Cares a lot
Does a little
Anything but practical

Against: Who cares
No one cares
They don’t care