In his latest offering, conservative Australian cartoonist ZEG is outraged by the way NSW police treated Lauren Southern. A good interview with the lady below:
'Men matter too': Anti-feminist launches a 'March for Men'
An anti-feminism campaigner is asking for donations to support a 'March for Men' claiming that males have been unfairly treated in the aftermath of the rape and murder of comedian Eurydice Dixon.
Sydney Watson, has setup a GoFundMe page for the event she is organising in response to what she calls 'an assault on men collectively.'
Ms Watson, who is half American and a vocal Trump supporter, has previously released YouTube videos questioning gun control arguments and white privilege.
The former University of Melbourne journalism student says she is hoping hundreds of men and women will attend the event at Melbourne's Federation Square on August 25 to 'rally together for masculinity.'
The goal of the march is 'not to diminish women's rights or make any negative statements about women,' says Ms Watson.
In June, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews posted to Facebook his thoughts regarding the rape and murder of Ms Dixon. 'Women don't need to change their behaviour. Men do,' he wrote.
'My safety is my responsibility. I don't want to put any accountability on anyone else. Sure, we can teach men not to rape or, alternatively, maybe we can give women the right to self-defence' Ms Watson said in response.
'This post is sanctimonious and patronising. I, for one, am absolutely sick and tired of men collectively being demonised at every turn and at every opportunity.'
The event GoFundMe page has so far raised over $1500 towards its goal of $5000.
'For a long time, we have focused on women's liberation and women's rights,' the description for the event states.
'But now, it is time to give male issues the love and attention they deserve in the interest of creating a better Australia.'
Turnbull moves to soothe schools tension
Labor is claiming victory from Malcolm Turnbull's "humiliating admission" on school funding, as the prime minister moves to douse damaging tensions with Catholic schools.
The Catholic school sector campaigned against the government's funding policy in the Queensland seat of Longman, where the coalition suffered a bruising by-election defeat.
A deal to restore $1.7 billion in funding to Catholic schools over the next decade is expected to be reached within weeks after the prime minister seized control of the issue, The Australian reports.
Catholic Education bosses met with Education Minister Simon Birmingham on Tuesday but it's understood nothing concrete has been offered.
Labor leader Bill Shorten said Mr Turnbull had spent the last 12 months calling Mr Shorten a liar and saying there was no problem for Catholic schools.
"Now he's received an electoral smack on the bottom over his cuts to school funding, he's now going to sing a different song," Mr Shorten told reporters on Tuesday.
The opposition say cuts in the wider education sector amount to $17 billion and must be reversed. "Malcolm Turnbull has been forced into a humiliating admission that his school funding policy is in crisis," the party's education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek said.
Liberal Senator Jim Molan was matter of fact on the situation. "We've got to be prepared to be taken to task by the Catholics; we shouldn't get ourselves into the situation where we're taken to task by the Catholics," he told 2GB.
But cabinet minister Steve Ciobo maintained the government line that they're putting record funding into schools as part of a shift to a needs-based funding model.
The Australian Education Union maintains a special funding deal for Catholic schools will be categorical proof of the failure of the latest education funding model.
Federal president Correna Haythorpe has called for $1.9 billion to be restored for public education over the next two years before any deal is done with Catholic schools.
"The commonwealth should strike a deal with states and territories to ensure that all public schools receive 100 per cent of their schooling resource standard by 2023," she said, saying just 13 per cent of schools were expected to.
Meanwhile modelling commissioned by the Catholic sector found 350 schools would be forced to close across Australia if the current funding model was continued.
"You don't have to be Nostradamus to work out that is going to lead to electoral difficulty, indeed pain, were that allowed to continue along that route," Liberal MP Tony Pasin said.
Swelling cities need a breather from mass migration
There were important population figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last week. The most important was “the number of overseas arrivals was the highest on record”. That’s right, the highest on record.
Note that only people who are resident in Australia for at least 12 out of 16 months are included in the figures. In 2016-17, 540,000 people arrived in Australia, with 315,000 arriving on temporary visas. Of those who arrived on temporary visas, there were more than 150,000 international students, just more than 50,000 working holiday-makers and 32,000 temporary workers.
Where did these migrants go? Overwhelmingly, Sydney and Melbourne. In 2016-17, almost 40 per cent went to NSW and 34 per cent to Victoria.
Queensland also attracted a relatively large share — more than 13 per cent.
The numbers are substantial. Net overseas migration (arrivals over departures) added 104,000 people to NSW in 2016-17, although quite a few NSW citizens got fed up and headed to other states, principally Victoria. Victoria had a net gain of 18,200 people from interstate on top of the 90,000 it gained from net overseas migration.
I should apologise for the blitz of figures. But there really is no alternative to highlight the sheer scale of migration and the destination of the migrants, thus underpinning the conclusion that our migrant intake is out of control.
For a long time, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton had the lame excuse the Coalition government had a better record than Labor in controlling immigration. This was based on the sole NOM figure of 300,000 that occurred in 2008-09, at the height of the mining boom.
But at that time migrants were heading to Western Australia in record numbers. The NOM figure for Western Australia was 44,000 in 2008-09.
The NOM figures for that state have fallen to 15,000. It was a completely different ball game then. Migrants now overwhelmingly head to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane (or southeast Queensland). It’s time for Dutton to put the “we’re better than Labor” excuse in the bin.
His real problem is that NOM for the country as a whole is on the rise. There have been two consecutive increases and the latest figure of 262,000 is approaching the figure of 300,000 so derided by Dutton.
The ABS figures also put the numbers in some context.
Labor is promising to clamp down on the number of temporary workers, but the number of net temporary workers in 2016-17 was less than 17,000, which is only 6.5 per cent of the total NOM. Halving their number would make little difference.
The largest single group is higher education students, with 101,000 arrivals in 2016-17. The numbers are higher again in 2017-18. These students need accommodation, services and use public transport. Given their work rights — 20 hours a week during semester time, unlimited at other times — their numbers also have a noticeable impact on the labour market.
If we consider the face of the population across a longer timeframe, we can begin to see what impact the migration settings have had. In 1996, there were 119,000 China-born residents living in Australia — 20 years later, it was 526,000, an increase of 342 per cent. In 1996, those born in China made up 0.7 per cent of the population; in 2016, it was 2.2 per cent.
In 1996, there were 80,000 India-born people living in Australia. In 2016, the number was 469,000. This is an increase of 486 per cent. Their share of the population has risen from 0.4 per cent to 1.9 per cent.
By contrast, the number of people born in Britain and Ireland has remained relatively steady, rising from 1.218 million to 1.284 million. Their share of the population has fallen from 6.7 per cent to 5.3 per cent.
Australia has a much higher proportion of its population born overseas (28 per cent) than most other developed countries. In the US, the figure is only 13 per cent; in Britain, it is 12 per cent, as in France.
Australia’s population has changed dramatically in numbers and ethnic composition. It’s not clear whether there has ever been an explicit debate about these changes. But political enthusiasm for unrestrained growth of migrant numbers has, if anything, intensified in recent years, including on the part of the Turnbull government.
Lured by the false prognostications of Treasury and egged on by the Department of Immigration (now Home Affairs), politicians have embraced the Big Australia message as an economic saviour. Take the recent advice from Treasury that a drop of 20,000 in the migrant intake would lead to the loss of tax revenue of $500 million a year. It’s just nonsense. If this were true, every single one of those 20,000 migrants would immediately be earning more than $80,000.
The secondary applicants have much poorer labour market outcomes than the skilled migrants they accompany. We also know that family migrants are not net tax contributors. Family entrants would make up about 7000 of this hypothetical reduced intake.
What’s even more unforgivable, Treasury will not have estimated the additional costs associated with higher migrant intakes which, admittedly, are largely borne by the states and territories: school places, healthcare facilities, additional infrastructure.
Let’s hope there are sufficient numbers of cabinet ministers who realise that estimates such as a loss of $500m in tax revenue by reducing the migrant intake are plain wrong.
They are meant to get politicians to support excessive migrant intakes — they make the economy look bigger.
The fact that per-capita income falls in the short term is known by all sensible economists.
If the government has any hope of winning the next election, it must do something radical about the migrant intake numbers.
There is a strong case to institute immediately an inquiry into international students, both at the university and vocational college levels, to get to the bottom of the rorts and the misuse of the student visa categories as pathways to permanent residence as well as other issues.
In the meantime, educational providers should be called on to freeze international student enrolments at today’s levels — or preferably lower.
Our cities need a breather and the Turnbull government cannot afford to keep its head in the sand.
Revealed: The university degrees most likely to land you a high salary - and the ones that will leave you struggling
Most Australian students are heading into their second semester for the year and likely thinking about job prospects once graduation season begins.
And while many pursue degrees because they have a passion for that chosen field, when it comes to how much they'll be paid on a graduate salary, that varies depending on what they studied and what gender they are.
The median salary of all undergraduates employed full-time in 2017 according to the Department of Education and Training was $60,000 which is an increase of $2,100 from 2016 - and men were paid higher wages across the board.
For those who chose to study dentistry (which on average costs $53,770 for five years) they will be paid the highest gross salary of $80,000 in their first year out of university.
Medicine ($64,524 for six years) and engineering ($36,740 for four years) follow close behind with $65,000 and $62,000 respectively.
If you've undertaken the recommended four year course to become a lawyer or paralegal, which costs students $43,016 in total, you'll be looking at a $60,000 wage in your first year.
And rounding out the list in fifth place are teachers who, after four years and $25,776 of HECS debts, will secure $60,000 at their very first school.
On the other side of the spectrum are five fields of study that will hardly cover the costs of doing the degree during your first year out of university.
Interestingly pharmacy is at number one, which takes four years and costs $36,740, because you're only looking to get $41,600 as a graduate.
Creative arts (three years) and communications (three years) follow because they both cost $19,332 to do but give you $45,000 and $46,000 respectively after you receive your diploma.
Tourism (three years) comes in at number four on the list with the degree costing $32,262 and earning the student $48,000.
And six long hard years of studying veterinary science (which costs $64,524) will wind up having you lose money by earning $49,600 in your first year.
In between these sectors there are prospects for those endeavouring to study mathematics ($57,500 first year salary), computing and information systems ($59,900), architecture ($56,400), nursing ($60,000), psychology ($57,600) and social work ($62,600).
Career Development Association of Australia's (CDAA) president Wanda Hayes said there were clear benefits enjoyed by university graduates that those who aren't tertiary-educated get.
'But we know that once you're in [some organisations], there is a ceiling that you can pass through if you have a degree, which you can't pass through if you don't have a degree,' she told the ABC.
Ms Hayes said those with degrees generally had lower rates of unemployment and lower rates of underemployment across their working lives - meaning more money.
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here