|
|
Thursday, October 5th, 2006
|
3:06a
Didn't quite cover as much as I would have like to today/tonight, but I am kind of happy about finding the right mix on the Blue Screening....so that's my mini achievement for the day...That's it time for bed..
Nighty Night.
(comment on this)
|
3:58p
Okay well first up I have to say something about the conclusion of my evening. You see last night when I retired to bed, I switched on the box as I like to call it, and low and behold...and I say very low, on the ABC there was an appeal by one of the Breast Cancer Foundation groups appealing for no less than 100 million dollars for all variety of pursuits including a national reform of the associations involved with administrating research and funding for this broad organization. Now interestingly what is her name....the girl who married Lachlan Murdock (Son of one of the two biggest media barons in Australia) oh that's right Sarah O'Hara, now Sarah Murdock, now obviously quite a bit of money has gone into preparing this report and I don't doubt that it has some valid points. Personally I don't believe that there should be multiple non profit/charitable organizations all duplicating what the other does and drawing on tax payer funding to support their efforts, but that's just a small contention I have.
So what is my rather large contention, well here goes, you know I found the press meeting rather too well structured for my liking, take for example the questioning session at the end of the appeal, I would say there was probably 10 question and answer sections from the various new's paper networks, but oh shit I just remembered, your part of the family that own's probably 70% of the paper's that were there to ask questions, and the other 30 % well they're owned by the Pakers. So first up I found the whole thing rather biased, in fact I don't recall hearing a question from one independent newspaper. Shit we couldn't have that independent press reporting on your obviously biased report.
Now let me see, if I can recall the figures you quoted....33.5 billion dollars generated by the non profit/charity sector, making it the forth largest revenue generator in the country....quite conveniently avoiding taxation requirements. Then let's look at the issue the search for a cure to breast cancer, where you quoted some of the factors contributing to it's development, e.g. alcohol consumption after the age of 50 on a regular basis, well I don't doubt that play's a contributing factor. Now then let's take a look at health as the issue then, and perhaps the lack of nutrition in a percentage of these victims. Why would these woman be suffering poor nutrition, could it be perhaps like me, these Charity/Not for Profit Organizations that are wroughting the system, not paying fair entailments to the employees are in part, part of the problem. Please go home Sarah and Lachlan, to what ever rock it is you crawled out from under, and while your at it please do tell us what you require your $100 million for, personally I don't doubt that it's just another corporate scam to feed the rich and kill the poor in the most horrific way's.
You know I'm sure if you need that kind of money, you could go to Daddy, and contrive a program where by every paper sold to Australian's for a period of two week's could have 10 cents paid into the Breast Cancer Foundation, I don't doubt you'd have your money in a jiffy, but like I've discovered with most people in positions of power and wealth, they expect everyone to pay there way.
My finding's on this matter, Exploitation By The Rich, and I'm not buying it.
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|