Effect of breast feeding on intelligence in children: prospective study, sibling pairs analysis, and meta-analysis

    Authors:

    Geoff Der, statistician (Geoff@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk),
    G David Batty, Wellcome fellow,
    Ian J Deary, professor of differential psychology2

Abstract

Objective To assess the importance of maternal intelligence, and the effect of controlling for it and other important confounders, in the link between breast feeding and children's intelligence.

Design Examination of the effect of breast feeding on cognitive ability and the impact of a range of potential confounders, in particular maternal IQ, within a national database. Additional analyses compared pairs of siblings from the sample who were and were not breast fed. The results are considered in the context of other studies that have also controlled for parental intelligence via meta-analysis.

Setting 1979 US national longitudinal survey of youth.

Subjects Data on 5475 children, the offspring of 3161 mothers in the longitudinal survey.

Main outcome measure IQ in children measured by Peabody individual achievement test.

Results The mother's IQ was more highly predictive of breastfeeding status than were her race, education, age, poverty status, smoking, the home environment, or the child's birth weight or birth order. One standard deviation advantage in maternal IQ more than doubled the odds of breast feeding. Before adjustment, breast feeding was associated with an increase of around 4 points in mental ability. Adjustment for maternal intelligence accounted for most of this effect. When fully adjusted for a range of relevant confounders, the effect was small (0.52) and non-significant (95% confidence interval −0.19 to 1.23). The results of the sibling comparisons and meta-analysis corroborated these findings.

Conclusions Breast feeding has little or no effect on intelligence in children. While breast feeding has many advantages for the child and mother, enhancement of the child's intelligence is unlikely to be among them.

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38978.699583.55

Book review of Only In America An autobiography by Paul Oreffice with Tom Hanlon

(Review by "Ken")

This is an extraordinary life by an intriguing man, written in a page-turning style that that never flags. I could easily reiterate the comments on the back cover of the edition that I read, and laud an obviously gifted communicator and self-confident man of amazing fortitude and foresight -- but who am I in the exalted company of ex presidents and other luminaries? I thought it might be more interesting to look more closely at the book’s title.

While reading of Mr Oreffice’s privileged background and family support, I couldn’t help recalling the story of an interview with a self-made American millionaire who said he had arrived in New York with all of his possessions in a small brown paper bag. When a perspicacious journalist asked what was in that bag, he was told ‘1.2 million dollars in cash and bonds.’

Mr Oreffice came to America with many resources that helped him to achieve what he did; not least of which were an extraordinary set of talents, an extended family support structure and a circle of influential Italian acquaintances of his well-connected father. None of that, however, should be allowed to detract from his achievements and physical and mental acuity.

Mr Oreffice’s generosity in attributing his rise in the world to “America” is admirable and humble but every page of his book tells me that this is an extraordinary man who would have succeeded whatever environment he found himself in. Certainly the political and social atmosphere of America allowed him to express himself with impunity but it is not the only country in the world to offer those conditions.

I am an unqualified admirer of Mr Oreffice’s philosophy, drive and enthusiasm but I think those qualities were genetically imprinted by equally talented parents and a set of life circumstances that imbued him with special qualities.

It is interesting to examine the strange dichotomy that is American democracy; on the one hand citizens are encouraged to conform and to not ‘rock the boat’, whilst the real entrepreneurs do exactly the opposite by having no regard whatsoever for conventions or existing traditions.

Significantly, it is not until two thirds of the way through the book that Mr Oreffice finally lands in America to take a university course, by which time his personal philosophy had been well and truly formed by his life experiences. His father was able to start his own business wherever he went and use his entrepreneurial skills to build factories and provide a decent standard of living for his family. He could not have done this without money and nepotistic support.

So, back to the title; I believe that it is misleading in the extreme and suggests that, not only does America possess some magical property not found elsewhere but that this degree of success is available to everyone. In the highly competitive capitalistic economy that exists in the western world, to succeed requires intelligence, personality, dedication, talent and a degree of luck. Given these parameters anyone can make it in America (and, indeed, pretty well anywhere else in the world.)

As an autobiographical document, “Only in America” is an excellent read. It does trot out Carnegie-style platitudes but they still have validity in context, and good advice is always good advice. I found the early years in Italy far more interesting reading than the American years. Watching the war develop from within Europe allowed a different perspective for me and confirmed my distaste for sheep-like patriotism. Mr Oreffice’s distaste for unions and civil servants lifted my faith in humanity and my only hope is that America listens.

WAR OF THE WORLDS: Planet Civil Libertarian versus Earth

The article below by Australian lawyer James McConvill argues that the major threat to our security comes from an increasingly loud civil libertarian movement

American journalist H. L. Mencken once said: "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." Mencken's quote pretty much sums up the attitude of the average Australian. The average Australian cares little about fluffy concepts such as human rights, particularly the rights of others. Give average Joe the choice between a Bill of Rights and a plasma TV, and I think that you would have to place an order for a large amount of TV's.

In Australia, if you are wanting to win friends and influence people, you do it by appealing to their hip pocket, not to their moral conscience. Yet, if you are unfortunate enough to flick through the editorial pages of the Fairfax broadsheets (particularly Melbourne's Age newspaper), or turn on the ABC, you would think that I've lost touch with reality.

Well, in fact, it is the soft lefts in the media, and their civil libertarian friends in the social sciences faculties across the country, who left reality behind long ago. The result is a growing disconnect between the well-groomed elites and the hard-working average Australian.

The majority of Australians simply have little time for the misconceived bile stemming from the remote civil libertarians. That is why the circulation numbers of the Fairfax broadsheets are laughable. Apart from the precious academic and Camberwell housewives, nobody has time for the idealist dribble pumped out on their editorial pages day after day.

On Planet Civil Libertarian, every street corner has a shiny cafe with skinny lattes flowing like water. With people having very little to do in their day, with no responsibilities, and a constant hunger for blueberry muffins, everybody mingles around crying over coffee about the plight of the poor "refugees" coming for a visit, about how "Jihad" Jack cannot slip out for a smoothie at 1 a.m. due to the dreadful control order imposed on him from the bad people in Canberra, and then after a buzz of caffeine run over to the nearby garden park to jump for joy that Victoria will soon have a Bill of Rights.

It is not expensive to get to Planet Civil Libertarian. One simply needs to cruise down to the local newsagent to pick up a copy of The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald, open up the editorial pages and get a fix. If the newsagent is too far away, turn on 774 ABC.

Back on Planet Earth, things operate a little differently. While the cafes are springing up, people don't have pictures of Papuan warriors and bomb-buddies of Osama Bin Laden pinned up above their bed. Instead of drooling over a pretentious Bill of Rights document, most people actually get excited about such things as paying off a family home, having the ability to put their kids through good schools, and appreciate not getting bombed on their way to work.

Civil libertarians are becoming louder and more organised in trying to switch people over to their side. They have even convinced themselves that they are stepping up to protect the public from the conservative government. But the reality is they are grandstanding. They are becoming desperate. As Professor Mirko Bagaric argues in his new book "A Matter of Opinion", civil libertarians have now become the extremists.

The terrorists wage war through hijacking planes and bombing buildings; the civil libertarians have waged a war on mainstream public opinion through hijacking leftist newspapers and bombarding the ABC.

The average Australian wants just three things: national or military security, cultural security and financial security. If they were smart, the civil libertarians would concentrate on the possible human rights implications of the Howard Government's Work Choices legislation. This is where the average Australia might be prepared to listen because workplace relations affects their financial security.

While the civil libertarians preach from their taxpayer-funded Ivy Tower about the plight of queue-jumping asylum seekers and those who have trained with the likes of al-Qaeda, the Australian people will continue to turn a deaf ear. So they should.

Dr James McConvill is author of "In the Pursuit of Truth: Reflections on Law, Life and Contemporary Affairs" (Sandstone Academic Press, 2006)

Senator George Allen Insider breaks her Silence to reveal 18-month Investigation on the Senator

Senator George Allen is being politically assassinated. Over twenty years of outstanding political leadership and service is being erased by slander – researcher, talk show regular, author and columnist Kathy Antrim

Washington, DC— As political smear tactics reach an all-time low, independent researcher Kathleen Antrim reveals findings from her 17-month long investigation on Senator George Allen to “provide American voters with an unvarnished, honest look at this individual, warts and all.”

Antrim noticed a growing discontent in citizens who are fed up with the corruption, double-speak, and perceived hidden agendas of our government officials. Therefore, she decided to get an insiders view of Presidential forerunner George Allen and share her unvarnished findings in her upcoming book- good or bad- tentatively entitled Actions Speak Louder than Words.

Antrim has been granted unprecedented and unlimited access to the Senator, his wife, children, family, close friends, staff and colleagues for the past 17 months; resulting in hundreds of hours of interviews, which include accompanying Allen in his motor home on his 2,500-mile Listening Tours in 2005 and 2006. “He completely opened up his life to me,” says Antrim.

Antrim wanted to keep her findings secret until the launch of her book, but because of the accusations of Allen using racial slurs and threats (including one of a decapitated deer being stuffed in the mailbox of a black family) in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Antrim has decided to come forward. Allen told The Associated Press on Monday that Mr. Shelton’s accusations were “ludicrously false”.

Like sharks on a feeding frenzy, media outlets such as like Salon.com are positively gleeful in their misleading attacks. Antrim wonders, “Where is the police report that any victim would file if this deer incident happened? There is none. Where are the victims of this alleged incident? There are none. The police lieutenant in charge during the 70's believes it's a myth. Even the head of the Louisa County chapter of the NAACP admitted they had no knowledge of any such incident happening.”

Antrim find it incredibly convenient and suspect that Dr. Ken Shelton never said a word about this incident during the last 20 years of Allen's political career, but in the first election since the only other person who could refute his allegations has died suddenly, now Shelton is coming forward. Antrim comments, “It's disgusting and despicable that they are playing the race card against Allen, a man that grew up in an integrated family and considers many of his father's teammates family. Allen and his siblings consider [Hall of Famer Deacon Jones] their big brother."

Antrim concludes “I have remained independent and unbiased in my interviewing, documentation, and research.” If the media wants to know who George Allen is as a man and as a leader – I hope they ask questions before they take 30-year-old, never reported allegations, as fact.”

Three New Deals: Why the Nazis and Fascists Loved FDR

BOOK REVIEW:   " Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939". By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006.   Review by David Gordon

Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt's numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.

When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.

   "The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933." (p. 18).

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

"Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Why did these contemporaries sees an affinity between Roosevelt and the two leading European dictators, while most people today view them as polar opposites? People read history backwards: they project the fierce antagonisms of World War II, when America battled the Axis, to an earlier period. At the time, what impressed many observers, including as we have seen the principal actors themselves, was a new style of leadership common to America, Germany, and Italy.

Once more we must avoid a common misconception. Because of the ruthless crimes of Hitler and his Italian ally, it is mistakenly assumed that the dictators were for the most part hated and feared by the people they ruled. Quite the contrary, they were in those pre-war years the objects of considerable adulation. A leader who embodied the spirit of the people had superseded the old bureaucratic apparatus of government.

    "While Hitler's and Roosevelt's nearly simultaneous ascension to power highlighted fundamental differences … contemporary observers noted that they shared an extraordinary ability to touch the soul of the people. Their speeches were personal, almost intimate. Both in their own way gave their audiences the impression that they were addressing not the crowd, but each listener as an individual." (p. 54)

But does not Schivelbusch's thesis fall before an obvious objection? No doubt Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini were charismatic leaders; and all of them rejected laissez-faire in favor of the new gospel of a state-managed economy. But Roosevelt preserved civil liberties, while the dictators did not.

Schivelbusch does not deny the manifest differences between Roosevelt and the other leaders; but even if the New Deal was a "soft fascism", the elements of compulsion were not lacking. The "Blue Eagle" campaign of the National Recovery Administration serves as his principal example. Businessmen who complied with the standards of the NRA received a poster that they could display prominently in their businesses. Though compliance was supposed to be voluntary, the head of the program, General Hugh Johnson, did not shrink from appealing to illegal mass boycotts to ensure the desired results.

    "The public," he [Johnson] added, "simply cannot tolerate non-compliance with their plan." In a fine example of doublespeak, the argument maintained that cooperation with the president was completely voluntary but that exceptions would not be tolerated because the will of the people was behind FDR. As one historian [Andrew Wolvin] put it, the Blue Eagle campaign was "based on voluntary cooperation, but those who did not comply were to be forced into participation." (p. 92)

Schivelbusch compares this use of mass psychology to the heavy psychological pressure used in Germany to force contributions to the Winter Relief Fund.

Both the New Deal and European fascism were marked by what Wilhelm Röpke aptly termed the "cult of the colossal." The Tennessee Valley Authority was far more than a measure to bring electrical power to rural areas. It symbolized the power of government planning and the war on private business:

   "The TVA was the concrete-and-steel realization of the regulatory authority at the heart of the New Deal. In this sense, the massive dams in the Tennessee Valley were monuments to the New Deal, just as the New Cities in the Pontine Marshes were monuments to Fascism … But beyond that, TVA propaganda was also directed against an internal enemy: the capitalist excesses that had led to the Depression…"  (pp. 160, 162)

This outstanding study is all the more remarkable in that Schivelbusch displays little acquaintance with economics. Mises and Hayek are absent from his pages, and he grasps the significance of architecture much more than the errors of Keynes. Nevertheless, he has an instinct for the essential. He concludes the book by recalling John T. Flynn's great book of 1944, As We Go Marching.

Flynn, comparing the New Deal with fascism, foresaw a problem that still faces us today.

    But willingly or unwillingly, Flynn argued, the New Deal had put itself into the position of needing a state of permanent crisis or, indeed, permanent war to justify its social interventions. "It is born in crisis, lives on crises, and cannot survive the era of crisis…. Hitler's story is the same." … Flynn's prognosis for the regime of his enemy Roosevelt sounds more apt today than when he made it in 1944 … "We must have enemies," he wrote in As We Go Marching. "They will become an economic necessity for us." (pp. 186, 191)

http://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr

The daily tribulations of a Jewish French journalist in Paris

By Even Sabbagh

Translated from the French by Llewellyn Brown

It is difficult to be a Jewish journalist in the French media today... If your name is not Charles Enderlin, Edgar Morin, Dominique Vidal, Sylvain Cypel or even C‚cilia Gabizon, you have little chance of dealing with events in the Middle East without immediately being taxed as "partisan" by your entire editorial board.

Under these conditions, to be correctly informed, I advise you to turn to the Israeli press and the French-speaking press coming from this very small country, which is already considered to be responsible for driving the whole world to the brink of catastrophe...

But what an obstacle race you have to run, in a Parisian newspaper office, if you are Jewish and you affirm it without shame or chutzpah! And it is not enough to quote word for word in your comments the latest remarks of president Chirac at the G8 summit, though he does not hesitate sometimes to join his peers and point an accusing finger towards Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, the Iranian army's proxy that is guilty of asphyxiating the small paradise that once was Lebanon. That is because, in French news offices, they consider that the president is wrong and on the verge of senility when he errs in such a manner : Israel is guilty of wanting to destroy Lebanon, guilty of killing thousands of innocent civilians. Moreover, Nasrallah is a good guy, and Olmert, like his boss Sharon, is a butcher...

We already knew that Israel irritates but today, a Jew in a newspaper office is automatically a spokesman for the Israeli government : "You people, aren't you ashamed of pushing thousands of innocent people into exile ? Aren't you ashamed of violating Lebanese territory under false pretexts : all that for two kidnapped soldiers? By your actions you are manufacturing thousands of potential terrorists, who are turning bad because of you !" That is what I hear, day in day out; and I leave aside some of the spiciest remarks, regarding the vocabulary my colleagues use.

A Jewish journalist is always taken to task by his colleagues and his chiefs, being suspect of maintaining doubtful bonds with Israel. He is probably an agent of the Mossad, a traitor anyway... not a loyal French person!

It is absolutely out of the question to discuss Sarkozy [a right-wing candidate for the French presidency. Translator's note] who, as guest of the 8 o'clock News program, legitimized the Israeli action. And then... Sarko is the candidate of the Jews, right?

Any innocent comment written by a Jewish journalist is read, re-read and analyzed by the editorial person in charge, to detect if the culprit did not surreptitiously slip in subversive information. And even if they detect nothing, they try all the same to find a subject that will counterbalance the one prepared by "the Jew". Everything counts : words, images, the tone...

If the Jewish journalist is sharp and somewhat intrepid, he will manage to slip in some truthful information, picked up here and there, that even the dispatches of AFP are obliged to report... He will be able to play on translations and give meaning to the images. It amounts to perilous gymnastics, so true is it that in the French media (and it is absolutely necessary for Mena readers to know this) even a dead Jew no longer makes copy: after all, they are the aggressors, and their reactions are always "disproportionate"... Here in France they love the weak - or the dead - Jew, while the Jew who is alive and well is quite simply someone to eliminate, at least media-wise.

To be Jewish in a big national media, to say so, to assert it, is to voluntarily don the suspect's attire. It means, a priori, you are not sufficiently objective to deal with the Middle East. The editorial board will always prefer to choose a journalist of Algerian, Moroccan or Kabyl origin for these tasks, because such a person is "necessarily more objective" with regard to their view of this part of the world, and, of course, he toes the leading editorial line of these media outlets.

They will call at you in the corridor, sympathetically and extremely pointedly : "You are painful, you people, always bringing up the Shoah [the Holocaust. Translator's note]; as a journalist, I do not feel guilty for what happened to you" and then, in any event, what is Israel doing to `the poor Palestinians'!? "You are a cancer in that part of world, constantly seeking to humiliate and destroy; you are the aggressors : didn't you steal their land?"

To be Jewish in the French media means having to put up with this constant racist segregation... It means having to bite one's lip ten times a day in order to continue to do one's work.

Of course, there is Charles [Enderlin, France 2 television channel's permanent Jerusalem correspondent. Translator's note], the moral conscience; Charles, who stands for "since even a Jew and an Israeli says so"; Charles, the patent forger of the Al-Dura Case ; but the victim, what am I saying, the hero of all my colleagues! Yes but even Charles can slip sometimes. He can stumble and relapse into Jewish deviancy. The propensity to mistreat and humiliate is innate, right? [allusion to a newspaper article, published by Edgar Morin et al. in Le Monde (3 June 2002) accusing Jews of this propensity. Translator's Note]. This propensity constantly tends to resurface, which gives us the following result, at the newspaper office where I work (and I give you my word that I have invented nothing): "How did he [Enderlin. Translator's note] dare to show such drawn-out shots of Jewish blood on the ground? When the poor Lebanese civilians fall under the bombs, their bloody corpses are not shown; and now, because 8 Jews died [victims of a rocket that fell on a train depot. Translator's note] they make a big deal of it!!! But whom are they kidding? Everything is disproportionate, Lebanon is of no stature to fight against Israeli hegemony."

To be Jewish, in great red-white-blue media amounts to a constant fight, minute after minute; some of us pest-ridden journalists lie low; others forget that they are Jewish - or make serious efforts to do so, for example by appearing even more anti-Israeli and anti-American than our Nasrallo-Binladenist colleagues, until the day when, in spite of all their efforts, a non-compassionate soul will inevitably remind them where they come from.

As long as Jewish journalist does not express a desire to deal with Middle East issues, everything goes relatively well for him, but the moment he indicates to his editors that he wishes to tackle this subject, beware of the consequences! This subject is hot and he, he is... dangerous. After all, hasn't he pledged allegiance to this country? Does he not approve of these "murders" that always involve innocent victims - and to think that nobody in France has yet wondered why the Israeli army never kills those who launch Qassams on Sderot or Katiushas on Haifa, but only civilians! The Jews are thus not only monstrous by birth but also completely idiotic! - whether they be in Gaza or Beirut. The traditional answer he receives will be much like : "Come on, be reasonable, you people cannot kill all of them; these people have the right to live too, so why want to destroy them when you have already taken everything away from them...". You clearly have no scruples, everyone knows that you dream of extending your dominion ever further... stealing the lands of others, but just how far will you go?

You have put Bush in your pocket, but we warn you, you will not put Europe in your pocket : Christian-Democratic Europe, the Europe that feels for the oppressed, and at the same time - and too bad for a few collateral contradictions to the French exception - post- and para-Marxist Europe. And you imagine, that along with your American allies and bosses, you can give us lessons in democracy? Stop thinking we are imbeciles... we are not so easily deceived."

You will stop sooner or later, willingly or by force. "You speak about Jerusalem as your capital, but it does not belong to you; Jerusalem is Christian, Arab, but not Jewish. You conquered it 1967, but it will be never your capital; we could perhaps accept Tel-Aviv, until Villepin's parenthesis [the idea that the existence of the state of Israel is a temporary parenthesis of history. Translator's note] - in which almost the totality of my French colleagues believe fervently - closes again over your heads... You had it coming, so don't complain!"

So there you have it, good people, you who are so naive, and unaware of the degree of omnipresent and proud anti-Semitism that reigns here, this is what happens in a large French media office... with microscopic exceptions. So stop claiming to be astonished if the information they distil there is outrageously pro-Arab, and often even more extremist that in the Middle-Eastern media. The Arabs are victims, the Jews are vile persecutors. The latest example? Lebanon had hardly started to rise from its ashes and you are already hastening to destroy it... Vampires! Jews

Source

National Cultural Profiles – Australia

National Cultural Profiles are your guide to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures. Below is an extract from the Australia profile



Introduction: Australia is the largest island in the world and the sixth biggest country in the world, yet it is one of the most sparsely populated places on earth. Geographical location and climatic conditions play a large part in shaping national character.

Self-image: The Australian self image is one of a “battler” - a person who had humble beginnings, but by sheer hard work, courage and a spirit of adventure conquered a huge, wild land and created a decent and prosperous society for self and family.

Concept of status: Australians are among the most democratic people in the world and any display of status symbols is risky. They love to cut people down in size.

Communication: Australia is the largest English speaking country in the southern hemisphere. Australian - the sixth largest variety of English (after American, British, Filipino, Indian and Canadian) - is a fascinating, young, vibrant, irreverent, humorous, inventive language. There are hardly any regional variations, no class pressures on one’s way of speaking, and people switch from broad to cultivated Australian at will.

Listening habits: It is inadvisable to be too serious or complicated. Australians are fond of jokes and anecdotes, preferably delivered in broad speech. A friendly and lively audience once they have decided to like you.

Leadership style: Australian managers must sit in the ring with the “mates”. From this position, once it is accepted that they will not pull rank, they exert more influence, as the semi-Americanised nature of Australian business requires quick thinking and rapid decision-making.

Cultural black hole: The Australian Cultural Black Hole is the Tall Poppy Syndrome. One version of this is: any Australian who achieves success will be brought down to size through a variety of abusive techniques. This leaves them either totally humiliated and regretting their achievements, or packing their bags and heading for those parts of the world where success is allowed to be overtly enjoyed.

How to empathise with them: Australians are totally cynical of people in power or with too much wealth, respecting the little person, “the battler”, rather than the winner. If you keep this in mind and don't oversell yourself or undersell your Australian hosts, success, friendship and good times will be yours down under.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4205549/National-Cultural-Profiles---Australia.html

Cameron takes ethnic advice for softer line on immigration

By David Charter, Chief Political Correspondent

THE Conservatives will next week ditch hardline policies on immigration that were widely seen to have backfired at the last election.

As they attempt to create a more “civilised” approach, David Cameron’s party will consult ethnic minority groups in big cities and begin to extol the benefits of migration, The Times has learnt. The change is expected to involve dropping controversial policies such as quotas for refugees, processing migrants on an island and withdrawing from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. These were put centre stage in the election under the leadership of Michael Howard, but the tactic was blamed for turning off some voters. Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen, said Mr Howard was “clearly pandering to the racists”.

Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman, told The Times that the tone during the election campaign “was perceived by many people as harsh”. He will meet Muslims in Coventry on Monday in the first of a series of consultations towards a new policy, which he said must have the consent of ethnic minorities.

Mr Green said: “We want to develop credible and civilised policies. We want to raise the tone of the debate and we think developing credible policies is the way to stop it being dominated by the extremist parties.

“We all agree that the immigration message was too high in the mix in terms of what people were hearing from us. That is now more than a year ago. The world has moved on.”

The appointment of Mr Green, who is on the left of the Tory party, as immigration spokesman will be seen as underlining Mr Cameron’s determination to dump Mr Howard’s policies. But Mr Green insisted that the party was still keen to increase the number of border guards and introduce a more rigorous points system to let in migrants with the right skills.

He added: “In developing an immigration policy, we want it perceived as firm and fair by everyone, including those ethnic groups who are likely to have family members who are recent immigrants.

“We welcome immigration, as long as it is intelligently controlled. It has enriched British society and widened the horizons of the whole British people to the rest of the world. It brings economic benefits and cultural diversity.

“We aim to develop a policy which has the confidence of all sections of the community. Many minorities in this country have a particular interest in how immigration policy works . . . so we are asking for their views and suggestions.”

During the election campaign, Mr Howard was accused of scaremongering when he raised the spectre of race riots if the immigration system was not toughened up. He said: “If people lose confidence in our immigration system and believe it is out of control, that breeds a sense of insecurity and that is damaging to good community relations.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2260780,00.html