Thought for the month
Terminal velocity
The reality of the war in Iraq is that it is going nowhere, and it is travelling extremely fast. It is nearing terminal velocity and there is no way to slow it down!
It all started as a quick trip into Baghdad to secure an airport and a few buidlings. A few shots were fired but nothing major seemed to take place. Sure the Yanks staged a few PR moments and handed out lollies to all the kids to make themselves look like liberators, but in hindsight the door was deliberately left open and the welcome mat set strategically in place to lure the yanks into a showdown of urban guerilla warfare. The fox has outsmarted the cocky cavalry.
Now the poorly predicted 'short-term combat' is turning into a repeat of Vietnam, only worse because the hawks never learned from the mistakes of the first one. Quite simply, you can't invade a country without upsetting some of the locals, even on the pretense of liberation! Hell, three years on and Afghanistan still isn't peaceful and is starting to return to a Taliban-like regime!
Right wing supporters of the Iraq invasion, like Tim Blair are not sorry. They are on a mission. I'm not sure that they understand the objective, but nevertheless they are gung-ho and out to inflict pain and destruction for the greater good.
Blair would rather we take heart in admiring the bravery of a USA soldier with a scratch on his nose than deal with the frequently occurring war crimes or the continuing hostage executions. The dehumanised hawks will only refer to the executions as evidence to support an escalation of allied atrocities.
And to rub salt into the wounds of Iraqi civillians, Blair suggests we donate to the multi-billion dollar fiasco (nearing a trillion dollars if you include the cost to Iraq) by sponsoring more murders.
The gall!
[+/-] show/hide this post
Apology accepted
The following link to a brilliant website does not need a comment, just the world's support and thanks.
PM admits donations influence policy
This quote from John Howard in an interview with Laurie Oakes on Sunday says more than intended:
"The old idea that big companies only gave to the Liberal Party is no longer the case. Many of them don’t give at all now, which I think is a shame because they are affected by government policy."
The context was in reference to a proposal by workplace relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, to legislate against unions making political donations without their members consent. But clearly such a proposal would require a similar consent from shareholders for corporate donations, as pointed out by Crikey today.
None of this is particularly intriguing, however the inference and/or implied fact of Howard's statement places the lid of Pandora's box slightly ajar!
Why does Howard find it a shame that large corporations no longer make substantial political donations given, as he states, that they are "affected by government policy"? I think he is doing more than just stating the obvious. Howard is unoubtedly saying that corporations should donate if they want a say in policy.
What else could he possibly mean?
[+/-] show/hide this post
Pet Hate #2 - UAVs
There's a few things that should remain away from roads.
- Animals
- Children and their toys
- large ugly SUVs
I don't like big 4WD vehicles in the city at the best of times, especially when I know the only off-road experience they will ever encounter is while being parked for the annual Leeuwin Estate Concert in Margaret River.
While these urban assault vehicles (UAVs) are common in Australia (having started with the less invasive Jeep a couple of decades ago), I was hoping we would not be subjected to further levels of US military commercialisation. Thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger's insistence, the USA is riddled with oversized shopping trolleys.
Alas! I saw my first Hummer on the streets of Perth last week. It was big, black, ugly and made me double check to ensure I wasn't in Falujah or L.A.
As if the current range of Hummers are not bad enough, the world is now warned of an even more intrusive behemoth coming to a shopping centre near you!
If you share my views on these beasts of burden then you are likely to appreciate this site
[+/-] show/hide this post
It's Maslow, stupid!
It takes a rare piece of journalism or opinion to make me stand back, reassess my own attitudes and finally to change my stance.
This piece in The Age today, does just that.
What Australian and US voters now crave
The Age - November 11, 2004
The left has failed to recognise society's need for a sense of social and moral order, writes Gregory Hywood.
But I'm going to take it further than the author does. It is more than just morality being sought, it is the wider umbrella of safety and security - the need to be protected.
It is clear to me now that we (the libertarian progressive left) have been going about the last few months (years even) with our heads stuck so far up our arse that we couldn't see what was really changing in Australia, let alone the rest of the world.
I'm not saying that we are wrong, just that we need to rethink the issues that are important to voters. I think Abraham Maslow might have the answer.
When an economy is doing well (as has the USA and Australia) basic needs, such as food, water, sleep etc, are mostly met and few want for much. Such is the first level of Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" - the physiological.
The next concern is that of safety. We desire the need for a secure home and a family. Refugees stuck in a detention centre are clear examples of those who desire this basic need. But middle Australia also, in its own way are being failed at this basic level, because national security and moral grounding are also tenets of safety.
When both physiological and safety needs are met, we tend to aim for love or inclusion - we need to feel we belong. That is part of the reason for creating a family. It is also why people joing sports clubs, community organisations and churches.
After that is met we focus on our esteem and we seek to improve this by the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the house we live in, the job we have. The luxuries in life that tell society "what and who we are". We give ourselves status.
Finally, if we can ever fulfil those four needs we can then seek 'self-actualisation'. We seek to improve ourselves, not by physical stuff but mentally and spiritually. Self-fulfilment, peace, knowledge etc.
It is becoming clear to me that the stereotypical "leftie" is predominantly coming from a higher level on Maslow's hierarchy. We are campaigning for how WE want the world to be by fighting for human rights and debating high-brow issues like stem-cell research and the war in Iraq. We are the Chardonnay set.
However, middle-Australia (as with the majority middle in the USA) are still scrambling to meet their needs for safety and belongingness. Quite often they are trying to aim for esteem needs (by purchasing plasma screens with surround sound) in the hope that it will fill the other hole in their life. But they are ahead of themselves. They turn to materialism because they cannot answer the need for safety and security for their family.
They are so hocked up (average debt is 140% of the average Australian's income compared with 50% two decades ago) that if interest rates rise by 1/4 of a point they will need to work an extra shift to pay for it.
These people, the majority of voters, do not care that Howard lies, as long as he keeps the economy safe. They've had enough of saving the trees and the rivers, they want someone to keep interest rates low and employment high. They have no need to understand the plight of refugees or the Sudanese because they are rightly concerned about their own plight. Charity must begin at home.
So how do we, the high and mighty lefties turn the focus from our pet projects (war, free trade agreements, old growth forests, medicare gold, gay rights, Telstra, ABC funding, etc) and towards the things that matter to THEM?
It's their sense of security, stupid!
Until all those millions of middle-Australia voters feel secure enough with their lot to comfortably move onto the esteem train, or even the self-actualization shuttle, we will be fighting a lost cause campaigning for the esoteric, the altruistic and the utopian.
The reason that we had the human rights boom of the 50's and 60's is precisely because the economy was sound and families were not under financial pressure. They had the time, the money and the desire to move past esteem-building and into promoting self-actualisation.
At the moment we are trying to pull down the upper-class in order to
haul the lower class up Maslow's ladder - over top of the middle
class, even! If instead we choose to help middle-Australia to move
beyond their safety-net concerns, they will undoubtedly turn around
and assist the lower class to move up.
How do we do it? I'm honestly not sure. But sitting in our ivory towers drinking Chardonnay and discussing the rights and wrongs of the world ain't cuttin' the mustard.
We need to be forming progressive economic policy that can be implemented step by step. E.g. While a Tobin tax is a great idea we need to realise that it isn't going to happen soon. However, income splitting is plausible and possible. An overhaul of the tax brackets to link them with CPI is a valid proposal. But these are just some of the ideas that need to be promoted and they require strong campaigns.
As much as I despise the religious right, I must admit that Family First seem to be on the right track. Their policies are in line with the strategy I've outlined above. They are off the blocks and racing ahead while we are left scratching our heads and wondering why everyone has shifted to the right.
They haven't! They've just voted for the people that are listening. We've stopped listening because we are spending too much time preaching about the things that DON'T matter (at the moment) to the average Australian. Us lefties are simply ahead of schedule in being too progressive for the issues that are not high priority and we've forgotten what really matters to the voters that count.
It reminds me of a human resource philosophy I learned many years ago ... a happy employee is an effective employee. If an employee is having trouble paying the mortgage, it will reflect in their work and they are less likely to be enthusiastic, effective or charitable to colleagues that may need help.
The same goes for voters - the Australian public. A happy Australian will be more enthusiastic, more effective in their work and home life and more likely to take an interest in current affairs, social issues and the plight of those less fortunate.
To that end, I'm making a big commitment to focus my energies on assisting the necessary reforms to shift mainstream Australia out of the safety mindset and into the esteem and self-actualisation phases. That can only be achieved by focussing my energy on domestic issues, especially pertaining to the economy.
I'm basing that strategy on the hope that once in these higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy, Australians will be content to support the greater causes in life. I could be wrong, but I'm hoping I'm right.
[+/-] show/hide this post
A second high
Just when I thought it had been a fairly dull day, something comes along to make it better - or at least cranks up the laugh factor.
In the bitter USA post-election battle between the Democrats and the Republicans, the nation is divided between the liberals and the conservatives, the educated and the rednecks, the secular and the religious, and ultimately the north and south.
In all the analysis, blame, anger and navel-gazing we all seek a bit of solitude, solace or inspirational wisdom ... well if that's what you are after then don't look at this website! ... oh, heads up - coarse language alert!
high and low
High point for today ....
getting a good laugh out of this article
Low point for today:
realising that the above article (and related pieces) says way too much about the standard of journalism in Australia.
Troglodytes
It is infuriating to read articles and blogs and rantings from ignorant and ill-informed people. It is exponentially so, when the topic is so close to your own life that it becomes hard to not to take it personally.
Georg at Psephite has found such a moment and she is taking it personally. I'm with her side by side all the way when she exclaims "Enough is enough"!.
The reason? A post from Rose at Two Cents suggesting that it is "Not okay to be gay". Although Ms Rose does concede that
"homosexuals and lesbians ought not to be chastised for the way they are born"
she states without valid argument that
"while society must be 'accepting' of homosexuality, it ought not to be encouraging".
Rose then goes on the rampage over gay marriage, a certain Playschool episode, and ill effects of children with gay parents. Her unresearched and unsubstantiated conclusion is that
"teaching children that having parents of the same sex is okay will create an environment of unnecessary sexual confusion, and will represent a step in the wrong direction for Australian society".
The only evidence provided for her moral stand are two photographs - a picture of "Frank N Furter" (Rocky Horror Picture Show) and some kids in a schoolroom. Clearly Rose has some personal issues to deal with.
Fortunately Georg has filed a nice rebuttal that also "outs" her to the blogosphere as a lesbian mother and details the family relationship of her child's father and his same-sex partner.
And backing her up are many bloggers making their feelings known in the comments. It is noted that several comments have been deleted and no explanation given. The rant and the accompanying rebuttals are well worth a read. And be sure to leave a pleasant note for Rose and the crew at Two Cents just to let them know what you think about ignorant homophobes and heterosexist bloggers :-)
[+/-] show/hide this post
The harsh truth about abortion
Whatever I could possibly write about the growing abortion debate would not do it justice even if I dedicated an entire month of posts to the subject.
Although I am strongly pro-choice, it is a topic that I feel is best left for women to debate. On this issue, men mostly just get in the way. Even as a father I could not contemplate enforcing my rights over those of the mother and I will not enter the debate as to the rights (if any) of the unborn.
In some instances, abortion included, the heaviest burden and responsibility lies with the individual, not society. I do not believe that any woman would proceed with an abortion light-heartedly and without vast consideration of the alternatives. Whatever their decision the consequences will be with them forever.
I support a woman's choice entirely and unequivocally and I will not waver. In my mind it is a closed debate. I'd even go so far as banning men from voting on the issue in parliament if I could.
Having said that, I admire the many women that are affected by the political football that is abortion. One such woman is Zoe, and her story is found here. I believe she presents one of the best opinions I've read in relation to the issue. Thanks to Psephite for the link.
To those women who have had, or will need, to face such a decision my unconditional support is given to you.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Theocracy Alert
Introducing the Theocracy Alert - Early Warning System
protecting Australian politics from religion
As with the USA system, Theocracy Alert offers five colour-coded levels of alertness and is improved by the addition of photographs of iconic religious right leaders. You'll find the current status at the top of this page and a brief explanation of the alert levels here:
Level 1 - Armageddon outa here
This is the highest level of alertness and requires all non-believers to bunker down for the apocalypse. There may be no escape from the tirade of preaching we are about to receive. This is wacko time, and it is represented by the wackiest zealot of them all, Fred Phelps.
Level 2 - Anile Alert
Prepare for an onslaught of right-wing conservative claptrap. Human rights are clearly under threat and the libertarian army is requested to be on 24 hour alert. Australia's Fred Nile is a fitting icon for this level along with a bright shade of orange.
Level 3 - Holy Shit
At this level there will be ocassional attacks, which are usually dispelled quickly and with low casualties. Citizens should remain aware at all times and report suspicious activities. Status is represented by the colour yellow and Pope John Paul II.
Level 4 - Falwell-out
Theocratic risk is low, but there may be some isolated incidents that can cause pain. Mostly harmless rantings from the usual crowd. This level is represented by Jerry Falwell and the colour green. Citizens are urged to remain vigilant and assist their communities to develop combative strategies.
Level 5 - meh!
Have a snooze. The enemy are cowering in their churhces. This is a great time to catch up on a book or just enjoy the peaceful life. Indicator is blue and the icon is Mother Theresa.
The current status will be set to 3-Yellow-HolyShit as we recognise the precarious position Australia may experience with Coalition control of both houses of parliament.
News Wrap
Here's a few quips relating to current news items:
Aussie jailed for Nigerian email scam
GOOD! But it won't stop others from continuing the spam and convincing more suckers to part with their money. Try as hard as we might, we can't legislate against common stupidity.
Local councils vote to boycott James Hardie over compensation fund.
Great! At least the local government sector knows how to make their opinion felt by the corporate crims. Is there any way we can boycott the Howard government by not buying their crap? Oh, that's right ... we had our chance a month ago, didn't we? DOH!
The Reserve Bank holds interest rates until 2005.
Phew! Thousands of debt-ridden families breathe a huge sigh of relief ... now they can max out their credit cards over Christmas completely guilt free!
Push for Nader to request recount
Just like the 2000 USA election, this year's vote has also been criticised for numerous faults and inconsistencies in the counting of ballots. But the difference this year has been the Democrat's apparent willingness to just let it go and to promote a united nation.
That may appease many staunch Democrats and Republicans in mainstream USA, however some people are not willing to leave the fate of democracy to the major parties.
Black Box Voting has commenced a campaign titled Help America Audit and, according to an email request spreading through the Internet, it is hoping to enlist the help of (former Greens) independant presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, to commence a recount in certain electorates.
While realising that the Kerry/Edwards team are not challenging the vote, the optimists hope that if Nader can be convinced to do the dirty work (and take the obvious PR fallout) that "Kerry's TRUE counts will be exposed".
I think it is a waste of time and energy to focus on trying to get Kerry across the line. Instead they should be urging an immediate and comprehensive independant (United Nations perhaps?) review of the electoral system with a view to homogenising the process across all counties and states.
Anything less is proof of a farcical democracy.
[+/-] show/hide this post
GG shows his colours
Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey, has just flung himself into the fires of conservative social engineering policy. He is quickly heading down the same dangerous road as his predecessor, Peter Hollingworth. Good! I'll be happy to call for his termination!
In an interview with The Sunday Age, Jeffrey sides with coalition MP's calling for a reduction in abortions. He also questions the rate of relationship breakdowns and the presence of single parent families.
"I think all of us recognise that the rate of relationship breakdown is horrific. We've got a million kids now living with a single parent, mostly women, and most of them through no fault of their own are probably doing it very hard," he said.
The man is clearly blind to the evolution of society. Why is it so terrible that there are single parent families? Why does he perpetuate the myth that children of broken relationships are at some terrible risk or have a lesser existence? Children are much better off in a loving environment than in a falsehood of a marriage sham.
It seems that Jeffrey might prefer to see women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, subserviant and dutiful to the husband, rather than see them making choices about their own health and wellbeing, their own life, that could include being single.
Equally irritating is his opinion that boys needs a male role model to be taught "what it means to be a man". What sexist and heteronormative garbage!
Jeffrey's unspoken view of what it means to be a man surely is that of a gun-toting testosterone-motivated barbarian, rather than a peace-loving, diversity-respecting free-thinker. He, like John Laws' in his recent attack on homosexuals, seeks to perpetuate society's historical stereotypes of what it means to be male and female and believes that clear boundaries apply between the sexes and sexuality. News for the GG (and Laws) - those boundaries are a myth.
The guy is a complete tosser.
Sir William Deane, on the other hand, was one of the finest GGs in Australia's history. He redefined the position as the people's representative rather than the foreign Queen's rep. His successors have turned the whole thing arse-about and redefined it as the Prime-Minister's lacky.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Arafat and AIDS?
Hold the presses!! (I've always wanted to say that)
Rumours that Yasser Arafat is dying of AIDS have been spreading like wildfire among conspiracists, bloggers and alternative news-rooms. Now the hotest topic since Tuesday's US election is making its way into more mainstream sources, compounded by stories of Arafat's bisexuality.
News of this first came to me from an Aussie political discussion list. A member posted a thread from an Aussie-Jewish list that referenced some sites where this theory was propogating a life of its own.
In my own search across the blogosphere and wider Internet, I haven't found anything that offers a source or additional information than a bunch of untrained theorists but feel free to take a gander at these "reputable" (I use that term loosely as I've weeded out those that fitted into the bonkers category) links:
WorldNetDaily provides a great overview of the topic with sources:
The homosexual site, 365Gay.com, which deals regularly with issues related to HIV/AIDS, ran a piece yesterday reminding readers that, for several years, it has been suggested Arafat is bisexual, and could have contracted the disease.
...
National Review diarist David Frum suggested in his column this week Arafat contracted AIDS from homosexual sex with his bodyguards.
...
Ion Pacepa, who was deputy chief of Romanian foreign intelligence under the Ceaucescu regime and who defected to the West in 1978, says in his memoirs the Romania government bugged Arafat and had recordings of the Arab leader in orgies with his security detail.
Similar reports at International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, and Opinion Journal.
The rumour may remain exactly that as the French medicos are unlikely to reveal such details. Additionally there is the question over Arafat donating blood to the USA after 911. That would have been a futile effort (or just clever PR) if he was HIV+.
Of course there's also plenty of theories about being Arafat being assasinated by various governments and enemies through poisoning, an undetectable virus created by the military, and even a plague of nanobots programmed to destroy his immune system!
Other updates on Arafat's condition are found at The National Business Review, SeattlePI, Boston.com, Sydney Morning Herald, IndoLink and Health 24.
And, yes, there's also the funny side to every news item! And while a roast (see 2/3 down article) tried to be funny it may yet prove prophetic.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Giving the Dems a helping hand
Howard Pulls Reins in Senate
Credit where it is due, the Democrats have come out slamming the government for its contempt of the Senate by allocating merely 55 days of sitting time for next year.
The ABC reports that Senator Bartlett accuses the Government of progressively weakening Parliament before it takes control of the Senate in July.
It is a clear signal of how the new Howard regime is planning to run Australia for the next three to six years, with very little influence from the Senate.
Democrat Leadership Still Faces Member Test
A friend and fellow ex-Democrat, one with a few more years experience than I, predicted a week ago that Bartlett would be ushered aside to allow Lyn Allison to take the reins of parliamentary leader. That prediction was not a hard one to make, but the media have failed to pick up on the story behind the shuffle and what the results actually mean. Instead the media have mistakenly accepted that, as Allison is unopposed, she will be the new leader. There may yet be a surprise from the December ballot.
With most political parties, a candidate who is unopposed automatically takes up the nominated position. However, the Democrats are not your average party and democracy has a funny way of turning the tide.
In December the proposed leadership team of Allison and Bartlett must still face the membership in a yay/nay ballot. The ballot is not a contestable choice, but it is a referendum of the members to approve or disapprove. It is, therefore, possible that the membership could provide a majority vote against either or both of these candidates for their nominated positions. This would leave the party without one or both positions filled and hopefully cause a major re-think in how they have come to offend the membership.
When Meg Lees faced such a ballot (before the successful challenge by Stott Despoja) around 30% of members voted against her, even though there was no alternative candidate. This was the largest no vote issued against an unopposed candidate for the leadership position in the history of the Democrats. It was a strong signal that Lees was on the nose with members for her role in the GST. It was also a clear signal that had Stott Despoja been a challenger then, she may have won.
Andrew Murray is a little smarter than Lees - a lot smarter in fact! Which is why he has not directly challenged the leadership or sought to nominate at subsequent ballots. Murray knows he would face a similar backlash. That is why his work has been in the background.
Cherry was his slave issuing the 10 point "knives-in-the-back" plan that forced out Natasha. Allison was the pivotal 4th edge to the razor gang that backed the ultimatum. Eachway Ridgeway was Murray's "unbiased" nominee to take over the leadership. On that point Murray failed and the National Executive installed interim leader, Brian Greig, before Bartlett got the guernsey in a deal that saw Allison pitched as deputy.
For exactly the same reason outlined above, Murray chose not to nominate for preselection in 2003 for a double dissolution (DD) ticket. He didn't want to face the membership and risk a backlash. If a DD had been called, Andrew Murray would not have been on the ticket and would have lost his seat (unless his mates found a way to rerun or override the preselection ballot).
Murray was taking a gamble. He took the chance that there would not be a DD, rather than risk his credibility and ego at the hands of the membership, whom he viewed as a "mob". His punt paid off and his position remained secure.
So, how will Bartlett and Allison fare when they put their necks on the chopping block in December. Allison's complicitness in the decay of the Victorian Division is not well known in the other states, especially to the numerous newbie members. Many of the wiser members have departed the Dems long ago, so there are few left to pass on words of caution to potential voters.
My advice to current members ... if you are the least bit unhappy with either candidate, vote NO! Don't be led into thinking the Party can't fare well without a leader ... it has done for a couple of years now, a few more won't hurt. Besides ... who needs a parliamentary leader, when there is no parliamentary party after June 30?!
[+/-] show/hide this post
Cheshire lap dog
So, a victory for Bush is a win for anti-terror according to our own Napoleonic leader. Does that mean a victory for Kerry would have been a win for terror? Surely the Prime Minister isn't implying that someone other than Bush couldn't also be 'anti-terror'. Does one have to be a war-monger motivated by commercial interests in order to be against terrorism?
Howard is going to need a rest from all this excitement or his heart might give way. At the very least he's likely to suffer facial paralysis if he continues to grin wider than the Cheshire Cat! The man has never been happier. Not only has he stormed into a fourth term with an increased majority and control of the Senate, Howard almost wet his pants at the opportunity to call his pal George and congratulate him.
It reminds me of this nerdy kid in high school who no-one liked. Everyone used to make fun of him and he was always the last to be picked for team sports. One of the school prefects decided to 'adopt him' and looked after him a bit. The nerdy kid used to walk to school carrying the prefect's bags and hang out at lunch time running errands for him. It made him feel really important and loved. After that no-one really picked on him quite as much.
The sad thing is that when the nerd was out of earshot, the prefect would joke with his friends about the nerd and slag him off, calling him a mascot, or a pet dog. The nerd never knew how little he was respected and that he was merely a slave to the older child's whims.
It really is sad to see Howard in the same light as the docile dog sitting patiently by its master's heel, waiting on his every word and salivating for a little treat or a pat on the head.
Ok .. so I lied. There was no such situation; no nerd and no prefect. In fact the whole story is completely made up. But it was a damn good analogy nonetheless, and Howard is still a bloody lap dog ... a Cheshire lap dog!!
[+/-] show/hide this post
The end of a big election year
The Bush victory was easily predictable. Anyone claiming Kerry had a chance really had no understanding of the world we live in and the psyche of the US electorate. While I don't claim to be an expert, I do have my eyes open far enough to be able to read the signs. Objective analysis led me to predict Howard's win (though not his control of the Senate without the aid of Family First), the success of Family First, and Kerry's inability to win the people's vote.
In each of these events there were some key elements that should serve as a warning to future election campaigners.
- Voters are selfish
- Politics is unprincipled
- The media are not without bias
Three simple truths that seem to get lost in the excitement and banter of election fever.
Firstly, the majority of voters are loathe to think of anyone but themselves when marking the ballot paper. We live in a secular, individualistic society that has lost its community spirit. In the scramble to get to the top of the dung heap, we only manage to spread the manure further and are left smelling of crap. Gone are the days when we were all working for the common good and would lift a hand to help a stranger in need. Our national belief system lies in the divine trinity ... me, myself and I!
The irrational and purely selfish preference deals between some parties proves that politics is unprincipled. Even concrete policies are not as strong as they used to be as the ALP have shown by ditching long-held beliefs in favour of moving more towards the Coalition's views. It simply shows that such parties are opportunists rather than leaders with a principled vison for the future of a nation.
Undoubtedly, the gravest problem with our democratic elections is the influence of the media giants. There are very few balanced journalists left because they are increasingly being urged by their editors to provoke a response through the push of a particular opinion. To be fair, it is not that the media favours one party over another, it is merely that they make a commercial decision to not bite the hand that feeds them.
Politics and the work of government represents the majority of all news. To fall out of favour with the current government is a risk that no editor or producer is likely to take unless it is outweighed by an enormous ratings scoop that could take a government down. Hedging bets is not effective, so the media gamble on the outcome of the election to determine the party/candidate it needs to befriend.
Australia's electoral system, election advertising regulations and media ownership rules are some of the best in the world. We are able to safely state that our government is one of the most democratically elected because of compulsory voting and the preferential system.
Improvements to the system could be debated for years and without going into too much detail, some of my suggestions are:
- proportional representation in the lower houses
- optional preferential voting in both houses
- fixed terms of government to avoid election speculation
- eliminate Senate preference tickets
- eliminate distribution of "how-to-vote" propaganda at election booths
- election material to be approved by the AEC for factual validity
- a voter education campaign by the AEC
- revamp disclosure of political donations
I add the last point because I predict that the public will not be satisfactorily informed as to the source of funding for Family First. My expectation is that the vast majority (perhaps $750,000 or thereabouts) will remain undisclosed because it will be reported as minor donations from individuals. It is not hard to divvy a large donation up amongst a few fellow church-members in order to circumvent reporting regulations.
By no means am I suggesting that our system is bad, but it is open for improvement. There is a lot more that we can do for democracy (citizen initiated referenda and restructuring of the federal system to reduce the tiers of government are examples) but these suggestions are a good start.
The USA is not so lucky. They need a complete overhaul to remove the electoral college, reduce the unbreakable power of the two-party system, provide fairer access for voter registration, homogenise ballot mechanisms and eliminate the campaign funding loopholes.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Birthday blues and Christmas hope
Today I have reached 35 years of age.
Normally it is a time for celebration, but this year I am making it a time for reflection. Not just because I'm despondent at the return of Dubbya to the Whitehouse, following Howard's undeserved election bonanza. Rather I am reflecting upon the fortunes of my life, given the quirk of nature that saw me born in one place and not another.
Today I have the dubious privilege of exceeding the average life expectancy of 1.5 million people in Botswana by 5 years, and I've equalled the life expectancy for 10.5 million people in Zambia. see Index Mundi
Instead of Africa, I was lucky enough to be born into an anglo-saxon Australian family, giving me a good chance to reach 80 years of age. I'm almost at the halfway mark. Only ten countries in the world manage to have such a long life expectancy for their citizens.
- Andorra (83.5)
- Macau (82.03)
- San Marino (81.53)
- Singapore (81.53)
- Hong Kong (81.39)
- Japan (81.04)
- Switzerland (80.31)
- Sweden (80.3)
- Australia (80.26)
- Iceland (80.18)
Canada falls just behind in 11th place with 79.96 years.
Australia might be better ranked if it were not for the shameful health of our indigenous people, whose life expectancy is at least 20 years less than non-indigenous Australians.
It means that our indigenous people have a life expectancy only slightly better than the people of Cambodia and Sudan (58 years) but worse than that of Bangladesh (61 years) and India (64 years).
So much is wrong with our own nation.
So much is wrong with the world.
I'll be waiting a very long time to have my birthday wish fulfilled (I can't tell you, as that supposedly renders it invalid) ... but I live in hope. Enormous hope, backed by perserverence and a willingness to be a conscientious objector against the misguided selfishness of our modern world.
Part of this hope has been revived by the plan for Sir Bob Geldof and Midge Ure to re-record the Band Aid hit, "Do They Know it's Christmas Time" using a swag of contemporary artists. Although it is expected to be an instant chart topper and raise millions of dollars for Ethiopia and Sudan, it is still a small drop in the ocean and is literally just a "band-aid" to a gaping wound on human existence. Poverty and related health issues can only be solved by the combined will of the international community through their governments.
But good luck and congratulations to Geldof and his team for putting this issue back in the spotlight.
[+/-] show/hide this post
The Storm
Dark sky; ominous, billowing clouds. An eerie wind rustles through the bushes like a warning to life. Nothing else but a deathly silence quivering with the passage of time. Not a bird twitter, nor a dog bark. No motion from the row of houses along the beach head.
Even the footprints in the sand are now erased from existence. The wind twirls in the dunes, sending spirals of silica to lash at one another like medieval ghosts on the battlefield.
Wind against sand; sand against leaf and twig; branches flailing wildly in defense against an unseen foe. Grasses yield, bowing before the omnipotent force. Resistence is futile. Death and destruction is nigh. Submission, the only hope.
Light! Bright! The heavens aflame with bolts of electricity. The resounding crack of thunder follows. Lightning streaming across the horizon, dancing on the rising sea. Wretched fireflies swarming in mass to attack.
Waves rush onto the beach, seeping through weed and debris. Trying to escape from oncoming onslaught. They crash and pound against the weathered groin. The rocks have faced this enemy many times before. Just as before, they refuse to succumb this time also. They will not yield though the waves are relentless.
Crack! Boom! The heavens open and unleash a torrent of rain upon the earth and sea. The ocean rises up to warmly greet its kin, absent for too long. Waves peak; stretching and dragging the droplets of life's pure essence back to their home.
The thirsty earth inhales the precipitation, greedily absorbing ever droplet as if it were the last of its kind. Heavy droplets smash into the dry soil leaving craters as if from a meteorite shower.
Soon the land is awash. Tiny rivers form from every dune top or grassy knoll. Streaming down through the gullies and small valleys. Winding and converging in a race back towards the sea. Rivulets and streams combine at every new junction, flowing with greater and greater force.
No longer content with its own passage, the water drags with it leaf and litter from around the base of each bush. It sweeps away the sand, revealing naked gnarled roots, threatening to remove the foundations of the green infrastructure. Challenging the sanctity of life.
Destruction and chaos in a micro level. Life upheaved by wind and rain. Yet the irony of the new life it creates is not lost. Nature is an irony. From death there is new life.
Today's Intelligence
Don't laugh too loud, for fear of being labelled anti-semitic, but the hilarious gaff by the Israelis brought a smile to the faces of many worldwide.
As reported in the SMH today, the Israelis believe that Arafat could either make a full recovery or die.
"According to our intelligence assessment, Arafat's chances of recovery range between full recover and death."
General Aaron Ze'evi, Israel Defence Force.
Yep! You heard it first folks, Arafat will live or die ... absolutely guaranteed by the Israel Defence Force! I'm sure the spooks at Mossat have distanced themselves from the oxymoronic army intelligence :-)
Everyone wants to be George W Bush these days!
Bush back by a smidge
John Kerry could pull a rabbit out of his arse and tap dance his way to Iraq, but nothing is likely to prevent Dubbya from keeping his personal belongings at the White house for another term, or at least until the curse of the Presidents sees him die in office.
For what its worth, Kerry has run a good race, despite having a face like a horse (but then, Australia does have the frog for a PM). He was a bit slow out of the stalls, and though he rarely managed to take the lead from Bush Jr the race has been neck and neck all the way. The final leg has been Kerry's strongest. Unfortunately it was a little too late for first prize, according to the pundits and the pollsters.
Meanwhile, world events have not been of any great benefit to the incumbent Bush as cynics like myself have predicted. There was no last minute threat of terrorism upon the USA, no sudden victory in Iraq, and despite the timely appearance this week of the Phantom Menace, his whereabouts is still relatively unknown, though China is under scrutiny. All in all, nothing to push Bush over the line as the conspiracy theorists were predicting. I'm disappointed.
The only mystery left to unravel in this US election is how decisive the Bush vistory will be, and how many legal challenges might rise from the voting nightmare that has hovered over most of the election campaign. The USA is in dire need of electroal reform to ensure that standards are the same across States and Counties and to eliminate the difficulties associated with voter registration, especially for the poorer minority groups.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Counterstrike
Graham, of the Ambit Gambit, condemns the call from the Green Left Weekly to engage in "better organised and more determined protest movements". He claims that such a reaction would "most likely help Howard, or Costello, to another victory".
His logic?
Voters by and large know what they are getting when they vote for someone ... They know that when you vote for a politician ... You vote for them on the basis of a package ... you take that package because it is better than the other package. (Or more probably less worse.)
This argument assumes that voters are well-informed, educated, politically savvy, and able to weigh up the best interests of the nation against their own selfish desires. Unfortunately most do not fit all of those characteristics and few can claim to hold more than one.
The media and the pollies are well aware of the reality and they use it to their own advantage every election and many times inbetween. Most voters have rarely, if ever, watched or read a substantive political analysis of any major issue relevant to an impending election. Most would rather flick the remote to watch some less-than-real soap drama or the footy.
Of one thing though, Graham is accurate.
Voters don't take kindly to some "revolutionary" smarty pants coming along and telling them they were too stupid to exercise their vote wisely. They also don't appreciate it when they are told that their neighbours didn't exercise their vote wisely so that even if they didn't agree with how they exercised that vote, they will get in behind it if it is challenged.
I have raised this fact in a previous posting here in condemnation of Andrew Bartlett's blame of voters. It was interesting to read in the West Australian that the Greens' new Senator, Rachel Seiwart, has also come out slamming voters for getting it wrong. Not a great way to say thank you, nor to ensure your return in 6 years time.
[+/-] show/hide this post