Quoting the Questions; Probing the Possibilities; Analysing the Answers.
The voice of a left leaning Aussie committed to liberal democratic socialism and pluralism throughout all facets of society.
I am particularly valiant when it comes to issues of rights, justice, and freedom from religion.
When We Rise
Lifestyle choices: the reality behind a PM's gaffe
10 terrorist targets that are better than Parliament House
As much as many of us would enjoy seeing the demise of a few upon Capital Hill, we actually like our billion dollar flagpole and some of the people we elected to sit under it. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, I offer the dummies guide to 10 better targets for prospective terrorists to leave their mark on Australia.
10. AFL/NRL clubs or stadiums
You can't get much more Australian than sport, and you won't get more Australians enlisting in the defence force to fight against your fundamentalism than if you target their beloved national religion. It's also one of the few places you can be assured of getting tens of thousands of innocent people in one location as well as live media coverage of your attack sponsored by alcohol, gambling, interest charging banks or burgers with crispy bacon. But be careful of which team you target; an attack on Collingwood might get you more thanks than vitriol, especially if you take out Eddie McGuire in the process.
The by-election that wasn't
This was not a by election, it was a wake up call for all of Canberra and each of the state governments. And the message is clear; ignore the citizens at your own peril.
There are undoubtedly a few sore political heads in the wake of he Western Australian Senate re-election held over the weekend. Counting is still in progress, and will continue for some time. It will probably be a couple of weeks before we know who has gained the final seat but we can be fairly certain that we have two Liberals, one Labor, one Green and one PUP, with the two old parties competing for the final seat.
While each party will be claiming its own victories, putting whatever small spin they can manage into action, the rest of us need to take a step back and assess what might have actually happened. It is all guesswork obviously, we cannot make any conclusions on the motivations of voters, there are only assumptions.
So what went wrong and what went right? Let's look at each party in detail before we assume to understand the big picture.
Liberal v Labor
It is fair to say that a big swing against both parties is always expected when viable alternatives are present. We have seen it when the Democrats were in their prime and with the rise of Pauline Hanson or Family First. These are the real swinging voters, not simply disaffected followers of the two old parties. Many political boffins put the swinging vote as high as 20-30%, but I believe it to be about 15% as I prefer to exclude the recidivist protest voters, like myself, who never vote for either major party.
The Liberals, particularly Eric Abetz, were premature to claim that the ALP had a greater swing against them than did the Liberals. The current state of play is that the swings are fairly close with the Liberals down 5.5 and Labor 4.8.
What is more discerning is the combined results of the traditional allies. The Nationals felt a big blow losing a third of their base meaning the Coalition vote decreased by a total of 7.5 percentage points against the combined ALP/Greens vote, which increased by 1.6 points. Even if you assume that the right shifted into the hands of Palmer United Party it leaves the right with a zero change and the left with a slight increase.
Part of their woes also relied on the fact that the Liberals were busy attacking Labor and failed to deal with the real competition, PUP. In addition both lead candidates for Liberal and Labor were noticeably absent from the campaign. Whatever you may think of the average voter, one thing for sure is that they do not appreciate being taken for granted.
It is also clear that the ALP ostracised some of the left with the painful antics of Joe Bullock. Revelations in the last few days of the campaign would have seriously damaged the Labor vote and I suggest that a great many loyal ALP voters went below the line to support Louise Pratt while some others just moved elsewhere, mostly to the Greens. I predict that Louise Pratt will acquire the final seat based on a strong below the line vote from those voters.
Unlike some pundits, I don't think that this had anything to do with the state Barnett government, but no doubt the shark cull policy has attracted some support towards the Greens.
The Greens
Regardless of your politics it is fair to say that The Greens ran one of the best campaigns of their history. Scott Ludlam was everywhere and he stayed on message. It paid out in big dividends with a full quota in their own right and left he ALP's Louise Pratt reliant upon the remainder, as well as strong preference flows, to potentially secure a second Labor seat.
Scott Ludlam's tour de force was undoubtedly his Senate speech to the Prime Minister which gained viral momentum akin to Julia Gillard's misogyny speech. Tony Abbott now seems to have the record for being the subject of the most watched videos of any Australian politician, all negative.
Palmer United Party
PUP was always going to be strong and they have managed to capture the vast majority of protest votes against the coalition. They had the second biggest media presence and again ran a decent campaign appealing to their core constituency, whatever that might actually be - the jury is still out on that one.
Many, including myself, have criticised Palmer for running ridiculous advertising messages promising taxation and other reforms that will be undeliverable and sometimes just pure mathematical fantasy. However, the popularity of the party seems to indicate that fiction is more trustworthy than fact to the politically uneducated. There is clearly an element of Australia for whom Palmer has found a heartwarming, but perhaps fickle, kinship.
Are you listening?
The Australian Democrats
Recent events have brought the Australian Democrats back into my life, albeit from the distance of Twitter, however it seems that little has changed and that another split has unfurled.
While I watch and wait for the outcome I am reminded of this graphic that I hacked back in the day when the party lost key Senate seats and the final death knell was tolling.
V for Vendetta
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
And the war begins ...
Xenophon's head up his own arse!
The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.
An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.
Clima-facsism
its basis:
Fascism: A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion [Robert Paxton]
RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!
It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.
Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.
That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.
Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.
One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)
Dear Friends,
It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.
A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.
Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.
He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.
There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.
He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.
People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.
Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats
And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.
Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.
Cyber safety research may miss the mark
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
I am always right. Almost always
Unanswered questions like:
- When does my opposition to fundamentalism become, in itself, a form of fundamentalism?
- Can someone's freedom of expression impinge on my freedom from oppression?
- Can I maintain my integrity by compromising my position in a negotiation or debate?
"In politics you should position yourself behind what you believe in and articulate it. Then see if that's what the voters want, and if it's not what they want, well, that's democracy."I think we can adapt to this to a broader philosophy on life.
I have always maintained that I will never compromise my principles - my integrity is my self. Without it I am lost in a sea of expressionless and unconscious beings in a "follow me" world.
That does not mean I am fixed and rigid in my opinions and perspectives, though it may appear that way. I know that I must be open to new information and willing to adapt to the truth when it is discovered, for my principles are based solely on my knowledge and experience to date, which may well be flawed or lacking the right perspective.
One exercise that I regularly undertake, and highly recommend to everyone, is to take your beliefs, one at a time, and ask yourself simply "why do I believe this?".
Often you will find the root of your beliefs in some distant childhood memory that, when given an adult perspective, seems ludicrous, illogical or irrelevant. At that point it is time to reassess that belief in light of the present information and understanding.
Only at that moment of extraordinary capitulation can we say we have grown wiser. I look for those moments daily and embrace them with joy.
Fry on the Internet
“The internet is like a city - it has red light districts, all kinds of weird people, who want to con and steal from you, but my god, they’re exciting places to live and to be a citizen of it is a great privilege. Yet people are trying to control the internet like they would never dare with a city.”
Stephen Fry, Actor/Presenter/TechEvangelist
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
Coming Soon - broadcasting live to your desktop
The Billion Dollar Messiah
It is simply beyond irony.
An eye for an eye
Mahatma Ghandi
The three convicted Bali Bombers have been murdered by a vicious, third world legal system at the behest of ignorant and depraved public opinion.
This is a sad and disappointing day for anyone who holds justice high above and disparate from vengeance; for those who foresee the deep and dark ramifications of gifting martyrdom.
And all the while war criminals like Tony Blair and George W. Bush, who are ultimately responsible for the documented deaths of more than 100,000 (potentially closer to 500,000), continue to walk the Earth as free men.
Difference Between the Obama and McCain Tax Plans
Its not so much the difference in tax policy that is astounding ... its the fact that they actually include people who earn more than $2,870,000 per annum.
Who actually earns that kind of money and doesn't have a full time tax accountant to reduce their liability to zero through dodgy tax minimisation and avoidance schemes??
LOL
America's growing enemy
According to reports like this and this, Chavez is being too much like a Robin Hood for the US and international bank boys to just stand by and do nothing.
He has already taken back the oil & gas fields, now they plan to ramp up production and hit foreign companies with a 50% tax on excess oil profits.
He also plans to nationalise the cement industry as well as the Argentinian controlled steelmaker and even take measures to ensure that the people of Venezuela have enough food for the future - no way!
And in the back of his mind is still the plan to introduce a Tobin styled tax on financial transactions.
How will they stop him? Rumours of impropriety? Another coup? Acts of terrorism? Assasination? Here's a start.
But there is also the growing concern about who should be the local sherrif of this region of the world. Perhaps The South American Defense Council?
At least that might explain why Venezuela and Brazil are spending big on arms. (Does anyone know why Greece is at the top of the list of big spenders?)
But despite all this, Chavez does appear to have some interesting friends ...
Belarus
China
Iran
Maybe it is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
And if that isn't enough to make you at least question the US stance on Venezuela, try reading the works of Eva Golinger, namely The Chavez Code and Bush vs Chavez - Washington's War on Venezuela or start by reading this review.
Of course, you are also welcome to ignore this and simply take the view that Venezuela deserves everything it gets for its socialist, anti-American, communist-loving, anti-semitic, Simpsons-hating philosphy.
The Other War
Now we know that the USA has used the "War on Drugs" to great effect in achieving its goals in Central and South America. So what would happen if the USA ran up against a rebellious state telling the local sherriff to nick off?
Well, one side would naturally have to make claims of a worsening trafficking problem to highlight the ineffectiveness of the insubordinate regime:
Cocaine Finds a New Latin American Home.
Take particular note of the "tracked" routes (see image below) used by traffickers ... one could easily be led to think that the Dominican Republic is one VERY tripped out place with all the drugs going there, but not seeming to leave! Not to mention that the drugs don't even seem to originate in Columbia anymore either.
Apparently the White House knows where the drugs come from (Venezuela) and knows where they arrive (Dominican Republic) but somehow loses track of them after that!
However, it is also quite evident by these "tracks" that the drugs are not going through any of the usual Central American countries anymore, which must, of course, be due to the incredible success of the long-standing partnership with the US Drug Enforcement Agency ;-)
Of course there's always the other, less popular or politically convenient, side of the story, which boldly claims that Venezuela Boosts Drug Seizures, Arrests Triple.
Now, they can't be both right, can they?
Given the USA's track record on propaganda, I'd bet my Aussie dollar along with a few thousand overinflated Bolivar against the dirty greenback anyday!





