Live and let live

I've come to a recent conclusion that it is hypocritical for us to
condemn churches for taking their stance on homosexuality within their
jurisdiction, whilst at the same time telling them to bugger off out
of our own private lives.

If a church honestly believes (and can convince its parishioners as
much) that homosexuality is an abomination, that priests should only
be male, that the end of the world is nigh, that tithing is good, that
pork is bad, that we should all be vegetarian, or that the Vatican is
not the whore of Babylon, then by all means let them do it.

Anyone willing to be part of that culture also willingly assents to
being discriminated. If individuals want change they have to change it
from within. It is none of our business. It has nothing to do with
wider society. They are free to teach and preach that the earth is
flat for all we should care.

On the flipside of the coin, the relevant religions should leave the
gentiles, heathens, pagans, infidels, atheists, agnostics, witches,
and liberal believers well enough alone. Let us live the life we
choose.

Interfering in religion is as much a form of vilification as religion
enforcing its moral standards on the rest of the community.

Who cares what the Anglican, or any other, church thinks? It is only
our own insecurities that they attempt to weaken by preaching our
wicked damnation. Why should we preach to them in the same tone? It
achieves nothing but makes them stronger, just as their vitriole makes
us stronger and more determined.

It is as pointless an exercise as debating the 'cause' of
homosexuality. While we waste resources on things we can't change it
leaves us with fewer resources for the things that we can change.

ALP drowning in internal backlash

News headlines are often harshly, even brutally, blunt. Perhaps it is more to do with the necessity of brevity rather than the need for newspaper sale sand ratings. Even so, today's conglomeration of one-liners must be giving Mark Latham and the ALP a mild headache, if not a gut-wrenching migraine.

Latham's incredible shrinking front bench

More than the rest, Tanner's retreat rattles insiders

Latham confident despite resignations

Fresh blow to Latham as MP joins exodus

Latham's front bench in turmoil

Chaos in ranks threatens leadership crisis

The exodus from the front bench of the ALP's shadow ministry started with John Faulkner (Senate Leader, State, Public Administration and Accountability), Kim Beazley (Defence, and former leader), Annette Ellis (Ageing, Seniors & Disabilities), Craig Emmerson (Workplace Relations, Public Service), Bob McMullan (Finance, Small Business), and now Lindsay Tanner (Communications, Community Relationships) have all taken a seat on the back benches.

Classic lines from the Sydney Morning Herald include:

First Mark Latham lost the election. Now he is losing his front bench.

Mark Latham is putting a brave face on the ever-increasing numbers of experienced people who are deciding against serving in his front bench.


Labor's leader always wanted to rejuvenate it and promote new faces. Now he has to.

"This is now a problem," one senior operator said last night - as if all that had happened in the previous week was not.

Even ... the former prime minister Gough Whitlam, has conceded that the party realistically needs two terms to win.

Although at this stage there is no realistic threat to Latham's leadership, the party is edgy, unhappy and unsure.

Meanwhile the rest of Australia is either underwhelmed or under sedation!

[+/-] show/hide this post

Balance of powers between States and Commonwealth

There is a silver lining to the Coalition's recent victory. It seems that we may get a more reasonable separation of powers between the Federal and State Governments, if a proposal by NSW Premier, Bob Carr, is given some legs by other State leaders and Howard.

Reports today stated that Carr has offered to trade powers with Canberra in order to "tidy up" overlapping policy areas such as health and education.

It has long been my belief that the Federal Government is best placed to handle a wide range of public services, including health and education. In this regard, whilst I applaud Carr's initiative, I don't think it goes far enough.

Health and Education are two policy areas that should be uniform across Australia. As such they are best managed by the Federal Government. The benefits are enormous.

In the area of health it would mean full integration with the Medicare system and uniform standards of health care across the nation. Medical staff would be on equitable employment terms as their counterparts in other states, thus reducing the drain of resources from states like WA.

As for education, it could provide a seamless transition for students from early childcare through to tertiary and post-graduate education. It would make it much easier for itinerant families and those migrating between the states. Uniform standards of education would eliminate the confusion between grading systems and allow teaching staff wider opportunities for promotion and self-development.

In both cases the it is the clients (patients and students) especially that would reap the benefits of a standard system. However, the resulting centralisation of 9 or more separate bureaucracies for health and at least a further 20 or so in regards to education is ultimately a big win for reducing the size of government and the related budget.

Additionally if this were to be extended to other areas of controversial powers it could only enhance the working relationship between the States and the Commonwealth. An example of this are Federal laws that have been implemented under s51xxix, External Affairs, of the Constitution to specifically over-ride State laws.

Finally, the ultimate benefit to the general public and the States (but a possible negative for the Commonwealth) is that the buck can no longer be passed between Canberra and the States. There's only one government to blame if things don't improve. I like that idea the best.

Of course, the devil is in the detail and I'm sure there are many factors that need to be considered, fought out and won or lost before we get anywhere near enjoying the fruition of this dream.

The voices in our heads

If Armageddon is nigh, I believe we will only have the religious zealots to blame. Which is doubly ironic, considering my agnosticism!

From the Canberra Times today, I read a posting in "Your Say" that sparked a worrying realisation about how fragile our future might be with the increasing popularity of fire and brimstone preaching. The posting stated:

Much more scary than Jesus

Max Smyth - Sunday, 17 October 2004

Graeme 'Godwhacker' Gibbon, our resident 'Get Ready Man', let me tell you about something far more frightening than Jesus H Christ's second coming, that thing nutters have been obsessed with for 2,000 years.

I am truly scared that the dimwitted Godwhacker President of the United States is going to win a second term. This could happen next month - not 2,000 years off. Wanna see him fry humanity in the Armageddon he believes is inevitable and within his control?

It heralds a stark realisation that we have in our midst (and increasingly among our elected representatives) people of the firm belief that the world as we know it will soon end and that unrepentant sinners will face eternal damnation.

These people are not merely forewarning of impending doom, they are actively working for, and rejoicing in, the approach of that day. They WANT Armageddon, they pray for it, they live for it, and they are willing to die for that belief.

Strangely, we are not talking about a Jonestown cult. These are everyday citizens of Australia and across the civilised world. Yet their strange and morbid fascination with the final days is commonly accepted without so much as a raised eyebrow. Why?

We laugh at the image of the disheveled vagabond with his sandwich board heralding that "the end is nigh", so why do we give more credibility to millions of bible-bashing church-goers? Is it safety in numbers? Is it because they wear shoes and dress neatly and have a home to go to each night? Does a particular level of hygiene bestow great gifts of respectability?

As an agnostic leaning towards atheism, I won't get into a debate about the truth of "The Word" - its just too subjective. Besides, biblical debates are emotive, not rational. Instead my rant today is more about the double standards we set and the implications for world harmony.

If I claimed to speak with 'God' on a regular basis, and that he told me what to do each day nobody would over react by sending for the straight jacket and booking a room at the local asylum. And if you are the President of the USA, well, that just makes your actions even more credible, being the work of God and such. Only the Pope and the President of the USA could get away with dropping a bomb and claiming it was God's will. A Moslem would be seen merely as a terrorist.

Change the perspective slightly and claim that you speak to some dead Swedish blacksmith from the 14th Century, who tells you what you should do each day, and many people will start to question your sanity. The dead guy has a lack of credibility, whereas God (as long as it is the Judeo-Christian monotheistic god) has ultimate credibility, at least within the relevant nations.

Moving into a Buddhist, Hindu or other polytheistic society may provide a similar acceptance of holy conversation. However the point is that religion is given far too much credibility when used to explain motives or rationale. I believe it tends to be an improper excuse or defence.

At the risk of losing the argument under Godwin's Law one only has to look at how Hitler brandished such extreme power under a Christian banner. The Crusades of old are no different to the Jihad of today. Same objective just different weapons. Is it any different for the leader of a nation, especially one that prides itself on the separation of church and state, to claim fortitude and a mandate under God?

What then does this say about the modern rise of a Christian theocracy? How is that political forces, like Family First, can rise out of religious fundamentalism to encroach on the separation of church and state by enforcing their conservative values on a secular society?

And why is it that they can hide behind a deity for all manner of acts and claims. Speaking in foreign and non-existent languages, miracles that claim to defy logic, healings that usually have little proof, conversations with apparitions. When excluded from a religious setting all of these would normally result in a psychiatric assessment of the individual. Religion is its own protector.

If traditional religion is immune from objective scrutiny and reality, should we begin to fear what the future may hold with these doomsayers making decisions of global importance. Should we worry that the man with his finger on the red button talks to voices in his head and believes that only Christian nations are good nations.

Should we especially be concerned that the people who most want the four horsemen of the apocalypse to ride across the earth are the very same people that are vying for more power in our parliament. The very same people that may, someday, have to choose between averting or starting World War III and potentially causing worldwide nuclear extinction.

Given a choice between languishing in this earthly existence or assisting in the fulfillment of holy prophecies by precipitating Armageddon at the press of a button, what would a zealous Christian do? Of course, they've already thought of that ... hence the reason for the third anti-Christ.

No matter what the non-believers and pagans think, Christianity will always win. Even if there is no god and no after-life, world destruction vindicates them. And as long as life continues, they continue to work and wait for the second coming.

Meanwhile those of us who are trying desperately to improve our mortal lot have to put up with their lot. There really is no justice.




[+/-] show/hide this post

Pedant musing

Does anyone else see the irony of this picture from the Sydney Morning Herald? Or maybe I'm just a little too pedantic this morning!

It shows Sam Statham surveying his family's certified organic vineyards at Rosnay, Tasmania.

We would hope that the motorbike is at least running on unleaded petrol, if not some form of low-pollutant bio-fuel.

Star Blog #3 - Coaching!

All my Star blogs have moved to here

This post can now be found here.

Political Tautology

It never ceases to amaze me what lengths some people will go to in order to convince themselves (primarily) and others of their thinking and/or to position themselves in such a peculiar niche.

Take this website for example:

Progressive Conservative Foundation

"A 'progressive conservative' is socially and fiscally conservative, but is progressive in problem solving. However, a progressive conservative applies conservative principles to the progressive ideas utilized to solve problems. Generally, progressive conservatives are Republicans, but can come from various political groups. Progressive Conservatives have a Christian Faith."

I mean, honestly folks, where is the reality?

Ok, lets be fair and ignore the obvious tautology of the name and the irony of the acronym (PC) for now. We'll look at this for what it represents.

What I'm really astounded at is the uber-conservative restrictions placed on the oddly progressive notion that one could be progressive in solving problems whilst only applying conservative principles from a Christian perspective.

Geometrically it would probably resemble an amorphous blob (progressive) trying to escape the boundaries of an immovable and equal-sided quadrilateral (square conservative). *grin*

You've got to give the guy credit for trying, but he has lost before he even starts.

Its like a hare and tortoise rematch, where the tortoise gets to use rocket roller skates (speed limited to 1km/hr) and the hare can start a day earlier and gets an alarm clock to wake him up! In the end it is the same race and the tortoise will still win!

But gee, these GOP variants are good for a laugh, eh?




[+/-] show/hide this post

World Wants Kerry to Beat Bush!

Well, that was the headline from the Sydney Morning Herald, but I'd hardly call 10 countries being definitive of the world. Then again, the USA thinks the world consists of itself and a handful of annoying little countries.

Similar (they say identical and then contradict themselves) polling was conducted among 10 nations in mid-late September to gauge public opinion toward the upcoming USA election.

Regarding the opinion toward the USA, only Israel went against the trend of negativity with 40% of respondents having an improved attitude towards the USA compared to 28% who had a worse opinion. Other results were Canada, 64% had a worse attitude compared with 70% of the French, 45% of Brits, Japan 74%, South Korea 67% and Australia 54%. The SMH failed to report the result from Russia, Spain and Mexico.

Other results from the survey indicated strong support for Kerry; that the USA had too much influence on international affairs; and a consistent opposition to the War in Iraq.

The full report is copied below.

World wants Kerry to beat Bush

By Michael Millett, October 15, 2004 - 9:35AM

The US President, George Bush, is encountering growing international hostility to his campaign for a second term in the White House.

A remarkable collaborative polling exercise, undertaken by leading newspapers in 10 countries across the globe, has highlighted strong opposition to the Bush re-election campaign.

While the findings have no direct impact on the US election - the poll excludes the Americans whose vote really counts - they show the Bush Administration is struggling to secure popular support for its policies outside American borders.

The hostility is directed not only at the White House: the image of the US itself appears to have suffered collateral damage. This is despite the fact that most of those polled believe in the US alliance and declare they are not anti-American.

The ambitious exercise, initiated by Canada's Quebec-based La Presse, required the 10 project partners to run identical polls in mid- to late September to gauge public attitudes towards the US election on November 2.

The Herald, which commissioned its regular pollster ACNielsen for the exercise, is the first paper to appear with the results in print under Friday's co-ordinated publication date.

Across most of the countries surveyed, including Australia, opinions towards the US had deteriorated over the first Bush term.

Only Israel, lockstep with the US in terms of foreign policy objectives and delivery, ran against the trend. Forty per cent of Israelis surveyed said their attitude towards the US had improved over the past two or three years. Twenty-six per cent said their view had soured.

This contrasts with the response elsewhere. In Canada, 64 per cent said their attitude had worsened, France 70 per cent, Britain 45 per cent, Japan 74 per cent, South Korea 67 per cent and Australia 54 per cent.

The souring view is directly linked to public dissatisfaction with Mr Bush, mainly over his prosecution of the Iraq war.

In all countries except for Israel, majority opinion remains firmly against the US-led war. (No specific question on Iraq was asked in the Australian exercise.) In July, a majority of Australians (55 per cent) said the war was not justified, down eight points since May.

The strongest opposition to the war was in South Korea, Mexico, Spain and France.

This anti-war mood appears to feed directly into an international preference for John Kerry, the Democrat challenging Mr Bush for the presidency.

In eight of the 10 countries taking part in the poll, Senator Kerry is rated the preferred winner, with huge margins in France, Canada and Spain. Only in Russia (52-48) and Israel (a more decisive 50-24) is Mr Bush the preferred winner.

Senator Kerry benefits from being a relative unknown. In Australia, respondents were less likely to express an opinion about him (a 37 per cent "don't know" response compared to only 4 per cent for Mr Bush) but there were more people with a favourable rather than unfavourable opinion of him.

If Mr Bush was re-elected, 40 per cent of Australians surveyed believed the international state of affairs would worsen. Eleven per cent believed it would improve and 45 per cent believed it would stay the same.

While the appeal of the US has faded of late, Australians remain strongly committed to the relationship. Seventy-two per cent had a favourable opinion of Americans; 22 per cent had the opposite view.

Almost three in every four believed it was important that the US play a leadership role in the world and 92 per cent said it was important Australia maintain good relations with the US.

Four of the project countries asked whether the US had too much influence on international affairs. The results were emphatic: 86 per cent of Canadians, 73 per cent of Britons, 66 per cent of Mexicans and 87 per cent of South Koreans answered yes.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Norwegian Club Med

Clearly some of the world's population, even that of highly educated and mostly civilised Europe, seem to be lacking basic cognitive intelligence.

In this particular example Norway's Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Svein Ludvigsen, is probably in need of a new job (or at the very least, a new advisor) after suggesting that seal hunting would be good for tourism.

That guy needs to have a few more holidays of his own ... the long summers and winters of Scandinavia have finally killed off too much grey matter!

P.S. just think what they'd do to Antarctica!!

Maintenance

No, this isn't a story about child support or alimony!

Regular readers of this little blog may have noticed that we've had a fresh splash of paint and some remodeling. I prefer the new template and hope you do as well. It is all for the better and to make your viewing a bit more pleasurable. So sit back, relax, have a cuppa and let me tell you a bit about it.

Firstly you will notice a new option (show/hide) at the end of each posting ... go on ... click on it!

See ... that wasn't too hard eh? The reason for this change is that I felt that some of my posts were getting lost on the front page and in the monthly archives because of the general length.

This new functionality compacts the page a bit more, allows you to get a gist of the posting and decide whether you want to read further. All without navigating away from the page. See .. it pays to read the Help files in Blogger :-) [P.S. you can do the same thing with the comments!]

The second change is that I have replaced the horrendously long Archives list with a simple drop down menu. Another space saver! Check it out under the Previous Posts in the sidebar.

Thirdly, I've got all the sidebar sections listed under Features so that you can click instead of scrolling for ages. I hope that helps!

Finally I've removed the Iraq Body Counter from the top temporarily as it was too cumbersome. I will test a few other options and hopefully replace it with something more compact and aesthetic.

So, what do you think? Let me know if you like the improvements and please offer your ideas on improving it even further. Thanks for reading!

[+/-] show/hide this post

Taupin says it better

I regard Bernie Taupin as a great lyricist, and combined with Elton John's musical talent, I believe they make the best songwriting duo of modern times.

I'm no match, but I do like to put things down on paper .. .here's a reflection of one of their greatest hits (copied at the end of the posting).

Sometimes,

when the words won't come out right,

try as one might,

When you know what you want to express,

but the tongue can't stress

And your mind can no longer handle the chore,

pleading and screaming "Enough! No more!"

Sometimes,

in that moment of stark revelation,

under numbing sedation,

When there is no pardon or excuse,

just a simple word to choose

you finally realise the need for humility

in a sublime, teary-eyed, soliloquy

Sometimes,

at least how it is commonly referred,

sorry seems to be the hardest word.

[CM 2004]

Bernie Taupin says it better ...

What have I got to do to make you love me

What have I got to do to make you care

What do I do when lightning strikes me

And I wake to find that you're not there



What do I do to make you want me

What have I got to do to be heard

What do I say when it's all over

And sorry seems to be the hardest word



It's sad, so sad

It's a sad, sad situation

And it's getting more and more absurd

It's sad, so sad

Why can't we talk it over

Oh it seems to me

That sorry seems to be the hardest word



What do I do to make you love me

What have I got to do to be heard

What do I do when lightning strikes me

What have I got to do

What have I got to do

When sorry seems to be the hardest word



[Music by Elton John, lyrics by Bernie Taupin.

© 1976 Big Pig Music Limited]

A fairer election

I belong to a few Yahoo groups. It is still a good way to get a flow of discussion and timely replies (blogs aren't quite as useful). A lot of my bloggings are derived from discussions on these groups. Here's another one, this time on the subject of the record number of postal votes received at this election (bear in mind that it was school holidays!):

Here's my version of a better election:

The AEC should distribute election packs to every registered voter. They should include ballot papers, a precis from each party/group/independent, a simple explanation of how the voting system works, and copies of the Senate registered tickets.

The many benefits to this system would be:

• voters would have time to educate themselves on policies rather than personalities and propaganda.


• it would drastically reduce the number of impromptu votes (those that still haven't made up their mind by the time they get their name crossed off the roll


• public funding of candidates could be dramatically reduced, if not totally eliminated.


• all election advertising can be banned (shock horror!) or have significant restrictions.


• the AEC's resources could be transferred from staffing polling booths to managing a team of collectors similar to the those used for the Census, and/or accepting postal returns.


• pseudo-coercive activities, such as offering transport for the elderly, would be eliminated.

and much much more.

Of course, there's millions of reasons why this will never happen ...

• millions of dollars in advertising revenue for the media,


• millions of dollars in revenue for printers,


• millions of dollars in revenue for PR agencies and consultants,


• millions of dollars in slush money (public funding) for the major parties,


• a million or so undecided votes that swing with a HTV on the day.

:-)




[+/-] show/hide this post

Uninformed, uninterested or ignorant?

I spoke with my father on the telephone last night and cautiously asked him how he voted. In my family politics (for me at least) is an act of tightrope-walking on a razor wire above a pit of flaming lava with a swarm of bees attacking my head!

His reply made me sad and I feel a failure for not providing a better education for my parents!

It wasn't the fact that he voted for the Libs in the lower house ... my parents are typical swinging voters and I'd never chastise them for actually having an opinion, even if it does stand against my own values and everything I have worked hard to support.

No, what made me despondent was the reason he gave for voting above the line in the Senate.

He said he was concerned about the Libs having control of both houses of parliament, so he voted for "the opposition ... I can't think of his name ... you know, the Nationals guy".

Gob-smacked!

How many other voters must think the same way? There's a real need for voter education. Unfortunately most of them aren't interested enough to care.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Family First success rests with Democrats and ALP

It is no shock or surprise to many people (other than the Democrats and ALP) that Family First are close to winning at least one seat.

I hope that I will lose my bet with WA Democrats Senator, Brian Greig, and that FF do not obtain a single seat. But regardless of the outcome I believe that the fears that I, and many others, raised have rung too true. We are, unfortunately, vindicated.

The Democrats and the ALP should be suitably ashamed. I note that many ALP members have noted their mistake. The Democrats, especially Andrew Bartlett, remain ludicrously defiant.

It is all well and good to preference minor parties ahead of the ALP and Libs for the sake of self-preservation and support for democracy (in encouraging wider representation), but a degree of sensibility should have prevailed. It didn't.

The only way that One Nation were thwarted was through preferences. The only way that Family First can be defeated is by the same mechanism.

The Democrats and ALP were caught up in their own self-interest and refused to heed the many warnings that Family First would be a significant force. The Democrats clearly were ignorant of their own political demise (something I have been warning about for more than three years, and fighting against up until the end of last year) and the abilities of Family First.

However, I am also beginning to see the silver lining on these dark clouds.

With the conservatives having control of both houses Australia will face a certain political shift away from small 'l' liberal philosophy. I hope that, in turn, it results in the true liberals and lefties combining forces to oppose the conservatives.

That means nothing less than a multitude of miracles.

1. The Dems and Greens cease their idiotic divisiveness and tit-for-tat rivalry.
   
2. The Dems can regroup and, after much soul-searching, return to its strong principles and re-engage with its disaffected membership and supporters. (I'm ready if they are)
   
3. The ALP realise the better judgement of supporting a left-leaning base, rather than flirting with religion for short-term benefits.
   
4. All three parties learn and commit to support each other over the next three years with the express purpose of regaining control of at least one house of parliament, if not two.
   

These minor miracles are going to rest heavily on the Democrats. They need to shape up or face being shipped out, in 3 years time, to a desert island by way of a political 'Pacific solution'.

It isn't too late for the Democrats and it isn't too late for our community to fix the problems that have led to this predictable disaster.

I'm predicting a massive grass-roots revolution on the left to counter Australia's flirt with a conservative theocracy. Which party(ies) will be the beacon(s) of light through this new political phase? I dare say the Greens will be one. I hope that the Democrats and ALP will also heed this new call.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Latest Senate analysis

My latest analysis of the Senate:

SA 3 LIB, 2 ALP ... final seat likely to be ALP, but may go to Family First (touch and go)

WA 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN ... but it came frighteningly close to the CDP (fortunately the Dems preferenced the Greens ahead of CDP)

TAS 3 LIB, 2 ALP, The last spot is going to be a tussle. It will come down to whether FF can get a flow of preferences ahead of the Lib's remainder. If they do it will be a fight between them and the Greens (FF marginally ahead). If FF are eliminated before the Libs then preferences will flow to Shane Murphy and he will likely get ahead of the Greens. So either way I'm guessing FF or Murphy. The main issue is that the ALP have preferenced both FF and Murphy ahead of the Greens.

QLD 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN although it could just as easily go to Family First or One Nation. Very dicey.

NT & ACT are both 1 each, naturally.

As for VIC & NSW ... it's late, I'm tired, I'm calling it a night. Too much misery for one day.

The Tally - As it Unfolded

Here's how I sawe things unfold with the election today.

At 4.30pm (GMT +8) I logged into the ABC election coverage and was aghast at what I saw. Although only 1.6% of the vote had been counted (and primarily in Tasmania where polling closed first) the Liberals had a phenomenal lead gleaned from a 5% swing in their favour and a 2% swing against the ALP (matched by a similar swing to the Greens).

By 6pm when booths were closing in WA, and with 30% of the vote counted, the tally had become a little more even.

PARTY	% OF VOTE	SWING
			Liberal	40.7%	+3.2
National	5.9%	+0.3
Labor	37.7%	-0.2
Greens	7.2%	+2.3
Democrats	>1.4%	-3.9
One Nation	1.1%	-3.2
Others	6.0%	+1.5

It is abundantly clear that the Coalition has gained from the demise of One Nation and that The Greens are reaping additional votes from dissafected ALP and Democrat votes.

On a Two Party preferrred basis the AEC website was showing:

Liberal/National Coalition	1,411,158	53.61	+2.10
Australian Labor Party	1,220,962	46.39	-2.10

Clearly a Coalition win was imminent from the onset.

A sad, sad, day for Australia.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Australia Votes

Today was a historical election for me. It was the first time I did not give the Democrats my first preference in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. At the 2001 election the Democrats got my primary votes, but their lead Seante candidate (and sitting member), Andrew Murray, was relegated to final position behind the lowest of lows.

It is a sad state of affairs that has led me to vote against the only party that I have ever supported. And long-term readers of this blog, as well as my friends and associates would be aware of the reasons for that decision. I am hoping that things will improve in coming months and years so that I can return to supporting them.

Let me explain how I voted.

I confess that much of it had more to do with emotion and retribution rather than good political strategy. My apologies to the AEC staff who have to count the convoluted votes of crazy citizens like myself. I've done it once before and it is a bit of a nightmare.

I have always advocated voting below the line for the Senate. That means numbering every box (in WA that means all 40 candidates). This year I decided to take a tip from Crikey and a couple of other sources by using my first preference as a hip-pocket protest.

Rather than vote for a candidate or party that was likely to attract at least 4% of the vote (and thus attract substantial public funding of $1.92 per vote) I sent my first preference to candidate number 40, Jim Jardine (The Great Australians). That in itself has saved the tax payer just under $2 and made my vote enjoyable (at least in my bitter mind). And, yes, it WAS a wasted vote from a tally perspective - but who cares. Move on to the next prteferences.

My second to seventh preferences went to the two ungrouped independents, the unnamed Group A candidates, Citizens Electoral Council and Liberals for Forests. Call it a charitable gesture on my part. :-)

To be fair, openly gay Democrats Senator and long-time rights activist, Brian Greig, received my ninth preference ahead of Rachel Seiwart (Greens), who received my tenth spot and the other Green candidates gained the 11th, 12th and 13th places. I wanted to be sure that Brian got a fair shot at retaining his seat. I wouldn't want him to lose by just one vote, knowing I could have made a difference. If it wasn't for the Democrats he would have easily received my 1st preference.

You may have noticed that I skipped the other two Democrat candidates. I did this because I honestly couldn't support them. The Democrats third candidate, Jason Meotti, had the privelege of being numbered 40, in last place behind even the CDP and Family Fraud!

Preferences 14 through to 23 were allocated to the remaining candidates except for the ALP, Coalition, Family First, One Nation and CDP.

The ALP (26, 25, 24) came in ahead of the Nationals (28, 27), One Nation (30, 29), Liberals (34, 33, 32, 31), Christian Democratic Party (37, 36, 35), and Family First (39, 38), with Jason Meotti taking up the rear. I numbered all of these candidates in reverse order of how they appeared under their party name - more hassle for the AEC workers, sorry!

As for my House of Representatives vote:

3	Nikki ULASOWSKI	Socialist Alliance
8	Augustine LOH	Christian Democratic Party
6	Marie EDMONDS	Pauline Hanson's One Nation
7	Alexander LAWRANCE	Liberal
4	Ray BRADBURY	Australian Democrats
5	Stephen SMITH	Australian Labor Party
2	Ross Herbert RUSSELL	Citizens Electoral Council
1	Alison XAMON	The Greens

All in all it will be interesting. I'm glued to the PC (haven't had a working tv for a year now) as we speak watching the updates come through on the ABC and the AEC websites.

[+/-] show/hide this post

Star Blog #2 - A Gay Wedding!

All my Star blogs have moved to here

This post can now be found here.

I agree with Howard!

Howard has a new catch phrase that he's been bandying around since his National Press Club Telstra Address yesterday:

There are still people out there who are undecided, I want them to contemplate if you do change the Government you change the nation.

Never wiser words spoken!


... so, this election, lets change the nation - for the better!

Pet Hate #1 - Blogspam

Here's my inaugural Pet Hate. While I know there's many more in the back of my mind, and even more to come in the future, this one has struck me while surfing the blogosphere in search of candidates for my list of Star Blogs.

It struck me that some blogs are simply a waste of bytes. The "woe is me", or the "I ate an ice-cream today" self-indulgent blogs are many. I'm sure they provide some use to the occasional unwary pedestrian blogger so, live and let live! I'm not going whine about the many infantile blogs that lack opinion, craft or knowledge and merely exist to pamper the egos (or lack thereof) of their authors.

What I do find exasperating are the blatant commercial sites that don't even try to hide the fact that they are not a true blog, but merely a mechanism for attracting high rankings in search engines.

Take netrefinancemortgage located at blogspot.com for example (I refuse to link to it). It lacks any original content, instead it provides 132 postings of exactly the same content, albeit with different headlines, linking to the same commercial website.

If you check out the author's profile you realise that they are serious opportunists with 24 blogs of dubious quality. Although this individual/company has only been "blogging" for two months they have managed to clutter the blogosphere with 2449 posts (as of today). That is an average of 452 posts per week!

Someone bring on the Blog police! Blogspam is bad news.

[+/-] show/hide this post