Pharoz moves to WordPress

This blog has been moved to WordPress at the address http://www.7gs.com/pharoz

My old posts have been copied over so that some of them could be categorised in the new blog.

At the moment there are over 500 posts in this blog, and it would help to have some way to organise these posts.

Blogger is an excellent service for people who are starting with blogging, and it is so easy to use.

Intelligent design = "God of the gaps" at Larvatus Prodeo

Intelligent design = "God of the gaps" at Larvatus Prodeo

The Intelligent Design debate is becoming interesting. Mark at LP dicusses a wider context for the ID take on science and religion. There are also a couple of links to an article in The Australian by Paul Gray, who in turn links to an article in The Tablet by George Coyne SJ.

Perhaps a note on the term "God of the gaps". Gaps in our knowledge - to be mechanically filled with default concepts from dusty books; or a more immediate experiential kind of recognition of a gap between our concepts and whatever is present to us.
There is an idea that we can never fully know through words or concepts - like a fractal image with no end to the detail. Language games that we can share with each other.

Are concepts heuristic? And if they are, what are the boundary conditions to bring the conceptual recursions to an end - are they social actions, within the context of the learned language games and the 'grammar' of social interactions within a culture? What are the edges or boundaries for concepts? Within ideologies concepts do impact on people's lives and the physical world.

[Fundamentalists usually imply a correspondence relation between words and things - when experience doesn't work out as expected devils suddenly arise - "God of the gaps" is most unwelcome!]
Haven't studied epistemology, but I think that this is what the culture wars are about.
...

This post might not seem to make much sense.
There seems to be something tautological about asserting the truth for a statement in isolation, without somehow acknowledging the many social language games that the statement can play a part in, over many times. In the initial sections of Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein pointed out that the meanings for words can be found in the social USEs of those words. This would also include relations of power.

Concepts as TRUTH is a USE of language; where perhaps the most important use is social relations of power. Deconstruction - but recognising the USE of language is not the same as endorsing relativism or nihilism as an alternative to conventional notions of knowledge. Don't know if that clarifies these ideas or not...

Tough on crime in the UK - Opinion - smh.com.au

Tough on crime in the UK - Opinion - smh.com.au

Interesting article. No doubt our security agencies will be making the case that we need even more and more laws, like these in Britian, to sure up the anti-terrorism legislation.

And we needn't worry. An article from News Ltd in the last week told about a graduation lecture by the boss of ASIO telling the new recruits not to abuse their new powers. Be nice, he told them, and that should be reassuring for us all. He said so, so nice they will be.

No political bias. Sounds nice that does. Criticising immigration policies is political, when in fact it is just a matter of law; as just one example. No political correctness, if you please.

Law and order: write up your laws to order. Its not about politics, just law and order.
...

I usually like to couple the idea of the rule of law with the idea of human rights. I think that the two have to work together for there to be some sense of justice.

It is a common complaint against the western countries that the law and human rights are treated separately - the law is used to financially cripple developing countries, while aid agencies come in to clean up the mess later, if at all. This is not justice.

A quote on a post at LP about neoliberalism in South America targets the rule of law as a tool of oppression. The rule of law without human rights can also be oppressive at the micro domestic scale - as the linked article about ASBO laws in Britian shows.

Justice in International Affairs is becoming recognised as an important topic. But my experience is that the dominant paradigm in the field is one of authoritarian governance, which is one of the causes of the injustice, in my opinion. Westerners don't understand why people in impoverished countries might sometimes tell them to shove their handouts. The 'unwanted' indeed! There is so much more to this topic to discuss...

Crisis-torn politics on the wild side - Michelle Grattan - Opinion

Crisis-torn politics on the wild side - Michelle Grattan - Opinion:

"Crisis-torn politics on the wild side
January 1, 2006
Michelle Grattan reviews the impact of our most turbulent political year",

1975.

Odd article for the first day of 2006. Wonder if this year will be a wild one too. We'll find out before too long, rest assured.

Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade - Online Opinion

Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade

"The debate about creationism and intelligent design (ID) is more than a debate about whether or not God did it.

The issue of evolution is but one dimension of a broader Christian agenda concerned as much with theocracy as democracy. Evolution has been on the periphery of Australian church concerns until the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) injected new life into the debate.

While commentators noted that CCC had met with Brendan Nelson and other politicians, and that following those meetings and his support, it would begin distributing thousands of ID DVDs into schools, little information was given about CCC."

Follow the link above for the complete article.
...

And so ends 2005
Happy New Year for 2006!
I hope that things go better this year...

A King's Court or a PARLIAMENT

One of the questions that has the ALP (and perhaps also the Democrats in the USA) perplexed is how to take on the neo-cons, and project a progressive vision of politics and themselves to the public. The public have to also see this vision as an alternative that they would be willing to support, and that they can see and understand is being in their personal best interests. This blog has been about trying to express some ideas that might help with this project.

To put it bluntly, my opinion is that when ideas once again gain currency in politics, then we will see a viable alternative to the neo-cons: namely public policy based around reason.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, but the neo-cons personalise politics - they attack the person, and try to turn debate about policy into a debate about 'values'.

Christian values are an oxymoron! I thought that the very actions of Jesus described in the New Testament was about the difference between professing values and acting hypocritically, compared with an ethic of the primacy of compassionate actions over whatever blabbering 'values' we make a show of worshipping like idols. ACTIONS speak louder than words! Christian values are not about values! They are about the primacy of ACTIONS!

How can a bunch of people who abuse human rights and violate the rule of law claim to be Christians? That's not just a rhetorical question. Those people can claim that they are upholding 'Christian Values'. Suddenly these self-styled Christians become like the very people that Jesus was railing against in the New Testament. Their relationship with their God is similar to the worship of an idol! They are not Christians! Christian values are an oxymoron!

'Values' politics doesn't work.

BlahBlah

This file has been on my website well before this blog was started, and a few posts are linked to it. So it isn't new, and some people may have already seen it before. Still, by posting it here I don't have to keep it on my website. Some of the ideas have evolved a little since this was written.

"Some rambling thoughts about individuals and states
5 March 2005

I have written an outline for a new model for an Australian Republic. Naturally, one of my concerns is a theoretical political model of how individuals and the state interact. My academic background is in the sciences, and I must say that I am very surprised that there does not seem to be an adequate model for a liberal-democratic state, that I am aware of anyway. How would you know if you had an adequate model for liberal-democratic politics?

Context

Individuals understand themselves and other people through narratives. We talk about ourselves and others in a context of stories.

States are driven by the collective efforts of millions of people; through taxes, elected representatives and a public service that acts on behalf of the government and state. States should, by contrast, be understood through policy.

I take as a basic assumption about politics that the power that a state can muster far outweighs that that is available to an individual. Checks on the power of a state are necessary to protect individuals from arbitrary abuses of that state power. The horror stories of the twentieth century are largely a result of countries being controlled by groups of people without regard for individuals. In totalitarian states there are usually some kind of perceived enemies of the state, but really the categories that people are lumped into is, to a large extent, arbitrary; whatever the label used. The effects can be horrific.

One of the founding principles for states is the separation of church and state. In the past much of someone’s identity was tied to the church they belonged to. That bond is not so strong today, but we still identify ourselves with communities that we feel we belong to.

That brings me to the role of the media in politics. We see people on television, in our living rooms, and talk about them as if we know them personally. We all have opinions about the different personalities; from royalty, politicians, terror suspects to rioting youths. We react to the images on TV as if the people involved were with us in our own living room. Being caught on camera is to open ourselves to mass judgment in a situation where we have little control, and possibly within a public perception that has next to nothing to do with reality.

The problem we have now is that politicians jump into that artificial world the media creates, and rather than just comment on events, they might use the state power they control to arbitrarily bend the rules – as if they were dealing person to person with the newsworthy issue. But the difference in power is overwhelming and onesided. Even as these politicians go on about morality, law and order, they are neglecting their one duty to use state power impersonally.

To repeat: the difference in power between an individual and the state is overwhelming. The liberal-democratic tradition has instituted a collection of checks on state power to protect an individual. You may not need that protection today, but you wouldn’t want to be at the mercy of the state without redress. Civil rights are important.

A Model for politics – reinventing the wheel and stating the bleeding obvious

A basic template I would like to use is the way that science works. Politics is not science, that’s true, but we can still learn about the structure of science and see if this can be used to understand politics.

Basically, a scientific researcher knows their field, and has some novel ideas that he or she wants to test within that field. He or she then does the work to test the ideas. They need to work on the assumption that the idea can be tested, at the least; and at best that the idea will work. The researcher is driven towards a preconceived goal and anticipates introducing the results into community if the ideas prove to have merit.

The scientific community reviews this work but can not prove that any theory is true. They can disprove a theory or find a better way to explain the same phenomena.
While being skeptical of any preconceived goal, the scientific community depends on researchers reaching for their preconceived goals.

The basic structure is that individuals pursue their stories with vigor, yet collectively the accepted body of knowledge is only reluctantly and carefully changed, and only if there is good reason to.

Separation of Church and State

If a person finds inspiration from their faith – Great. If their conviction leads them into politics to work for the good of others – Fine. If that person then tries to impose their faith on others in some kind of conviction politics, then that should be good for them… what’s right is right, right? – Wrong! Very bad move. Bad Pollie!

‘Church’ gives us meaning and places us within a wider story. It’s about our personal stories in community. This foundation to ourselves is probably very difficult to pin down precisely. It does not necessarily have to be religious or based around nation, but it is deeply felt. It’s about what we instinctively think is proper, the myths we live by; but this differs from person to person. Emotive terms such as “queue jumpers” or “people who throw their kids into the water” work on this level and can be very manipulative of the community.

‘State’ is the space within which we, with our stories, interact with each other. It’s a collective space governed by law and tradition, so that we know what to do and what to expect. Policy is the main tool for directing the state. Policy should ideally be based on the rule of law and human rights simultaneously. It is through impersonal policy that the state gives individuals the space to pursue their own stories and associate with whomever they like. There are many different layers and structures between the state and the individual where local initiatives can be realized so as to help communities. The words ‘state’ and ‘individual’ are social constructions that enable us to live freely within our communities. We all are born into our community and have biological parents. We all have our own stories.

The separation of church and state is a long standing principle for modern states. In the twentieth century, when the people controlling a state decided to change this principle so that the state favoured one section of the community over another section, the state tended to turn nasty and brutish. Some of the worst horrors of the last century could be attributed to the breakdown of the principle that the ‘church’ and state should remain separate. States exclusively in the service of rigidly defined subgroups are dangerous. Again, this is obvious. The remedy, as I see it anyway, is to focus on individuals, each with his or her own stories.

Mutual Obligation – a sense of reciprocity

So if the state and the individual are related but qualitatively different, how do they interact so as to maintain each other’s integrity?

Again, to sound simplistic, in a liberal-democratic state the state is there to help an individual live their life as they see fit, to the extent that they do not harm others. This is a crude paraphrasing of John Stuart Mill. Where there is conflict, there are a number of institutions to regulate social behaviour, such as the courts or the different levels of government. There is nothing new about this.

The point I want to make is that mutual obligation between the state and an individual should on the one hand be about the state giving the individual the opportunity to do as they see fit, while allowing the individual the right to have a say in the public institutions that act to constrain excesses in action. Without understanding all of the philosophical implications of raising the topic, perhaps this sense of reciprocity between the state and an individual goes towards building a social contract.

Totalitarian states

Does this model go some way to explain what happens when a state fails to uphold this sense of reciprocity, and instead exercises arbitrary power through the use of force or the threat of the use of force?

What if this liberal-democratic order is inverted? [KEY POINT - in totalitarian states the relationship between the state and individual is the inverse to that relation in a liberal democratic state - KEY POINT] The group with control of the state is free to do as it wills, while the rest of the population is forced to live within narrow regulations as in a police state. The leaders go on and do their silly dances and solemn walks, while anyone daring to question the arbitrary rules risks being imprisoned or killed.

One more point here. Philosophical liberals are traditionally skeptical of democracy. I think that the reason for this is that they fear what is called the tyranny of the majority. Democratic elections could be used merely as a method for an oppressive regime to claim legitimacy for their regime. True democracy is more than just having elections. People, by their nature, have their own stories and their own goals. The political system has to have room for individuals, apart from its well fed leaders and sidekicks, if it isn’t just going to be a Mickey Mouse Fan Club democracy. Smile!

Traditional Liberals and the State

OK. We always hear the mantra that a good state is a small state. Presumably with less state services and hence less taxes, individuals will have more freedom to do as they please. Frankly, I do not think this argument works. It might have worked a couple of centuries ago, when the Rambo school of medicine was the accepted norm. Today our society is incredibly more complex. The full costs of services like proper health care and education are simply beyond the reach of most people. The state has a role in providing good quality services to everyone in society. An individual, if he or she is to be free to pursue their own goals, will need to access services that they cannot afford personally. In return we all pay taxes, and are equally free and encouraged to pursue our own stories. I think the key is that the state needs to be open to feedback from the community. This is through the media and political debate, and so on.

Another thing about traditional liberalism. It was at one time a movement to take political power from the landed aristocracy and into the hands of people with financial power. They won that battle, but times have changed. Freedom today is not only for the wealthy, and the pursuit of freedom is no longer only about being socially upward mobile. Yes there are the so-called aspirational voters out there but there are also many other people with other concerns and wishes.

Conclusion

My university training has been mainly in the sciences. When designing databases it makes sense to model your data on the actual things that you are trying to model. Politics has many definitions, but I think that it has something to do with how we organize with each other so that we can live socially. One common approach is sociological. People are conceptualized as statistics and categorized in all kinds of ways. I’ve never met a family with a child number 2.3 but you never know, maybe one day. It seems obvious to me that people understand themselves and others through narratives.

Being denied much of a say in how we live our lives leaves many people with strange priorities that are easily manipulated. In the federal election before the last, many people voted in an attempt to have some control on the kinds of people who come into Australia. The refugee debate was out of all proportion. But it came down to a simple calculus. I have next to no control in my immediate world, but I can have some control in who comes to Australia. In the last election it was about interest rates. Who cares about truth in politics when my little castle, the only space where I can have a say and do as I please, is under threat.

Who can we approach to gain some more control over our own lives, if our pride allows us to? The political parties? The political leaders or politicians? The media? Watching one of the topical issues of today and the Werriwa region, the riots in Macquarie Fields, the message we hear from the angry people is to be given some space and respect from the authorities and especially the media. They are mourning. I realize that once a riot is in play the police have no option but to contain the disturbance.

Finally, one word we hear from political leaders is that the electorate is ‘disengaged’. Don’t fool yourselves fellas. You’re the ones who are disengaged. I think there is a lot of anger in the community. We are not being given a say, and the political class simply do not want to listen. ‘Governance’ is for gaols. My model for a Republic is an attempt to defuse the situation and restore a sense of reciprocity between government and the people. You have heard of mutual obligation, haven’t you?"

Finetuning a republic - Opinion - smh.com.au

Finetuning a republic - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"If there is a widespread view that Australia should become a republic and if codifying the residual powers of the governor-general - who would be the president - is difficult to the point of impossibility, then a process of judicial review might be a tenable way in which modern Australia could achieve the republican goal."

No - there is another way. The Copernican Models solve this problem by replacing the Queen with an elected Australian, while keeping the Governor-General. The elected head of state in this republican model would NOT BE IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE THE RESERVE POWERS. An appointed Governor-General would continue to act as he does now. The issue of an elected Head of State with the reserve powers is not a problem with this model.

WILL A JOURNALIST PLEASE WRITE ABOUT THIS MODEL, SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO KEEP CHASING OUR TAILS LIKE A FRENZIED PUPPIE EVERY TIME THE REPUBLIC ISSSUE IS RAISED.

Yes I sound like a whinger - but for crying out loud - does someone really have to splash out with half a million dollars just to advertise an idea that just seems to be an obvious angle on the republic issue, and that would elegantly solve many of the perceived problems. For even admitting that there is another option? Do ideas have any currency in politics or the media, at all?

Flatterese

Perhaps flattery is the currency of the political class at the moment. It would explain alot. It would explain how they stick together and say the same kinds of things, regardless of fact or reason, and it would explain why outsiders are locked out. But - flattery only works if it is taken to be sincere! Flattery called for what it is becomes an insult to the people who are usually blushingly uplifted.

The Dorothy Dixers in Question Time in Parliament are a classic. Man those backbenchers beam when a minister commends them on being able to read that little teaser that was handed to them. Flattery - the only party spirit allowed.

Another point along this line is that for the people who buy into the flattery, they would see it as a contrast between being positive and optimistic, or negative and pessimistic. They don't want to hear people carping about what is wrong. Yet, and this is in science as well as for public policy debate, public politics aught to be concerned with avoiding pathology - and this means being critical and going after the facts. Individually we each strive for what is best, but collectively we need to guard against the abuse of power. Tyrants take their personal good to be also the public good, and misuse their power accordingly.
...

So what if we start to paraphrase the vacuous flattery so that it is clear that it is flatterese?

Truth, Justice and The American Way
has given way to
Lies an' thuggery as the neo-cons hold sway

The cult of the Thuggees

Travellers beware the friendly stranger who lays on the flattery, lest that stranger become a strangler...

The Australian: Ross Fitzgerald: Putting the free back into speech [December 29, 2005]

The Australian: Ross Fitzgerald: Putting the free back into speech [December 29, 2005]:

"Rather than regulating, obstructing or banning individuals from the promulgation of unpopular ideas or from using supposedly offensive words and utterances, we should be encouraging widespread discussion, examination and debate so those ideas can be criticised and, if necessary, repudiated.

Any attempt to exercise political control over presumed knowledge and the expression of belief is reprehensible in any supposedly democratic society. The same applies to the suppression or banning of any speech and criticism, no matter how ill-informed we believe those ideas or utterances may be.

This is why it is crucial that creationists and proponents of intelligent design, as well as revisionist German historians and local white supremacists, also be afforded their entitlement to speak, as long as they do not commit or cause physical violence.

If we are passionate about the free flow of ideas, inquiry and utterance, we must resist the banning of any speech forms, no matter how contentious or unpopular. Aborting ideas is far more dire than aborting fetuses."

There seems to be more at play at the moment with the neo-cons. They want to assert their worldview, which they admit is opinion, but sort of through force.

Intelligent Design is nonsense, and it doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable public scrutiny. But by forcing its inclusion in science classes in school - it sort of tries to turn science into an opinion poll. Which theory do you like best - IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT FACTS OR REASONS. This is just so wrong.

In science, the customer is NOT always right. It's not about how some spoilt brats, who are used to a diet of junk food in glossy packaging, feel after taking up their attention for a few minutes on some topic. There is something insidious happening with the way the neo-cons are attacking truth. Science is not about uninformed opinion.

ID might be a suitable topic for a sociology, or philosophy of science, undergraduate class on ideologies and power - there it may be a good lesson about pseudoscience. But it might confuse highschool students about science because of the implied message that the teaching of ID in school would introduce - that science is about uninformed and partial opinion [which it is not].

There was an interesting article in the weekend Age on The making of meaning. It contained a reference to Plato's dialogue Gorgias - which is mainly critical of rhetoric and empty political discouse [mere flattery for those who buy into it - but try telling that to RWDBs].

Another issue is a free Press and an open media.

And I would like to add that public debate about the merits or otherwise of Intelligent Design is completely consistent with freedom of expression; but forcing schools to teach the unproven, more likely disproven, theory on religious grounds is not about freedom of expression. It is about ideology and power, within a wider context of the so-called 'culture wars'. [And as stated above, ID may even make a good topic on courses to do with ideology and power]. Whether this systematic neo-conservative attack on truth constitutes a form of violence is debateable; as is the topic of when and how that boundary from free public debate to forced coercion is breached.

A new chapter in the death of the book - Opinion - smh.com.au

A new chapter in the death of the book - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"Libraries and publishers are up in arms about Google's latest venture, writes Peter Martin.

YOU will find this hard to believe if you are spending this week in the sun dipping into and out of your favourite book, but the very idea of books is supposedly under attack. That's what the book industry says in two lawsuits filed in the Southern District Court of New York, one from the United States Authors Guild, and one from the Association of American Publishers.

Amid talk of 'embezzlement' and 'rape' they allege a 'massive copyright infringement' of the type they say will do the authors of books 'irreparable harm'.

In the dock is the search engine company Google, and it is indeed orchestrating a revolution in the way we get access to the printed word - the biggest revolution since the introduction of the photocopier.

Right now in the Oxford University Library, the New York Public Library and the libraries of three US universities, staff are busy removing books from the shelves row by row and loading them onto trolleys for delivery to special centres where their entire contents are scanned and loaded into a computer.

When Google is finished in six or so years it expects to have on its files the words of some 32 million books - just about every book ever written in the English language.

Google describes the end result as a gigantic card index, but it will be much more than that. No card index has ever allowed you to find books by searching the words within them. The clunky terminals in libraries now do little more than allow you to search the first words of the titles."

It sort of sounds like a good idea, but I can't help thinking that in some time when everything is digital, it may be possible to modify texts Orwellian-like. When you consider how these neo-cons are going about changing the meanings of words such as 'elite' and 'freedom' and so on, and here in Australia the history wars have seen these neo-conservatives trying to rewrite history, especially to do with indigenous peoples, you would have to build in some sort of distributed verification system to ensure that it would not be possible to alter digital texts from only a limited number of centralised hubs. This would possibly be more important than replicating the texts themselves. Just scanning the texts is not enough in this political environment, and may be dangerous - looking back at these times from fifty years or so in the future. Perhaps librarians and archivists already do that.

PM's Christian reflection - World - theage.com.au

PM's Christian reflection - World - theage.com.au:

"The industrial laws of the last century were not designed to cope with the needs of a modern economy.

Nor were the laws of the last century designed to deal with the modern terrorist threat.

The measures we have put in place have clear objectives: to keep the economy strong, and the nation safe.

One buttresses the other. You cannot have one without the other."

Scary statement. Shackles for both feet
...

"Unfortunately, we have also seen some Australians at their worst. The Cronulla riots were both shameful and sickening. Ugly violence can never be justified.

There might be a role for all levels of government and for police in resolving the tensions which led to the riots, but there is also no doubt that parents and community leaders have to play their part.

As disturbing as the scenes of the riots were, there were encouraging signs amongst both Muslim youth and leaders, and members of the surfing community, of the recognition that we must learn to live together, to respect one another's customs and religion.

Governments can frame the laws, police can enforce them, but it is up to individuals to exercise tolerance, and to families to reinforce community values and standards."

In other words, there is no such thing as society. Community values are held by individuals, and the only social grouping apart from the state that we will allow is the traditional family. [Corporations hold together to make money, so they don't count as a social grouping - besides workers do what they're told or they're out on their ass.] Unions are illegitimate, non-profit NGOs are illegitimate.

"It has been an extremely busy political year, but this is the time to reflect on Christmas and its meaning.

Of all the influences which have shaped Australian life, none has been more profound than the Judaeo-Christian ethic.

We respect our secular tradition. We respect the religious beliefs of others. But we do not deny our own beliefs as Christians, and the contribution of our beliefs to our values and those of our society.

Christmas is the time to renew our friendships, and cement our bonds with our families. And to think of those who are less fortunate than ourselves."

In Bush's second Inaurguration speech these less fortunate people were called the 'unwanted'. Our society, by definition, shares our beliefs - that there are individuals and laws that they have to obey. If you want freedom, you can buy it! So shut up and work...

Church sermon tells of Bethlehem's dark past - The Canberra Times

canberra.yourguide:

"Church sermon tells of Bethlehem's dark past
G Downie
Monday, 26 December 2005

Bethlehem, the gentle place of the baby Jesus's birth, had another meaning, another tradition not nearly so celebrated in carols or story, senior minister of the Canberra Baptist Church Jim Barr said in his Christmas sermon.

It was in Bethlehem King Herod had feared a rival to his power, even a tiny newborn baby.

'We are given no details, but all the boy children under two years of age in the town were murdered ... This is the other Bethlehem tradition: of children suffering violence at the hands of rulers in the interests of grand political schemes, children killed to protect the interests of established power, or allowed to die because they did not matter in the great scheme of things.'

The Bethlehem tradition could not be avoided at Christmas.

"Is Bethlehem only the place of silent streets and dreamless sleeps, the comfortable setting for the nostalgia of the crib and our warm family Christmases?" It was all this for which God was thanked. "But Bethlehem is also about the screams of murdered children and the crying of bereaved mothers, and the sad farewells of all refugees who set out upon the road or across the sea."

These echoes should be heard at Christmas, finding a place in devotions and prayers for the forgotten ones, all who lived with violence and displacement from their homes and the arbitrary exercise of state power."

New Year's Day 2006 to be late - World - theage.com.au

New Year's Day 2006 - delayed by a second - World - theage.com.au:

"Get ready for a minute with 61 seconds.

Scientists are delaying the start of 2006 by the first 'leap second' in seven years, a timing tweak meant to make up for changes in the Earth's rotation.

The adjustment will be carried out by sticking an extra second into atomic clocks worldwide at the stroke of midnight Coordinated Universal Time, the widely adopted international standard, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology said this week.

'Enjoy New Year's Eve a second longer,' the institute said in an explanatory notice. 'You can toot your horn an extra second this year.'

At midnight (11am AEDT), atomic clocks will read 23:59:60 before rolling over to all zeros.

A leap second is added to keep uniform timekeeping within 0.9 second of the Earth's rotational time, which can speed up or slow down because of many factors, including ocean tides.

The first leap second was added on June 30, 1972, according to the institute."

Blink and you'll miss it - one of those special moments in time. Who knows for how much longer the standard for time will be adjusted to match the wobbly rotation of the earth. Strange gait that - one leap two

Merry Christmas!

Nicholson Cartoons : Christmas shepherds abiding media



Cartoon by Nicholson of The Australian, from two years ago: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

The Australian: Forces to relax entry rules [December 23, 2005]

The Australian: Forces to relax entry rules [December 23, 2005]:

"AUSTRALIA'S military may soon be led by overweight officers with poor eyesight and asthma under a radical proposal to tackle a recruitment crisis within the Defence Force.

The army, navy and airforce are considering plans to relax eyesight and weight criteria for officer recruits in an effort to fill recruitment quotas and accept more of the 10 per cent of applicants who fail on health grounds."



Cartoon by Nicholson of The Australian: www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au

...



Cartoon my Alan Moir of the Sydney Morning Herald

...but if you're looking for a job, the thin red line could do with a little fattening up...

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Drawing of the scarecrow from the 1st edition of the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900.

It sort of makes me think of April Fools, as in - the joke that is being bandied around by authoritarians. Hellfire sermons to scare the crows, and sugarwater fantasies of heaven for those who go along with it all.

The pre-christian Celts used to also live in a kind of dreamtime - as in myths and legends were real to them, not just abstract stories. We can't understand what this would have been like in our modern times.

The pagans knew what was going on, even if they were powerless. And many of their festivals are still celebrated today, and are still subversive in a way.

Make up your own mind, or make up your own stories. That's how it works...

Critics on the wrong track over racism - Opinion - smh.com.au

Critics on the wrong track over racism - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"It is unwise to draw Australia-wide conclusions from the social disorder in parts of Sydney. What is at issue here is criminality - not the existence of widescale racism or the failure of multiculturalism."

I agree. What I am pointing out when I wrote that there has been a failure of political leadership is exactly the failure of our political leaders to at least consider the so-called 'war on terror' in terms of criminality, rather than as solely a 'clash of civilisations' or other variations along that line of neo-nonsense. Gerard Henderson's statement that is quoted above points to a more rational approach to dealing effectively with terrorism, in tandem with the more militaristic options.

Compare how very small numbers of violent terrorist INDIVIDUALS are characterised in broad social terms - in terms of a religion, or ethnicity, etc. This talk by our political leaders stigmatises the whole ethnic community, rather than the radical and violent fringe dwellers. This can also inflame hatred within the wider society towards those minority communities - dogwhitle politics -which might lead to even more conflict, etc.

Yet, when we have thousands of people in a MOB that is energised by racial fears, our political leaders talk about criminal actions of individuals.

Let's have some consistency here.

Another point is that the police locks downs like we have seen in the last week may be needed in extreme situations, but they are not a long term solution to these problems. The state does have the monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but the essential point about democracy is that democracies work because of citizens' CONSENT to the way that they are governed. The failure in political leadership in these times is a failure to work for democratic mechanisms to solve political problems - rather than the kneejerk lunge for the guns.

Sydney is also a very divided city, even when I was growing up there in the eighties. There is a lot of mutual hostility between the western suburbs and the affluent beach suburbs, even without bringing racism into the mix. Mark Latham, in my view, perhaps embodies some of that western Sydney resentment and maybe his private school policy was expressed too strongly in Sydney class conflict terms, even if the principle of adequately funding all schools is a good one; just by way of an example that perhaps illustrates the hostility in Sydney between the eastern and western suburbs, although it is not usually politically correct to talk about it [Howard pretends to be a battler's friend].

Australian party mascots: any ideas?

The Americans use donkeys and roosters(!) as symbols for the Democrats, while the Republicans use elephants and eagles as their main symbols.
How would we characterise the major Australian political parties? Donkeys and, um... strawmen? Lost somewhere along a yellow brick road, somewhere in the national capital...
[And early every morning, earnest and ever eager, our intrepid Prime Minister powers through the walkways and byways, in unrelenting search for the allusive _what'sitcalledagain_ ]
...

You know 'Strawman' as in Scarecrow:
The main thing that they have to offer the electorate is FEAR - fear of foreigners, fear of refugees, fear of terrorists, fear of interest rate rises, fear of landrights, etc, etc
They use old and outworn economic theories to try to give them a semblence of respectibility - like old ideas that lowering taxation and a smaller state directly increases an individual's freedom - like old clothes filled with lightweight straw, to spell it all out.
They are leaving Australia out in the weather of international finance and trade - blowing around in the wind like a scarecrow on a pole - in a whole swag of different ways from FTAs, IR changes, being overly reliant on primary production such as mining, etc, etc.
Yellow brick road - Wizard of Oz - Strawman/ Scarecrow - geddit?
Its a symbol - old clothes stuffed with straw and stuck out on a pole in the middle of a field to scare crows away... Lightweight, no substance, painted smiles, only ability is to frighten and induce fear - imaginary presence...

New laws biggest Xmas threat: Beazley - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

New laws biggest Xmas threat: Beazley - Breaking News - National - Breaking News:

"New laws biggest Xmas threat: Beazley
December 18, 2005 - 5:29AM

The biggest threat to Christmas is John Howard's industrial relations laws, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says.

Mr Howard has called for department stores to show courage and bring back nativity scenes, not just Christmas trees.

Mr Howard, calling for Christ to be put back into Christmas, said he regarded with contempt those who downplayed Christianity during the festive season in case it offends the non-religious or people of other faiths.

Mr Beazley told Macquarie Radio, he could not recollect seeing a nativity scene around Parliament House.

'I would say this to John Howard and to the Australian people about it (Christmas), the biggest threat to Christmas in this country is John Howard's extreme industrial relations law.

'If we have any sort of economic downturn, people are going to be losing their penalty rates, and they're going to feel embarrassed when they go and ask their bosses for Christmas off and they've got no legal protections on that.

'As regards nativity scenes, I don't recollect seeing one around Canberra at all.

'I can tell you what though, there is one on my Christmas card.

'I bought a beautiful icon in Istanbul when I was there for Gallipoli and it's a lovely picture of Madonna and child and that's on my Christmas card that's going around this year.

'I think it's important to have nativity scenes, it's part of the spirit of Christmas.'

During Mr Beazley's interview, a caller rang Macquarie radio to say the large Christmas tree that had stood outside federal parliament last year had been sold.

'If that's so, that's a tragedy,' Mr Beazley said.

© 2005 AAP"

Those economic rationalists will flog anything they can get their hands on; but I'm sure they could find a few donkeys and plenty of hay kicking around somewhere near Parliament House.