Pharoz

Pharoz moves to WordPress

2006-01-03T19:38:00.000+11:00

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

2006-01-02T17:34:00.000+11:00

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

2006-01-01T19:01:00.000+11:00

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

2006-01-01T02:01:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-31T16:29:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-31T15:36:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-31T14:49:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-31T02:10:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-29T16:31:00.000+11:00

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]

2005-12-29T02:50:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-29T01:49:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-27T15:36:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-27T15:27:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-26T20:57:00.000+11:00

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!

2005-12-24T14:46:00.000+11:00

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]

2005-12-23T13:39:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-23T12:34:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-20T22:35:00.000+11:00

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?

2005-12-18T22:53:00.000+11:00

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

2005-12-18T22:48:00.000+11:00

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.

If it wasn't such a serious topic...

2005-12-16T01:42:00.000+11:00

The Australian CARTOONS

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

Truthdig - An Atheist Manifesto

2005-12-12T02:01:00.000+11:00

Truthdig - An Atheist Manifesto:

"We live in a world of unimaginable surprises—from the fusion energy that lights the sun to the genetic and evolutionary consequences of this light’s dancing for eons upon the Earth—and yet Paradise conforms to our most superficial concerns with all the fidelity of a Caribbean cruise. This is wondrously strange. If one didn’t know better, one would think that man, in his fear of losing all that he loves, had created heaven, along with its gatekeeper God, in his own image."

There is also an interesting post at The Road to Surfdom on this article.

This is a discussion about how reason and faith differ.
I don't know if this works, but an idea on this is something like - reason works by establishing discrete facts, and perhaps mechanisms that describe how things change; while faith and narratives work by describing a continuity over time.

The concepts of birth and death, and the markers of a life such as marriage, etc, are usually understood as part of a continuity. Faith speaks to this part of being human. Religion and ideas of God reflect a belief or 'faith' in things continuing as they are - the idea of the eternal return and recurring cycles. And this conservatism would extend to our communities and society - nation, religion, etc. [The changes in our calenders are interesting in what they say about our societies at the times they were changed.]

Reason doesn't work that way. Reason works with discrete entities. We have a good understanding of science now, so we can now construct stories for mechanisms, and this might confuse the distinction between reason and faith. Good scientists are also good story-tellers; they can select and put facts together in a way that relates a story. A brittle O-ring on a cold morning that leads to a shuttle crashing during launch, for instance. But the details of establishing the facts are very different from the communication of those facts to a community. They might say that assuming continuity is common sense, but...

[There is also continuity in science. Conservation laws abound in physics, and we assume that physical objects also have some kind of identity that endures in time, even if it continually changes between different states, as with e-m waves].

The need for continuity, and for a self or soul that endures, may be psychological. Young babies initially have to learn about continuity. There is also the physical fact, apparently, that in about 7 years every atom in our body has been replaced - our bodies are more like standing waves or patterns for matter and energy to flow through.

My point is that reason alone might not be enough to satisfy our needs for continuity, and that 'faith' is an expression of that continuity. Dogmatic faith may not work either, given that our worlds are so interesting and constantly changing. Reason and faith work together, in my opinion, and they operate in different ways to each other. An interesting topic...

A symbol

2005-12-10T02:47:00.000+11:00

A basic idea that is presented in this blog is that faith and reason can co-exist. The reason of modernity - of the individual in the liberal democratic state, and our personal and social narratives are not really in conflict. One mathematical analogy is the idea of orthogonality in vector spaces. A two dimensional way to represent this idea is the cartesian plane - of if you want to be symbollic about it - like a cross. Left and right are independent of up and down.

One of the problems of today - one of the signs of the times - is an attempt by fundamentalists to render things one-dimensional. We see this with the Christian Right. We see this with the notion of Intelligent Design. We saw this with the old communism, and with some forms of humanism as well. Attempts to establish authoritarian types of 'democracy' are also one-dimensional. They try to set the parameters of what can be considered through 'values politics', and oppress or silence and marginalise any dissenting voices. It could be said that Christian fundamentalists have abandoned the way of the cross. Other religions and belief systems would no doubt have their own symbols that convey a similar idea.

People still need to believe and belong.
Hollow one-dimensional creeds only lead to people believing any kind of rubbish...

In the public interest

2005-12-08T15:25:00.000+11:00

I think that it is very clear that the posts on my blog are intended for the public interest. They represent a novel and new approach to issues and topics that do influence our world. Some people won't like these ideas, and they might even respond in characteristically authoritarian or violent ways. It doesn't change the ideas in the least - they can stand on their own, and they can balance the authority of those people who might want to deny this possibility.

Most people would not appreciate how our human worlds are shaped by myths, so they misunderstand what this shift in perspective is about. This egalitarian perspective is an organising principle that is larger and broader than the authoritarian perspective of the God-botherers. God-botherers, and their beliefs, are a sub-set from the perspective of this egalitarian approach, among many other sub-sets. This egalitarian perspective is superior to the authoriatian one both in mythical space and in reality - the theory with this egalitarian perspective can accommodate all three levels - individuals, society and liberal democratic state - in a peaceful way, and through maximising autonomy and freedom. It works, while the authoritarian approach can only be sustained through denial of reality and violently forcing a distorted set of lies onto the rest of the community.

Some changes

2005-12-08T03:04:00.000+11:00

I have just moved my personal website from 7gs.com.au to 7gs.com. The main reason was financial, but the new server will also support Wordpress.

I am not really acheiving anything anymore by posting to this blog. Smartarse short comments start to look puerile after a while; perhaps they always did. The next step would be to write articles that are more substantial and formal. I don't know if I can do that in my circumstances at the moment. I have been struggling financially since moving to Melbourne, as well as being isolated. It's been very stressfull. To keep up with a field of study you need to be working in that field or studying it. I would love to be studying these topics in a research degree, but don't see that happening.

I hope that anyone who took the time to follow this blog has found something of interest. There have been some original ideas presented, I think at least. Not much really that can be done now the terror laws are through, except find some crap job and pay off the creditcards. A country with potential - to shovel dirt. What a future.

And if we are lucky we'll still be alive once this is all over. Sounds fatalistic - its funny how the mob who rail against nihilism and relativism... just sick of it...

Might still comment in the future.

Anti-terror laws as part of the Culture Wars?

2005-12-07T23:58:00.000+11:00

Just asking a question about the anti-terror laws, and what context to understand them in.
We are expected to consider the anti-terror laws, that have been passed in the Senate yesterday, as measures that are supposed to prevent terrorist attacks - as in physical attacks. I don't think that they do much to that end, as noted in previous posts.

But could the anti-terror laws be seen primarily as legislative weapons in the Culture Wars?

The sedition provisions and control orders might actually be used to control the flow of information, and perhaps that it the main intention behind the new laws.
The war on terror is framed, by neocons, in terms of a clash of civilisation - sort of cultural, even if the neocons are not part of the culture that they pretend to be defending.
In Australia, perhaps most of Howard's new legislation - including WorkChoices, welfare reforms and the anti-terror laws - could be seen as part of Howard's cultural war.

The thing about the Culture Wars is that for the reactionaries, such as Howard, its about trying to rewrite history - and ultimately about denying reality. The Intelligent Design 'debate' also seems to be about a denial of reality. It is also about rejecting rationality and modernity, science and liberalism.

This possibility is almost too radical, and silly, to actually consider as a basis for much of the politics of these times. Perhaps we can only wait to see how the laws are used, and how things turn out over the next couple of years. But for such a project to be successful, they would have to maintain a state of cultural war for at least a couple of generations - and really lock down on the flow of information. It is nearly too silly to consider to be a plan for action.
Didn't express this idea very well in the post, just some vague ideas...

The rise of fascism as an easy insult - Opinion by Gerard Henderson- smh.com.au

2005-12-06T12:30:00.000+11:00

The rise of fascism as an easy insult - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"The word 'fascist' has become a cliched term of abuse. Real fascist societies, as in Italy under Mussolini and Germany under Hitler, had authoritarian regimes which possessed a state ideology enforced by terror or the threat of terror...

If the Government suffers over industrial relations, this will be because the legislation has had deleterious effects, not because of fascism. If there is a backlash to the national security legislation, this will turn on the fact that it has not worked, not because it's Stalinist. Despite the self-importance of some artists, the fact is they are not being targeted by Howard or the Labor premiers. In the war against terrorism, governments in Australia have more important priorities.

We will find out soon enough. For, unlike real totalitarian regimes, the so-called Howard fascist police state will go to the polls in just two years' time."

...with changed electoral rules, with a media that has become even more intensely concentrated than it is now [imagine news quality of the standard of The Australian editorials as the norm, with dissenting voices marginalised and managed], and after some of the most noisy unions have been listed as seditious 'terrorist' organisations after a few blokes threw a few punches in a rowdy 'illegal' strike. We all know how Ruddock understands the rule of law.

And you know what, Howard will easily win against a cowed Labor Party in 2007. Nothing to do with state terror, or the threat of terror... Nothing at all...

The Australian: Steve Lewis: A role for true liberals [December 06, 2005]

2005-12-06T01:36:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Steve Lewis: A role for true liberals [December 06, 2005]:

"While the Democrats resemble a political basket case at present, they are the best placed of any of the minor parties to re-emerge as a serious political force.

There is tremendous scope for a third force to emerge from the ruck and win over a vast number of voters disaffected with the main parties. But such a party needs an effective and passionate advocate for the cause, a charismatic leader with the authority to stir the soul.

Allison is not the one.

Confronted with this scenario yesterday, Allison countered that the Democrats had been 'cutting through' on a range of issues during the past month. And she argued that the Democrats had recovered some ground since she picked up the pieces from last year's electoral debacle.

Maybe, but Stott Despoja is the only one of the four remaining senators capable of delivering a broad message to the electorate, convincingly and effectively.

Not that she is without her faults. During her reign as leader, Stott Despoja spent far too much time looking over her shoulder and worrying about the antics of her colleagues instead of focusing on selling the Democrats' message to the punters. (Admittedly, she suffered from a lack of loyalty.) Whether Stott Despoja can be persuaded to return to the leadership is another thing.

The Democrats' only hope is to reposition itself as a centrist liberal party committed to human rights and to tempering the hardline economic reforms put forward by the Coalition.

Stott Despoja would have to drag the party away from any leftist tendencies, as espoused by the Greens, instead focusing on winning over voters unhappy with the main parties. It would be fertile territory in 2007 when the public will get the chance to express a view on the Coalition's junking of the parliamentary democratic process.

Leaving Allison at the helm, unfortunately, likely will lead to another electoral drubbing for the Democrats."

The Democrats could do really well in the next election - if they want to. This is one of those risky comments that might prove to be completely wrong. But I think that the electorate will certainly reward a genuine party of the Centre. The Dems still have a 70's feel about them though, but that's their business...

Costello's welfare - Opinion - theage.com.au

2005-12-06T01:08:00.000+11:00

Costello's welfare - Opinion - theage.com.au:

"The good news is that there are positive signs emerging in indigenous communities. Indigenous leadership across Cape York has sought to work to re-instil a sense of personal responsibility and reduced dependency on income support. Parents are being encouraged to save for their children's education [and who even in city battler suburbs can afford to do that???], to take the initiative to find work or start businesses and, most of all, to avoid welfare dependency.

I was struck by observations, from indigenous leaders, that a key to dealing with unemployment, poor health outcomes and low education achievement was to reaffirm the importance of the family, encourage parental responsibility and authority, promote strong values of work and reward for effort, with these moral guidelines supported by broad community endorsement.

In some respects, these are new ideas. In some respects these are very old ideas. These values and these approaches could be usefully applied in indigenous communities. They could be usefully applied in white communities as well. The work ethic, responsibility for individual behaviour, respect for authority, are all values that we need to instil in young people.

And where do these values come from? Most values are passed on to the young people through their family. There is no more important institution. After all, this is the institution that introduces children to the world, to values, to character."

This guy sounds like he has never tried any other types of bread other than fluffy sliced white bread from the supermarket. I wonder whether he noticed the rows of middle class family homes, and streets with trams, when he was wandering around in the bush.

Terror laws edge closer despite concerns - National - smh.com.au

2005-12-05T22:14:00.000+11:00

Terror laws edge closer despite concerns - National - smh.com.au:

"Terror laws edge closer despite concerns

The federal government has rejected a last-ditch bid by Australia's peak lawyer body to scrap new anti-terror laws which are set to be passed by parliament tomorrow.

The Law Council of Australia placed advertisements in today's national newspapers in an eleventh hour bid to stop police getting tough new powers to detain and control terror suspects without charge.

The Senate started debate on the new laws today and the government is expected to bring on a vote tomorrow.

Law Council president John North said the laws were flawed because they allowed people to be held without charge.

'There's no amount of tinkering with those laws that can save the badness of that particular law,' Mr North told ABC radio.

Sedition laws were too broad and restricted freedom of speech for journalists and the public, Mr North said.

'This law, if you look at it very closely, not only has the ability to not only curb free speech on behalf of the media, but to actually stop legitimate protests and other things because of the breadth they've drawn the law,' Mr North said.

Government Senate leader Robert Hill told parliament the council, which did not necessarily represent the views of all legal professionals, was entitled to comment, but the government stood by the laws.

'The government has responsibility to safeguard the Australian people - it's the primary responsibility of government,' Senator Hill said.

'It seeks to do that with the minimum loss of civil liberties but we recognise that in the extraordinary circumstances of effectively tackling terrorism sometimes it is necessary to make sacrifices.'

The government has agreed to refer the sedition section of the bill to an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission.

A previous critic of the sedition section, Liberal senator George Brandis, said government amendments would guarantee freedom of speech.

"In the existing Commonwealth Crimes Act ... there is no blanket protection of political speech, but there is now, that's the material change," Senator Brandis told parliament.

Opposition justice spokesman Joe Ludwig argued the section on sedition should be removed from the bill.

"There does need to be the greatest possible safeguards for political communication and genuine debate in Australia," Senator Ludwig told parliament.

Labor flagged a number of amendments recommended by a Senate inquiry into the bill, including a public review of the laws after five years, biennial reporting to parliament on the use of preventative detention orders, greater checks on police searches and better access for detained suspects to legal representation.

Australian Democrats justice spokeswoman Natasha Stott Despoja said the bill breached international human and legal rights obligations."

Why is the Labor Party supporting the anti-terror laws as they stand NOW? This in itself will become a wedge against the Labor Party. You have already signalled your support for appropriate anti-terror laws by passing the laws with the Government in the House of Representatives. The current draft of these laws is NOT UP TO SCRATCH - by any standard. If you continue to support them in the Senate AS THEY ARE NOW it will be the ALP that will be blamed if the laws are misused. You know how Howard works - we saw that on the Insiders program on the weekend and how he blamed Costello for recommending Gerard to the RBA Board.

Do the job properly - send the Bill back to the House with amendments. That will give us the best laws, and the best protections against terrorism and for protecting our civil liberties.

You know how Howard would use these laws. Why give them to him? You won't be able to stand there dumbfounded and say we didn't think that Howard would abuse these powers. If you pass these laws, and they are misused, it will be the Labor Party that will cop the blame. Imagine that leading up the the next election - wedged already. You look really stupid, no matter what happens with IR. Tomorrow - if you pass the laws with the Government...

There is absolutely no gain for the ALP by voting with the Government for the anti-terror laws AS THEY ARE NOW - IN THE CURRENT DRAFT. You already support the idea - and you want to get it RIGHT for the benefit of the Australian people - THE ISSUE IS THAT IMPORTANT!!! It should not be a half-baked rushed job.

After this week...

2005-12-04T23:57:00.000+11:00

Well, by the end of this week the anti-terror laws will be passed by the Senate into law, or they will be returned to the House of Representatives for review early next year. I think that there is no case to rush the laws through the Senate, and they already need to be reviewed as they stand now. They can do the job once, and do the job well: there is no guarantee that the anti-terror laws will be properly reviewed once they have been passed by the Senate - why would they want to water it down later.

You have to wonder why the elected representatives of a free country would want to throw their hard won freedoms away on a vain promise for security that can never be fullfilled.

Either way, whether the laws are passed or rejected by the Senate, I will be changing my tune after the end of the week, but for a different reason depending on the passage of the anti-terror Bill. If the laws are passed I think that our liberal democracy has effectively ceased, and this will be by the full knowledge and willing consent of all the parliamentarians. If the anti-terror laws are sent back to the House of Reps with amendments then it will be a clear signal that reason can prevail in parliament. In both cases I will be toning down my language use. In the first case through dispair, and in the second case by trying to focus on the merits of the reasons given to justify a particular policy or stand. [That's if anyone cares about what I write anyway...]

Perhaps you could say that I see things from a perspective that is upsidedown compared to the political orthodoxy. But who is standing firmly on the ground. Maybe we both are, and you could say that my perspective is from the antipodes. [Have you noticed how green and gold are Southern Hemisphere colours - Brasil, South Africa and Australian colours.] The traditional hierarchical political perspective is Northern [and monarchical], while the Southern perspective is more about being egalitarian. The coldest time is just before the dawn, but if the political paradigm does shift to become more egalitarian, perhaps a suitable geological analogy would be of the poles changing hemisphere. When the magnetic north pole moves from the earth's North pole to the South pole, and visa versa. I think that it has happened about six or seven times over the lifespan of the earth so far.

My language use has been pretty rough, but that was because I was really angry. There seems to be no way to get through to the political class, and I am not alone in this. I thought that they could not even justify their rhetoric and ideology, they don't attempt to, and possibly wouldn't be able to if they tried. And yet, their actions were systematically destroying our liberal democracy. What can anyone do? Either way, after this week that language will change.

Cartoon by Bruce Petty of The Age

The Australian: Michael Kroger: Danger of misunderstanding the nature of aspiration [December 02, 2005]

2005-12-02T14:38:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Michael Kroger: Danger of misunderstanding the nature of aspiration [December 02, 2005]

Yeah, and how do we best assure a collective future of prosperity?
United we stand, divided we fall.

Health, education, workplaces, etc etc - collectively we can satisfy our needs, but individually we may not be able to. I thought that that was the basic rationale behind taxation. Everyone pays a little, so that there are public services that are available to us should we have the need, or ability and desire in the case of higher education, to use.

The rule of law and human rights, and a democratic system where it is possible to have some sense of control over our lives without having to resort to violence or thuggery, are also part of this.

Howard is completely out of step on these issues. Liberal Party people just don't understand how precarious life can be for ordinary wage earners, without something to fall back on in rough times. The ALP is also out there somewhere, who knows where. The best thing going for the major parties now is public apathy.

Neo-liberalism is a fantasy. It doesn't work. It is based on a half-arsed model of what it is to be human. It does not allow for feedback systems that are not monetary - ie the civil society and the exchange of ideas. It posits that there is no such thing as society. It doesn't work. Over the last few decades we have been cashing in our Commonwealths, and this has led to an economic boom for some. But the disadvantaged groups of people that this has created will bite back one day, and neo-liberalism won't in time be looking like such a good idea - it dissolves the social contract that acts as a social glue. That's my rant for the day...

If this be sedition, make the most of it - Crikey Daily email

2005-12-02T13:51:00.000+11:00

Crikey Website

From today's Crikey.com.au daily email:

"3. If this be sedition, make the most of it

Crikey philosopher Charles Richardson writes:

Yesterday, in defending his proposed sedition law, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock issued the following challenge: "If somebody wants to tell me ... they are in favour of people being able to urge the use of force or violence to overthrow democratic institutions, let me hear from them."

Well, allow me to put my hand up. That's exactly what I'm in favour of. And it's what I think anyone who believes in free speech should be in favour of.

Not that I am generally in favour of people exercising that right, and certainly not that I personally support violent overthrow of the government. But in a free society, those who do believe that it is justified should be free to avow that belief: to encourage or to "urge" violence, up to the point where it becomes incitement to a criminal act.

Incitement is more than just "urging," it involves the immediate likelihood that a crime will result – in the American formulation, a "clear and present danger." That is the point of Mill's famous example:

An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer" (On Liberty, ch. 3).

Mill, as usual, is right. But contrary to what the government would have us believe, its proposals are not designed to stop incitement – the law already does that. The sedition laws criminalise the expression of opinions, even when there is no prospect that anyone will act on them.

The attorney-general either doesn't see the difference, or doesn't care. But supporters of a free society should care."

I fully concur. The emboldened paragraph is my emphasis.

And what does Ruddock say is there to protect a Free Press? Why, a promise that he would act in GOOD FAITH! Schucks! That settles it for me...

Arts take hit in university culture wars - Opinion - theage.com.au

2005-12-02T02:21:00.000+11:00

Arts take hit in university culture wars - Opinion - theage.com.au:

"Arts take hit in university culture wars

The humanities are being sidelined in the rush to turn our universities into job-skill factories, writes Michael Osborne.

NEVER has an affirmation of the significance of the humanities and social sciences been more urgently needed than now, as a tide of economic rationalism threatens to engulf universities. In the 16 years that I have served as a university vice-chancellor in Australia, I have seen a distinct change in the public perception of universities from one that regards them as slightly remote places predominantly devoted to learning to one that sees them as essentially functional enterprises, expected to make money and to train their inmates to do so too.

This view has gained strength and credibility as the result of an increasing disposition to link university education directly to employment and to the needs of the workforce — in other words, to envisage universities essentially as passport offices for jobs. Such a view is, I believe, quite widely embraced and its growing popularity is not in the slightest diminished by the occasional protestations of interest in the humanities and social sciences on the part of government officials or other luminaries.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson has recently rejected a number of research projects, all reportedly in the humanities and social sciences, despite the endorsement of the expert peer review group established to evaluate them.

The inescapable implication of this functional concept of a university is that humanities and social sciences are to be regarded as, at best, a luxurious irrelevancy, at worst as an excuse for irritating and inconvenient criticism of government policies. Many of us, of course, regard such a view as abhorrent, even deplorable, but unfortunately silent gnashing of teeth and lamentations are not potent weapons for effecting a change in public attitudes."

Not even pulling out your own hair seems to attract too much attention these days...

There are many good points in this article. Generally there has been a decline in academic standards, and even with the spirit of enquiry that you would expect in universities. I found that vocational training took precedence in some of the humanities departments as well - to do with International Relations for instance - and this can distort the perceptions and understanding of future actors in systematic ways.

Like, we are doing this all for Democracy, but shut up and do what we say because we know what's best for you - or we'll bomb the shit out of ya! That's the IR vocational guide to Democracy and Freedom.

Time to slip the grip of our Windsor knot - Opinion - theage.com.au

2005-12-01T15:40:00.000+11:00

Time to slip the grip of our Windsor knot - Opinion - theage.com.au:

"Time to slip the grip of our Windsor knot

By Nicola Roxon
December 1, 2005

Today, I am joining senators Mitch Fifield from the Liberal Party and Natasha Stott Despoja from the Democrats to launch a new cross-party group: Parliamentarians for an Australian Head of State.

The goal of this group is simple - to provide a non-partisan and cross-party forum for MPs who support having an Australian as our head of state, to play an educative role and to maintain the issue on the constitutional agenda.

So let's address this head on: is there any institution more at odds with the Australian sense of a fair go than a hereditary head of state?

Australia prides itself as a meritocracy: tolerant, non-discriminatory and open...and I think we are a friendly enough mob to spend time with."

Well, that thing about being a meritocracy...

Suppose that you can't knock such an initiative now can you, as they say - its the thought that counts...

Cartoon by Moir in today's Sydney Morning Herald

And this one in The Australian

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

The CIA uncovers a secret: how to look things up on the internet - Technology

2005-11-30T01:34:00.000+11:00

The CIA uncovers a secret: how to look things up on the internet - Technology:

"The CIA uncovers a secret: how to look things up on the internet

November 29, 2005

Not everyone in the intelligence agency derides publicly available information, writes Susan Glasser.

THE CIA now has its own bloggers. In a bow to the rise of internet-era secrets hidden in plain view, the agency has started hosting weblogs with the latest information on topics including North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il's public visit to a military installation (his 38th this year) and the Burmese media's silence on a ministry reshuffle. It even has a blog on blogs, dedicated to finding useful information in the rapidly expanding milieu of online journals and weird electronic memorabilia on the net.

The blogs are posted on an unclassified, government-wide website, part of a rechristened CIA office for monitoring, translating and analysing publicly available information, called the DNI Open Source Centre [Scary link removed]. The centre, which made its debut this month, marks the latest wave of reorganisation in response to the failures of intelligence collection before the September 11, 2001, attacks."

That's surely only one side of the coin. Keep an eye out for the partisan rants that look suspiciously professional. Opinion makers, movers and shakers; boxing those shadows and spreading rumours. Its all in a days work for some...
[Don't look at me! I come up with some genuine new and original ideas.]

Govt exploiting terrorism fears, Fraser says. 29/11/2005. ABC News Online

2005-11-30T01:12:00.000+11:00

Govt exploiting terrorism fears, Fraser says. 29/11/2005. ABC News Online:

"Govt exploiting terrorism fears, Fraser says

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has fired a broadside at the Federal Government for what he says is the exploitation of the public's fear of terrorism, to rob them of basic human rights.

Mr Fraser has presented a Melbourne university lecture tonight entitled 'Human rights and responsibilities in the age of terror'.

He admits he has considered resigning from the Liberal Party because of the Government's acquisition of what he calls arbitrary powers to introduce sedition laws and preventative detention.

Mr Fraser says free society is best defended by adherence to its own principles, not by blindly trusting governments."

Human Rights Lecture by Malcolm Fraser

2005-11-29T11:57:00.000+11:00

Earlier today I went along to the 2005 Chancellor's Human Rights Lecture that was delivered by Malcolm Fraser at Melbourne University.

It was an impressive speech. If a copy appears on the web I would like to post the full text.

One of the first points that Mr Fraser made was that we are in extraordinary times. Terrorism is not new, wars and invasions are not new. But the use of torture by countries that consider themselves to be liberal democracies is certainly new and extraordinary. The anti-terror laws that are already in place, and the new laws that passed through the House tonight are also extraordinary.

I can not believe that the Labor Party decided to go along with these laws. Only two people voted against the anti-terror laws in the House of Representatives tonight. The ALP decided to collude with the Liberal Party Executive to have them passed. They don't want to appear to be 'soft on terror'. This FEAR of seeming 'soft on terror' means that the Government can easily hound them into a corner, where they can puff themselves up while keeping their tails between their legs. "I'm not soft, I'm not scared; see how big I am, see how my fur stands on end". Blah.

Only a few hundred people now, the people who were elected to represent Australians in the House and Senate, can prevent Australia from becoming a police state. The elected representatives are there in parliament as the fruit of hundreds of years of struggle, the hopes and aspirations of generations. It is because of our civil liberties and freedoms that those few hundred men and women can deliberate on and vote to pass or fail legislation that will become the law of the land. It was not always like that, and democracy can not be taken for granted.

How sad that they can not even find the arguments to defend their very position and role in our society...

The worse thing that an ALP member can do is to rat. My personal opinion is that in passing these anti-terror laws, and thereby abandoning our freedoms and liberties to what is essentially the royal prerogative of the Howard Government executive, the current Representatives and Senators of the ALP are ratting on a whole host of decent Australians; past, present and future.

There is no case for these extra powers in the anti-terror Bill. No case has been made for them. Even Ruddock has admitted that they are not up to scratch and need to be reviewed. I have already heard too many assurances from Howard and Ruddock to know how to assess their trustworthiness. Do you think that with Howard's guiding vision being one of an ever-receding finishing line that there will be any reasonable limit that Howard could be held to, if he had these extraordinary powers that the anti-terror laws would give him? Spare us the jovial "Peace in our time" gestures if you are foolish enough to think that an act of appeasing Howard will be paid back with mercy.

And they can not even find arguments for supporting the liberal democracy that they are elected to serve and protect...

So many blogs

2005-11-29T01:27:00.000+11:00

casually browsing through blogs - it really is something unusual
an open window to people's thoughts and lives
and there are so many blogs - even though it is still novel

Australian Democrats Press Releases - Nuclear Energy Costly To Economy And Greenhouse

2005-11-28T18:57:00.000+11:00

Australian DemocratsAustralian Democrats Press Releases:

"Nuclear Energy Costly To Economy And Greenhouse

Brendan Nelson's announcement proposal to spend $1million on researching prospects of a nuclear power industry in Australia bucks the global trend and will be costly to the economy and greenhouse.

Australian Democrats Leader and spokesperson on Energy, Senator Lyn Allison said 'It is obscene that the Minister wants to spend $1 million on research into a nuclear industry in Australia when the facts are pretty clear that it is dangerous, costly and will contribute to greenhouse omissions.

The time to act on reducing 60 percent of emissions by 2050 is now.

'The USA provide direct subsidies to nuclear energy totalled $115 billion, with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies, and even if a nuclear power station was built today, it would be at least 15 years before the first one could deliver electricity.

'There is also a limited supply of uranium in the world, so by the time a plant was built its life span would be very short.

'Research also shows that building a nuclear power station would actually increase greenhouse pollution.
'In contrast, renewable energy sources are cheaper, cleaner and more flexible.

'Most of the world is rejecting nuclear in favour of renewable energy. The rate of increase is nearly 30% for wind, 20% for solar, and only 0.6% for nuclear.
'Further there is little public support for nuclear industry in Australia.

'Minister Vanstone's response to my question at question time, that we should keep options open, only demonstrates that the Government is willing to waster tax payers money when the facts and the global trend shows that a nuclear industry is a bad idea.

'The fact is that Australia is behind leading countries on renewable energies, this Government should be putting its efforts into assisting Australia's renewable energy sector, which is being forced overseas due to lack of support in Australia, concluded Senator Allison."

Australian Democrats Press Releases - Howard's Christmas Present a Humbug

2005-11-28T13:09:00.000+11:00

Australian DemocratsAustralian Democrats Press Releases:

"Howard's Christmas Present a Humbug

Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett will update the people of the Sunshine Coast on the Coalitions hard-hearted Christmas presents to the nation: less choice, less security and less freedom.

In the last two sitting weeks in December, the Government is giving the people of Queensland a raft of laws that will

lower income, conditions and job security

force single parents and people with disabilities onto Centrelinks harsh breaching regime

remove our fundamental freedoms in the name of protecting them

'But there are some nice prezzies in Howards Santa sack, too. At the same time, hes giving his Government $55 million in taxpayer-funded ads; the power to outlaw organisations and lock up dissenters for sedition; and as a reward for their hard work, hes giving the Senate a nice holiday only 11 sitting days next year before the Budget is handed down in May. Ho ho ho.'"

Ho Ho bloody-Ho
The Year of the Sack.
And you better be good for goodness sake, or you might just be dragged off, rendition [SPOON!!!] is the latest buzzword I think, to some gulag near the North Pole.
Is Everybody HAPPY!

Nelson calls for nuclear energy study - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-28T00:13:00.000+11:00

Nelson calls for nuclear energy study - National - theage.com.au:

"Science Minister Brendan Nelson has proposed Prime Minister John Howard establish a $1 million academic study into the nuclear energy option for Australia.

Such a study would take in the geological, environmental, physical, social science and all other aspects of the prospects of a nuclear power industry.

Dr Nelson is a supporter of nuclear generation of electricity, while Mr Howard has urged an open debate on the contentious issue.

"I've put a proposal to the prime minister, jointly with the Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane, and the prime minister will consider that in due course.""

Those donkey bays ["I-D, I-D"] are changing pitch, or is he now crooning to his reflection in a pond ["Nooks, Nooks"].

Brendan Nelson has absolutely no credibility. I suppose that the way that this 'study' has been proposed, shows that he may have at least some capacity for self-reflection. Johnny knows better, with that Mr Authority pose of his.

Radio National: Boyer Lectures - 15/11/1998: Lecture 1: The Island, by David Malouf

2005-11-27T16:30:00.000+11:00

Radio National: Boyer Lectures - 15/11/1998: Lecture 1: The Island

"In January 1796, just eight years from the beginning, a playhouse was established, a local habitation for that spirit of theatre smuggled in on the 'Scarborough'. There was nothing makeshift or provisional about it. It was a proper theatre, Georgian in style, with a pit, a gallery and boxes. The price of admission was five shillings to a box, two and six to the pit, a shilling to the gallery. But patrons who had no ready cash could pay in kind, that is, in meat, flour or spirits.

It was a convict enterprise of the colony's baker, Robert Sidaway, and seems to have established itself rather more easily than the first church. This might tell us about the kind of society we were to become. It took the Reverend Richard Johnson more than five years to get the first church built. His first Christmas service, in 1793, drew only 35 worshippers. Sidaway's theatre must have done rather better than that.

An audience is a mysterious phenomenon and subject to mysterious and unpredictable forces. It is made up of individuals. They shift their attention and their sympathies from moment to moment under the influence of strong emotion or whatever it is in the piece that appeals to their imagination or tickles their sense of humour. A sharpened critical sense makes them acute watchers and listeners. This is a little society of its own. It comes into existence at each performance, inside the larger one but mostly outside its control. Not a mob, but a cohesive unity, with its own interests and loyalties, but unpredictable and therefore dangerous.

This must have been especially true of this audience, at Sidaway's theatre composed as it was of convicts and their guards but run by convicts. It's fascinating to wonder how far such an audience might constitute the beginnings here of an integrated community, a community in which, given so many differences - of status, as between convicts and guards; of origin, English or Irish; of education, religion, fortune - a various crowd could nonetheless become one.

On 8 April 1800, Shakespeare's 'Henry IV Part One' was played. It must have had a special appeal, a special relevance for this audience; one wonders how the authorities allowed it. Political rebellion presented as a falling-out between thieves; a tavern underworld of sublime exuberance, where a light-hearted attitude is taken to highway robbery and the picking of pockets; a Lord Chief Justice openly insulted; every sort of high principle roundly mocked. Old hands might have recognised, in the improvised play in which Falstaff and Prince Hal alternately plead for mercy to the King, a version of the mock trials that were one of their own favourite entertainments, a learning place for first offenders in how to defend themselves in front of the beak.

The play's language must have been a particular delight, with its thieves' cant so like the convicts' own criminal slang. And how comically liberating to see lordly authority taken out of the realm of the distantly sacred and brought up close, as they must have been seen every day in the streets of Sydney in the form of Lieutenant Governor King, for example, blustering, wrangling, breaking out in the same bad language as themselves.

An extraordinary achievement, and so early in the piece, this alternative stage for action, this exercise in audience-making, society-shaping in the spirit of play. But risky. Dangerous. Governor King must have thought so anyway. In one of those about-turns that are so common a feature of our history, when all that seems given is taken back again, in September, 1800, when his Governorship was confirmed, he closed the playhouse and had it razed to the ground."

From David Malouf's Boyer Lectures of 1998, A Spirit of Play.

Funny that - Arts - Entertainment - theage.com.au

2005-11-27T15:59:00.000+11:00

Funny that - Arts - Entertainment - theage.com.au:

"Although cautious about generalising, Provan sees the self-deprecation theme in Australian humour, too. This, along with a fondness for comedy that is slightly bizarre and surreal, is something she believes we share with the British (think Monty Python and, more recently, Little Britain), to whom, she says, we are most closely aligned in what we consider to be funny. As well, Australians and the British are much more likely to perform sketch comedy - in costume, in character - and are not afraid to be ridiculous.

'A lot of what Australians and Britons really enjoy and regard as good comedy, Americans label 'alternative comedy',' she says. 'The Americans are absolutely the masters at that straight-out, mainstream, I call it 'motormouth' stand-up comedy.' Observational-style stand-up is their strong suit, too, she says (Jerry Seinfeld being one of its most successful exponents).

Corinne Grant, another member of The Glass House team, puts it like this: 'I reckon we have a different approach to it (comedy). For example, American comedians tend to make their audiences feel good about themselves by flattering them. Whereas we tend to make them feel good by pointing out how crap we are.'

Mockumentaries have also been hugely successful here, whether imported, such as The Office, or home-grown in shows like Frontline or We Can Be Heroes. "

Imagine a new series of Frontline in this Age of Terror. It'd be a ripper...

Sedition laws may be ditched - The Nation - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au

2005-11-27T15:18:00.000+11:00

Sedition laws may be ditched - The Nation - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au:

"SECURITY agencies have revealed that sedition offences in the new anti-terror laws are primarily designed to curb the use of the internet and books to promote terrorism.

The written explanations came after senators examining the new laws told the agencies they could be forced to recommend the sedition offences be dumped in the face of overwhelming evidence they were unnecessary.

The new laws seek to make it an offence to urge a group of people to use force or violence against another group of people.

'The best legal advice we have to the committee is that there is no conduct that they would catch that is not already caught,' Liberal senator George Brandis told a witness appearing before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee last week.

'It is difficult for the committee to come to a recommendation other than that which the majority of submissions has come to,' fellow Liberal Brett Mason told Australian Federal Police deputy commissioner John Lawler.

In a response this week, Mr Lawler said the Criminal Code did not clearly outlaw publications promoting terrorism. 'There is no clear offence in the Criminal Code for possessing, publishing, importing or selling publications, recruitment pamphlets and videos that advocate terrorism,' he said.

The drafter of the laws, Attorney-General's Department assistant secretary Geoff McDonald, said sedition had become a more relevant offence with the growth of the internet.

'The web and computer technology has made it much easier to disseminate material that urges violence, in much the same way government has recognised that it has made child porn easier to disseminate,' Mr McDonald said.

He used the example of a website teaching people how to shoot foreigners in Jakarta.

'It may be that some of the people who gave testimony to the committee may not be as in touch as the law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies are in understanding the penetration of the web among young people," Mr McDonald said."

Well we have the name of the drafter now.

We have these kinds of debates in all kinds of contexts. Heavy Metal music CAUSES kiddies to run around killing people, that kind of vacuous stuff. Soft porn is bad, Hollywood movies with heaps of killings and dead bodies are good. etc etc. A state with mandatory short-back-and-sides haircuts is a happy state, without headbangers - who are naughty people - a challenge to the authority of the state, blah blah pooookkk!

Oh, there is a lot of information and varied ideas on the interent. Well blow me down. Can't have that can we?

Are these people in the A-G Department serious? Can't they tell the difference between thoughts and actions?

'"It may be that some of the people who gave testimony to the committee may not be as in touch as the law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies are in understanding the penetration of the web among young people," Mr McDonald said.'

Yes, young people are heavily influenced by the internet and the media. And you know what this does? It gives the young people an appreciation of diversity. It helps people discern various positions on issues. What kind of a ####### moron thinks that a person who has grown up with diverse media stares credulously at a computer screen like a medievel peasant, and blindly follows any kind of crap that turns up on the screen. Sure, some people have problems - but that is not the fault of the internet.

Logic behind the anti-terror laws

2005-11-27T13:44:00.000+11:00

Another simple idea that is well known. While there are logical rules for building arguments so that there are no contradictions, the initial premises that are used as the building blocks for a logical argument can remain unexamined and may be wrong. Even an argument with false initial premises, and that leads to a false conclusion, can be said to be logical if the logical rules are correctly followed. I don't know the jargon and a trained philosopher would be able to explain this better.

A number of blogs look at the way that political issues are FRAMED. The framework within which political issues are cast can dictate what the solution to those political problems would logically be. Political spin and control of information is largely about controlling the initial premises for issues, so that the intended remedies follow logically.

There are many examples of this. One recent example is the nuclear power 'debate'. The nuclear power spinsters have parasitically tapped into the global warming issue, and have hoped that this could logically carry their wish to expand the nuclear industry. It doesn't, when you look at alternatives. It doesn't when you consider the polluting and wasteful nature of the nuclear industry. It doesn't when you recognise that nuclear power is also a temporary stopgap measure that can not fill the energy needs that a reduction in global greenhouse gas production requires.

The so-called war on terror "WoT!?!" is another classic example. I don't want to go into the reasons here, I've done that plenty of times before, and so have many, many other people.

I do want to point out though, that the proposed anti-terror laws that are up to be passed by the Senate in the next couple of weeks are, in my opinion, not about reducing the threat of terrorism. They are about being able to maintain politically, and by force, the initial premises that the Howard Government have used to justify the WoT. That is, they will be used, and are intended to be used, to stiffle debate and take away civil liberites and freedoms for everyone in our society.

Let me repeat: the anti-terror laws are about justifying the Howard Government's approach to terrorism, and will lock in an anti-democratic regime. These laws may create conditions that lead to political violence, and these cases will be splashed all over the media. They might also be used to control the flow of information through society, by placing innocent people under control orders and locking them up if they break these controlling conditions, and you can expect the Government to severely constrain any public discussion of this control of information flows.

I think that these kinds of social and political conditions can easily become entrenched and may take a long time to reverse, if at all. I do not think that the Labor Party can justify supporting these anti-terror laws. Ultimately, with the IR laws and changes to electoral laws, the anti-terror laws could be used to lock the ALP out of power for a very long time. IR is not enough to see the public vote the ALP into office in 2007 - lose civil liberties and you lose democracy - and you will be in permanent opposition - powerless and impotent. We had our own examples of this with our Hillbilly Dictator Joh. What makes you think that Howard would not do this? I simply do not understand the ALP's stand on this issue. Don't they get it?

You can't quite believe everything in the paper, but...

2005-11-26T22:52:00.000+11:00

...this one is worth the telling.

"Navy's foul-mouthed parrot ordered ashore

LONDON. A Royal navy parrot with a reputation for embarrassing top brass with salty language has been ordered ashore. But it was not Sunny's swearing that led to her being taken off the British frigate Lancaster. She was given extended shore leave on medical advice after plucking out her feathers and looking withdrawn.

Sunny, a six-year-old African grey with the official service number RN Parrot No. 1, has a habit of squawking "arse" and "bollocks" at inappropriate moments. During a visit in 2001 by the First Sea Lord, Sunny was banished to a cupboard but could still be heard squawking expletives.

Besides a comprehensive list of oaths, her favourite phrases are "Zulus, thousands of 'em" and "You ain't seen nothing, right?"

Sunny is now recuperating ashore with the family of Lieutenant Mari Duffy, one of the ship's officers, and her feathers are growing again."

From page 18 of The Age, Saturday Nov 26. [couldn't find the article online at theage.com.au]

Well, I've read that flocks of sulphur-crested cockatoos can sometimes take to a billboard or wooden structure and start ripping it apart. And they make a hell of a racket.

I wonder whether an injudicious choice of billboard poster could see some cockatoos arrested for sedition after the new laws are passed, even if their diction is too scratchy as far as parrots go...

The Pendulum

2005-11-26T09:36:00.000+11:00

The Australian CARTOONS

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

Early in Howard's Prime Ministership he liked to use the word pendulum a lot. Left leaning politically correct language had gone too far, or so he claimed, and it was time for the PC pendulum to swing back to the far Right.

Funny how he hasn't mentioned the idea for quite a while now. A pendulum has the nasty tendency to swing back to the left after being to the Right for so long.

Now I suppose Howard is trying to stop the pendulum from moving out of the Right. He's taken a hammer and screwdriver to the old clock and is smashing away at it, trying to twist cog teeth and jam the machinery so that the pendulum no longer moves. Strange kind of precision machinery that has a pendulum impailed with a nail to the wall.

The bell won't toll no more, and surely, no one will notice. Is everybody happy?

Lighter electricity storage?

2005-11-24T13:16:00.000+11:00

One of the problems with batteries is that they are very heavy, and lead is a common component of batteries.
It might not have been feasible before, but would it be possible now to build a storage system that works by coordinating a very large number of small storage components such as capacitors? You would need a switch to open the circuit to a particular capacitor while it charges up, close it, and then open it again for when it is discharged. It is sort of like computer memory, but instead of storing a state such as on or off, it could store some charge. Even these kinds of circuits with more modern battery technology may be a way to build large capacity storage relatively cheaply and in a way that could be scaled up or down. It might also be lighter than an array of bulk batteries. The difficulty would be in the control systems, but in electronic engineering and computing that kind of problem is relatively easy to solve now.
Its a modelling problem to find out whether it would be feasible, and at what scales, etc.

[I'm sure its already been looked at, but there really is so much more that could be done by putting money into renewable energy R&D, as opposed to wasting the money with the nuclear industry. Could you make solar panels that also have a storage capacity? etc, etc, etc]

Salon.com Books | Why myths still matter

2005-11-24T01:54:00.000+11:00

Salon.com Books | Why myths still matter:

"By way of introduction, the series kicks off with a nonfiction volume, 'A Short History of Myth' by Karen Armstrong. The choice of Armstrong makes sense: Her exploration, in 'The Battle for God,' of the differences between two modes of thought, 'logos' and 'mythos,' is an eloquent argument for the value of certain impractical ideas. Logos, Armstrong explained, is 'the rational, pragmatic and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world.' It 'must relate exactly to facts and correspond to external realities if it is to be effective.' Mythos, in contrast, is 'not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning.'

According to Armstrong, premodern people considered both modes 'essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence.' While logos can tell us how to grow crops, build cathedrals and split atoms, mythos, often in circuitous ways, speaks of why we do these things.

A Briton, a former nun and a self-described 'freelance monotheist,' Armstrong lives in a mostly secular society set in a larger world roiled by religious fundamentalism. The mythos/logos formulation serves her well in the task of criticizing both. As a liberal person of faith, she can argue that a logos-ruled culture like Britain's fails to speak to the persistent desire for meaning. And then she can point out that literal-minded fundamentalists -- who insist that biblical stories describe actual historical events and divine directives -- mistakenly treat the metaphorical mythos of the Bible as if it were the logos of, say, Newton's law of gravitation."

From following the link in the latest version of The Reader from Crikey.

The old logos/mythos ways of seeing. Modernity, and liberalism too, tried to reason away mythos. But maybe this can not be done. Mythos can change form - like into a sentimental kind of nationalism for example. And for those people with hyper-rational ideologies, such as economic rationalism or neo-liberalism, mythos may still be there; betrayed by an unquestioning quasi-religious fervour for Greed as Creed in this case. Ah, all too pure...

N-dump set to get high-level waste - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-23T01:30:00.000+11:00

N-dump set to get high-level waste - National - theage.com.au:

"The warning came as Treasurer Peter Costello stepped up pressure to expand uranium exports, warning it would be 'stupid' if state governments held back development of new mines for ideological reasons.

In one of his strongest statements on the issue, Mr Costello warned that nuclear power use was set to expand dramatically worldwide.

'This is great news for Australia because we have got the reserves,' he told Perth radio. 'What is stupid is if we had all of these reserves and all of these markets, and for ideology people said we are not allowed to sell them.'"

Its not ideology that argues against the expansion of the nuclear industry. Its reality, mate. What do we do with the wastes? And what if returning the wastes was a condition for selling the uranium to start with? Only a dill would take a one-eyed perspective on this issue, and label reasonable debate as 'stupid'. There is more to life than economics...

His-story becomes Di-verse

2005-11-22T14:44:00.000+11:00

Bifurcation diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

This is a bifurcation diagram for a dynamical system [from the Wikipedia]. Chaos theory applies to natural processes, and it helps us understand complexity in the real world. Even quite simple iterative mathematical rules can result in complex images.

I want to try to use this idea of bifurcations in non-linear systems as a model that might help to place political theories, and some political history maybe, in a context. All models are abstractions and include some kinds of simplications; they ignore some things and highlight some other aspects. Its a model.

Marx claimed that there was some kind of teleology behind history, and that society will culminate in Communism. This was proved to be wrong, but has the increasing complexity in society changed the political framework for those societies over time? My suggestion here is that they have, and that this change could perhaps be modelled in a similar way to that of a dynamical system as it changes to become chaotic.

Chaos is possibly the wrong word for these complex political structures and societies. They are DIVERSE, and still adhere to the rule of law and human rights, rather than falling back into a state-of-nature. That pre-modern state-of-nature kind of lawlessness is NOT what I am talking about here.

A simple progression:

1. Social groups (group identity mostly based around ethnicity, religion or church) [one point - eg r=2.6 on the graph above]

2. Modern states after the American and French revolutions (individual and the nation state) [two points - eg r=3.2 above]

3. Polarised modern states and individuals after the First World War (Left versus Right) [four points - eg r=3.5 above]

4. Postmodern maybe (left and right start to loose meaning and fragment) [eight points, 16 points - eg ~3.54 above] - we are here now I think

4. Diversity perhaps (where the state is counter-balanced by the 'individual', so that people are free to participate and create culturally as they please) [the chaotic regions - eg r=3.6 or 3.7]

Much of the political confusion today is around how to find a way to integrate individuals, society and state. Religious fundamentalists want us to move back to the first kind of ordering around the social group - patriarchal mostly. The French Republic model [ordering around the secular individual and nation state, to the exclusion of the social and religious] seems to be in question after the riots in Paris. We also now find an attempt to return to the polarised politics of the 1930's in Australia with the Howard Government and its proposed IR and anti-terror legislation. These are all regressive moves, trying to grasp at some sense of certainty and some sense of secure and well known ordering.

Interesting times...

There is more on this post at South Sea Republic.

NT nuclear waste dump sparks science debate. 21/11/2005. ABC News Online

2005-11-22T00:36:00.000+11:00

NT nuclear waste dump sparks science debate. 21/11/2005. ABC News Online

This topic is very complex, in scientific and political terms, and will have consequences over extremely long time scales, and possibly with a global impact. Any reports written about it would be contested, if we still have a democracy that is, from every possible angle.

I think that this is being rushed with indecent haste - much like the other important legislation that is being rammed through the Senate at the moment.

This decision should not be rushed. It will not be resolved with only one 'scientific' report.

There are a couple of posts at Larvatus Prodeo on these topics, but I don't agree with the way that this wider 'debate' has been framed to date.

Railroaded up the bulldust track - Opinion - smh.com.au - by Alan Ramsey

2005-11-21T14:54:00.000+11:00

Railroaded up the bulldust track - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"Argued the NSW independent Peter Andren: 'I acknowledge the need for safe repositories for the byproducts and the waste of [nuclear] medical technology. But I do believe, within the Government's planning process, there may be preparation for much broader waste deposits that may lead us towards preparing ourselves for the slide down the slippery slope towards nuclear power in this country. [This debate] only underlines the degree to which we have very little handle on just what we do with the waste of the nuclear power cycle. There is a need for safe storage. But that safe storage should not be preparing sites six, seven, eight or 15 years down the track, which have perhaps a primary agenda of preparing us for the day when we are looking at the storage of the byproducts of nuclear power.'

Argued the Queensland Liberals' Peter Lindsay: 'Nuclear is not bad. Nuclear is the fuel of the future. It is going to come to Australia. People ought to get used to the reality that it is a very safe source of energy. One day we will see Australia go nuclear.'

And there's the rub. Does the Howard Government have an eye on the future when it starts building federal nuclear waste 'facilities' in the Northern Territory?

After all, it does have that spanking new $1.3 billion Darwin to Alice Springs railway line nobody felt could ever be economic.

Think about it. And think about the giant American corporation Halliburton, and its engineering subsidiary that built the railway. Think, too, of the Halliburton chief executive who came to Australia in the second half of the 1990s to negotiate the railway deal with the Howard Government and the South Australian Liberal government of John Olsen, who Howard would later send to a cushy diplomatic post on the US West Coast.

Can Australians trust their Government when it so often says one thing and then slithers 180 degrees into something else? Like Howard's "never, ever" pledge on a GST nine months before he became Prime Minister and three years before he introduced one? Or all that duplicitous twaddle about why our Government was taking Australia into Iraq?

Dick Cheney, Bush's Vice-President, was Halliburton's chief executive when the company lodged its successful bid to build, own and operate, for 50 years, the Darwin to Alice railway. Cheney was instrumental in the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, succeeding in its bid. Halliburton has billions in US contracts in rebuilding Iraq.

As for Australia, imagine a railway line that runs from a new high-security port in Darwin down to Alice Springs and right past each of the three potential sites for the Howard Government's new nuclear waste facility. How useful that could be if ever we got into the nuclear power cycle or began taking high-level waste, at a price, from overseas. It isn't all that fanciful.

Bob Hawke, after all, is only one who thinks it's a good idea. As Hawke told the ABC TV's Maxine McKew on September 29: "We have a real issue in the world of nuclear waste being stored in unsafe places. The bonus for Australia is that we would revolutionise the economics of [this country]. Forget the current account deficit problem. As far as you could see in the future, Australia would be earning billions of dollars making the world safer and doing the world a great turn. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars a year …

"Progress is about facing up to challenges, facing up to prejudice, facing up to emotion, and putting national interest on the table. That's what good policymaking and leadership is about."

Don't think it couldn't happen."

There was also that strange announcement about the USA Air Force using the Northern Territory as a test bombing range. Could that be related to the wish [or plan] to have high grade nuclear waste moved through and stored in Australia? A security measure to be able to PRE-EMPTIVELY attack from the air any threat to the storage sites? In International Relations terms, such an ability to use military force over a territory is effectively a claim to have de facto sovereignty over that territory. Has the Commonwealth been reduced to having merely de jure sovereignty over the NT? Nasty! And brutish!

The Australian: Gregory Melleuish: Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism [November 21, 2005]

2005-11-21T10:59:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Gregory Melleuish: Fascist label a cheap shot against liberalism [November 21, 2005]:

"Industrial relations can be considered the final frontier in the quest for a more liberal society. The new legislation does not intend to create corporatism or some sort of state-controlled body to exercise power over the workers of Australia. That is what a fascist government would do. In fact, it is doing the exact opposite. It is attempting to withdraw state control from such matters. It is seeking to enable people to act as autonomous individuals."

The WorkChoices revolution to IR do nothing of the sort. They threaten to take away personal autonomy for vast sections of the community - and could create an underclass of working poor. These new laws will impact on the lives of people - they are not just abstract policies that could be construed as 'liberal' almost by assertion. Many of the WorkChoices restrictions are on employers to make sure that they CAN NOT negotiate workplace conditions outside of AWAs; hardly an example of enabling both employers and employees to exercise their choice freely.

Then there are the people who have little bargaining power when looking for work and who depend on industry awards. The impacts of these new laws could have profound effects on their lives, and sense of wellbeing and security. The Howard government is also attacking the welfare safely net, the medical safety net, and tertiary education is now becoming too expensive for many people.

The Howard Government is creating a system that will lock people out of being able to give themselves a better life - thus creating an underclass of working poor, such as in America. It is taking away the possibility for individual autonomy for vast sections of the community, should these laws go through and become entrenched. That these changes will take years before they bite [basically once there is an economic downturn] is no reason to claim that they are OK. The laws need to work in times of economic downturn as well as in times of prosperity.

There are many subtly wrong arguments in this article, and the author is also loose with his use of language. It would take a long time to pick this piece apart, and I can't be bothered.

Republican model 'critical' - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-20T21:52:00.000+11:00

Republican model 'critical' - National - theage.com.au:

"Republican model 'critical'
By Phillip Hudson
November 20, 2005

REPUBLICANS who are split over whether a president should be elected by the people or chosen by politicians must agree on one model if they want 'to be rid of the monarchy', says shadow attorney-general Nicola Roxon.

Ms Roxon favours a minimalist model with a president chosen by the prime minister or Parliament rather than the rival direct election option.

'If the republican project is ever to succeed, as it must, then it is critical that these two camps reach an accommodation with each other,' she said.

Ms Roxon said a Labor Government would have a three-step process: a plebiscite to ask if people wanted a republic, a second plebiscite to decide the selection method and then that model put to a referendum.

Ms Roxon said the clash over the method of electing the head of state seemed to be a symptom of a deeper disagreement over the roles of the president and the prime minister.

'A directly elected president could create a new office with a democratic mandate to rival Parliament. How the president would balance their conventional requirement to act on advice with their democratic mandate would be a volatile new question — some would say time bomb — in our constitutional set-up,' she said.

But Ms Roxon said if the people selected the direct-election model she would 'pour my heart and soul into making that change' at a referendum.

'What we will need is for each camp to realise that what the other camp proposes is still a far sight better than monarchy.'"
...

The Victorian Branch of the ARM will also be holding an event on Tuesday:

The Republic: Which Way Forward?
ARM Youth Night with Nicola Roxon MP & Senator Mitch Fifield The youth wing of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Republican Movement invites you to an ARM youth event with guest speakers Labor Shadow Attorney General, Nicola Roxon, MP and Victorian Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield.

Uses of Blogs - Table of Contents | Snurblog

2005-11-19T23:18:00.000+11:00

From the Introduction:

"From Production to Produsage

Today, as the information age replaces the industrial age, the Fordist mass production model has been replaced by one of individuation, personalisation, and customisation, but this is only a first step: from customisation follows interaction, from interaction follows interactivity, and from interactivity follows, in the right setting, intercreativity. This undermines the distinction between commercial producers and distributors on the one side, and consuming, passive audiences on the other; participants in interactive spaces are always more than merely audiences, but instead are users of content; further, if they become involved in intercreative environments (as bloggers do), they also are active producers of content.

In becoming active publishers, commentators, and discussants, then, blog-gers turn into what we can usefully describe as produsers—a hybrid of producer and user.6 All bloggers are both potential users (in the narrow sense of infor-mation recipient) as well as potential producers of content, and the blo-gosphere overall is an environment for the massively distributed, collaborative produsage of information and knowledge. This conceptualization advances well beyond Alvin Toffler’s famous term “prosumer”, which at worst may describe little more than a well-informed consumer who nonetheless remains engaged only passively once a consumption choice has been made, and may never ac-tively engage in the production and expression of new ideas. Shirky similarly argues against the professional consumer:
in changing the relations between media and individuals, the Internet does not herald the rise of a powerful consumer. The Internet heralds the disappearance of the consumer altogether, because the Internet destroys the noisy advertiser/silent consumer relationship that the mass media relies [sic] upon. The rise of the Internet undermines the existence of the consumer because it undermines the role of mass media. In the age of the Internet, no one is a passive consumer anymore because everyone is a media outlet.

The media, however, can also be seen as producers of the perception of community, and thus of society at large; media help us understand who ‘we’ are and how we relate to the societies we live in. If, as blogging and other collaborative media phenomena appear to indicate, there is now an ongoing shift from production/consumption-based mass media, which produce a vision of society for us to consume as relatively passive audiences, to produsage-based personal media, where users are active produsers of a shared understanding of society which is open for others to participate in, to develop and challenge, and thus to continually co-create, then this cannot help but have a profound effect on our future. At worst, it may generate more debate and disagreement, as long-standing values and traditions are questioned; at best, it may offer renewed hope for a more broad-based, democratic involvement of citizens in the issues that matter to them. Understanding the emerging uses of blogs, and the patterns of interaction, intercreation, and produsage which they enable, is an important step in charting the path ahead, and in identifying the obstacles and opportunities which we may encounter along the way."

Sounds like an interesting book.
Blogging can change customers back into citizens.

Don't like the neologisms that much though; they clunk.

Produsage?
Hunters and gatherers, producers and consumers, now: browsers and dabblers? Doesn't really work does it...

The Australian: Editorial: Censorship is wrong [November 19, 2005]

2005-11-19T01:36:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Editorial: Censorship is wrong [November 19, 2005]

This editorial sounds more reasonable, in my opinion.
I think that it is in everyone's best interests to stick to the issues.

Crayon scribbles

2005-11-19T00:04:00.000+11:00

Its interesting talking to people about politics, and hearing what they think.
This is really crudely expressed, hence the post title, and it is again expressing the obvious. Maybe pollsters know this stuff instinctively, I don't know.
But as an observation, it seems that people are conservative in various ways. There are different clusters of approaches towards politics [and the world maybe] at the Centre of the political spectrum.

My impression is that the Liberal Party is clued in on this. [I think that Howard is a radical and the way that he has used the control of the Senate bears this out, so I think that Howard could seriously damage the Liberal Party brand if they loosen his leash and let him roam as he wills.]

The Centre Right is the usual economically responsible place where people respect hard work and a person who accumulates. Daddy politics. Focus on the individual.
The Centre Left cares about process - this is where things such as human rights and the rule of law, the idea of fairness and justice finds its expression. Maybe the Centre Left is more about being able to discuss things and reason for justice.

I think that the Liberals are clued in because they [traditionally, but not now with Howard running riot] base themselves in the Centre Right, and have also made sure to have people from the Centre Left as well. Today, Liberals such as Petro Georgiou and George Brandis are vitally important for the Libs electorally.

By contrast I think that the ALP look confused. I think that their natural home is in the Centre Left, that is, talking about process and fairness. They need a firm foot on both sides around the Centre, just like the traditional Liberals did, so they also need the Centre Right and to be strong on the economy. But failing to strongly express the case for human rights and our democratic traditions, and how we can achieve a fair society, makes them look insincere.

Values in politics is difficult to assess. My opinion is that values are associated with individuals, and so changing the political discourse towards values is like shifting the debate to bias the Centre Right. The Centre left is about liberal democratic institutions. It sounds abstract, and maybe that's why it is not as strong as 'values' at the moment, but there really is a much more richer history and depth to our liberal democracy. 'Values' appeal to our interactions with other people from day to day, but there are so many more stories around our democratic institutions - so I think that the idea of liberal democratic institutions is much more stronger than 'values' politics. It has depth. 'Values' politics is transient and can be a shallow show - just look at some of the pillars of society!

We need both the Centre Right and Centre Left. They are both conservative and resonate with people. People usually lean one way or the other. But I think that Labor needs to do more to make the case for the Centre left - even while demonstrating responsible economic management.

Basic ideas, badly expressed...

The Australian: PM not for turning on a bill of rights [November 16, 2005]

2005-11-17T01:46:00.000+11:00

The Australian: PM not for turning on a bill of rights [November 16, 2005]:

"The Howard position, on the other hand, validates the popular will as expressed in the parliament. For Howard, the values and judgment of the common man are the foundation of democracy and the basis of sound judgment."

Is Howard trying to take the far left by claiming to embody the General Will in line with Rousseau? If the brute force of the Right doesn't have legitimacy, perhaps he can claim 'popular sovereignty' provides legitimacy. He would only have to make sure to cull or trim the suffrage in a way that keeps him in power indefinitely. Then he can continue to be the law unto himself in the illiberal democracy that we have become.

Lazy associations to the idea of the Executive acting as if it were the popular will:
The Terror after the French revolution
Nationalism combined with socialism as an ideology
Punishing those bad 'elites' [as defined by the Howard mob]

Philip Gomes at Larvatus Prodeo does a more informed job of picking through the bones of this stuffed chook that was served up in old Die Australien Zeitung sheets. [der, die, das, des etc - never nailed that grammar]

Tired.
Is Australia going to keep pretending that everything is OK with Howard?
Wake up, or go back to bed; that's about the extent of the question for this sorry lot...

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]

2005-11-15T14:25:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]:

"There are things to criticise in the new anti-terror laws. The Australian, for example, has questioned aspects of the sedition provisions. But suggestions the new laws represent some sort of slippery slide towards fascism achieve nothing, and are not meant to: they merely signal the intellectual superiority of those issuing the warning. And of course they are profoundly offensive to hundreds of thousands of Australians who have experienced the horror of totalitarianism first hand, or lost loved ones to its gas ovens or gulags."

Mate - you don't think that your comments here are profoundly offensive? One of the things about a liberal democracy is that people speak for themselves, you know - everyone has their own opinions and voices. How dare you pretend to speak for people who have suffered under totalitarian regimes. How dare you try that as an argument for these laws. You are trying to prevent people from participating in this debate. I could go on mate - but you just don't have a clue.

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]

2005-11-15T13:29:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]:

"Unfortunately, irrational and inflammatory claims about the new anti-terror laws continue to emanate from extremist elements in the community, and we are not talking about the Muslim community. Witness, for example, the article last weekend on 'the signs of tyranny' by Sydney Morning Herald commentator Alan Ramsey, in which he seriously compared Australia under John Howard to fascist regimes such as Germany under Adolf Hitler. In fact, fascism has never been a force in Australian life, but one variety of totalitarianism that did achieve purchase here was communism in its Soviet and Chinese versions. This kind of 'tyranny' was espoused by an earlier generation of Left intellectuals, today celebrated by their descendants as dewy-eyed idealists."

And the question that this editorial begs to ask is whether 'extremist elements in the community' who make so-called 'inflammatory claims about the new anti-terror laws' should also be candidates for the new Control Orders and tracking devices under the proposed anti-terror laws. There seems to be a thinly veiled threat implied in this editorial: shut up or you'll cop it. And that is precisely the point about our opposition to these laws...

Needin' traction

2005-11-15T12:49:00.000+11:00

canberra.yourguide

Cartoon by Pryor of The Canberra Times

Those new fangdangled 'slick and smooth' footy boots just don't do the job like them old fashioned footy boots with studs used to. Stuff the sponsers who made 'em.

There is no threat to freedom of speech - Opinion - smh.com.au

2005-11-15T01:37:00.000+11:00

There is no threat to freedom of speech - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"Seditious intention, for the purpose of this bill, is a definition - not an offence. Although it contains reference to things such as disaffection against the government, you cannot be charged with 'seditious intention'. The section of the act that mentions seditious intention is part of a wider provision setting out the requirements for declaring an association 'unlawful',and in that context, it does not apply to individuals.

Reference to disaffection against the government is already in the act and has been for four decades. In that time, many people have expressed disaffection against a government and have not been arrested. If they urge or assist the use of violence and taking lives, it would be a different matter, and the Government would call on the full force of the law."

What if the sedition clauses are used as a guide to justify applying Control Orders on people - a 'soft' option or 'warning' before charging someone with an offence? Strictly speaking a person under a Control Order has not been charged of an offence.

Howard may be correct to say the sedition provision won't see people thrown into the slammers, but what if they are used for justifying Control Orders. When people break a Control Order and go to jail, or a concentration camp, they could still claim that it was the offence of breaking a Control Order that had them locked up - not exercising freedom of speech.

I do not trust Howard and Ruddock with these anti-terror laws and there are no reasonable grounds to take them on their word.

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]

2005-11-15T01:18:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Editorial: Threats and furphies [November 15, 2005]:

"IF any reasonable person remained in doubt about the seriousness of the terror threat on Australian soil, events of the past week would likely have settled those doubts. Those arrested in police raids in Melbourne and Sydney are due their day in court, and may be exonerated there. But the details that have emerged via Operation Pendennis have been, quite simply, alarming."

ummm, was that
Operation Pandennis, or
Operation Penpennis, or
Operation Pandanus, or
Operation Pandemonium, or
Operation Pollyanna...

Just wait for me to wipe away my splittle so that I can continue with my ranting. Now where were we? That's Right - ALARMING ALARMING ALARMING

"The police fact sheet, released to the media yesterday, includes details of alleged training camps, chemical and detonator stockpiles, and a close interest by some of the charged men in the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney."

Now about the legal process in court...

And only if you are lucky...

2005-11-15T00:56:00.000+11:00

The Sydney Morning Herald: Cartoon

Cartoon by Alan Moir of The Sydney Morning Herald

My feeling at the moment is that with these sedition laws in place, there is absolutely no chance that I will be able to improve my situation. It would be most likely that these kinds of laws could be used to silence me. That is not paranoia, that's the reality. I have alot to offer not just Australia, but to everyone. Why should I stay here and waste my life, if no one here cares at all?

These sedition laws are the kind that you'd find in a chickenshit third world tinpot dictatorship. If the ALP supports them, even when the Howard Government doesn't need that support, you had better have a good reason. Because people are going to walk away from you guys in disgust. And they won't be coming back...

Senator Andrew Bartlett: Pre-Traumatic Stress

2005-11-14T17:39:00.000+11:00

Senator Andrew Bartlett: Pre-Traumatic Stress:

"The more I hear and read of the ‘debate’ in the Parliament and the mainstream media regarding these issues, the harder I am finding it to contain my anger. Huge legislative changes that are going to impact directly on the lives of millions of Australians are being reduced to little more than glib assertions and misrepresentations, yet the opportunity to actually properly examining the details is being cast aside with seemingly minimal comment. I acknowledge that people from both sides of these rather polarised issues are guilty of some misrepresentation, but I also think the onus should be on government to honestly explain the reason why such extreme changes are needed, and to honestly acknowledge the full consequences, rather than just the bits they like...

I think my growing irritation and anger is a form of ‘pre-traumatic’ stress. I know, even from sitting through part of the first day’s hearings today into the Terror legislation, that it is going to be highly distressing watching the inevitable unfolding of these ridiculously truncated processes with little real acknowledgement of the likely, or even possible consequences. This will be followed by sitting in the Senate and having to witness the passage of legislation which I believe will seriously harm the lives of many thousands of Australians and have a negative effect on the ways our society operates in the future.

I’ve had to sit and watch what I believed to be very bad laws pass before. It’s never much fun, but it goes with the job. There’s been some bad ones that stick out –the big package of draconian changes to the Migration Act that were forced through in the post-Tampa climate before the 2001 election is probably the worst single event. The human suffering and harm caused by those laws is now terribly obvious. The weakening of the Native Title Act was another upsetting process to witness. Watching the passing of the GST was tragic, and the ALP’s support for far more unfair changes to Capital Gains tax a year or so later was also no fun to witness. However, I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything like the ‘triple-whammy’ that’s about to be crunched through the Senate in a few weeks time.

Still, anger is an energy, as someone sang somewhere once upon a time, so I will try to channel it in a way which might produce some good over the next few weeks, even while so much bad is being perpetrated."

This is from Senator Andrew Bartlett, who is one of the few people in our society who is in a position to participate in these parliamentary debates as a Senator.

How do you think someone in the community who has absolutely no voice and no choice in these things would feel?

People react in different ways to excessive stress. My submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Republic could be read as being from someone under stress. My attempts to run as an Independent in a couple of elections was very much out of character and an attempt to publicly express the danger that I felt the we were all in. My blog was also started out of shear frustration that the political class could betray our liberal democratic traditions without even knowing that they were doing so - amazing really that they could be so ignorant.

But the point is - I have consistently provided viable alternatives.

I find it quite insulting that people read this stuff as satire. It is an expression of someone who has been in a state of stress - traumatic stress sounds abit too dramatic - for an extended period of time. The difference now is that many more people are starting to feel a similar level of stress about Howard and what he is doing to our country. All I can do is lay out the reasons why Howard's approach is flawed, and present an alternative that is an improvement - and the worse that I can do is use colourful or strong language. Its not just to raise a few chuckles.

Even Paul Kelly pokes fun at this with a few references like saying that the loudest critics are impotent or childish. But when someone consistently comes up with the goods - for instance the article in the Weekend Australian about the Republic and the need to get around the reserve powers could be easily solved with the Copernican Models that I helped design, and there are so many other examples as well - you won't find anyone in the political class paying credit where it is due. Our politics is completely rotten - its not the system but the players that are at fault. Pompous and piss weak to boot.

And in case you're wondering - I am not usually like this. Once Howard goes we can all relax again - even with a Liberal Government. But the way that I am being ignored really makes me wonder about Australians. Its like this country is a swamp in some offbeat backcorner of the world.

[This looks like I might be up myself - well I really don't think so. There are lots of people who have had a shot at things like designing a new Australian flag, or republican models, or finding a way to reconcile religion and science, or a new way to model politics to enable autonomy for individuals and for society at the same time. There are lots of people who have tried. What I have come up with may not be the whole story, but they sure are good attempts. And more than anything they indicate a potential that with some work would prove to be fruitful. That counts for nothing in Australia, evidently. It really makes you wonder about The Lucky Country. It really makes you wonder.]

Eazy Peazy

2005-11-14T00:29:00.000+11:00

The Sydney Morning Herald: Cartoon

Cartoon by Alan Moir of The Sydney Morning Herald.

That old cliche about a picture being worth a thousand words...

Dalai Lama Gives Talk On Science

2005-11-14T00:16:00.000+11:00

Dalai Lama Gives Talk On Science:

"In an unusual marrying of science and spirituality, the Dalai Lama addressed thousands of the world's top neuroscientists yesterday, telling them that society is falling behind in its efforts to make sense of their groundbreaking research.

Speaking sometimes in Tibetan and sometimes in halting English to a receptive audience at the 35th annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, the Tibetan spiritual and political leader said scientists and moral leaders need each other.

In the text for his speech to the Society for Neuroscience at the Washington Convention Center, the Dalai Lama said moral thinking 'has not been able to keep pace with such rapid progress in our acquisition of knowledge and power.'

'It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with such rapid progress in our acquisition of knowledge and power,' he said in a prepared text."

Fasten your seltbelt, there's political turbulence ahead - Opinion - smh.com.au

2005-11-13T23:54:00.000+11:00

Fasten your seltbelt, there's political turbulence ahead - Opinion - smh.com.au:

"Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Senate deputy Nick Minchin have both had a special interest in [the] Hill's future. Downer wants to become deputy and treasurer under Costello, or under Howard if Costello leaves the front bench."

Deputy Downer has a Zippatee-doodar kinda ring to it. Goes with the territory I suppose. Those rideon mowers are pretty flash these days...

The Australian: Ruddock refuses to confirm source [November 13, 2005]

2005-11-13T13:56:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Ruddock refuses to confirm source [November 13, 2005]

"Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has refused to confirm or deny an Islamic supergrass, who has met al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, helped Australian police uncover alleged terrorist cells.

News Limited newspapers today reported the man, who uses an alias, helped the Australian Federal Police's Operation Pandanus and was crucial to the arrests of 18 alleged terrorists this week.

The supergrass was reportedly once a follower of Abu Bakr and an associate of Shane Gregory Kent, both arrested in Melbourne this week on terrorist charges.

He is said to have trained in Afghanistan in 2001 at an al-Qaeda camp and then returned to Australia, where he cooperated with authorities.

Mr Ruddock refused to comment on the man today.

"They're not matters about which I will comment and it would be quite inappropriate for me to confirm or deny any material that is suggested to be related to the intelligence inquiries," he told the Nine Network.

The newspaper said the man feared for life.

Mr Ruddock said if such a person was needed as a witness to prosecute a criminal, a witness protection scheme would be available to them.

"Aside from the issue of whether or not there has been an individual providing information to authorities, we do have witness protection schemes in Australia in which people who are of importance to the prosecution of criminal offences are given witness protection to ensure that those who (they) are providing information about won't intimidate them and won't threaten their lives," he said.

"The scheme is available to people who assist in relation to prosecutions but separately from that it would be safe to assume that any organisation that receives information from people that might be helpful to their work would have responsibilities in relation to ensuring that those who assist are not exposed."'

Blanket media coverage - for show arrests - and you will never gain the trust of anyone who might have been able to help you stop terrorist threats in the future. This has been a complete stuff-up - the intense media coverage of it all.

People are not passive automata. Terrorists are not people who mindlessly tick a box in a form next to the text 'Wannabe Terrorist'. These things emerge depending on a whole series of social and political conditions over time. The only thing that this whole episode has vindicated is the reality that Howard and Co are just not capable of doing a decent job in trying to prevent terrorist attacks. Stupid as...

Public trust and confidence in our democratic institutions
Public trust and confidence in our security and police services
Public trust and confidence in the rule of law and due process
... these are some of the most important things that prevent terrorism from becoming part of our political climate.

And these are the very things that the Howard Government is destroying in the way that it is conducting its so-called war on terror...

It is not possible to prevent every instance of arbitrary violence, in any case.

Memo threatens call-centre workers - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-13T13:31:00.000+11:00

Memo threatens call-centre workers - National - theage.com.au:

"CALL-centre operators for the Federal Government's WorkChoices hotline have been told they face up to two years' jail or fines of up to $200,000 if they talk about their conditions or leak information.

A memo obtained by the Opposition spokesman on public accountability, Kelvin Thomson, also reveals that Telstra, which operates the service for the Government, could face fines of up to $10 million and have to pay damages to the Government 'for humiliation and anxiety'.

The memo, dated October 26, also suggests staff may be searched or questioned and documents seized."

It makes you wonder about this Government, but nothing can really surprise me anymore about this lot. On the Insiders today there was some talk about it being nearly ten years of the Howard Government and while in the last year alone there have been nine books published about the ALP in opposition, there has been almost nothing published about the Howard Government. I reckon that once Howard is gone, there will be more written about his Government than for any other Australian Government ever - it is just SO bad. And the ministers will certainly have their place in history, although not all as glossed up as their spin is trying to make them sound.

Imagine

2005-11-12T22:40:00.000+11:00

Imagine
That there is no such thing as a messiah,
Never was, never will be, never can be
Imagine
If it was all an authoritarian mistake,
Compounded over millenium, a Gordian Knot
Imagine
Not a prophesy, but a knot to cut through
Cut twines of false authority, the real Serpent killed
Imagine
A world under the rule of law, restored from the beginning
What if the second coming coincided with the first?

Some Ideas - Think about it...
...

This is like changing the word 'the' to the word 'a'.
'The' story becomes 'a' story. A story within a story. A story among many.
The false authority derives from the claim that this is 'the' story, and there are no other stories of equal status.
This does not invalidate 'the' story for a group of people. It means that there could be other stories for other people at the same time.
Politics, which in a modern state impacts on a diverse population, needs to allow for a plurality of stories, not just one.

The Australian: Conspiracy theorists fuel fire [November 12, 2005]

2005-11-12T22:21:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Conspiracy theorists fuel fire [November 12, 2005]

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

[Yes yes yes - taking the piss...]

The Australian: Lion on road to republic [November 12, 2005]

2005-11-12T09:51:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Lion on road to republic [November 12, 2005]:

"Keating enshrined the republic as a more exciting and a more achievable objective. Central to his strategy was the minimalist republican model. This kept the new presidency to a non-partisan and non-executive role devoid of any popular mandate, thereby justifying the decision not to codify the reserve powers. Keating knew, above all, that he had to avoid any attempt to codify these powers. The reason is obvious; it leads back to November 11.

This is the lion on the road to the republic. If the reserve powers are to be codified, then the issue is whether the president is entitled to dismiss ministers after the Senate denies supply. It demands a judgment for or against Kerr, with this judgment written up as a constitutional rule.

At this point forget any hope for bipartisanship. Forget any hope of creating a Liberal-Labor bridge in support of the republic. The Liberal Party will not accept a decision that says the rules of 1975 were wrong and the Labor Party will not accept a decision that says the rules of 1975 were right. There is no point in having this debate. These positions are frozen in time. It is the permanent divide left by 1975 and it is the divide that the republican cause must avert in order to prevail. Hence Keating's desire to avoid codification.

It is, however, almost universally agreed now that the republican model must shift to direct popular election of the president. This is the public's preference. Indeed, it is the model preferred by monarchists. In any plebiscite it will emerge the sure winner. Finally, popular election seems the only model capable of re-igniting passion for the republican cause.

And it means codification. The idea of a directly elected president, enjoying a more popular mandate than the prime minister, yet equipped with undefined and open-ended reserve powers, is untenable. So the intellectual challenge facing the republican brains trust is to devise a codification that works and that attracts a majority vote."

The Copernican Republican models [see http://www.copernican.info] are close to what Paul Kelly is saying we need for the Republic. The Copernican Models leave the reserve powers of the Governor-General uncodified and as they are now [but this does not preclude discussion about what needs to be codified in these reserve powers and what needs to remain uncodified, and any proposed changes that this discussion may commend for a referendum].

The change in these Copernican models would be to directly elect someone to play the role of the Queen for one term.

We would most likely have to codify the powers that such an elected head-of-state would have - as Paul Kelly suggests here. This codification of the powers of the head of state would be a separate issue to the codification of the reserve powers of the Governor-General, who acts on behalf of the head-of-state. So, in theory at least, the Copernican Republican models will not get stuck in the ditch on the road to the republic that dates back to 1975.

There is one power that the Queen has now and that is to disallow a law within a year of it being passed - Section 59. I suggest that this be debated but that if this particular power is to be removed for the elected head of state, I suggest that there would need to be a separate referendum question under Section 128 passed before this particular Section be removed. I do not think that it should be removed as part of a parcel in a change to a republic. Discussing this Section and holding a referendum for removing it, even before we become a Republic now, will in effect remove that Section, or activate it. Thats a danger to consider, but it would be unfair to remove it without discussion - I don't think that it would be possible to remove the Section now without the public being made aware of this potential power of our head-of-state - and for the public to wish to vote for keeping it or removing that power.

Homeless to get a bed for Games - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-10T14:51:00.000+11:00

Homeless to get a bed for Games - National - theage.com.au

It would be really foolish for the state government to sign off on the proposed anti-terror laws, and in particular the control order parts of the the laws, as an attempt to have laws tobe able to forcefully remove people it did not want around Melbourne during the Games next year. Let me repeat: that would be a very FOOLISH move.

Ruddock challenges terror law opponents - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-10T13:16:00.000+11:00

Ruddock challenges terror law opponents - National - theage.com.au:

"Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has challenged anyone who says the tough new anti-terrorism laws are unnecessary to guarantee there will never be another terrorist threat in Australia.

He was speaking following the arrest of 17 terrorist suspects on Tuesday.

He said the government's laws were necessary to manage the terrorist threat to Australia.

'If those who assert it (that the new laws aren't necessary) can positively tell me that these are the only people engaged in possible terrorist acts in Australia, we can all go away and relax,' Mr Ruddock told the Nine Network.

'But I don't know that there's anyone who can tell you that and certainly the advice to us is that these powers are necessary in order to be able to manage a potential terrorist threat situation.'"

These statements show how utterly ill-suited Mr Ruddock is for the position of Attorney-General. These are the kinds of all-or-nothing statements that you would expect to hear from some uni student in an ill-fitting polyester suit, ranting against the powers that be, or whatever his bugbear of the day happens to be.

Public scrutiny of these anti-terror laws is legitimate. Our liberal democratic traditions are worth defending - and if the Attorney-General wants to brush them aside with the flick of his pen, then it is HE who has to justify the grounds for doing so.

The Canberra Times

2005-11-09T14:02:00.000+11:00

canberra.yourguide - Opinion Cartoon

Cartoon by Sharpe of The Canberra Times

Howard's 'wolf' whistle - Michelle Grattan - Opinion - theage.com.au

2005-11-09T01:55:00.000+11:00

Howard's 'wolf' whistle - Michelle Grattan - Opinion - theage.com.au

I think that Michelle Grattan is missing the point in this article, although she is close with the following statement, in my opinion:

"Federal and state police are praising assistance they have received from the mainstream Muslim community. But the raids will inevitably produce a backlash in some areas against Muslims, who will also feel themselves more vulnerable and likely to be stereotyped.

The wider balancing act between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties is tricky enough. It becomes even harder in relation to the minority community."

One of the most worrying things from yesterday was the conflict between the media and some of the mates of some of the people who were arrested.

The worst thing would be for communal violence and riots [as we are seeing in France now] to break out. These raids might have lit a fuse that could rip our cities apart. The police need desperately to work with everyone in our community - and affirm the established rule of law and due process.

Mainstream Australians can be so bourgeois; smiling and blinkingly blind. Its the problem of evil that they don't understand. They need to be wary about how 'goodness' can be misused for bad. Living without that understanding can be like being an insect caught in a web of concepts; being kept alive and being happy for it, dangling suspended and cocooned. It's difficult to express, because it is not what you think it is. There is a literary category called The Fantastic that has the interesting characteristic that there are a few ways to understand the story, an ambiguity, where the reader can not determine which way is correct for sure. The so-called war-on-terror has that kind of ambiguity around it. Fight it like a war and you can only lose: its like a [Gordian] knot that can not be untied. It's difficult to express...

Raids disrupt 'imminent' attack - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-08T12:50:00.000+11:00

Raids disrupt 'imminent' attack - National - theage.com.au

We will have to closely watch how this progresses through the courts.

My personal opinion, without seeing the details of the facts that will no doubt be made public and I hope will be properly examined, is that politically the Prime Minister had to have something happen after recalling the parliament last week. Now the Right wing media will be able to yell and scream all they like - regardless of what happens in the courts.

Whether or not there was an 'imminent' attack in the making we will find out in time. And I will suspend my judgment as to whether this was a political move or a genuine anti-terrorist operation until after the details come out in public and are properly examined. That will take some time. It it will also require that the people arrested are convicted under proper due process.

Reserving the new Anti-terror laws for the Queen's pleasure

2005-11-08T11:42:00.000+11:00

The sedition clauses of the proposed anti-terror laws are unusual. They are archaic, and poorly worded, and there is some ambiguity as to how far they could be used to silence free speech. There is a, what I would consider reasonable, fear that these sedition laws could be used to undermine human rights and civil liberties in Australia. The laws are controversial.

These clauses also make it a crime to badmouth the Queen.

I wonder whether there could be a case for the Governor-General, in this case, to exercise his discretion under Section 58 of the Constitution to "reserve the law for the Queen's pleasure". I think that this means that instead of the Governor-General passing a law with Royal Assent as the Queen's representative, he instead asks the Queen to personally assent to the law in question.

This was done at least once before - for the Flags Act 1953 - when Queen Elizebeth visited Australia in 1954. The Queen will be visiting Australia for the Commonwealth Games early next year - less than 6 months away.

There is another point for doing this in this case. While the Howard Government makes the claim that it is acting in good faith, its track record with regard to refugees and divisive politics suggests otherwise. The personal involvement of the Queen in these laws will most likely make it easier for the Queen to disallow those laws under Section 59 if these laws have been misused or abused within a year of them receiving Royal Assent. The sedition laws would after all be in her name and passed by her hand [either personally as suggested, or even by proxy as the convention may be], and she would be personally responsible if they were to be misused. She has a right to disallow a law of that nature if they are proved to be misused. The proposed anti-terror laws threaten the very heart of our democratic traditions, and the modern constitutional monarch would have an interest in preserving the freedoms and rights of her subjects.

Section 59 is considered to be obsolete and has never been used. Constitutional experts would instantly dismiss the relevance of this section. In the context of the Republic debate this section is part of the question of what powers the head of state should have. This is an important topic, and no matter what anyone says, this power of our head of state has been there for the last 105 years. There will no doubt be alot of debate about this in time...

The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke (chapter19) - Of the Dissolution of Government.

2005-11-08T01:08:00.000+11:00

The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke (chapter19) - Of the Dissolution of Government.

"Sec. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? for the people having reserved to themselves the choice of their representatives, as the fence to their properties, could do it for no other end, but that they might always be freely chosen, and so chosen, freely act, and advise, as the necessity of the common-wealth, and the public good should, upon examination, and mature debate, be judged to require. This, those who give their votes before they hear the debate, and have weighed the reasons on all sides, are not capable of doing. To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as great a breach of trust, and as perfect a declaration of a design to subvert the government, as is possible to be met with. To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of, to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a design, and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society, who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its first institution, is easy to determine; and one cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted any such thing as this, cannot any longer be trusted.

Sec. 223. To this perhaps it will be said, that the people being ignorant, and always discontented, to lay the foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour of the people, is to expose it to certain ruin; and no government will be able long to subsist, if the people may set up a new legislative, whenever they take offence at the old one. To this I answer, Quite the contrary. People are not so easily got out of their old forms, as some are apt to suggest. They are hardly to be prevailed with to amend the acknowledged faults in the frame they have been accustomed to. And if there be any original defects, or adventitious ones introduced by time, or corruption; it is not an easy thing to get them changed, even when all the world sees there is an opportunity for it. This slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions, has, in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or, after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lords and commons: and whatever provocations have made the crown be taken from some of our princes heads, they never carried the people so far as to place it in another line.

Sec. 224. But it will be said, this hypothesis lays a ferment for frequent rebellion. To which I answer,

First, No more than any other hypothesis: for when the people are made miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power, cry up their governors, as much as you will, for sons of Jupiter; let them be sacred and divine, descended, or authorized from heaven; give them out for whom or what you please, the same will happen. The people generally ill treated, and contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish, and seek for the opportunity, which in the change, weakness and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays long to offer itself. He must have lived but a little while in the world, who has not seen examples of this in his time; and he must have read very little, who cannot produce examples of it in all sorts of governments in the world.

Sec. 225. Secondly, I answer, such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected; and without which, ancient names, and specious forms, are so far from being better, that they are much worse, than the state of nature, or pure anarchy; the inconveniencies being all as great and as near, but the remedy farther off and more difficult.

Sec. 226. Thirdly, I answer, that this doctrine of a power in the people of providing for their safety a-new, by a new legislative, when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it: for rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, but authority, which is founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels: for when men, by entering into society and civil-government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, do rebellare, that is, bring back again the state of war, and are properly rebels: which they who are in power, (by the pretence they have to authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do; the properest way to prevent the evil, is to shew them the danger and injustice of it, who are under the greatest temptation to run into it.

Sec. 227. In both the fore-mentioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion: for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They, who remove, or change the legislative, take away this decisive power, which no body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the people; and so destroying the authority which the people did, and no body else can set up, and introducing a power which the people hath not authorized, they actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority: and thus, by removing the legislative established by the society, (in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they untie the knot, and expose the people a-new to the state of war, And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties, shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels."

The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke (chapter18) - Of Tyranny

2005-11-08T00:56:00.000+11:00

The Second Treatise of Civil Government, by John Locke (chapter18) - Of Tyranny:

"Sec. 209. But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences, that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too; how they will be hindered from resisting illegal force, used against them, I cannot tell. This is an inconvenience, I confess, that attends all governments whatsoever, when the governors have brought it to this pass, to be generally suspected of their people; the most dangerous state which they can possibly put themselves in. wherein they are the less to be pitied, because it is so easy to be avoided; it being as impossible for a governor, if he really means the good of his people, and the preservation of them, and their laws together, not to make them see and feel it, as it is for the father of a family, not to let his children see he loves, and takes care of them.

Sec. 210. But if all the world shall observe pretences of one kind, and actions of another; arts used to elude the law, and the trust of prerogative (which is an arbitrary power in some things left in the prince's hand to do good, not harm to the people) employed contrary to the end for which it was given: if the people shall find the ministers and subordinate magistrates chosen suitable to such ends, and favoured, or laid by, proportionably as they promote or oppose them: if they see several experiments made of arbitrary power, and that religion underhand favoured, (tho' publicly proclaimed against) which is readiest to introduce it; and the operators in it supported, as much as may be; and when that cannot be done, yet approved still, and liked the better: if a long train of actions shew the councils all tending that way; how can a man any more hinder himself from being persuaded in his own mind, which way things are going; or from casting about how to save himself, than he could from believing the captain of the ship he was in, was carrying him, and the rest of the company, to Algiers, when he found him always steering that course, though cross winds, leaks in his ship, and want of men and provisions did often force him to turn his course another way for some time, which he steadily returned to again, as soon as the wind, weather, and other circumstances would let him?"

2005 National Republican Lecture

2005-11-07T21:31:00.000+11:00

Australian Republican Movement - Media Room:

"ARM MEDIA RELEASE - 2 November 2005

Republic an opportunity for nation-building

Professor Larissa Behrendt will tonight deliver the 2005 National Republican Lecture at the Wesley Music Centre in Canberra.

In her lecture, The Australian Dream: Indigenous Peoples in an Australian Republic, Professor Behrendt will advocate a vision of civil society to inspire the movement towards an Australian republic, and in turn address the unfinished business of reconciliation."

I was impressed with this vision for the Republic, when I read the transcript of the lecture [not online as far as I know].

The Reagan Defense

2005-11-07T19:45:00.000+11:00

I don't recall - what a porker!

John Howard on the 7.30 Report tonight.

And he finished by admitting that whenever Terrorism is raised as an issue by the Government, it follows with frontpage media reportage.

Beattie backs PM's decision to publicise terror threat. 07/11/2005. ABC News Online

2005-11-07T19:23:00.000+11:00

Beattie backs PM's decision to publicise terror threat. 07/11/2005. ABC News Online

The ALP Right is sending mixed messages.

Are they colluding with the Howard Government on these anti-terror laws, as a way to avoid public discussion and debate about these laws?

The ALP Left has stood up for civil liberties and effective anti-terror laws - the two actually go together.

The Australian: Unwilling witnesses to face jailing [October 20, 2005]

2005-11-07T18:59:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Unwilling witnesses to face jailing [October 20, 2005]

"Under the plan, an unco-operative witness would be charged with contempt and, if proved in a quickly convened, one-off court hearing, immediately imprisoned. Their release could be secured only by 'agreeing to purge the contempt by attending an examination and giving answer as required'.

Since the establishment of the ACC in 2003, there have been 1080 examination hearings and, according to an ACC spokeswoman, more than 30 people have been charged for refusing to co-operate with investigators.

The spokeswoman would not say how many of the 30 were convicted and jailed. But the ACC has said the number of secret examinations is increasing."

This is similar to some of the proposed anti-terror laws, and there are the obvious objections to doing things in this way.

But another point I would like to make about secret interrogations and imprisonment without due process is: what would happen if there were corrupt people using these laws to intimidate and imprison innocent people.

Our system works because everything is out in the open, and evidence is tested. We can not assume that it would continue to work as it does now, if these kinds of changes are made to it. It is sort of obvious that the proposed anti-terror laws could create an environment where corruption flourishes - and the good people are slowly removed from positions of responsibility or eliminated.

These kinds of proposed laws are as much a danger for decent people in the security organisations as they are for citizens.

Once corruption becomes entrenched it is very difficult to remove.

Ex-chief slams Libs as cruel, scary - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-07T14:01:00.000+11:00

Ex-chief slams Libs as cruel, scary - National - theage.com.au:

"FORMER federal Liberal Party president John Valder has launched a blistering attack on the Howard Government which, he said, had betrayed the principles it once stood for.

His attack came as Defence Minister Robert Hill yesterday announced plans to strengthen laws before the Commonwealth Games that enable troops to help police protect the streets if a terrorist attack or threat occurred, and give troops the power to shoot to kill, search and seize and detain people.

Mr Valder, who was one of Prime Minister John Howard's closest political allies during the 1980s, has attacked the Howard Government as 'cruel' and 'scary', and warned Mr Howard that many Australians were now 'questioning your honesty and integrity'.

'What has happened to the Liberal Party principles you and Mr Ruddock used to espouse so righteously 20 years ago when you were in opposition and I was Liberal Party president?' Mr Valder said.

'Where are those principles of personal freedoms, a 'fair go' for everyone, fair trials where citizens are presumed innocent until proved guilty?

'And don't forget, Mr Howard, that if ever there is a terrorist attack in Australia it is you personally who must take the lion's share of the blame for it as a result of your reckless participation in the Iraq war.'"

Good to hear a True Blue Liberal speaking out about Howard's Government...

This is the scariest bit of this article:

"Meanwhile, Senator Hill said existing laws under the Defence Act to call out troops in support of the civil authorities were "really quite limited" and "difficult to use". "At the moment the provisions are limited to a particular terrorist site, whereas what might happen is a threat that is moving," Senator Hill told Channel Nine.

Existing laws were "very limited" in dealing with a terrorist threat from the sea or air, Senator Hill said."

Well, are we talking about a civil war or a handfull of extremists? Using the Air Force against terrorism? What do they have in mind? Firing rockets into suburbs? Taking out vans as they travel along the roads, Israeli style? What are they on about?

OnlineOpinion - Leslie Kemeny - Players in a safe[sic] nuclear tomorrow

2005-11-07T12:33:00.000+11:00

Leslie Kemeny argues ethical responsibility for radioactive materials could best be enforced by a country such as Australia with control of both ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. - On Line Opinion - 7/11/2005:

"Australian uranium miners, possibly with overseas joint-venture partners and investors, [could] undertake the task of enrichment, fuel fabrication and ultimately waste disposal with or without reprocessing.

In a globalised 21st century, such an endeavour would ensure that these tasks would take place in a politically stable nation possessing an optimal geology for a nuclear waste repository. The offensive and highly emotive word 'dump' would soon disappear as the Australian community began to understand that valuable radio-isotopes were simply being recycled from one location - the mine - to another - the repository."

These comments are insulting.

"Ethical responsibility for both fissile and radioactive materials could best be enforced by a country such as Australia if it undertook both the front end and the rear end of the nuclear fuel cycle."

Yeah, let the nuclear industry f*** us over, and then leave us with the crap. At least a very few people will make huge profits. How can anyone use the word ethical in this context?

[Yeah I know, the word 'ethics' is a favourite for authoritarians. Its a code word for people who buy into the bullshit ideologies, and for them it implies that it is Right to impose these 'ethical solutions' by force and through violence - the 'ethical' ends justify the means.

Is this what ideology is about? Setting up the premises, the intellectual framework, within which authoritarians feel free to exercise brute force to achieve some kind of GOOD outcome. Does the premise of THE-ENDS-JUSTIFY-THE-MEANS underpin extremist ideology?

As an aside, I was always sceptical of the USE of utilitarian arguments in politics and ethics. This is the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number. There is no problem with this idea, but in its application there can be problems - especially if some voices are systematically 'muted', to use the word of a rightwing spinster.

Utilitarian arguments depend on how the problems are framed - and today's spin is about framing problems in ways that make certain, intended, actions logically necessary. Liberal democracy is a challange to this authoritarian political spin because it opens up the field of public discourse - and thus cracks open the narrow intellectual framework that would make an 'ethical solution' an imperative to act with force in a certain, preconceived, way. In a true democracy ideologies can be challenged.]

Democrats Press Releases - Economic Double-Whammy Coming Up

2005-11-07T12:00:00.000+11:00

Democrats Press Releases - Economic Double-Whammy Coming Up - by Senator Andrew Murray

"Economic Double-Whammy Coming Up

Today Channel 9's Sunday and expert home-lender Aussie Loans John Symonds combined to warn that Australians will have real problems with falling house prices. The Howard Government's simultaneous assault on wages and conditions will make it harder for Australians to pay their mortgages too. This double-whammy spells economic trouble say the Australian Democrats..."

With [Work]Choices, we'll slave ya!

And to crown it all - National - smh.com.au

2005-11-06T20:27:00.000+11:00

And to crown it all - National - smh.com.au:

"Howard doesn't expect we'll ever see another 1975.

'People who will be charged with power in the future will probably in one way or another avoid it happening,' he told Channel Nine's Laurie Oakes a week ago.

After the events of the days since, Howard's reasons may not convince everyone. He told Oakes: 'The best safeguards, Laurie, are not written down in constitutions or bills of rights. The best safeguards we have for our democracy are a robust parliamentary process, a free press, and an incorruptible judiciary. If you've got those three things, you've got a free country.'"

And what happens when the Prime Minister undermines those very same safeguards for a democracy, and our liberal democratic conventions? Well may we say, God save the Queen...

Ah, precedents... Funny how the Libs don't want to mention the Dismissal these days.

By the way, the problem that David Marr identifies as an impass in the Republic issue is solved with the Copernican Republican Models. These Copernican Models bypass the need to codify the Reserve Powers in the change to a republic. These models keep the system as it is, but directly elect someone to act in the role of the Queen, while keeping the Governor-General. The popular power that a directly elected President might claim could not be used to Dismiss a Government using the Reserve Powers, while a parliamentary appointed Governor-General will continue to serve as he [or perhaps in the future, she] did since Federation.

See http://www.7gs.com.au/republic.html for more details on these Copernican Republic Models.

[Personally I also think that it would be a mistake to codify Reserve Powers, or even to want to do so. They are like a RESET button for a computer that has frozen up or gone haywire. We may see another Dismissal at some time - but to be sure, the Governer-General would definitely make sure that he can defend the decision to do so. No one would casually want to face the kind of communal anger that Kerr copped. And, by the way, this might also keep a hubris afflicted Prime Minister within his bounds. Checks and balances!]

Hill fanning terror fear: Beattie - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-06T19:28:00.000+11:00

Hill fanning terror fear: Beattie - National - theage.com.au:

"Defence Minister Robert Hill is fanning unnecessary fear over plans to further bolster anti-terrorism laws, Queensland's Premier Peter Beattie says.

A spokeswoman for Senator Hill today said the federal government planned to beef up the Australian Defence Force's powers to tackle terrorism in time for next year's Commonwealth Games in Melbourne.

Under the plan to be introduced to cabinet within weeks, ADF personnel would have the power to shoot to kill as well as search, seize and arrest extremist suspects.

Troops would also be able to storm the location targeted by a terrorism attack or threat, and be stationed closer to events deemed big enough to require their support.

However, Mr Beattie today said media reports featuring Senator Hill's comments about the plan were 'a load of rot'.

He stressed Australians could be assured that authorities were efficiently tackling the threat of terrorism without Senator Hill 'overstating' or being 'alarmist' in the media.

'Those sorts of reports - all they do is alarm people unnecessarily,' Mr Beattie told reporters in Brisbane.

'It's just the way that sometimes these things come out from various federal ministers - I think they should really be a little bit more careful about how they address it because they unnecessarily alarm people.'"

PM may act on calls for reshuffle - National - theage.com.au

2005-11-06T02:10:00.000+11:00

PM may act on calls for reshuffle - National - theage.com.au:

"Insiders say Health Minister Tony Abbott, Education Minister Brendan Nelson and Finance Minister Nick Minchin are among those who would be pleased to switch to 'the right job', although each insists he is happy to stay put.

While some believe a shuffle would be seen as a sign that Mr Howard plans to contest the next election and not hand over to Peter Costello, others say he might want to elevate some MPs — perhaps Malcolm Turnbull — to the ministry before he retires."

Here we go! Here we go! Here we go!
Abbott as Treasurer? What portfolio would Nelson consider the right one? Minchin in one of the security kind-of ministry positions?
Schemes and speculations...

Howard's Government is starting to look shakey, and unstable...

Jumping the shark

2005-11-05T22:44:00.000+11:00

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

The extraordinary step of recalling the Senate on a day's notice, only a few days before it would have been in session, and all to change one word in anti-terror legislation must be some kind of a turning point.

In The Australian: Police rift over PM's terror alert

Radical mosques could be banned - Top stories - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au

2005-11-05T16:46:00.000+11:00

Radical mosques could be banned - Top stories - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au:

"In what he described as a 'significant' extension of the power to ban terrorist organisations, Dr Saul said a person in an organisation such as a mosque only had to praise a terrorist act to run the risk of having their organisation banned. "

Does the AG have a sense of humour to the extent that he can tell when we are taking the piss out of the anti-terror laws, rather than advocating a terrorist act? Um, that stare looks like a NO.

ZERO TOLERANCE - Exterminate - Exterminate - Exterminate

You have just entered a HUMOURLESS ZONE - just act like you're supposed to in a church...

ParlInfo Web - Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

2005-11-05T16:08:00.000+11:00

ParlInfo Web - View Document - Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005

Is this supposed to be a simplification?

Terrorism ripe

2005-11-05T15:15:00.000+11:00

What is it about the Howard Government and terrorism? They are giving this issue blanket and saturation media attention. They are drumming up the possibility of a terrorist attack.

When there is a severe heat wave over summer and there is a danger of bushfires, the topic of bushfires receives massive media attention. This sometimes encourages firebugs to go out, at the worst possible times, and start fires. Some people just like to rebel, or muck up or I don't know - just do the wrong thing. Maybe they do it for a thrill, but it happens...

Would some people make up a bomb just for the thrill of it because the topic is in the media so much?

Would some other people, perhaps serious extremists on the far right, take advantage of this hyper-terror environment? Any terrorist attack would now be assumed to be from Al Quaeda types. And the reaction to ANY terror attack in Australia now, through the media [News Ltd in particular] and the government will be directed towards the Islamic community.

The Howard government has created a horrible political environment that encourages terrorism by ensuring that any attack would have saturation media coverage. The proposed anti-terror laws would only entrench this hostile environment - and that is whether any forms of political violence are from extremist Islamic types, or from some other extremist groups that might feel at home in this environment instead.

The Australian: Tony Fitzgerald: Unjust laws an abuse of power [November 04, 2005]

2005-11-05T14:58:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Tony Fitzgerald: Unjust laws an abuse of power [November 04, 2005]:

"Democracy, unlike politics, is not concerned only with the acquisition and exercise of power. Regular fair elections are a prerequisite of democracy, but democracy requires more than representative government. Democracy is concerned with the legitimacy of the means by which power is obtained and effective controls on the exercise of power to prevent its abuse.

Governments exist to implement the popular will, but neither government nor even a popular majority has unfettered power in a democracy. Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address: 'Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable ... The minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.' Similarly, the Privy Council recently affirmed that the principle of equality 'necessarily permeates any democratic constitution'.

In democratic nations, including the US, which is the role model for most Australian politicians, individuals and minorities are protected from misuse of power...

For the sake of our children and their children, Australia must become a true democracy rather than merely the site of a contest for power between a few political parties. Public pressure can achieve the reform needed to make our system of government less vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by politicians for personal and party benefit. Author Norman Mailer observed: "Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries [that] have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labour of maintaining it." As politicians are unwilling to take that task, others must. "

The Australian: Rude awakening [November 05, 2005]

2005-11-05T13:46:00.000+11:00

The Australian: Rude awakening [November 05, 2005]:

An interesting article. I think that these ideas highlight a profound change that is taking place, but that has not really been understood. I see it as a shift between hierarchical power structures to more egalitarian ones.

I understand egalitarianism in a different way to how it has traditionally been envisioned. I take as a starting point, even if this is poorly expressed, the idea that a person lives within narratives, while collectively we negotiate our social and political spaces through reason. Its the old private/ public distinction; and at a larger scale, the separation between church and state. The thing is that every person has a unique narrative, and that a person's narrative is not fixed and can possibly never be fully expressed, or tied down. Everyone has a narrative, but no two narratives are the same. The public political space, given this kind of egalitarianism, should be open for anyone who wishes to to participate in.

The old hierarchical power structures work by restricting access to political space. Those that are powerful are able to shape the public political space to their exclusive advantage. These days that is done through ideology mostly, and state force that an ideology manages to wield.

"Respect has been debased, says Truss. Whereas the word once implied regarding another with esteem or deference, or treating them with consideration, she argues it has become 'a cool street-crime buzz word mainly associated with paying feudal obeisance to those in possession of firearms'."

During my semester studying International Relations it became all too clear that in this kind of hierarchical politics a phrase such as "I respect your point of view" is one of the ultimate put downs. Power doesn't have to ask for respect; but the term is used by the powerful to bully or humiliate those that are less powerful. So yes I agree, respect has been debased.

There are some other interesting things in this article, but the last few paragraphs point towards a new way of understanding power.

"O'Shane's poser about community standards is "perfectly reasonable", says Gary Bouma, head of Monash University's school of political and social inquiry, not because "we are such a pack of ratbags we don't respect anything" but because respect is up for re-definition.

"In the 1950s respect meant kowtowing to people in authority," he says. "Now it has become more mutual. The Australian fair go is really about respect. At the end of the day we have to have respect for a variety of things, such as for the other person, or there is no society.""

Hierarchical authority that establishes its power through exclusion, and maintains that exclusion by force, is losing its sense of being just - it has lost its legitimacy, and its ideology doesn't sound convincing anymore. Many people still work within that hierarchical world, and don't quite know why their authority is being questioned. These people are likely to bemoan the supposed lack of respect for authority. But conversely, these authoritarians who rule by exclusion are increasingly being seen to be unfair - they offer scant scope for reasonable public discussion on how we can negotiate our political differences in a way that is fair.

Sorry, but Cinderella is a fairytale - Opinion - theage.com.au

2005-11-04T13:56:00.000+11:00

Sorry, but Cinderella is a fairytale - Opinion - theage.com.au

It is very difficult to exist on the dole, as this article points out.