Who's more aboriginal?

This white lady, above, has been attacking this black lady, below, basically because she doesn't agree with on issues to do with aboriginality.



Here's a couple of articles about the situation here and here.

One nice quote from Warren Mundine about Larissa'a 2010 NSW Australian of the year award:

"They become awards for trendy inner city-type people and don't recognise the tremendous work Aboriginal people do on the ground."

There's also a very powerful article by Marcia Langton about the whole situation in today's Australian.

So basically, we have Larissa Bernherdt, a woman who is so thin skinned that she is suing Andrew Bolt because he dared to suggest that maybe she didn't really suffer from discrimination because of her aboriginality. She than says that Bess Price is more disgusting than watching a man have sex with a horse, because she dared to say that the aboriginal intervention might have had some positive outcomes. I wonder if Bess will now sue Larissa?

I wonder if she'll sue me?

NBN

Here's a great article about the NBN. I personally think we should be going flat out installing fibre-to-node all the way around the country, than after we've done that we can re-assess where we go from there, in response to changes in technology. Is that crazy?

Laying cable...

So there's been no blogging of late, basically because I'm lazy. Still, I've had a few things mulling around in my head for a while, especially to do with the National Broadband Network.

Now this is one of those things that people seem to be very "for" without having any qualifications whatsover.

"Broadband good, Liberal bad, Broadband good, Liberal badddddddd....." said the sheep as they trotted one by one down the race. Having an opinion doesn't automatically mean that you hate the internet (a topic for another post), just that maybe you think you're smarter than Julia Gillard (and let's face it, who of us doesn't think that occasionally?).

Anyway, reading the print edition of the Australian today I came across a couple of stories that galvanised me to put some thoughts down onto paper, or rather, onto the interwebs, so here they are.

Point One.

I think it's a bit ridiculous that the Government wants to tear up the existing copper cables that currently connect our country, so that anyone who wants a home phone will be forced to go through the National Broadband Network. Surely the point of the privatisation of Telstra was that people were sick of a Government owned monopoly in the telecommunications sector trying to control how people did things while offering expensive and mediocre service? We're going to be paying a lot of money to provide a Universal Service Obligation (currently provided by Telstra and paid for by the Government) along a fibre connection. This fibre connection will be expensive to connect to the household (whether paid for by the householder or the taxpayer, in the end someone pays) and not only that, it will require an ongoing provision and maintenance of a battery in the home, since fibre won't work without power at each end (with a copper cable the power can be sent from one end to enable the system to work). In addition, those people who simply want a cheap, low cost internet connection will be forced into the NBN's high speed service even though it's probably not appropriate for what they really want.

Why not leave the existing copper in place and allow the private telcos to continue to compete with the NBN? This will keep prices down and service up and enable real competition.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Two.

Apparently 30% of Australian households are currently already serviced with a cable (I believe Foxtel or Optus, can't remember right now) that will provide them with internet at a speed of approximately 100Mbps (the speed which is being advertised as the big selling point of the NBN). Not only are very few customers actually utilising this opportunity for very fast broadband, but the Government is actually going to pay a great deal of money to prevent them from being able to and forcing them to use the new NBN.

Why not leave the existing cable in place and if users want superfast broadband let them use that? In the meantime, effort could be spent improving access to those non-metropolitan areas that might actually have service delivery issues.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Three.

Points of connection. Noone actually cares about these, they don't actually mean anything. Except that the NBN wants as few as possible (I think 14) and all the other companies who have existing fibre in the ground are suddenly not happy because this will mean even less competition.

Why not let other companies use their own pipes to carry data?

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

My big problem with the NBN is this. If it's such a great idea (and who doesn't like the idea of a Government communications monopoly) than let's have one. It'll be so good that it should be able to beat off it's competitors using copper and wireless. It should just about write it's own cost-benefit analysis. It's business plan should be so awesome it's picks up chicks in a night club just by saying "Hey! How you doin?"

When the Government is doing tricky or sneaky things such as forcing households to sign up, or paying vast amounts to remove competitive providers than there must be something wrong.

Not only that, but how many houses actually want 100Mbps download speed? Not very many at the current prices.

How about this? Why not install cable into business districts and schools and hospitals? Why not put in fibre to every single exchange in the country and add a few more? After that, let's start thinking about fibre to the household, but fibre to every exchange will speed up things dramatically.

And the reason for this big essay?

The two articles in the Oz.

The first was about how it's now possible to deliver speeds of 100Mbps over a copper cable up to 1km from an exchange. It'll do 300Mpbs 400 metres from the exchange! While this doesn't seem realistic for much of Australia, it would probably be appropriate for 10% of the country. Not only that, but it shows once again that technology doesn't stand still, while the Government is betting all its chips on the one bet.

The second is about trialling new mobile technologies in Sydney that should deliver download speeds of 100Mbps.

Notice the magic number here? Both of them are looking at the same speeds that will be offered by the NBN, but without the vast expense.

I also remember a recent article talking about how an Australian company was trialling technologies that would enable internet access via satellite in excess of 50Mbps (I don't have a link and don't remember the exact speed, but it was fast).

Basically, there's more options out there than just fibre and for the Government to deny that and actively remove other options is practically criminal (in my opinion).

That's my two cents anyway

cheers

Dr Harry

Edit: Further news to hand. CSIRO are trialling technologies using the analogue TV bandwidth that will deliver similar speeds. Now it will only work in areas with low population, but that's not the point. The point is that the Government has all it's eggs in the fibre to the home basket, while technology is developing rapidly. It's like we're living in the future!

Let's roll out fibre, but lets not make it the be all and end all. Lets encourage other options as well. In other words, lets be smart about it.

Just for something completely different, here's a photo of Angus's favourite diva!

broadband, schmroadband...

So I haven't posted anything here at all for a while, I've been too busy kayaking and stuff. Also, I don't have internet at home and sometimes work makes me actually, like, you know, work and stuff.....whatever.

Anyhoo, here's a quick contribution, a fantastic article from Malcom Turnbull while the National Broadband Network is a gigantic steaming pile of dog poo, that will cost $4000 per person. That's great, I get cheap fast internet and then pay for it with taxes. Woo!

Personally, I think that governments are like the slow kid at school who has to get their shoelaces tied by the teacher because they can't be bothered learning it themselves, someone else can do it. Therefore, the government shouldn't be setting itself up in an internet monopoly!

Enjoy the article, plus another short one here.

cheers
Dr Harry

dirty politics

So the Labor party made an obvious choice in this election campaign to go dirty, early. They have been running a very negative campaign against the Liberals since day one. This campaign has not only continued, but it has actually gotten dirtier since then, broadening to include the Greens as well.

This is all very well, they're obviously desperate to stay in office and doing everything they can to achieve that.

I personally thought that the campaign would backfire on them, with the contrast between negative Labor ads and positive Liberal ads showing up the differences between the two parties. However, in the last week the Labor party have been pushing heavily their ad about the Liberals "preferring a road to a hospital" and letting down the state when it comes to health.

I believe that these ads have the potential to be really significant in the community. Why?

My grade 9 classes have been doing some polling as part of our SOSE course, asking people about the election. Results from last Thursday came in almost identical to the results from the Sunday Examiner EMRS poll, showing pretty clearly 1 vote each for Greens, Labor and Liberal, with the remaining two seats carved up somehow between the big two, possibly both to Liberal but probably one each. On the important issues, the biggest (far and away) was health, with well over twice as many people worried about health over education, itself 4 times more important than the next issue, the pulp mill.

Other polls we've done since then back up the importance of the health issue, it is far and away the most important issue raised when people are asked.

Not only that, but classes that have gone out this week (today and yesterday) are showing a marked decline for Liberal and Greens with votes going back to Labor. The undecided vote has also dropped.

While it's impossible to be certain based off a small poll in one town, I have to say that the health/midlands highway issue is resonating and could potentially turn things around for the Government.

If it does it will give the green light to ultra-negative campaigning nation wide, which doesn't sound fun. Guess we'll just have to see what happens.

On a side note, if you go to my first link, which is a Labor website pretending to be a Liberals website but bagging out Liberal policies, you will see they attack the Liberals because their Midlands Highway proposal isn't serious or feasible or costed. Yet in their TV ads they're attacking the Libs because it is! Hypocrisy, thy name is desperation....

:)

Two days to go!

Predictions

It's always nice to have predictions put in place early, so you can prove that you were right! Of course it doesn't work so well if you're wrong, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

First off, the Tasmanian state election.

In Braddon, the smart money is on 2,2,1 ie Labor and Liberal getting 2 seats each and the Greens the single. While this is most likely, I'm going to put my hand up and and say that I think there is a distinct possibility of 1 Labor, 3 Liberal and 1 Green. The other possibility is no Greens at all, but I think my scenario is much more likely.

For the state the Liberals certainly look like they're going to win more seats, but an outright majority is unlikely. I think Will Hodgman is definitely on the right track with his campaigning solidly on a "Liberal majority government" theme. It worked for Labor last time around, with many people deciding late to support the party which could win outright.

The most interesting twist in this election is that anecdotally, many people are saying they're going to vote Green for the first time. This includes many Liberal voters and Labor voters sick of the Labor Party. I predict a lot more Greens preferences are going to swing to the Liberals than normal (a LOT more) which is going to make it very hard for Labor when trying to pick up second seats around the state.

The most likely outcome is a hung Parliament, probably 11 Liberals, 5 Greens and 9 Labor. However, there is a very strong possibility of 6 Greens (with a second in Denison). I think there is a reasonable possibility of 6 Greens, 12 or 13 Liberals and 6 or 7 Labor. THAT would be extremely interesting!

Wildcards:

Health would seem to be the big issue at the moment. I had my class doing some polling and 56 people put health down as the most important issue for this election. 18 put education, 6 put the pulp mill and 4 put jobs! Labor are pushing the health barrow, who knows if it will gain traction for them?

As already mentioned, majority Government is going to be an issue. Many Tasmanians don't like it and don't want it. When faced with the very real possibility of it happening expect to see many of those votes move to the Libs. Will it be enough? Who knows?

Next Federal politics.

Kevin Rudd is on the nose, people are finally waking up and smelling the bull shit and his poll numbers have been on a very slow but steady decline for a while now. Also, Tony Abbot's numbers are about as good as any opposition leader has had.

Labor are on the backfoot and need to keep their head up until after the budget. Abbot needs to get them on the ropes and punch them in the head until they fall. He has the weapons for this, with the insulation debacle, Rudd's ridiculous health scheme and Rudd's seeming feud with the NSW Government. Faffing around with maternity leave schemes does not help the cause, he should be focussing on the Government while he has material to work with.

My prediction:

Labor are in trouble for the next election. Probably unlikely to lose (although Beazley very nearly knocked Howard off after one term) but still take a hiding.

Gillard is waiting until Rudd stuffs up the next election to swoop in and take over. She has the numbers on the left plus she's been all authoritarian and school ma'am-ish, which should help her with the right. Only problem is that that plan won't work if Labor lose the election! Also, Greg Combet is building a head of steam and seems likely to be accumulating votes at the moment, which might be a problem for her.

Global Warming

Global warming is dead. Most people don't seem to have realised it yet, but the idea that the world will end unless we reduce our CO2 emissions has run its course. Maybe we are warming the earth with our emissions (possible but unlikely and basically unverifiable anyway) but even if we are, the negative consequences are small and there's lots of positive consequences.

You want real armageddon stuff? Iran nearly has a nuclear weapon. Pakistan is a hair's breadth away from falling to the fundamentalists. We have a nuclear war in the Middle East and suddenly the world's major supply of oil is no use. How you gonna feed 6 billion people when the vast majority rely heavily on the internal combustion engine to deliver their food to them?

Ok, onto more important stuff.

AFL

The doggies were super impressive against the Saints on Saturday, even though I only saw bits of the game. I have to admit never being a huge fan of the dogs, but now, suddenly, they have some height and I find them much more interesting to watch. They have plenty of tough bodies, plenty of runners and now, some good height in the back line and forward line.

I think anything less than top four is unacceptable and they are a realistic shot for top 2 and a flag.

The Saints have to be good this year, after the build up of last year. They have experience and hunger and talent, how can they not go well? That being said, lots of teams make it to a Grand Final and then disappear from view. As for the Bulldogs, anything less than top four is unacceptable and they are a realistic shot for top 2 and a flag.

Geelong have the team, the talent and the experience, but do they have the motivation? It's an awfully long hill to climb and maybe they've been there too many times already? I would expect a top 4 finish (at least) for the Cats, but they could be much lower.

Collingwood have recruited heavily and look very very good (at least on paper). They are aiming for the flag this year, with Mick's last roll of the dice. I enjoy watching Collingwood play and would like them to do well, but I'm sceptical. The one thing we do know; whatever they do at the start of the season probably has no bearing on the end of the season! If they start well, that's good. If they start poorly that might be better, they'll turn it around and come storming home at the end of the year!

Hawthorn might be back this year, who knows? Buddy is looking significantly improved (apparently he was ordered to bulk up last year, not such a great decision in hindsight) and they have an awesome midfield and forward line. That being said, I still think they're very weak defensively and some teams (Brisbane and St Kilda especially) are going to expose them and cut them up. They want another flag and top 4 is certainly realistic.

Now last, but not least, the mystery package, the Fev and Brown show. Can Brisbane recruit their way to a premiership? Probably not, although their young kids are coming through and they have good rucks, running players and a solid defence. I think Brisbane are the smokey, but personally I'm doubtful they can go all the way.

So that's a top 4 list with 6 teams in it. I think Brisbane and Geelong might miss out, but I wouldn't want to put any money on it!

As for the Coleman, I think Barry Hall is the man to watch this year. Fev no longer has Judd to stick it down his throat, while Riewoldt, Brown and Buddy all have goal kicking partners to spread the load around. Buddy is a big chance but you would have to see Roughead kicking at least 60 this year and if he does that than Buddy probably won't get his century.

Top five? Hall, Franklin, Riewoldt, Brown with Fevola and Roughead tied for fifth!

TFL

Can anyone really see Burnie recovering from the off field debacles of the last few months? Plappy dragged them into a final series that they probably didn't deserve to be in and things have just gone downhill since he left!

NTFL

Surely Ulverstone has to win this year?

Darwin

God himself, in his omnipotent, omniscient omnipresence could probably not say who's going to win this one. I would love Natone to win but I'm kind of sceptical I have to admit, certainly not huge numbers coming to training.


So, there we go, a few random predictions that may or may not come true. Let history be my judge!

Harry

More election news

So the Labor Party in Tasmania have gone dirty. Early and hard as well. They're really laying the boots in hoping to scare people with a negative campaign. At the same time they're spending money like there's no tomorrow (which for them, there isn't).

Interesting news.

The latest EMRS poll (with a tiny dataset admittedly) has a consistent Green vote statewide of around 23% with 40% in Denison. Given the upward Green trend in Denison theres a real possibility of 2 seats there. That means that there's a real possibility of David Bartlett losing is seat! Ken Sturgess has the bogan vote sewn up and Lisa Singh has the greenie/swearing at media/hard left Labor vote sewn up (apparently) so Bartlett might be on his arse. In fact looking at the numbers (off a tiny dataset as said) Labor could be looking at only 7 seats. More likely is 9 seats, with a hung parliament.

Pollywaffle. Apparently when asked on radio whether it was an attack on Polley and Llewellyn she replied "no, and Rene Hidding"! Not "no, it's an attack on Rene Hidding" but AND Rene Hidding!

Also, Bartlett announced yesterday or the day before $3million dollars for the Simplot factory in Ulverstone. He then claimed that thanks to that money Simplot would be staying. Except of course, that Simplot had already announced that a) they were staying and b)they'd committed to spend 17 or 18 million dollars of their own money in the factory anyway.

When Bartlett turned up and announced money for a project (money they hadnt asked for and don't know what exactly it's meant to be for) and then claimed credit for stopping Simplot from going offshore, apparently an awful lot of people there were quite angry.

Anyway, fascinating times.

Things to think about: This is Paul O'Hallorans best (and last) chance to win a seat in Braddon for the Greens. Polling shows that he's a strong chance but he has almost no personal vote, so it's still a mystery

Lots of people are going to be voting Green this election (anecdotally), but they're not Labor supporters. Look to see a lot more Green preferences flow to the Liberals than normal.

Compare and contrast he Labor attack ads with the Liberal candidate ads (haven't seen any Labor candidate ads in Braddon). The contrast is massive and I think there would have to be some positive resonance in the electorate.

Labor are in panic mode, except the dirty campaign to get even dirtier!

Harry out

Tasmanian state election...

Tonight I saw an ad on TV for Rebecca White, one of the Labor candidates in the seat of Lyons for the upcoming state election.

This ad featured lots of language about a "fresh start", "making a change", "someone you can trust" and all the usual stuff. I can't really remember specifics unfortunately.

For me, the really compelling thing was that the language was phrased in such a way to imply that Rebecca White, if elected, would be going to Hobart to make changes and run a clean broom through the place. It was a perfect ad, for a Liberal candidate.

I didn't even know which party she was part of until the very end of the ad, when a small Labor logo and the authorisation bit came up.

Why is this important? Because the Labor government is screwed and Labor know this. She's running as a change candidate because she knows trying to get elected as a Government candidate will simply lead to failure. It's quite noticeable when driving around Braddon just how many Liberal posters and bill boards are up. They are out in significant numbers and often significant sizes as well. The only Labor advertising I've seen has been from Helen Richardson, who has three full size billboards between Burnie and Latrobe. Apparently her campaign is fully funded by the union that she runs so maybe she can afford to do that. The other Labor candidates aren't advertising because they don't think there's any point. Why waste money on a lost cause?

Actually, I have seen one other piece of Labor advertising. Bryan Green had a poster on the back of one of the Metro buses in Burnie. In a moment of supreme and perfect irony, I saw this bus with a big yellow poster plastered on the back which said something along the lines of "beginner driver under instruction" or something similar, right next to Bryan Green's photo!

I got a photo on my phone, but unfortunately I was too far away and you can't actually see anything :(

So the point of this post?

Labor are screwed. Liberals are aiming for majority Government. Most likely result; hung Parliament with Labor returned as a minority Government. How to avoid this? Get the Liberals and Greens to gang up in a vote of no-confidence in the Government, required the Governor to ask another party to form Government. Either way, it's interesting times ahead!

cheers

Harry

It's getting hot in here, so hot, so take off all your clothes...

Is it getting hot in here? Apparently not, if the people of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia are to be believed. And they probably should be believed since they're the people that have data from all over the world and have provided the majority of the data for the findings of the IPCC report.

Anyway, whether or not it's getting hotter is actually completely irrelevant to this particular post. However, I will outlay my own feelings, just so there's no misunderstanding.

I don't believe in anthroprogenic climate change.

The earth maybe warming. The earth maybe cooling. Both these things have happened many many times before. What's the difference? How can you believe computer models that can't even replicate what's happened in the past let alone look into the future? How can you ignore the role of sun spots, the fact that many measuring stations are now in built up areas, that changes to CO2 levels seem to historically occur AFTER major climate events, or the fact that the Mediaeval Warm Period was far warmer than current global temperatures?

Anyway.

My question for today is: Why do we need an Emissions Trading Scheme?

I do understand the basic idea, that the market will decide the price of carbon and by limiting the amount of the CO2 produced we get to utilise the benefits of the free market (possibly the only time many greenies would ever be interested in the benefits OF a free market). However, for me, the big problem is that any such scheme is impossible to administer without massive bureacracy and the invasion of government into many aspects of personal and business life, aspects that the government doesn't really need to be involved in.

Surely there is a simpler way?

If Australia wants to reduce the emissions of CO2, let's just whack a tax on all those things that produce it, or at least the main ones. A whacking big tax on coal and oil, basically. For good measure we could ban the export of coal as well, a good way to do our bit to cut global emissions. This will let the market decide the value of CO2, but it will be done in a much simpler, much cheaper way. If you burn coal, you pay more for it (do powerstations even pay for the coal they use at the moment?). You then pass on your costs to your customers, who will presumably use a bit less. Your customers then pass on their costs, and so on. Such a chain reduces overall use while not requiring any invasion of bureacracy, except into the start of the chain where you need to do the taxing.

For me, one of the big issues is this. If I truly believed (TRULY BELIEVED) that humans were causing the globe to warm and as a result everybody would die in fire and brimstone, I would be doing something about it. Not something like telling people to use 1 sheet of toilet paper or setting up some half arsed ETS that will have zero impact on global emissions, but will have the benefit of increasing govt (and therefore politican's) power and reach.

No I would be acting drastically to actually have a real and meaningful impact on emissions. Such a policy might be electorally unpopular, but if you can sell it as a life and death mission that you really believe in than it is not only possible, but mandatory to try.

What really gets me are those people who are fixated on climate change, but don't REALLY believe in it, they just use it as a way to exercise their own little hobby horse. Lots of greenies just believe that we should be leading simpler lives, growing our own food, recycling more, living in harmony with mother earth. Lots of other lefties just believe that they know better (symptomatic of their kind really) and this is a great excuse for telling people what to do. Not that they lead by example, (of course) but they're quite happy to tell you to have a short shower or not eat meat or not take holidays or not buy a new TV.

Hypocrisy people! I'm afraid I can't take hypocrites very seriously. If you tell me that global warming is the greatest threat to mankind in history and you arrived on a private jet to tell me that then I automaticall regard your opinion as being null and void. Don't like it? Don't be a hypocrite!

ps I'm not the biggest supporter of the Greens, but at least they put their money where their mouth is. They voted to defeat the ETS last time because it wasn't strong enough. The wishy-washy compromise hammered out by Gillard and MacFarlane is a steaming dog turd and the Greens are right to vote against that as well.

Is that a greenhouse in your pocket?

So, the Liberal Party.

There seem to be an awful lot of the commentariat making noises about how confused they are, how the Liberal party is fracturing itself, how it's the wets versus the drys, how it's power brokers doing their best to remove Turnbull because they hate Turnbull. I think that they're all wrong.

The Liberal party is in opposition. The opposition's role is to "oppose". They need to present an alternative government to the people, the key word there being "alternative".

For the past two years or so the Liberal Party hasn't actually stood up for anything. Nelson and Turnbull (both massive disappointments as far as I'm concerned) have been to busy agreeing with the ALP to come up with any realistic or useable policies. Agreeing with the government or nitpicking on minor but populist policies is no way to get elected.

To many people keep on insisting the lessons of the last election were that Howard lost because of work choices and climate change. Bullshit!

Voters wanted a change from Howard. Rudd offered that change, in a Howard-Lite package. Sure, people were worried by the scare campaign about work choices. Sure, lots of people were worried about climate change (not so many now). But basically, everything was going well and people wanted more of the same, just not from Howard. I sincerely believe that Costello would have had a real dip if he had led the Liberals to the last election, not because he was necessarily better, but because he was different while still providing more of the same.

So will the Liberals lose 20 seats in a climate change election? I doubt it. A few weeks ago the Liberals were looking at losing 12 to 20 seats in an election anyway. And worrying obsessively about polls and votes can cripple you so much that you do nothing and fail from inaction.

The current goings-on in the Liberal Party are not about Turnbull, at least not directly. They are about people in the party finally growing a backbone, standing up and saying that a policy direction is crap and that something needs to be done. If Turnbull could stand up and announce that the whole ETS is crap, that he is going to fight it because it's crap (which he should have done a long time ago) than none of this would have happened.

Those people standing up have realised that you have to STAND for something. Not being Labour is not enough. The Liberal Party is never going to win an election by moving to the left of centre. That territory is already owned by Labor and in a time where maybe 10 percent of voters of genuine swing voters, Labor voters are not going to vote Liberal, no matter how many trees you save, no matter how sorry you are and no matter how many stupid and incomprehensibly complicated emissions trading schemes you enact.

This is definitely an issue worth fighting over, but if it hadn't been this it would have been something else.

That's why the commentariat are wrong, it is about the policy, not about Turnbull specifically.

Edit

So the votes are in and Tony Abbot won, 42 votes to 41. Joe Hockey totally shot himself in the foot, how on earth could the Liberals countenance getting a new leader and then seeing this legislation that caused all the problems get passed? People know where Tony Abbot stands, that's a good basis for rebuilding the party.

Link to article here.

Edit 2

Another point of view. Basicallyit's saying that Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and John Howard were all controversial and unlikeable in their own ways. You don't need to be a populist or universally popular to be the Prime Minister. Potentially means Abbot is a real threat as opposition leader, because he actually stands for something.

Back to the future 2

While I don´t actually remember the various arms limitations talks that went on during the cold war, I have read about them since. Ineffectual would be a nice way to put things. Arguing over the finer details and both sides trying to cheat each other or gain some kind of advantage.

Well I´m sure everyone will be glad to know that we´re going back to the past.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268963178032407.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

George Bush achieved, Obama talks.

Cheers

Harry

I was for torture before I was against torture...

Anyone heard about the vast conspiracy engulfing Washington at the moment? Apparently the CIA lied to Nancy Pelosi about waterboarding!

Click here for a very interesting article about the whole subject, excerpt below.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation’s intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the autumn of 2002, while I was chairman of the House of Representatives’ intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA’s “High Value Terrorist Program,” including the development of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and what those techniques were…

For all those people who recall the atmosphere back then, this was a time when terrorist attacks seemed imminent. There was the shoe bomber and those pricks who ensured that we can no longer take liquids onboard planes. The Democratic Party was attacking Bush hysterically for not doing ENOUGH about national security. Almost all of Congress voted for war with Iraq. One of Al Queda´s most senior people, who had helped to organise a majority of their attacks, was in captivity and refusing to talk, because he knew the US wouldn´t torture him.

The CIA came up with a series of proposals for dealing with such situations. They put forward these proposals. These proposals were vetted thoroughly by lawyers who assessed them against US and international law. Congressional and Senate leaders (of both parties) were briefed thoroughly about this whole process.

And then, after all this, three people were waterboarded. Now I¨m sure it wouldn´t be a very pleasant experience, I´m certainy not going to volunteer for it. But the fact is that it had been done on US military personnel to prepare them for interrogation. It was done within strict guidelines and under medical supervision.

No toe nails were pulled out, no blood was let, no red hot metal was applied to the body. Compared to such things waterboarding is not torture. Yes it´s unpleasant, but so is doing the dishes, or listening to country music.

Now that a sense of proportion has been established, let´s have those Democrats who were briefed about and agreed to such operations come forward and stop being hypocrites. It was the right thing to do, it gained valuable information at an important time and we should be prepared to do it again if need be.

For another POV on the subject, I highly recommend this link here to a Pelosi press release on the matter.

cheers

Harry

edit - stupid blogspot! In previews this all looks good, but when I publish everything goes to italics. Arrrgh!

If you only read one opinion article this year...

make it this one....

Greg Sheridan writing in The Australian about Israel and the Palestinian questions.

For me, the key points are this (without looking to remove blame from Israel for things theymight have done).

Why is Israel the only country condemned by the UN and the media for human rights violations?  Fine, if Israel does the wrong thing, have at them.  But then you should also have at everybody else.  Can you really compare a couple of hundred civilian deaths in Gaza (not counting Hamas combatants here) against the 300,000 or more deaths in Sudan?  Why does no-one ever mention the huge numbers of Palestinians killed by other Palestinians?

Why does no-one ever mention the economic failings (massive economic failings) of the Arab states that surround Israel?  Oh no, it´s all the Jew´s fault (most things are apparently).

Why on earth do people who would be put to death in brutal and horrific ways (homosexuals), locked up without trial for indefinite periods (various academics and so-called intellectuals) or subjected to a lifetime of oppression and sujugation (women) think that´s it a great idea to support Islamic fundamentalists (islamo fascists) and the various loony Arab regimes?

Now I´m not going to argue about the truth or otherwise of Israel´s crimes (although I would be happy to), but even if everything that has ever been said about Israel is true, surely the above points are still valid?  Attack Israel for its failings, but make sure you look properly at everyone else´s failings as well.

Read the article, it´s rather excellent.

cheers

Harry

ps, if you read the comments there´s some quite interesting stuff in there.  My favourite - 

Anti Semitism is not only one of Europe's oldest religions, a "faith" consoling many nice people to this day, it has outlived Christianity there. Now the failing Arab states embrace it too. Like other consoling faiths, it can't be destroyed by rational arguments like this essay, I'm sorry to say.

don´t mock the power of the goat...

This may come as news to some people, but apparently John Howard is still running Australia.  Obviously he doesn´t have his actual ¨hands on the wheel¨ so to speak, but still, his ominous presence hovers menacingly above us all, kind of like the dead King in Macbeth.

Or at least that´s what Wayne Swan wants us to believe.  

Budget blowout is John Howard's fault - Wayne Swan   is the headline in the Herald Sun.  Apparently the Liberals relied upon the continuance of the mining boom so much that they overspent and now that the mining boom has ended we´ve gone from being in budget surplus to being in deficit.  $60 billion in deficit according to leaks which may or may not be accurate and probably $200 billion in deficit over the next couple of years.

But even though the Ruddster has been around for a while this massive problem is still Howard´s fault.  No mention of money given to people to spend on booze or pokies, or to insulate their ceilings or buy more holdens.  No mention of the idea of maybe sacking a few public servants.  No the Labor Government has been condemned by circumstance outside their control.  Hardly seems fair that we´re actually paying them if they can´t do anything does it?

cheers

Harry

Do what I say, don´t do what I do...

What is bipartisanship?  I would have imagined that if someone was talking about trying to take a ¨bipartisan¨approach to politics, it would involve the different sides putting forward their opinions and coming up with some kind of consensus solution, an outcome that isn´t the first choice but is accepted by all.

Apparently that´s just crazy talk Dr Harry!

How about this little gem from Yahoo News.  It has a segment on some of Obama´s campaign promises and then looks at how well he has succeeded.  The intro is this:

CANDIDATE OBAMA ON BIPARTISANSHIP – “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.”

And the assessment on how well he went is this:

PRESIDENT OBAMA ON BIPARTISANSHIP – He has made gestures to his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill and has invited them into his administration. But turning politics into a less divisive, less partisan affair has proved difficult. Only three Republicans voted for Obama’s stimulus legislation in February.

Now I might be wrong here, but from memory the stimulus bill was some 1000 pages long and members of the two houses were given less than a day to read it?  So the fact that any Republicans at all voted for the bill is a wonder, not a mystery.

Yahoo are shamelessly attacking the Republicans and cheering for Obama over his efforts to be bipartisan, but the basic truth is that Obama has negotiated nothing at all.  He has asked for his programs to be supported but he hasn´t asked for input or held negotiations so that the other side can put forward their point of view.

With a Pauline Hanson voice..... ¨Shame Yahoo, shame on you!¨ (and Barry for that matter).

cheers

Harry

Here´s something a bit more interesting to look at!

Every cloud has a silver lining...

I believe that this is the funniest post about meat ever.

enjoy

Harry

You have freedom of speech, just choose to remain silent

Did you know that the UK Government has now banned homophobic jokes? I didn´t.

How is this not a matter that completely attacks the very notion of free speech? What happened to the idea of

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

What about the episode of Seinfeld when a comedian converted to Judaism just so he could make Jewish jokes? Is it then alright to make a poof joke if you happen to bat both ways or like exploring the chocolate mudslide? Or are all queer jokes banned?

As Mark Steyn wonders, does this mean that Little Britain will be breaking the law? (Check out Steyn´s article by the way, he´s an excellent writer, although probably a bit too small government/personal freedom for many people)

For an alternative point of view on the subject, check out Iowahawk´s post on gay joke smuggling. For me, the punch line is the very last line.

Who decides what should be allowed and what should be banned? Why is it ok to take a statue of Jesus and immerse it in a jar of urine but it´s not so cool to draw a cartoon featuring the prophet Mohammed (who isn´t actually divine, just a prophet for the divine)?

Why is it ok to promote the killing of old people through Euthanasia, but not ok to promote the killing of rapists and murderers through the death penalty?

As Steyn says, this is basically a way for the Government to gather more power and in my opinion that is almost always a BAD THING.

This is all very interesting and I could write a lot more about it, but basically I think you should be able to say whatever you want. If you post something as fact you need to be able to prove it (so those newspapers posting opinion as front page news, sort your shit out!). If you libel someone, you should be accountable. And if you post opinion, it should be properly advertised as such.

cheers

Harry

ps if you do tell people what you actually think, then everyone will know you´re a retard hating, communist loving, mediaeval and brutal monarchy bowing, nuclear proliferation appeasing, Chicago political whore, because your opinions are out in the open for everyone to see. Rather than pretending otherwise until it´s too late.

euthanasia

And no, I´m not talking about Japanese teenagers here.

This is a topic I´ve been thinking about for sometime. What has inspired me to post is a column by Andrew Bolt (crypto-fascists like him a lot as well) about Phillip Nitschke. Check out his column here. Some of what he writes about is pretty horrific, especially the fact that many of the people killed off by Dr Death have not only not had terminal illnesses, haven´t been in pain and have often been just old and lonely. Not exactly how things were meant to be is it?

So what do I think about euthanasia?

I support it, but with some (massive) qualifications. All those people who love the idea are too quick to forget that euthanasia is basically killing someone, and to take a human life is the greatest sin there is.

So who should be allowed euthanasia? In my opinion, those who are terminally ill (proven terminally ill), in great pain and with not long to live.

And where is my position different to Dr Nitschke´s?

I believe that euthanasia, as the taking of human life, must be treated as such and be subject to criminal prosecution.

If someone whom you love and care for is dying, in great pain and wants nothing more than to end it all, than most of us would be moved to try and do something to help. And if we truly cared for that person we would do this depite possible adverse consequences to ourselves.

I remember an example from my Legal Studies class in year 12 where an elderly gentleman killed his elderly wife because of the pain she was in. He was tried for murder, admitted his culpability but put forward the circumstances and the jury found him not guilty.

This man killed the woman he loved and accepted the personal consequences (a murder trial). If you aren´t willing to do the same than you shouldn´t be advocating euthanasia (a rather horrific name really, trying to disguise it´s own terrible reality).

I know that this leaves some people out in the cold. Many elderly people don´t have someone that close to them (many have no-one at all) who can do the deed. Others will find their loved ones simply can´t face the consequences. That is tough for them. But if Dr Nitschke wants to help out than he should. And then HE should go to court and justify himself.

I also remember hearing of cases from the Netherlands. Legalised euthanasia saw many doctors and nurses start to off patients who had never requested any such thing, more often than not without the knowledge or consent of family.

This is definitely a topic that is ¨thin edge of the wedge¨ stuff. Once you open up this particular can of worms, who knows where things will end up.

That´s another reason why my solution is simple and effective. It doesn´t change anything and it demands a meaninful sacrifice from those involved in assisting. Of course, in this day and age where the concept of sacrifice and service are often sneered at or reject outright my idea is unlikely to be popular. But hey, I´m not big on killing old people just because they´re old, so I guess we can´t all be friends, can we?

cheers

Harry

what we really need is more money for wiccans to hold an inter-faith service celebrating the solstice...

As I´m sure some people may know, a few gentleman accustomed to motoring around the countryside on two wheeled contraptions had a bit of a contretemps at the Sydney Airport the other day. This little encounter among gentleman has rather upset some people, especially those who think that maybe the people responsible for security at the airport should have ¨done something.¨

Peter Faris, of the The Australian, suggests that the incident demonstrates gross incompetence by the AFP, that Mike Keelty should resign and asks the question what if those involved had been terrorists?

Key paragraph:

After Mumbai and Lahore, what is even more frightening to consider is that jihadist terrorists could arrive at Sydney airport by taxi, shoot hundreds of people in the terminal, and escape by taxi. It seems there would be no intervention by AFP security or anti-terrorist police. This, of course, is much more attractive to the jihadists, because they would not need to die in suicide bomb attacks.

I have to stand up and agree with the general thrust of this article, although I´m not sure I´d be putting more funding into the AFP. There are certainly excellent reasons to have an AFP, amongst them the coordination of efforts in dealing with crimes that cross state and federal boundaries and the past history of massive police corruption at a state level in various jurisdictions (most famously NSW). But improving and strengthening state police forces I believe is a much better solution, in concert with the continuing work of the AFP and the ACC. Although I would get rid of Keelty, he´s dead weight and has been for years now.

Faris says that citizens pay their taxes and deserve to be safe on the streets. I think it´s more important than that. I believe that a fundamental part of a nation´s social and economic well being is based upon the rule of law and the safety of citizens and their property.

While some may disagree with me, how about this for a theory. The crime and drug problems of African-Americans in the ghetto are not caused by poverty, lack of opportunity or lack of jobs. Rather, lack of opportunity and lack of jobs is caused by crime. Who´s going to start a business, or invest in a business or a property if they live in an area where every day you at risk from violent criminals? I´ve seen The Wire, so I know what´s it like the ghetto!

Why have many Asian countries dragged themselves upwards while many African nations continue to wallow in the pit of poverty and aid dependence? It´s obviously not corruption, since by reputation many Asian countries are ridiculously corrupt, especially Korea, one of the strongest Asian economies.

The difference is that it is incredibly difficult to start a business (a proper business, not selling some cabbages by the side of the road) in many African countries, many of them continue to use aid as a crutch to avoid doing anything to start an economy (a topic for another day) and many African countries cannot guarantee basic law and order for petty crimes, let along major ones such as kidnapping, rape and murder. Not only that, but there is a difference between corruption (skimming some off the top) and a police force or military that just takes whatever it wants.

If we want to maintain our free society and our strong economy, we need to ensure that we continue to keep our citizens and their property safe (and in these present economic circumstances that seems reasonable).

First step? Forget about more money, lets see much more respect given to those who enforce the law.



I think, as a general principle, that if a person were to spit at a policeman, than that policeman should (in approximate terms), kick them in the crotch, beat them lightly around the legs and body with a baton, chuck them in the paddy wagon and spray some pepper gas on them for good measure.

Instead, we have police copping abuse both physical, oral and psychological (in one of the toughest jobs out there) and having no real recourse, apart from courts that will often impose nothing but the mildest sentence, if anything. In Victoria we´ve even had a Police Commissioner going further than that, trying to get police to talk more and seeking less physically confrontational (read small female) police officers.

Police do a crappy job without the powers (of physical abuse) that are a traditional part of their repertoire. Can´t we move into the 21st century in a way which incorporates the good parts of physical violence and intimidation without the bad parts (corruption, criminality and beating confessions out of suspects)? And by the good parts I mean, again, that people respect police and if they don´t like them they certainly don´t voice their opinion because they know what´s good for them!

I think that would be a major step in reducing crime in Australia, particularly violent crime such has increased in a massive way in Melbourne´s nightclub district in recent years.

I have much more to say on this topic, but i´ll leave it there as an intro.

Ex-judge Marcus Einfeld gaoled for lying over speeding fine.

Good.

Check out further details here. This is a guy who obviously thinks that he is better or special and tried to tweak the system to his advantage.

That´s all

Harry