The irony of the launching of the world's first scientific demonstration of carbon sequestration by Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson being spoilt by strong winds seems to have been overlooked by the media.
The quest to clean coal by carbon geo-sequestration is an unproven technology, that at this point is more public relations exercise than actual solution.
Even if it should work will not be available for years, ie too late. It is therefore naturally attracting a lot of investment from the government as Climate Change policy in this country is written by the largest polluters, aka the Greenhouse Mafia. Business as usual, reality be damned.
Generating power from the wind however is an established technology and as recent events show there is a lot of wind about, apparently more and more in fact as the effects of Climate Change kick in. Earth to Martin, come in. Hello? Where is that wood? Who left all these trees lying about?
As Andrew Bartlett points out sequestration should not be dismissed out of hand but a rational analysis says we can't pin any significant hopes on it, let alone sit around and assume it will work and save us all. The opportunity cost of the focus on sequestration is huge in terms of investment in renewable energy technologies, you know, the technologies that actually work.
The above report doesn't indicate whether it was a bright sunny day, but it does remind me of the cartoon that I saw on a postcard once of two guys standing in a flat landscape under a blaring sun looking down and saying there must be a source of energy down there somewhere.
Or perhaps of that `parable' about the Christian who drowns believing God will save him after ignoring the radio announcement, row boat and the helicopter God sends (which I heard on the West Wing - Take this Sabbath Day).
Martin Ferguson roasting under a burning sun, barely able to stand in the cyclonic wind conditions is finally washed away in a turbulent flood all the while desperately trying to scrub coal clean is his leisurely search for a clean source of energy. Don't worry, no need to rush, coal company public relations experts are on the job. Yeah, we're saved.
Still stockpiling canned goods not the craziest idea so long as you remember to get a manual can-opener.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Education: the numbers still don't add up
The Liberal government has just announced in its budget that it will be putting $5 billion in a Higher Education Fund.
While it is true that investment in education is about the best way for a government to spend money, something Howard et al have neglected to date, this fund will only spend at most the profits from the fund on universities.
This means that the $5 billion will not be spent on universities but invested in the market. I don't know where the money from the Future Fund is invested but the same people will be investing our tax dollars from the Higher Education fund as well.
As they are appointed by Howard et al it is not unreasonable to wonder where the money is going. Regardless it is not actually going to universities. It does sound impressive though so it has served its purpose.
The reality is that even with the new money from this budget the proportion of GDP spent on education has still decreased over the period of the Howard government from 2 percent to 1.6 percent.
This lack of investment in education will have a long term detrimental effect on Australia's productivity and our competitiveness.
Assuming of course we have a long term given the complete lack of attention giving to addressing global warming in the budget.
While it is true that investment in education is about the best way for a government to spend money, something Howard et al have neglected to date, this fund will only spend at most the profits from the fund on universities.
This means that the $5 billion will not be spent on universities but invested in the market. I don't know where the money from the Future Fund is invested but the same people will be investing our tax dollars from the Higher Education fund as well.
As they are appointed by Howard et al it is not unreasonable to wonder where the money is going. Regardless it is not actually going to universities. It does sound impressive though so it has served its purpose.
The reality is that even with the new money from this budget the proportion of GDP spent on education has still decreased over the period of the Howard government from 2 percent to 1.6 percent.
This lack of investment in education will have a long term detrimental effect on Australia's productivity and our competitiveness.
Assuming of course we have a long term given the complete lack of attention giving to addressing global warming in the budget.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Stop press: Liberal does his own dirty work
On Saturday during the NSW state election Liberal (LiPA) Senator Bill Heffernan stole Greens how-to-vote cards and started handing them out while misrepresenting the Greens' drugs policy. Usually the LiPAs contract out their dirty work like attacks on the Greens' drugs policy to Family First (aka the Fundamentalist Front) or the Exclusive Brethren (aka nutjobs).
Just for the record the Greens' drugs policy is based on the premise that the current approach to drugs has failed, and that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one. It still requires that dealers be dealt with by the criminal justice system. It does NOT, repeat NOT, advocate giving, or selling, drugs to children or indeed anyone else.
Anyway, reportedly Senator Heffernan then threatened to charge a Greens' candidate with assault if he were so much as touched in the course of an attempt to retrieve the stolen cards. Given that one of the Greens' core tenets is peace and non-violence Heffernan was presumably fairly safe, and was merely invoking the law as a means of intimidation.
This is indeed one of the main uses for the law but its blatant use in this way by a lawmaker is disturbing, though not surprisingly so, especially from Senator Heffernan who is mainly known for using parliamentary privilege to make false accusations against a High Court judge, and more generally as Howard's number one inhouse go-to-guy for dirty work in NSW.
It is somewhat irionic that when challenged about his continuing to misrepresent the Greens even after returning the stolen how-to-vote cards Heffernan said, "Anyone who wants to have a bit of biffo with me on this point, I invite them to step up to the plate." It certainly sounds like he is desperate to charge someone with assault, or assault someone. An angry, angry man.
I don't know if Heffernan has broken any laws by misrepresenting himself as a member of the Greens, though most likely not given the loose nature of the electoral laws drawn up by the major parties specifically to allow such abuses. Ethically however pretty much par for the course for the LiPAs, and we know how they love to stay those unethical courses.
If he has broken any laws he almost certainly won't be held to account, let alone be made to pay the so-called ultimate price of losing his seat. Certainly he wasn't after the much more serious incident when he eventually retracted the manufactured accusations against the High Court judge whose decisions he didn't like. Indeed he retained his number one position on the Coalition senate ticket in NSW and was therefore of course guaranteed re-election in 2004.
So this latest incident will merely serve as a further reminder, beyond the continuing presence of Heffernan in public life, of the contempt the LiPA hold for democracy, especially and ironically a liberal one.
Just for the record the Greens' drugs policy is based on the premise that the current approach to drugs has failed, and that drug addiction should be treated as a health problem rather than a criminal one. It still requires that dealers be dealt with by the criminal justice system. It does NOT, repeat NOT, advocate giving, or selling, drugs to children or indeed anyone else.
Anyway, reportedly Senator Heffernan then threatened to charge a Greens' candidate with assault if he were so much as touched in the course of an attempt to retrieve the stolen cards. Given that one of the Greens' core tenets is peace and non-violence Heffernan was presumably fairly safe, and was merely invoking the law as a means of intimidation.
This is indeed one of the main uses for the law but its blatant use in this way by a lawmaker is disturbing, though not surprisingly so, especially from Senator Heffernan who is mainly known for using parliamentary privilege to make false accusations against a High Court judge, and more generally as Howard's number one inhouse go-to-guy for dirty work in NSW.
It is somewhat irionic that when challenged about his continuing to misrepresent the Greens even after returning the stolen how-to-vote cards Heffernan said, "Anyone who wants to have a bit of biffo with me on this point, I invite them to step up to the plate." It certainly sounds like he is desperate to charge someone with assault, or assault someone. An angry, angry man.
I don't know if Heffernan has broken any laws by misrepresenting himself as a member of the Greens, though most likely not given the loose nature of the electoral laws drawn up by the major parties specifically to allow such abuses. Ethically however pretty much par for the course for the LiPAs, and we know how they love to stay those unethical courses.
If he has broken any laws he almost certainly won't be held to account, let alone be made to pay the so-called ultimate price of losing his seat. Certainly he wasn't after the much more serious incident when he eventually retracted the manufactured accusations against the High Court judge whose decisions he didn't like. Indeed he retained his number one position on the Coalition senate ticket in NSW and was therefore of course guaranteed re-election in 2004.
So this latest incident will merely serve as a further reminder, beyond the continuing presence of Heffernan in public life, of the contempt the LiPA hold for democracy, especially and ironically a liberal one.
Plea or Else
Before his mock trial could even really get under way David Hicks has apparently entered a plea of guilty to providing material support for terrorism.
I don't know if this is one of those laws that didn't exist at the time Hicks was meant to have broken them but reports have indicated that it relates to his having trained with al Quaeda and having met Osama bin Laden. How this actually assists terrorism is not clear, though granted it isn't good. Essentially though he seems to have admitted to having met people who at the time were not on the payroll of the CIA.
Meeting bin Laden is obviously significantly worse than meeting Brian Burke which only leaves a taint but isn't as yet a crime in itself. However, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and then Alexander Downer helped channel hundreds of millions of dollars to him. To me that sounds more like material support, and yet charges are yet to be laid. No doubt only a matter of time.
Hicks' plea has been reported as a plea bargain but as they still seem to be talking about how long his sentence will be, and where it might be served, they seemed to have missed out significant parts of the bargain.
The Howard government, no doubt relieved at not having to go through with the whole mock trial, as it seems at this point no one is buying it anymore, has called game over and declared themselves the winners. Hicks has pled guilty, case closed, can we please talk about something else in the run up to the election.
Interestingly our behated Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has come out and said Hicks probably won't appeal his sentence. How does Ruddock come to this conclusion? Apparently an appeal would jeopardise any transfer deal, a transfer meaning Hicks serving his sentence in Adelaide near his family.
So an appeal would mean staying at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely instead of being moved to a prison in Adelaide, presumably where laws and human rights are still upheld (one can only hope). There is also a date, though yet to be determined, where it is agreed you would be let out (though possibly let out but put under a control order). Compared to eternity in Guantanamo irresistible, and not something easily given up.
The Australian and American governments in their desperation for a political fix are openly threatening that should Hicks decide that maybe he didn't get a fair trial what with the being held for years without charge, and the torture, and isolation, and so forth, he will be left to the tender mercies of those who run Guantanamo apparently beyond the reach of any law, essentially forever.
I don't want to quibble but this doesn't strike me as a fair trial. You can either plead guilty, or go before a kangaroo court and spend the rest of your life being tortured. Would you like some thinking music? Perhaps loud and played 24 hours a day until you say `Guilty'. Who wouldn't take this deal? Contrary to the governments' pr spin this just adds another chapter to the miscarriage of justice.
Hicks certainly did something wrong, but nothing that could warrant his treatment at the hands of the american government or his abandonment by the Australian government. He can never get a fair trial now. The only hope is that those who have held him, clearly also guilty, but of much greater crimes, are one day made accountable and given the fair trial they have denied Hicks. This is not a hope to pin anything to though.
I don't know if this is one of those laws that didn't exist at the time Hicks was meant to have broken them but reports have indicated that it relates to his having trained with al Quaeda and having met Osama bin Laden. How this actually assists terrorism is not clear, though granted it isn't good. Essentially though he seems to have admitted to having met people who at the time were not on the payroll of the CIA.
Meeting bin Laden is obviously significantly worse than meeting Brian Burke which only leaves a taint but isn't as yet a crime in itself. However, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and then Alexander Downer helped channel hundreds of millions of dollars to him. To me that sounds more like material support, and yet charges are yet to be laid. No doubt only a matter of time.
Hicks' plea has been reported as a plea bargain but as they still seem to be talking about how long his sentence will be, and where it might be served, they seemed to have missed out significant parts of the bargain.
The Howard government, no doubt relieved at not having to go through with the whole mock trial, as it seems at this point no one is buying it anymore, has called game over and declared themselves the winners. Hicks has pled guilty, case closed, can we please talk about something else in the run up to the election.
Interestingly our behated Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has come out and said Hicks probably won't appeal his sentence. How does Ruddock come to this conclusion? Apparently an appeal would jeopardise any transfer deal, a transfer meaning Hicks serving his sentence in Adelaide near his family.
So an appeal would mean staying at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely instead of being moved to a prison in Adelaide, presumably where laws and human rights are still upheld (one can only hope). There is also a date, though yet to be determined, where it is agreed you would be let out (though possibly let out but put under a control order). Compared to eternity in Guantanamo irresistible, and not something easily given up.
The Australian and American governments in their desperation for a political fix are openly threatening that should Hicks decide that maybe he didn't get a fair trial what with the being held for years without charge, and the torture, and isolation, and so forth, he will be left to the tender mercies of those who run Guantanamo apparently beyond the reach of any law, essentially forever.
I don't want to quibble but this doesn't strike me as a fair trial. You can either plead guilty, or go before a kangaroo court and spend the rest of your life being tortured. Would you like some thinking music? Perhaps loud and played 24 hours a day until you say `Guilty'. Who wouldn't take this deal? Contrary to the governments' pr spin this just adds another chapter to the miscarriage of justice.
Hicks certainly did something wrong, but nothing that could warrant his treatment at the hands of the american government or his abandonment by the Australian government. He can never get a fair trial now. The only hope is that those who have held him, clearly also guilty, but of much greater crimes, are one day made accountable and given the fair trial they have denied Hicks. This is not a hope to pin anything to though.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Mammonite Mining Magnates
The Australian Mines and Metals Association have released a report saying AWA's are not eliminating worker's conditions. However it becomes clear that this report is in fact based purely on the mining industry. So conditions have not in fact worsened in an industry desperate for workers to satisfy the booming Chinese influenced market. Have these champions of industry forgotten about the basic concept of supply and demand, or are they as seems more likely lying mammonite bastards.
How surprising that on average in an industry currently renowned for how desperate it is to get ever more workers, to the extent that there are consequent labour shortages in many professions and trades, especially in WA and Qld, conditions for workers aren't worsening. Mining companies aren't in a position to screw over much of their workforces just at the moment. Hooray, how very reassuring. Likely these figures also include generous contracts for management skewing the averages. To generalise this figures to the economy as a whole is just a blatant lie.
Bizarrely the report seems to suggest that while wages in the mining industry have indeed gone up they have not kept pace with increases in productivity. So apparently miners are indeed still getting stiffed. This constant call from management to link wage increases to increases in productivity has always been manifestly unfair because it means workers have to continue working harder and harder just to keep pace with inflation. Real wages stagnate while companies reap the benefits of increases in productivity and don't pass them along to the people who actually do the work. It's a con.
More so of a con when wages don't keep pace with increases in productivity, so workers are working harder but any increases in reward do not correspond. And what happens when the boom is over, or the labour shortage situation is stabilised and supply starts to catch up with demand? What will happen to people's working conditions then? Nothing good. They will be at the mercies of the kind of people who will peddle this kind of bald faced lie to the public.
How surprising that on average in an industry currently renowned for how desperate it is to get ever more workers, to the extent that there are consequent labour shortages in many professions and trades, especially in WA and Qld, conditions for workers aren't worsening. Mining companies aren't in a position to screw over much of their workforces just at the moment. Hooray, how very reassuring. Likely these figures also include generous contracts for management skewing the averages. To generalise this figures to the economy as a whole is just a blatant lie.
Bizarrely the report seems to suggest that while wages in the mining industry have indeed gone up they have not kept pace with increases in productivity. So apparently miners are indeed still getting stiffed. This constant call from management to link wage increases to increases in productivity has always been manifestly unfair because it means workers have to continue working harder and harder just to keep pace with inflation. Real wages stagnate while companies reap the benefits of increases in productivity and don't pass them along to the people who actually do the work. It's a con.
More so of a con when wages don't keep pace with increases in productivity, so workers are working harder but any increases in reward do not correspond. And what happens when the boom is over, or the labour shortage situation is stabilised and supply starts to catch up with demand? What will happen to people's working conditions then? Nothing good. They will be at the mercies of the kind of people who will peddle this kind of bald faced lie to the public.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Muslim bad, christian good, liberal, what's that?
Philip Ruddock, attorney general in the Howard government (reputedly once an actual small `l' liberal) is looking into the status of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, apparently a muslim group that advocates the introduction of sharia law and rejects liberal democracy, capitalism and Western values.
At the very same time more and more information is being unearthed about the links between the the very same Howard government plus various other Liberal Party of Australia (LiPA) types and the Exclusive Brethren, a christian group that advocates strict following of the bible and rejects liberal democracy and Western values.
Just to recap, there are only two obvious differences between Hizb ut-Tahrir (HUT) and the Exclusive Brethren (EB). Firstly HUT are muslims while the EB are christians though they seem to have more in common with each other than most of their respective coreligionists.
Secondly HUT are reportedly against capitalism (not to be confused with the Hutts) whilst the EB seem to be of the opinion that the accumulation of wealth is the ultimate form of worship (not like that other EB who is a giver).
It is therefore no wonder the Howardites are looking into HUT but not EB... obviously HUT are communists. They'd be under the bed but they're not really into that type of thing, and, bed and Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn't really rhyme. Also as there are apparently only about 12 of them in the whole country they would have difficultly hiding under any significant proportion of Australian beds.
The Howardites obviously have no problem with advocating ridiculous laws or rejecting liberal democracy or western values, indeed these are defining characteristics of this government. Thus their getting into the bed with the EB was inevitable given the ability of the EB to pay and the willingness of LiPA to prostitute themselves (sincere and heartfelt apologies to any prostitutes reading this).
We can all appreciate why LiPA would want to keep private the fact that they are in bed going at it with a bunch of christian loonies. It isn't a pretty picture. Can't really blame the HUT for not wanting to be under the bed with what is apparently going on in there.
It is bad enough that the Liberals sell themselves to their regulars, a horde of corporate sponsors, but to do so to the EB is a new and disturbing perversion. These are people who are deeply suspicious of anything thought up after the Bronze Age, which includes the new testament and liberalism. Even the LiPA should have standards higher than this.
At the very same time more and more information is being unearthed about the links between the the very same Howard government plus various other Liberal Party of Australia (LiPA) types and the Exclusive Brethren, a christian group that advocates strict following of the bible and rejects liberal democracy and Western values.
Just to recap, there are only two obvious differences between Hizb ut-Tahrir (HUT) and the Exclusive Brethren (EB). Firstly HUT are muslims while the EB are christians though they seem to have more in common with each other than most of their respective coreligionists.
Secondly HUT are reportedly against capitalism (not to be confused with the Hutts) whilst the EB seem to be of the opinion that the accumulation of wealth is the ultimate form of worship (not like that other EB who is a giver).
It is therefore no wonder the Howardites are looking into HUT but not EB... obviously HUT are communists. They'd be under the bed but they're not really into that type of thing, and, bed and Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn't really rhyme. Also as there are apparently only about 12 of them in the whole country they would have difficultly hiding under any significant proportion of Australian beds.
The Howardites obviously have no problem with advocating ridiculous laws or rejecting liberal democracy or western values, indeed these are defining characteristics of this government. Thus their getting into the bed with the EB was inevitable given the ability of the EB to pay and the willingness of LiPA to prostitute themselves (sincere and heartfelt apologies to any prostitutes reading this).
We can all appreciate why LiPA would want to keep private the fact that they are in bed going at it with a bunch of christian loonies. It isn't a pretty picture. Can't really blame the HUT for not wanting to be under the bed with what is apparently going on in there.
It is bad enough that the Liberals sell themselves to their regulars, a horde of corporate sponsors, but to do so to the EB is a new and disturbing perversion. These are people who are deeply suspicious of anything thought up after the Bronze Age, which includes the new testament and liberalism. Even the LiPA should have standards higher than this.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Liberals caught in bed with the Exclusive Brethren
The Liberals have been caught in bed with the Exclusive Brethren but are trying to claim that they did not have sexual relations with that party, despite the stains on the blue dress.
In the last Tasmanian state election there was a rabid and misleading anti-Green advertising campaign subsequently revealed to have been authorised by members of the Exclusive Brethren, one of christianity's answers to the taliban.
It has now in turn been revealed that this campaign was run by an advertising company controlled by prominent members of the Liberal party. But it goes on.
This same company of course also ran the Liberal's campaign. When it came time to ante up for the campaign the Liberal party was invoiced for the whole lot ie including what was purportedly by individual members of the EB.
The director of the Liberals claims it was all a mistake. Apparently there should have been separate invoices to maintain the impolite legal fiction that they were separate.
Legally he may be right, just as Clinton may have been with his famous denial, but similarly it is clear that the law and reality have violently parted ways if that is the case.
The Liberals have given the EB exemptions under industrial relations, family and various other laws. So the EB are now to a considerable extent exempt from the sames laws as the rest of us.
In return the EB do some of the political dirty work that the Liberals can't be seen to be doing themselves, namely campaigns attacking the Greens using every underhanded trick in the book.
It is a corruption of the political process. The Liberal government gives legal exemptions via parliament to a cult in return for political contributions for the Liberal party. The contributions don't legally go to the Liberals, but the Tasmanian evidence shows that they are running the campaigns.
In the last Tasmanian state election there was a rabid and misleading anti-Green advertising campaign subsequently revealed to have been authorised by members of the Exclusive Brethren, one of christianity's answers to the taliban.
It has now in turn been revealed that this campaign was run by an advertising company controlled by prominent members of the Liberal party. But it goes on.
This same company of course also ran the Liberal's campaign. When it came time to ante up for the campaign the Liberal party was invoiced for the whole lot ie including what was purportedly by individual members of the EB.
The director of the Liberals claims it was all a mistake. Apparently there should have been separate invoices to maintain the impolite legal fiction that they were separate.
Legally he may be right, just as Clinton may have been with his famous denial, but similarly it is clear that the law and reality have violently parted ways if that is the case.
The Liberals have given the EB exemptions under industrial relations, family and various other laws. So the EB are now to a considerable extent exempt from the sames laws as the rest of us.
In return the EB do some of the political dirty work that the Liberals can't be seen to be doing themselves, namely campaigns attacking the Greens using every underhanded trick in the book.
It is a corruption of the political process. The Liberal government gives legal exemptions via parliament to a cult in return for political contributions for the Liberal party. The contributions don't legally go to the Liberals, but the Tasmanian evidence shows that they are running the campaigns.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Free Speech
There were two news stories today that while relatively trivial in the great scheme of things I found interesting. Firstly organisers of the Sydney Big Day Out are reportedly banning people from bringing Australian flags to the event.
Supposedly this is to counter aggressive nationalism that was displayed at the event last year in the wake of the Cronulla riots. I don't agree with the ban, as to do so in effect surrenders the flag as a symbol to the nationalists, and gives them a cause around which to rally.
I am however not organising the Big Day Out and if clubs can enforce dress codes then I don't see why the BDO people can't as well. Not being the most fashionable of people I have fallen victim to dress codes in the past and don't like them, but their merits are an argument for another time.
Today my point follows from the growing chorus of condemnation that news of the ban has elicited from the Prime Minister down to various flunkies who managed to elbow there way into shot.
Flunkies such as Andrew Robb, the federal parliamentary secretary for immigration, who has called for the event to be cancelled if the ban remains in place. Further proof that there is no old testament god as Robb was not immediately struck down by lightning for his gross hypocrisy.
Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison are about to release a new book outlining the extent of this hypocrisy called Silencing Dissent. It outlines how the Howard government has systematically gone about silencing its critics, and generally undermining democracy in this country.
The very same day that all these great and powerful took time out from their busy day undermining civil liberties at home and abroad to defend the flag there was another story in the news that, oddly, did not attract their interest.
Qantas banned a man from flying to London because they didn't like his t-shirt. It said something like, "George Bush. World's #1 Terrorist". Leaving aside the merits of the content lets just focus on the fact that a man was restricted from travelling because a private company didn't agree with his politics.
Qantas argued that the shirt was offensive and therefore possibly a security risk. It is not entirely clear what they thought he was going to do with the shirt that would elevate it to the level of security risk. I'm thinking something along the lines of a fatal wet t-shirt contest but I can't quite figure out how to make it work.
Will any clothing, or indeed anything at all, that could be deemed offensive be banned from flights from now on. If he had been wearing a t-shirt saying, "Bush is #1" would he have been kicked off the flight? I don't know if that is offensive as such but it certainly would be an insult to your intelligence.
Virtually anything could be construed as offensive, so we will come to the logical conclusion that nothing at all will be allowed on flights. Is Qantas phasing in flying in the nude by stealth? Because, if so, I don't think they have thought it all the way through.
I doubt that the hyper-patriotic politicians who raced to condemn the flag ban will similarly defend the rights of this dangerous and frankly remarkably stubborn t-shirt wearer (he refused to take the t-shirt off).
The essence of free speech is summed up in the quote attributed to the archetypal freethinker, Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder if I put that on a t-shirt would I be allowed to get on a plane?
PS The Big Day Out organisers should instead try to sell, or even give Australian flags to everybody that comes through the gate.
Supposedly this is to counter aggressive nationalism that was displayed at the event last year in the wake of the Cronulla riots. I don't agree with the ban, as to do so in effect surrenders the flag as a symbol to the nationalists, and gives them a cause around which to rally.
I am however not organising the Big Day Out and if clubs can enforce dress codes then I don't see why the BDO people can't as well. Not being the most fashionable of people I have fallen victim to dress codes in the past and don't like them, but their merits are an argument for another time.
Today my point follows from the growing chorus of condemnation that news of the ban has elicited from the Prime Minister down to various flunkies who managed to elbow there way into shot.
Flunkies such as Andrew Robb, the federal parliamentary secretary for immigration, who has called for the event to be cancelled if the ban remains in place. Further proof that there is no old testament god as Robb was not immediately struck down by lightning for his gross hypocrisy.
Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison are about to release a new book outlining the extent of this hypocrisy called Silencing Dissent. It outlines how the Howard government has systematically gone about silencing its critics, and generally undermining democracy in this country.
The very same day that all these great and powerful took time out from their busy day undermining civil liberties at home and abroad to defend the flag there was another story in the news that, oddly, did not attract their interest.
Qantas banned a man from flying to London because they didn't like his t-shirt. It said something like, "George Bush. World's #1 Terrorist". Leaving aside the merits of the content lets just focus on the fact that a man was restricted from travelling because a private company didn't agree with his politics.
Qantas argued that the shirt was offensive and therefore possibly a security risk. It is not entirely clear what they thought he was going to do with the shirt that would elevate it to the level of security risk. I'm thinking something along the lines of a fatal wet t-shirt contest but I can't quite figure out how to make it work.
Will any clothing, or indeed anything at all, that could be deemed offensive be banned from flights from now on. If he had been wearing a t-shirt saying, "Bush is #1" would he have been kicked off the flight? I don't know if that is offensive as such but it certainly would be an insult to your intelligence.
Virtually anything could be construed as offensive, so we will come to the logical conclusion that nothing at all will be allowed on flights. Is Qantas phasing in flying in the nude by stealth? Because, if so, I don't think they have thought it all the way through.
I doubt that the hyper-patriotic politicians who raced to condemn the flag ban will similarly defend the rights of this dangerous and frankly remarkably stubborn t-shirt wearer (he refused to take the t-shirt off).
The essence of free speech is summed up in the quote attributed to the archetypal freethinker, Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder if I put that on a t-shirt would I be allowed to get on a plane?
PS The Big Day Out organisers should instead try to sell, or even give Australian flags to everybody that comes through the gate.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Almost Australia Day
Today (Thursday 18th January) marks the day that if all had gone to plan would have been Australia Day. It was on this date that the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay, their intended destination.
Joseph Banks had apparently recommended Botany Bay as the site for settlement, but upon arrival Phillip found poor soil, little water, poor anchorage, and apparently trees very hard to cut down.
So eight days later they moved north to Port Jackson and settled and named Sydney Cove (sycophantically after the British Home Secretary Lord Sydney).
Botany Bay was first however, so today could have been Australia Day except for the association with failure. Still given the whole invasion thing, and the fact that the whole exercise was a way to get rid of convicts, how high are we really setting the bar here.
Just out of interest Cook sighted Australia on April 20th 1770, and made first landfall on April 29th.
Joseph Banks had apparently recommended Botany Bay as the site for settlement, but upon arrival Phillip found poor soil, little water, poor anchorage, and apparently trees very hard to cut down.
So eight days later they moved north to Port Jackson and settled and named Sydney Cove (sycophantically after the British Home Secretary Lord Sydney).
Botany Bay was first however, so today could have been Australia Day except for the association with failure. Still given the whole invasion thing, and the fact that the whole exercise was a way to get rid of convicts, how high are we really setting the bar here.
Just out of interest Cook sighted Australia on April 20th 1770, and made first landfall on April 29th.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The rule of law
Recently there was a federal court decision that said essentially that governments have to follow the law, in this case the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act, to protect endangered species from loggers.
Everyone is supposedly obliged to follow the law, even governments and large contributors to those governments, because if the law is only applied arbitrarily it is essentially meaningless.
However, the response from the government has been if they or the loggers are breaking the law, then clearly it is the law that is in the wrong, it is the law that is broken and needs fixing. So they will simply change the law so that it has no effect.
What is the point of having a law that has no effect? Well obviously they are keeping the name of the act presumably based on the Orwellian theory of law very popular with this government (eg Workchoices).
It seems it is the government's intention to have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act that ensures there is no way to protect the environment or preserve biodiversity.
Does the rule of law mean anything if those who break the law can rely on the government to simply change it to reflect the wishes of the lawbreaker? Can this really be said to be an equality before the law?
Everyone is supposedly obliged to follow the law, even governments and large contributors to those governments, because if the law is only applied arbitrarily it is essentially meaningless.
However, the response from the government has been if they or the loggers are breaking the law, then clearly it is the law that is in the wrong, it is the law that is broken and needs fixing. So they will simply change the law so that it has no effect.
What is the point of having a law that has no effect? Well obviously they are keeping the name of the act presumably based on the Orwellian theory of law very popular with this government (eg Workchoices).
It seems it is the government's intention to have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Preservation Act that ensures there is no way to protect the environment or preserve biodiversity.
Does the rule of law mean anything if those who break the law can rely on the government to simply change it to reflect the wishes of the lawbreaker? Can this really be said to be an equality before the law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)