Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The Education Election
The HECS Hex.
Nahum Ayliffe
Whilst I can understand the arguments on HECS, I often wonder about the politics of it. Governments change the mix of higher education policy and HECS often, but rarely to the resulting outcomes match the increases in population growth. The result is that whilst it seems to be a priority for both major parties, publicly funded university places continue to both decline, and become more expensive.
The Howard government has lowered in 1996, and then raised the HECS threshold again this year. The HECS threshold is the level of income at which an employee must start making payments on any HECS debts. Moving the threshold is somewhat secondary to changing the fee structure, to allow universities to charge more for courses. The Howard government has also done this.
The Liberals argue that universities need to be able to offer courses at different prices in order to attract students. Scarcity of positions available and institutional prestige will usually lead to higher prices. Regional universities will be more likely to charge less for courses. If the price is too high or too low, students will show the universities with their enrolment, or lack thereof. In this way, the market determines the price.
The problem is that some universities will attract students at almost any price. International Students constitute a large proportion of fully paid places at many universities based in capital cities. These students are often paying well above the relevant HECS rate for the same course.
Some of these universities carry prestige that will always attract students regardless of the HECS fee. In some cases, the deferred debt will mean that the price component of the decision is deferred also. Some students will never pay back HECS debts due to an inability to find work locally in their field of study. However, if students had to contribute a deposit for each subject, this may lead to students basing their enrolment decision on the price sought.
The ALP says that it is more committed to reducing HECS fees and raising the income threshold when students must begin paying back debts. According to its Aim Higher policy, this means reversing the HECS increases, and increasing the places available to students to the tune of 20,000 more each for TAFE and Universities.
When you consider the size of our population 20,000 more HECS university places doesn’t seem like a lot. It’s a tenth of one percent. The Philips Curran education review, compiled last June, found that the increase of places in 2006 was 16,299, increasing each year, to maintain current university participation levels.
Whilst the ALP’s policy seems to support an increase in places, and is not cheap at 2.34 billion, it still won’t do enough to keep publicly funded education available at current levels.
Universities will argue that reversing the HECS increases will hurt them financially. Realistically, prestigious unis in capital cities attract more overseas students than anyone else and don’t really need the extra money so their argument doesn’t work. The universities whose prestige and location allows them to charge more will be the most eligible to hike up their prices, whilst the regional and second tier unis, who need the money, will not be able to do so without losing students.
For voters, the question must be: Which party is more committed to keeping the costs of education down whilst considering the ongoing financial needs of the unis.
Nahum Ayliffe
Whilst I can understand the arguments on HECS, I often wonder about the politics of it. Governments change the mix of higher education policy and HECS often, but rarely to the resulting outcomes match the increases in population growth. The result is that whilst it seems to be a priority for both major parties, publicly funded university places continue to both decline, and become more expensive.
The Howard government has lowered in 1996, and then raised the HECS threshold again this year. The HECS threshold is the level of income at which an employee must start making payments on any HECS debts. Moving the threshold is somewhat secondary to changing the fee structure, to allow universities to charge more for courses. The Howard government has also done this.
The Liberals argue that universities need to be able to offer courses at different prices in order to attract students. Scarcity of positions available and institutional prestige will usually lead to higher prices. Regional universities will be more likely to charge less for courses. If the price is too high or too low, students will show the universities with their enrolment, or lack thereof. In this way, the market determines the price.
The problem is that some universities will attract students at almost any price. International Students constitute a large proportion of fully paid places at many universities based in capital cities. These students are often paying well above the relevant HECS rate for the same course.
Some of these universities carry prestige that will always attract students regardless of the HECS fee. In some cases, the deferred debt will mean that the price component of the decision is deferred also. Some students will never pay back HECS debts due to an inability to find work locally in their field of study. However, if students had to contribute a deposit for each subject, this may lead to students basing their enrolment decision on the price sought.
The ALP says that it is more committed to reducing HECS fees and raising the income threshold when students must begin paying back debts. According to its Aim Higher policy, this means reversing the HECS increases, and increasing the places available to students to the tune of 20,000 more each for TAFE and Universities.
When you consider the size of our population 20,000 more HECS university places doesn’t seem like a lot. It’s a tenth of one percent. The Philips Curran education review, compiled last June, found that the increase of places in 2006 was 16,299, increasing each year, to maintain current university participation levels.
Whilst the ALP’s policy seems to support an increase in places, and is not cheap at 2.34 billion, it still won’t do enough to keep publicly funded education available at current levels.
Universities will argue that reversing the HECS increases will hurt them financially. Realistically, prestigious unis in capital cities attract more overseas students than anyone else and don’t really need the extra money so their argument doesn’t work. The universities whose prestige and location allows them to charge more will be the most eligible to hike up their prices, whilst the regional and second tier unis, who need the money, will not be able to do so without losing students.
For voters, the question must be: Which party is more committed to keeping the costs of education down whilst considering the ongoing financial needs of the unis.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Operation Iraqi massacre: Liz, this one's for you
The world congratulates the US coalition, whose concerted efforts have brought peace to it's streets, and sovereignty to the appointed governments worldwide (but particularly in Iraq).
However, the US army must reconsider its training regimen, particularly regarding 'friendly fire.' Whilst in Iraq, only 493 of the 842 Americans killed were from 'hostile fire,' meaning that over 40 percent of US casualties are self inflicted. (figures correct as of Friday 25/6/2004). This figure is worsened when you consider the death toll of the Iraqi citizens, for whose freedom the US soldiers are killing each other. US soldiers have killed between 9451 and 11333 civilian Iraqis meaning that their 'friendly fire' deaths constitute around 95 percent of US kills. That means that for every US solder felled by enemy fire, US soldiers kill 21 of their friends.
Let's hope that Iraqis have the decency to thank them for their efforts.
As a postscript, I've often wondered what's so friendly about 'friendly fire.' Does the soldier yell 'fore' just as the bullet slices into your flesh? Is it more honourable to be killed by your friend than by an enemy, particularly an Arab, of ALL people...?
However, the US army must reconsider its training regimen, particularly regarding 'friendly fire.' Whilst in Iraq, only 493 of the 842 Americans killed were from 'hostile fire,' meaning that over 40 percent of US casualties are self inflicted. (figures correct as of Friday 25/6/2004). This figure is worsened when you consider the death toll of the Iraqi citizens, for whose freedom the US soldiers are killing each other. US soldiers have killed between 9451 and 11333 civilian Iraqis meaning that their 'friendly fire' deaths constitute around 95 percent of US kills. That means that for every US solder felled by enemy fire, US soldiers kill 21 of their friends.
Let's hope that Iraqis have the decency to thank them for their efforts.
As a postscript, I've often wondered what's so friendly about 'friendly fire.' Does the soldier yell 'fore' just as the bullet slices into your flesh? Is it more honourable to be killed by your friend than by an enemy, particularly an Arab, of ALL people...?
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Youth on Social Issues
Some think that Latham is trying to wedge the Howard government on Social vs Commercial ideology. The question is, does any young person actually care:
I read, with great interest, this article on the SMH website:
Big bother
June 19, 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110327.html
Don't care. Get out of my face. The reaction to Merlin Luck's protest is another indicator of the attitude of the Big Brother generation, writes Mark Coultan.
When Merlin Luck tried a political protest after being evicted from the Big Brother house, he found out he wasn't the messiah of a new youth political movement. For many of his generation, he was just a very naughty boy.
Luck taped his mouth closed and staged a silent protest over the detention of asylum seekers in Australia while Big Brother's host, Gretel Killeen, flustered.
Although the attraction of reality television is supposed to be real people doing unscripted things, this was not playing the game. He was supposed to be cool, to be disappointed, or bitter, or relieved. He was not suppose to be political.
The audience booed him. Killeen looked extremely tetchy, constantly telling the audience to keep quiet and complaining that it was an aggressive act.
Aggressive? Passive aggressive, maybe. Perhaps her bad temper may have had more to do with Merlin leaving her to fill half an hour of airtime than with any political conviction.
Then again, Merlin had managed to defeat Big Brother by hiding a sign which read "Free Th Refugees" (the "e" had fallen off ) and masking tape for six weeks. The program is predicated on the housemates not having any privacy.
Or was it just that politics are not part of the Big Brother game?
According to the people who take the pulse of Australian youth - it's overwhelmingly the young who watch Big Brother - the reaction to Merlin's political stunt was quite predictable.
David Chalke, a social analyst with AustraliaSCAN, which tracks cultural change for Quantum Market Research, says : "They are not hostile to refugees. They are just not interested in the whole political thing - it's a bore."
He says that the audience's attitude would have been: "If I want politics, I'll go and watch the ABC. I'm not watching Channel Ten to get that stuff rammed in my face."
Merlin agrees: "I ruined their night out ... with no disrespect to the crowd that was there, I knew before I did the stunt that the crowd would be hostile, because the type of people that would come to an eviction show was not a representative sample of the Australian population."
He admits that Big Brother is not about politics, although to critics who say he didn't mention the issue while in the house, he says he did. "People saw half an hour of every 24 hours. What do you think is going to be shown? The debate on refugees, or the funny incident that happened in the kitchen when we had a few too many beers? They [the creators of the program] are not claiming to create a profound program which tackles political issues. They are trying to make a fun, easy-going, entertaining television show."
But Big Brother may be rethinking that slightly, after the publicity caused a ratings spike which sent viewing figures well above last year's.
The 24-year-old Merlin, who also feels passionately about the plight of Aborigines, the war in Iraq and education, is an exception to his generation.
Chalke calls the generation of those people aged 15-30 - who are uncommitted to mortgages, family and children, and are classic Big Brother watchers and participants - adultescents, because although they are adults, they have the attitudes of classical adolescents.
Chalke says their values are based on "self, fame, novelty, the experience of me, now, and their social values are incredibly poorly developed".
"It's not just the environment, it's every social cause - they are just not interested," he says.
And the current generation, unlike their parents at the same age, are very apolitical. "While the baby boomers [probably their parents] had a measure of self-absorption, they were also highly politicised."
Adam Ferrier, a consumer psychologist, says that rebellion used to be cool, until it was appropriated by the mass media. "Rebellion is very much out of favour, while defying convention, doing your own thing, and finding your own path [is in], which is a subtle difference."
Neer Korn, a director of Heartbeat Trends, a social and market research company, agrees that protests are very out of fashion with the young.
"They see the futility of protest. You can stand in line, and demonstrate about the environment, but nothing happens in reality.
"They feel impotent to do anything. The analogy I use is: when a baby cries and cries, and nobody attends to it, it will eventually stopping crying. But it will also stop feeling at the same time.
"They have numbed down, completely numbed down. What's the point of protesting? What good does it do, who's listening? Iraq, Afghanistan, the environment. The more we know about these things, the less we can do about it. That's why it's easier to save fig trees in Hyde Park. The response they have to it is what we call active apathy. That's when you do anything you can to not be part of the process. For example, active apathy is doing anything you can to be off the electoral roll as long as possible. There's a certain status symbol in that.
"Look at those spontaneous meetings they have. You are protesting for what? Nothing - you are just getting together. Or the naked protests the guy in America does.
"John Howard always used to describe it as a healthy cynicism that Australians had for politics. I don't think it's healthy cynicism any more. It's disdain."
If this Big Brother generation disapproves of one of their own making a political protest, what chance do the major political parties have getting through to this group? Basically, it's pretty hard. Chalke thinks that, at least for this group, the recruitment of Peter Garrett to the Labor Party means little.
"Latham would have done better to hire Gretel [Killeen] than Garrett. He's old enough to be their father. It would be like disinterring Richard Neville. He's a lovely guy, but he doesn't do a lot for my 16-year-old daughter, and neither does Peter Garrett."
Korn is less dismissive of the Garrett factor. "We do like genuine people. That's why we like Peter Garrett. He puts his money where he mouth is. That's why they like Michael Moore, or the guy from Super Size Me, because these people go out and do stuff. Everyone else just talks."
He believes the future effect of Garrett depends on whether he compromises his beliefs and style to fit into the Labor Party. "I don't think he's too old. It's not his age or his music, it's his attitude they will catch on to. It's a question of whether Peter Garrett will impassion the party, or will the party reduce his ability? The assumption is the party will take over, but if he surprises people he will certainly get the vote, as Bob Brown does."
Korn believes that Latham is doing a reasonable job of talking to young people. "People are just fed up with this political process, no co-operation, no vision, it's all about the party. Just look at the Greens. They get the votes because they look authentic, like they mean it. They are not playing games."
Ferrier says that his research showed that very few politicians were seen as "cool". Certainly not Howard or George Bush. The only one who rated was Nelson Mandela.
If you are disturbed by this generational world view, then take heart. Korn believes that the present generation is going to find their attitudes unfulfilling. "My sense is the next big trend in society ... will be questing, the search of meaning, what's important."
I read, with great interest, this article on the SMH website:
Big bother
June 19, 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110327.html
Don't care. Get out of my face. The reaction to Merlin Luck's protest is another indicator of the attitude of the Big Brother generation, writes Mark Coultan.
When Merlin Luck tried a political protest after being evicted from the Big Brother house, he found out he wasn't the messiah of a new youth political movement. For many of his generation, he was just a very naughty boy.
Luck taped his mouth closed and staged a silent protest over the detention of asylum seekers in Australia while Big Brother's host, Gretel Killeen, flustered.
Although the attraction of reality television is supposed to be real people doing unscripted things, this was not playing the game. He was supposed to be cool, to be disappointed, or bitter, or relieved. He was not suppose to be political.
The audience booed him. Killeen looked extremely tetchy, constantly telling the audience to keep quiet and complaining that it was an aggressive act.
Aggressive? Passive aggressive, maybe. Perhaps her bad temper may have had more to do with Merlin leaving her to fill half an hour of airtime than with any political conviction.
Then again, Merlin had managed to defeat Big Brother by hiding a sign which read "Free Th Refugees" (the "e" had fallen off ) and masking tape for six weeks. The program is predicated on the housemates not having any privacy.
Or was it just that politics are not part of the Big Brother game?
According to the people who take the pulse of Australian youth - it's overwhelmingly the young who watch Big Brother - the reaction to Merlin's political stunt was quite predictable.
David Chalke, a social analyst with AustraliaSCAN, which tracks cultural change for Quantum Market Research, says : "They are not hostile to refugees. They are just not interested in the whole political thing - it's a bore."
He says that the audience's attitude would have been: "If I want politics, I'll go and watch the ABC. I'm not watching Channel Ten to get that stuff rammed in my face."
Merlin agrees: "I ruined their night out ... with no disrespect to the crowd that was there, I knew before I did the stunt that the crowd would be hostile, because the type of people that would come to an eviction show was not a representative sample of the Australian population."
He admits that Big Brother is not about politics, although to critics who say he didn't mention the issue while in the house, he says he did. "People saw half an hour of every 24 hours. What do you think is going to be shown? The debate on refugees, or the funny incident that happened in the kitchen when we had a few too many beers? They [the creators of the program] are not claiming to create a profound program which tackles political issues. They are trying to make a fun, easy-going, entertaining television show."
But Big Brother may be rethinking that slightly, after the publicity caused a ratings spike which sent viewing figures well above last year's.
The 24-year-old Merlin, who also feels passionately about the plight of Aborigines, the war in Iraq and education, is an exception to his generation.
Chalke calls the generation of those people aged 15-30 - who are uncommitted to mortgages, family and children, and are classic Big Brother watchers and participants - adultescents, because although they are adults, they have the attitudes of classical adolescents.
Chalke says their values are based on "self, fame, novelty, the experience of me, now, and their social values are incredibly poorly developed".
"It's not just the environment, it's every social cause - they are just not interested," he says.
And the current generation, unlike their parents at the same age, are very apolitical. "While the baby boomers [probably their parents] had a measure of self-absorption, they were also highly politicised."
Adam Ferrier, a consumer psychologist, says that rebellion used to be cool, until it was appropriated by the mass media. "Rebellion is very much out of favour, while defying convention, doing your own thing, and finding your own path [is in], which is a subtle difference."
Neer Korn, a director of Heartbeat Trends, a social and market research company, agrees that protests are very out of fashion with the young.
"They see the futility of protest. You can stand in line, and demonstrate about the environment, but nothing happens in reality.
"They feel impotent to do anything. The analogy I use is: when a baby cries and cries, and nobody attends to it, it will eventually stopping crying. But it will also stop feeling at the same time.
"They have numbed down, completely numbed down. What's the point of protesting? What good does it do, who's listening? Iraq, Afghanistan, the environment. The more we know about these things, the less we can do about it. That's why it's easier to save fig trees in Hyde Park. The response they have to it is what we call active apathy. That's when you do anything you can to not be part of the process. For example, active apathy is doing anything you can to be off the electoral roll as long as possible. There's a certain status symbol in that.
"Look at those spontaneous meetings they have. You are protesting for what? Nothing - you are just getting together. Or the naked protests the guy in America does.
"John Howard always used to describe it as a healthy cynicism that Australians had for politics. I don't think it's healthy cynicism any more. It's disdain."
If this Big Brother generation disapproves of one of their own making a political protest, what chance do the major political parties have getting through to this group? Basically, it's pretty hard. Chalke thinks that, at least for this group, the recruitment of Peter Garrett to the Labor Party means little.
"Latham would have done better to hire Gretel [Killeen] than Garrett. He's old enough to be their father. It would be like disinterring Richard Neville. He's a lovely guy, but he doesn't do a lot for my 16-year-old daughter, and neither does Peter Garrett."
Korn is less dismissive of the Garrett factor. "We do like genuine people. That's why we like Peter Garrett. He puts his money where he mouth is. That's why they like Michael Moore, or the guy from Super Size Me, because these people go out and do stuff. Everyone else just talks."
He believes the future effect of Garrett depends on whether he compromises his beliefs and style to fit into the Labor Party. "I don't think he's too old. It's not his age or his music, it's his attitude they will catch on to. It's a question of whether Peter Garrett will impassion the party, or will the party reduce his ability? The assumption is the party will take over, but if he surprises people he will certainly get the vote, as Bob Brown does."
Korn believes that Latham is doing a reasonable job of talking to young people. "People are just fed up with this political process, no co-operation, no vision, it's all about the party. Just look at the Greens. They get the votes because they look authentic, like they mean it. They are not playing games."
Ferrier says that his research showed that very few politicians were seen as "cool". Certainly not Howard or George Bush. The only one who rated was Nelson Mandela.
If you are disturbed by this generational world view, then take heart. Korn believes that the present generation is going to find their attitudes unfulfilling. "My sense is the next big trend in society ... will be questing, the search of meaning, what's important."
We weren't involved
This week, defence minister Senator Robert Hill came under increased pressure from the Senate Estimates Committee. His role in the cover up of Australia's knowledge of the prisoner abuses at Abu Graeb was at the centre of the criticism.
Ministers of the Liberal Government, including Hill, Downerpants and others went to great lengths to make these claims: Australians weren't involved in the Iraqi prisoner abuses. No Australian military officer was involved. The only problem was that nobody was seriously suggesting that this was the case.
But if our government was advised about it from our military officers, then our government should have acted. That it did not act was either recklessness, or if it refused to act for any reason constitutes a serious breach of responsibility, for which the minister should resign.
It has emerged that over 25 reports referred to the prisoner abuse allegations, so the idea that our government overlooked these allegations is unlikely.
The government has a number of things going against it here:
1. It doesn't have a good record for telling the truth to the Australian public. (Children overboard affair of 2001-02)
2. Even if it were to bring the allegations to the attention of the United States government, did we even have the power or reason to raise the issue:
- Australia was negotiating a Free Trade Agreement in the middle of last year, which were buoyed by our close ties in commitment to the war on Iraq amongst other things. Alerting the US to our concerns over Abu Graeb may have jeapardised the FTA, which was and is a domestic imperative for the Howard government.
- Would the raising of the Abu Graeb concerns have brought on criticism of the Iraq policy domestically, and if so, would the Howard government be at all interested in exploring the implications of these allegations. This is possibly the most damning suggestion. That we would not act because it would hurt us politically while all the while Iraqis were suffering abuse at the hands of the American military, is a very damning suggestion indeed.
The last conservative Prime Minister to preside over a joint Australian-US military action, John Gorton, reduced our troop commitment to the disappointment of the US regime. Gorton believed in independent defence and foreign policies for Australia and the US, despite valuing highly a strategic alliance.
George W. Bush would not commit his country to an arrangement which allowed no policy autonomy. John W. Howard should take a leaf out of his mentor's book.
Ministers of the Liberal Government, including Hill, Downerpants and others went to great lengths to make these claims: Australians weren't involved in the Iraqi prisoner abuses. No Australian military officer was involved. The only problem was that nobody was seriously suggesting that this was the case.
But if our government was advised about it from our military officers, then our government should have acted. That it did not act was either recklessness, or if it refused to act for any reason constitutes a serious breach of responsibility, for which the minister should resign.
It has emerged that over 25 reports referred to the prisoner abuse allegations, so the idea that our government overlooked these allegations is unlikely.
The government has a number of things going against it here:
1. It doesn't have a good record for telling the truth to the Australian public. (Children overboard affair of 2001-02)
2. Even if it were to bring the allegations to the attention of the United States government, did we even have the power or reason to raise the issue:
- Australia was negotiating a Free Trade Agreement in the middle of last year, which were buoyed by our close ties in commitment to the war on Iraq amongst other things. Alerting the US to our concerns over Abu Graeb may have jeapardised the FTA, which was and is a domestic imperative for the Howard government.
- Would the raising of the Abu Graeb concerns have brought on criticism of the Iraq policy domestically, and if so, would the Howard government be at all interested in exploring the implications of these allegations. This is possibly the most damning suggestion. That we would not act because it would hurt us politically while all the while Iraqis were suffering abuse at the hands of the American military, is a very damning suggestion indeed.
The last conservative Prime Minister to preside over a joint Australian-US military action, John Gorton, reduced our troop commitment to the disappointment of the US regime. Gorton believed in independent defence and foreign policies for Australia and the US, despite valuing highly a strategic alliance.
George W. Bush would not commit his country to an arrangement which allowed no policy autonomy. John W. Howard should take a leaf out of his mentor's book.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Justification for an unjust war?
Historians are going to have a hard time deciding on how to write up this war on Iraq. I can imagine my kids, (if and when I have some) looking up at me and asking, "What exactly was the reason we killed anywhere between 9300 and 11300 civilians in Iraq at the cost of thousands of soldier's lives? Why did we go to war in 2003? What was the war about?"
One reason might be hitting Al Qaeda for September 11 and Bali. But today, the September 11 hearing in the States has once again cast doubt over any concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Quoting from an article written in Washington by Rebecca Carr and George Edmonson, http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245040581.html
"As recently as Monday, Vice-President Dick Cheney said that Saddam "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda". The Bush Administration cited those ties as a reason for invading Iraq.
But the commission's investigators found those ties to be tenuous at best.
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly visited bin Laden in 1994 when he was living in Sudan. Bin Laden requested space for training camps and help to buy weapons, but, according to the commission, Iraq never responded to those requests.
The commission also concluded that the claim Mohamed Atta, the plot's ringleader, met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9, 2001, was false, based on the evidence available, including an investigation by Czech officials and reports from detainees."
Oh, so there were no credible links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it has given Al Qaeda yet another reason to hate the West? I fear that Al Qaeda is a winner in this war and they didn't even have to fight.
So if it wasn't Al Qaeda as Downerpants vociferously asserts today, it was the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But they don't exist, so why did we kill all those people?
Downerpants enthusiastically suggests, as he is known to do, that the Iraq war was waged because Iraq was not complying with a UN resolution on weapons of mass destruction (which it didn't have). So Iraq wasn't complying with a UN Resolution, was the UN involved in the war? If not, why not?
The more I look at it, the harder it is going to be to explain this war to my kids, if and when I have them.
One reason might be hitting Al Qaeda for September 11 and Bali. But today, the September 11 hearing in the States has once again cast doubt over any concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Quoting from an article written in Washington by Rebecca Carr and George Edmonson, http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/17/1087245040581.html
"As recently as Monday, Vice-President Dick Cheney said that Saddam "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda". The Bush Administration cited those ties as a reason for invading Iraq.
But the commission's investigators found those ties to be tenuous at best.
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly visited bin Laden in 1994 when he was living in Sudan. Bin Laden requested space for training camps and help to buy weapons, but, according to the commission, Iraq never responded to those requests.
The commission also concluded that the claim Mohamed Atta, the plot's ringleader, met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9, 2001, was false, based on the evidence available, including an investigation by Czech officials and reports from detainees."
Oh, so there were no credible links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it has given Al Qaeda yet another reason to hate the West? I fear that Al Qaeda is a winner in this war and they didn't even have to fight.
So if it wasn't Al Qaeda as Downerpants vociferously asserts today, it was the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But they don't exist, so why did we kill all those people?
Downerpants enthusiastically suggests, as he is known to do, that the Iraq war was waged because Iraq was not complying with a UN resolution on weapons of mass destruction (which it didn't have). So Iraq wasn't complying with a UN Resolution, was the UN involved in the war? If not, why not?
The more I look at it, the harder it is going to be to explain this war to my kids, if and when I have them.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
GREEEEEEEEEN with envy: Pulp equals popularity
Peter Garrett has joined the ALP, and will win a safe seat in Kingsford Smith. He'll finally be a politician, and he's not afraid to compromise some of his standards to make that dream a reality.
The problem is that Peter's strength is his idealism, a man unafraid to make a statement even when his actions are at odds with the opinions of both of the major parties. To quote from 'How can we sleep when our beds are burning:'
The time has come
To say fair's fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share
The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back
(Isn't it interesting that PM John Howard's favourite Oils song is one based on reconciliation and returning what the white man stole, when that is precisely what makes this OLD white man is most afraid.)
If Peter is prepared to water down some of his principles, is he the same man that wore 'sorry' on his t shirt at the 2000 Olympics, regardless of the public outcry? Will he wilt under pressure on reconciliation, or reparation through a regional ATSI funding body? Will he collapse under pressure on the issues for which his activism has earnt him the most respect?
His support of a Tasmanian pulp mill is extraordinary. Peter must understand the reality of the arguments for a pulp mill. There is a glut of pulp supply hitting the market presently, most due to the recent addition of Chinese and South African production. Tasmania will soon be producing Hundreds and thousands of tonnes surplus pulp.
Supply exceeds demand, and prices drop, leaving a surplus. What better way to deal with the excess pulp than creating a new market for the pulp which will sustain production levels. The Tasmanian timber lobby is so strong, completely under-regulated, lacks any formal accountability and is in the pockets of the Lenin Labor Government. The regulation body, the Forest Practises Board, employs more lumberjacks than it does environmentalists, and operates under the guise of independence. All the while the old growth forests like the Tarkine and Styx Valley are under serious threat from a greedy Forestry Tasmania, whose clearfelling agenda remains unchecked by the generous Regional Forestry Agreement.
Will Peter tow the line on Tasmania, even as the last old growth forest is burning?
The ridiculous argument for a pulp mill in Tasmania is that the mill will be 'environmentally friendly', as it is energy from a supposedly sustainable and renewable source. Isn't it ironic that the government will be able to claim carbon credits from the destruction of a unique resource from an international protocol that it hasn't yet signed.
If Garrett is to retain his integrity, he must choose what he will not compromise before he begins compromising on what he will. I fear that for Garrett, this process of compromising values and ideals has already begun.
The problem is that Peter's strength is his idealism, a man unafraid to make a statement even when his actions are at odds with the opinions of both of the major parties. To quote from 'How can we sleep when our beds are burning:'
The time has come
To say fair's fair
To pay the rent
To pay our share
The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
Let's give it back
(Isn't it interesting that PM John Howard's favourite Oils song is one based on reconciliation and returning what the white man stole, when that is precisely what makes this OLD white man is most afraid.)
If Peter is prepared to water down some of his principles, is he the same man that wore 'sorry' on his t shirt at the 2000 Olympics, regardless of the public outcry? Will he wilt under pressure on reconciliation, or reparation through a regional ATSI funding body? Will he collapse under pressure on the issues for which his activism has earnt him the most respect?
His support of a Tasmanian pulp mill is extraordinary. Peter must understand the reality of the arguments for a pulp mill. There is a glut of pulp supply hitting the market presently, most due to the recent addition of Chinese and South African production. Tasmania will soon be producing Hundreds and thousands of tonnes surplus pulp.
Supply exceeds demand, and prices drop, leaving a surplus. What better way to deal with the excess pulp than creating a new market for the pulp which will sustain production levels. The Tasmanian timber lobby is so strong, completely under-regulated, lacks any formal accountability and is in the pockets of the Lenin Labor Government. The regulation body, the Forest Practises Board, employs more lumberjacks than it does environmentalists, and operates under the guise of independence. All the while the old growth forests like the Tarkine and Styx Valley are under serious threat from a greedy Forestry Tasmania, whose clearfelling agenda remains unchecked by the generous Regional Forestry Agreement.
Will Peter tow the line on Tasmania, even as the last old growth forest is burning?
The ridiculous argument for a pulp mill in Tasmania is that the mill will be 'environmentally friendly', as it is energy from a supposedly sustainable and renewable source. Isn't it ironic that the government will be able to claim carbon credits from the destruction of a unique resource from an international protocol that it hasn't yet signed.
If Garrett is to retain his integrity, he must choose what he will not compromise before he begins compromising on what he will. I fear that for Garrett, this process of compromising values and ideals has already begun.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Hints on how to get your woman in the mood
I read something on the Apple site today about how to get your woman into the mood. This interested me, not that I have a woman, nor have I ever known any woman that spent any large proportion of her time "in the mood."
This gem was the FIRST bit of advice offered:
"Sex Inspiring Incident #1: You've had a serious fight.
Fighting and sex are already so similar -- the pounding heart, rushing blood, heated emotions -- is it any wonder that one should lead to the other? When you reach that point in the argument where you've said everything you want to say (or there's nothing left breakable to throw at each other), there's no finer ending than for you to kiss her passionately and redirect all that fiery passion."
I don't think I can write much here as that is pretty simple and self explanatory: Any dude that does that is going to be KILLED until he is DEAD. At least any of the girls I went out with would have KILLED me until I was DEAD if I had dared such stupidity.
#3: She's a little jealous:
That's going to work, she'll be BANG up for it.
#4. Watch her cycle: Ok, so you're following your woman around trying to get a hint as to when she might be ovulating. Unless she tells you this stuff, most men aren't that good at maths when they are thinking with their Pint sized Prince Albert
#5. She's stressed out... and you're going to suggest to her that it's a good time for a bit of rumpy pumpy! You're unlikely to hear the F word suggestively when she's stressed out.
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of shite that is propogated by the Dr Phils of this world. Not only is it careless, it is probably responsible for more harm than good.
If you have ever seen "In the company of Men", you will understand my parting thoughts. What if this page was put together by a woman bent on revenge on ALL MANKIND. One bloke gave her the short shift, and she's going to make it more difficult for all men to have a conjugal visit. Not only that, but it will put a hell of a lot more men back on the singles market.
The page is found at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/men/package.jsp?name=men/pm/turnheron/turnheron1
This gem was the FIRST bit of advice offered:
"Sex Inspiring Incident #1: You've had a serious fight.
Fighting and sex are already so similar -- the pounding heart, rushing blood, heated emotions -- is it any wonder that one should lead to the other? When you reach that point in the argument where you've said everything you want to say (or there's nothing left breakable to throw at each other), there's no finer ending than for you to kiss her passionately and redirect all that fiery passion."
I don't think I can write much here as that is pretty simple and self explanatory: Any dude that does that is going to be KILLED until he is DEAD. At least any of the girls I went out with would have KILLED me until I was DEAD if I had dared such stupidity.
#3: She's a little jealous:
That's going to work, she'll be BANG up for it.
#4. Watch her cycle: Ok, so you're following your woman around trying to get a hint as to when she might be ovulating. Unless she tells you this stuff, most men aren't that good at maths when they are thinking with their Pint sized Prince Albert
#5. She's stressed out... and you're going to suggest to her that it's a good time for a bit of rumpy pumpy! You're unlikely to hear the F word suggestively when she's stressed out.
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of shite that is propogated by the Dr Phils of this world. Not only is it careless, it is probably responsible for more harm than good.
If you have ever seen "In the company of Men", you will understand my parting thoughts. What if this page was put together by a woman bent on revenge on ALL MANKIND. One bloke gave her the short shift, and she's going to make it more difficult for all men to have a conjugal visit. Not only that, but it will put a hell of a lot more men back on the singles market.
The page is found at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/men/package.jsp?name=men/pm/turnheron/turnheron1
Freedom of Speech, just so long as you don't offend Johnny
Clive Hamilton wrote an interesting article in the opinion section of 'The Age' newspaper, where he posits that the Howard government has made many attempts to actively police and restrain the freedom with which influential citizens are able to speak, particularly when it may be contraversial for the government.
Hamilton cited examples of members of the military being gagged in the children overboard affair, during the war and and recent prisoner abuse scandal, not to mention the streetfight between Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and PM John W. Howard over the status of national security since Iraq. Hamilton cites a report by his institute, (the Australia Institute) which concludes that academics feel particularly reticent to speak out, particularly if they are likely to offend a major sponsor of their work.
But Hamilton doesn't even mention church leaders, for whom Howard reserves a special note of caution. During the war on Iraq, and since, he and his ministers have made several comments that church leaders have no business in speaking on matters political, (particularly where they involve children in detention centres, an unjust war involving thousands of civilian casualties, the unjust detention of Australians in Guantanamo Bay or anything mildly critical of the Howard Government). Downerpants has made a couple of comments in various speeches letting clergy know that they aren't allowed to have opinions; just serve the Eucharist, marry our kids and bury our grandparents.
He said "There appears to have been a systematic attempt by the Howard Government to reshape Australian society, to remake it in the image of the economics textbook, in which we are each imagined to be no more than self-interested consumers."
He later goes on to say that Peter Costello advocates for the more tolerance and 'religious values' to solve some of the problems in society. So not only is the Howard government interested in causing self interest to be the key principle of a well ordered society, but they also want a religion which promotes conformity, and tolerance. Just as an aside, I love the way Peter Costello trumpeted the word tolerance earlier this year. tolerance rather than acceptance, or community mindedness. "I'll tolerate gays, Chinese people and Toyota drivers, just as long as I don't have to actually 'like' any of them; so long as they don't interfere with my way of life."
It seems as though the Howard government wants us to embrace the language of economic rationalism, but is not all that keen on rationalism. The shame is that a Latham government is unlikely to be any different.
Hamilton cited examples of members of the military being gagged in the children overboard affair, during the war and and recent prisoner abuse scandal, not to mention the streetfight between Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and PM John W. Howard over the status of national security since Iraq. Hamilton cites a report by his institute, (the Australia Institute) which concludes that academics feel particularly reticent to speak out, particularly if they are likely to offend a major sponsor of their work.
But Hamilton doesn't even mention church leaders, for whom Howard reserves a special note of caution. During the war on Iraq, and since, he and his ministers have made several comments that church leaders have no business in speaking on matters political, (particularly where they involve children in detention centres, an unjust war involving thousands of civilian casualties, the unjust detention of Australians in Guantanamo Bay or anything mildly critical of the Howard Government). Downerpants has made a couple of comments in various speeches letting clergy know that they aren't allowed to have opinions; just serve the Eucharist, marry our kids and bury our grandparents.
He said "There appears to have been a systematic attempt by the Howard Government to reshape Australian society, to remake it in the image of the economics textbook, in which we are each imagined to be no more than self-interested consumers."
He later goes on to say that Peter Costello advocates for the more tolerance and 'religious values' to solve some of the problems in society. So not only is the Howard government interested in causing self interest to be the key principle of a well ordered society, but they also want a religion which promotes conformity, and tolerance. Just as an aside, I love the way Peter Costello trumpeted the word tolerance earlier this year. tolerance rather than acceptance, or community mindedness. "I'll tolerate gays, Chinese people and Toyota drivers, just as long as I don't have to actually 'like' any of them; so long as they don't interfere with my way of life."
It seems as though the Howard government wants us to embrace the language of economic rationalism, but is not all that keen on rationalism. The shame is that a Latham government is unlikely to be any different.
Religious Blog
On Sunday, whilst in Sydney, I went to church.
As I walked through the arches, the roar of the congregation greeted me. There were lots of busy people, and as long as you paid your dues, and were wearing your sunday best, you were allowed through the hallowed archway into the old stone building. I found my way past the money changing tables, and past the brood of vipers at the food stall, and fought my way through my fellow church goers to find a seat in the crowded auditorium. I could sense the presence of God, or maybe it was beer.
The crowded congregation came to a lull, and the Lord's prayer was said. The bishop laid his prayer on the ground and it bounced up to the heavens. It was then passed around by the religious leaders before it was given to a member of the congregation. He promptly gave it back.
There was much competition by the religious leaders, all who wanted to lay their hands on the prayer, add to it's veracity, and speed it to another member of the congregation at the other side of the enormous auditorium. As I squinted my eyes, I noticed that he too, gave the prayer back.
The religious leaders were becoming frenzied, flying around handing the prayer to other leaders, almost fighting over it in their frantic efforts to employ it's mission, and yet the congregation members kept giving it back.
After around an hour watching this unusual display of religious fanaticism, we paused to worship. There was a call on the enormous screen overhead to hold up our hands to be blessed. Thousands held their hands up to the heavens, holding aloft their sacrifice - a coke bottle. And then one was selected by the Gods to be blessed. He had the magical coke bottle, and the Gods rewarded him with a CD player. Praise be to God.
After the service, we walked outside to queue for a bus home. We talked freely among ourselves reflecting on our spiritual growth this year. Strangers talked to strangers, and we laughed and sang together.
God was in this place, said one. Truly they were, said another. Still it was good to see the Swans get a win.
As I walked through the arches, the roar of the congregation greeted me. There were lots of busy people, and as long as you paid your dues, and were wearing your sunday best, you were allowed through the hallowed archway into the old stone building. I found my way past the money changing tables, and past the brood of vipers at the food stall, and fought my way through my fellow church goers to find a seat in the crowded auditorium. I could sense the presence of God, or maybe it was beer.
The crowded congregation came to a lull, and the Lord's prayer was said. The bishop laid his prayer on the ground and it bounced up to the heavens. It was then passed around by the religious leaders before it was given to a member of the congregation. He promptly gave it back.
There was much competition by the religious leaders, all who wanted to lay their hands on the prayer, add to it's veracity, and speed it to another member of the congregation at the other side of the enormous auditorium. As I squinted my eyes, I noticed that he too, gave the prayer back.
The religious leaders were becoming frenzied, flying around handing the prayer to other leaders, almost fighting over it in their frantic efforts to employ it's mission, and yet the congregation members kept giving it back.
After around an hour watching this unusual display of religious fanaticism, we paused to worship. There was a call on the enormous screen overhead to hold up our hands to be blessed. Thousands held their hands up to the heavens, holding aloft their sacrifice - a coke bottle. And then one was selected by the Gods to be blessed. He had the magical coke bottle, and the Gods rewarded him with a CD player. Praise be to God.
After the service, we walked outside to queue for a bus home. We talked freely among ourselves reflecting on our spiritual growth this year. Strangers talked to strangers, and we laughed and sang together.
God was in this place, said one. Truly they were, said another. Still it was good to see the Swans get a win.
Bloggin
Ok, One small tappity tap for man, one enormous quantum, nigh-on-impossible leap for a dead man. And this dead man's a typin. If you are reading my first blog, you have too much time on your hands. This site will hopefully be about funny musings, crazy opinions and nutbag-worthy comments.
Your replies to my blogs must be witty as they will all be marked and returned to you within 7 days with a grade.
Realistically, this site will be an inside view of the world of somebody with a wierd name. It will be like 'being John Malcovich' except I'm not famous, and you can't actually control me like the whacky Cusack puppateer did. How do I know this? I don't, but I challenge anyone to try.
My favourite quote for today is by the greatest PM this country has ever known (to suck back a coldie), "Any boss who sacks his workers for not coming to work today is a bum."
Your replies to my blogs must be witty as they will all be marked and returned to you within 7 days with a grade.
Realistically, this site will be an inside view of the world of somebody with a wierd name. It will be like 'being John Malcovich' except I'm not famous, and you can't actually control me like the whacky Cusack puppateer did. How do I know this? I don't, but I challenge anyone to try.
My favourite quote for today is by the greatest PM this country has ever known (to suck back a coldie), "Any boss who sacks his workers for not coming to work today is a bum."
