I know, I already promised to stay away from this blog, and probably I managed to scare away all other potential contributors from it, but hell, why shouldn't I be allowed to change my mind?
And actually, it's more meant like a reminder to those who'd like to engage in the PIS committee. Rule 1: Never question whether casting your valuable shining light in a small bag (your vote) changes anything. The PIS is bipartisan, if you dare to leave to holy left-right paradigm, you will be ostracized.
So thank you, Lindy, for reminding me that's it's inadequate to laugh at blatant lies of the soon former Prime Minister, when he's spruiking blatant lies. Thank you for silencing dissent expressed by laughter. Being not brought up in this splendid society, which, unlike Germany, is still f*cking proud of its genocidal history, it makes me laugh to hear any PM stating that all Australian live in prosperity, while during his time as PM more than 10 percent of its population fell below the poverty line.
But laughter seems to be an illegitimate way to air dissent, and is obviously considered offensive when its spontaneously erupts at the wrong moment. I certainly admit that alcohol contributed to the fact I was less inhibited to laugh at JH's lies. I just wasn't aware how socially unacceptable it is within the PIS to react in this way to preposterous lies of the current "leader".
I don't mind losing my bet to Charlie. Although I don't think Australia has any version of democracy that is less phony, corrupt and full of nepotism than any other "free" country in the western world, I'm glad to see that it takes less time (though still way too much) to identify utter incompetency than in my home country, which reelected its conservative government like a roo in the spotlight for 16 years (before experiencing an unprecedented redistribution of wealth towards the owning class under a "left" government).
However, reality-denying statements like I heard on this election night by the happy loser John Howard simply made me laugh. I still fail to see why Lindy felt obliged to tell me off for laughing, and who would be offended by a guy laughing out loud in a pub. I do recall earlier moments that night where I certainly have even been personally offensive with much more tolerant reactions. (I dont wanna mention ur name here, it's all a bit embarassing and confusing for me, but hey, I dearly appreciate your patience and tolerance, no matter how culturally inappropriate I might have behaved more than once we met.)
So I'd like to say thank you to all the people I met in the PIS for all the insights I could gain from some strata of the Australian society, especially to those who don't like me. Your ideas about Australian political reality will no longer be disturbed by a German anarchist (should I mention here how ridiculous the labels "german" and "anarchist" look next to each other? It takes a believer in representative democracy to say this without an ironic smile)
Unless some current members want to take on some committee positions, the PIS will face difficult times. The president cannot be reelected (two term clause), I will step back as treasurer (with a big smile like Costello), as the Melbourne Model encouraged me to dream larger, and learn something different somewhere else. Even the secretary might leave MU (more honourable than me) before being able to finish another turn. Australia wanted a change in government, the PIS change in leadership is inevitable.
Labour managed their grab for power tonight, promising new leadership. Some implications I would like to see (though Labour hasn't promised all of it) within the first 100 days would be:
* Abolition of the IR laws
* Reinstatement of Dr. Haneef working visa
* Signing Kyoto and agreeing in Bali to a target that involves a reduction of CO2 emissions (Kyoto Target is 107% of Australias 1992 (?) emissions until 2005 or 2015 (hell, ask Robin Eckersley, she's the expert at MU for those nasty details))
* Revoking the Anti-Terror-Legislations
What I'm expecting is far from impossible, yet highly unlikely. I consider these expectations to be desirable, yet you might not agree with me (which saves you, as potential labour supporter, from finding excuses why certain promises could just not yet be implemented). The euphoria about the new leadership in Australia prevented any discussion about accountability issues in politics, and demanded piety for the departing leader.
My mission failed, I give up. Claim another victory. Democracy is so much cosier than personal responsibility, which is much more often required than each three years on election day. Follow your leaders. Don't question authority, never ever.
Saturday 24 November 2007
Saturday 1 September 2007
Fear of Reason
(cross-posted)
This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.
From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our ingroup. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as outgroup. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.
As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.
The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.
Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.
The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.
The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.
Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.
Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.
Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.
Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.
Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.
As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.
We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.
While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.
Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.
Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.
But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.
If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.
As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.
The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.
Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.
When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.
PS: Somehow the 21st century seems not to have arrived in the PIS. The interactive and participatory part of modern digital communication media (such as blogs) remain a mystery to the majority.
I am a bit tired to entertain you here. And I don't want to create the impression that my views would be representative for the club. Or even being said aloud in meetings. However, feel free to check my rants from the centre of the future (which is the fringe of contemporary society) either here, here or here.
This month, we will commemorate nearly 3,000 victims of the attacks of September 11th 2001. We will not commemorate the million civilian victims killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the 25,000 humans that starve daily, unspectacular, far away from the prying eyes of a sensationalist media.
From a psychological point of view, the unfortunate victims in New York belong to our ingroup. We know little to nothing about the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily qualifies them as outgroup. We know even less about the people living in the heart of Africa, the common origin of all tribes of Homo Sapiens that populate this planet.
As humans most care about their perceived ingroup, they can be blatantly ignorant to the faith of their outgroups, even if our genetic heritage does not justify the popular idea of different human races.
The anti-terror laws, that have been introduced in most parts of the world in the aftermath of 911, the Madrid, Bali and London bombings, have already achieved their goals. No terrorist will be able to attack the free world anymore, after the Magna Charta and the rule of law have been suspended to fight the war on terror in most parts of the world, including Australia.
Civil liberties end now where national security starts, and national security is so important that it can’t be defined precisely but falls into the discretion of our wise politicians. Democratic tenets like the decision of independent juries or the separation of judiciary and executive powers were sacrificed, even in countries that have not experienced any terror attack themselves.
The images of the destruction of inner-city skyscrapers makes it easy to transfer the fear into the hearts and minds of anyone who lives in a country that displays the wealth of corporations in the midst of their cities. Fear, however, incapacitates reason, and reduces most decisions to fight of flight. This certainly increases the attraction for someone offering to go to war, even it will last generations.
The war on terror will certainly be perpetual, unless the people of the planet, who have to pay for this war with their taxes and even their life, step back from their fear and start using reason again. Because the war on terror can never be won, no matter how hard you try.
Terrorism lacks a commonly accepted definition, but it’s a fairly save bet that historical figures like Jesus Christ, Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Ghandi would end up in an American torture camp like David Hicks, or be kept in solitary confinement like Dr. Haneef, or at least suffer from a constraint order like Jack Thomas.
Don’t get me wrong; I just used David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef as example to illustrate the loss of the rule of law and civil liberties in Australia, not to sanctify them. However, unlike traditional wars against a well-defined enemy, the war on terror fights a method. Addition is a method to relate two numbers in a specific way, frying eggs is a method to prepare them as food.
Do you really believe the war on frying eggs could ever be won? Considering the well-educated audience of the blogosphere, I would be surprised to hear a single yes to this question, but you’ll never know. People develop all sorts of anxieties, and fried eggs might be one of them, but it seems less suited to spread a common fear amongst the majority of the population than the terrifying expression “terror”.
Nevertheless, the Australian government spend already billions of taxpayers money on this war on frying eggs, and will not stop doing so whether Howard remains PM or not.
Western governments fell into a hole after the end of the cold war. The threat of mutual nuclear destruction justified maintaining civil liberties, as those did not exist in the communist world. The tangible enemy allowed direct comparisons, so the Western World carefully refrained from arbitrary jurisdiction, secret prisons, restrictions to the right to strike or have a rally wherever you wanted.
As communism faded away as archenemy of the Western World, the necessity to keep up the illusion of a free society vanished with it. Yet, without fear as motivator for the abolition of rights and freedoms achieved mainly by social movements and direct action, reason might have caused an outrage about the introduction of anti-terror laws.
We are constantly reminded that the terrorists are out there to get us, terror suspects are arrested en masse, foiled terror plots and the memory of 911 keep the fear alive. The constant reinforcement of terror paranoia is designed to stop anyone to use reason to assess the size of the risk.
While we read often enough about the arrest of terror suspect (They are coming to get us, and they will use fried eggs if we don’t stop them!), we hardly hear about convictions. In the US, the two convictions that have been achieved for homegrown terrorists are as convincing as the case of Dr. Haneef.
Although the latest terror attack in Britain luckily didn’t kill anyone, and the perpetrators fit into the terrifying scheme of “home-grown terrorists”, biometrical visa will make the UK safer. However, passports cannot be the problem. Although the contents of the World Trade Centre were mysteriously blown to smithereens on 911, the passports of some of hijackers, which were used to officially cross the American border while being on terror watch lists, were found.
Reason cannot really explain why biometrical identification of every citizen helps defeating terrorism. And reason cannot explain why the WTC 7 collapsed on the afternoon of September 11 2001, although it was not hit by plane. The building closer to the World Trade Centre building 1 and 2 were severely damaged, but did not collapse. Unfortunately, the complete account of everything that led to 911, the 911 commission report, fails to explain why WTC 7 collapsed as well.
But thinking that they will come to get us might stop you from wondering why three massive steel-framed high-risers crumble in freefall speed to bits and pieces, although this never happened before and since then. And it might stop you from wondering whether less than 100 Australian victims, who were killed in the Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005, justify spending far more taxpayers’ money than about 2,500 people that commit suicide each year in Australia.
If they Australian government makes “securing Australian life” its priority, shouldn’t it use statistics to assess the size of the problem? It takes two weeks of suicide to have the same amount of life lost as in all terror attacks, which killed Australians in this century, and about three weeks in road accidents.
As long as you drown in fear, my comparison of the war on terror to a war on fried eggs might appear extremely inappropriate. Once you start using reason again, the advertising campaigns to suspect your neighbour seem like an outrageous waste of taxpayer’s money.
The US went to one war, along with Australia, before it even started an investigation of the events of 911, and to another one, before the results of the dubious 911 commission were known. Yet, both wars were sold to the public as a reaction to the events of 911.
Let me put this in other words for you. Without knowing the results of a forensic analysis (which didn’t really take place in the 911 commission) of the biggest crime case in the 21st century two wars, that killed about a million innocent people by now, were started. Not only did Australia participate in this unjustifiable wars, the cases of David Hicks, the Barwon 13, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef demonstrate that human rights and the rule of law are disregarded in this country, due to the (myth of the) global threat of terror.
When I use reason to analyse this situation, I think there is something utterly wrong with this picture. About one hundred people starved to death while you were reading this. They will not be out there to get you. Enjoy your fear.
although attack australia australian commission dr eggs fear haneef human killed liberties life people reason rule start stop terror terrorists victims war world
created at TagCrowd.com
PS: Somehow the 21st century seems not to have arrived in the PIS. The interactive and participatory part of modern digital communication media (such as blogs) remain a mystery to the majority.
I am a bit tired to entertain you here. And I don't want to create the impression that my views would be representative for the club. Or even being said aloud in meetings. However, feel free to check my rants from the centre of the future (which is the fringe of contemporary society) either here, here or here.
Friday 24 August 2007
Taking care of history
History is written by winners, that's why Australian history starts with the time the first settlers arrived. Writing history after a conflict is usually straight forward: The own effords can be heroised, the enemy demonised, and another clean just war (with some unfortunate civilian causualties) is added to the collection of fairy tales, commonly called history book.
I encountered a more immediate rewriting of history when I participated the G20 protests last year. Ten minutes of escalation were exaggerated to "Melbourne's most violent day", and no mainstream medium offered "fair and balanced" coverage of this events.
However, Chomsky's propaganda model offers insights into the constraints of mainstream media, so it's not too surprising that representatives of corporatism get in line against the Global Justice Movement (which is what is widely called with the derogatory and misleading term "Anti Globalisation Movement").
Yet, not all sources of information and reference are traded, some of them are free. Although we are constantly reminded to by our tutors not to use Wikipedia in academic context, we all know (and probably use) it.
That's Kevin Rudd's comment on the war on history fought by the Howard government. I wouldn't call it odd, just a typical sign of a nominal democracy that lacks sufficient checks and balances.
Dr. Haneef lost his visa because he visited a distant relative. John Howard confers with the Exclusive Brethren, his mate sold visas for cash, but his "character" is not in doubt. Have fun electing your next master - it's not the person Howard, that is particularly bad, it's a system that allows the ruling class to get away with more than its populace ever would. Baaah
To me, the following piece is an indication that history might repeat itself.
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law is the title of the youtube clip below.
I encountered a more immediate rewriting of history when I participated the G20 protests last year. Ten minutes of escalation were exaggerated to "Melbourne's most violent day", and no mainstream medium offered "fair and balanced" coverage of this events.
However, Chomsky's propaganda model offers insights into the constraints of mainstream media, so it's not too surprising that representatives of corporatism get in line against the Global Justice Movement (which is what is widely called with the derogatory and misleading term "Anti Globalisation Movement").
Yet, not all sources of information and reference are traded, some of them are free. Although we are constantly reminded to by our tutors not to use Wikipedia in academic context, we all know (and probably use) it.
"It is entirely legitimate for your personal political staff to make changes of a factual nature, but to engage public servants to go out there and re-edit history, it strikes me as odd to say the least."
That's Kevin Rudd's comment on the war on history fought by the Howard government. I wouldn't call it odd, just a typical sign of a nominal democracy that lacks sufficient checks and balances.
Dr. Haneef lost his visa because he visited a distant relative. John Howard confers with the Exclusive Brethren, his mate sold visas for cash, but his "character" is not in doubt. Have fun electing your next master - it's not the person Howard, that is particularly bad, it's a system that allows the ruling class to get away with more than its populace ever would. Baaah
To me, the following piece is an indication that history might repeat itself.
Such clergy response teams would walk a tight-rope during martial law between the demands of the government on the one side, versus the wishes of the public on the other. "In a lot of cases, these clergy would already be known in the neighborhoods in which they're helping to diffuse that situation," assured Sandy Davis. He serves as the director of the Caddo-Bossier Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness.
For the clergy team, one of the biggest tools that they will have in helping calm the public down or to obey the law is the bible itself, specifically Romans 13. Dr. Tuberville elaborated, "because the government's established by the Lord, you know. And, that's what we believe in the Christian faith. That's what's stated in the scripture."
Civil rights advocates believe the amount of public cooperation during such a time of unrest may ultimately depend on how long they expect a suspension of rights might last.
Feds Train Clergy To "Quell Dissent" During Martial Law is the title of the youtube clip below.
Monday 13 August 2007
The origin of the Al Qaeda myth
I realised that quite a lot of the Australian people are caught in a kind of hypnosis - with the keyword "terror" used to sell the abolition of civil rights. Yet, once you forget your fear for a short while and dare dealing with the topic "terror" in depth, with analysis instead of the fear-mongering offered by main stream media, you might be able change your attitude, and your habitual reaction the next time somebody tries to sell you fear.
The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS. I happily burn you a disc containing the three parts, if you're interested and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.
Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)
Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.
No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.
Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.
Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.
East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.
My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.
I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.
My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.
However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.
Although I'm known to you as the "German anarchist", I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what "everyone" makes happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view.
Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.
(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)
We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.
We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.
We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.
Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.
I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.
(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)
I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.
The video is a snippet of the (imho) excellent BBC documentary The power of nightmares, which was shown earlier this year on SBS. With a broadband connection you might watch this on Google video, if you missed it on SBS. I happily burn you a disc containing the three parts, if you're interested and not scared about the brainwashing a BBC documentary might give you.
Nobody told the Germans that they were living in a fascist state while it happened. I encountered while travelling the globe that this 12 dark years of German history still dominate the opinion about Germany and Germans. Hitler is better known than Goethe, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Heine. I met more admirers of the Gröfaz (Grösster Führer aller Zeiten / Greatest leader of all times) outside Germany than inside. (That doesn't mean that there's no Nazis in Germany, just that people don't share there racist opinion as easily as elsewhere.)
Nobody told the Germans in East Germany that they were living in a totalitarian state (which was called "German Democratic Republic" (GDR) and had compulsory voting). However, in Nazi Germany there were people like Schindler, who didn't need historians to tell them that something is utterly wrong with the proceedings of their government, but hadn't lost their empathy for other human beings and endangered their life by acting against the "law", and weren't brainwashed by governmental propaganda.
No government ever spread the word that they wanted to screw their population as good as they could, though historians have no problem digging up examples when this happened. Nowadays, we are conditioned to believe in "experts", and unless experts have more airtime to state that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, we dare not to compare the current situation with what we could have learned in history.
Nazi Germany and the GDR used their secret services to suppress democracy, dissent and governmental criticism. Secrecy due to "national security" was the cornerstone of their tyranny, and empowered the Gestapo and Stasi to arbitrarily detain people. Probably that causes me to get suspicious when I hear Philip Ruddock talking, who thinks it's okay that people don't get presented any evidence when they are charged for major offenses. Or to keep them in prison without charges. Or to accept the jurisdiction of fascist courts under the Military Commissions Act.
Another cornerstone was surveillance. Without the support of IBM, the census required to determine the arian or jewish origin, would have been hardly sufficient to kill millions of innocent people. Providing unique identification, which is nowadays done by fingerprinting, DNA sampling or similar biometric means, helped the Nazis to identify their targets.
East Germany, however, wasn't as rampant as Nazi Germany to kill opposition. "Just" those who wanted to leave the country were killed by automatic killing machines or vigilant guards. East Germany didn't have the technology to trace anyone by their DNA, that's why their secret service collected sweat samples of each and every citizen to chase dogs on them when necessary.
My parents fled East Germany, when my dad rejected to pay the union fees. Flyers were distributed in the area they were living, claiming my dad was a traitor to the working class for asking what the unions did for him.
I'm happy that my parents didn't wait 30 years for the Berlin Wall to come down, but fled before this dreadful thing was build. Fighting the system in East Germany was virtually impossible. It didn't kill you (unless you encountered vigilant border patrols or killing machines), but it thoroughly destroyed your chances to participate in society.
My dad (may his soul have a pleasant life after death) didn't wait until historians analysed the mechanisms that created the unjust society that emerged in East Germany after the war, but interpreted the disparity between government propaganda and everyday experience in a rational way.
However, fleeing your home country is no longer an option. Even people from Iraq and Afghanistan are send home, no matter what dreadful fate is waiting for them. What has changed is the opportunity to access information and to organise resistance against ostensibly "democratic" governments.
Although I'm known to you as the "German anarchist", I think that democracy is something worth trying. I might know what makes me happy, but I'm simply not sufficiently arrogant to state I would know what "everyone" makes happy. Unfortunately, I haven't encountered too many politicians in socalled "democratic" societies that share this point of view.
Democracy needs participation, and most advances for the life of "common people", like universal suffrage (for non-property owners, women, native people) has been achieved by direct action. The greek model of democracy just allowed property owning males to vote, females are just allowed to vote since New Zealand introduced it about 120 years ago, less than half a century ago Aborigines were allowed to vote in Australia.
(West) Germany has a longer history of universal suffrage than the US or Australia, yet the legalized feudalism in the US is used as an impeccable example for "democracy". (Does anyone remember Rosa Parks?)
We, the people, have been withdrawn from power or influence for most of the time in history. Germany was happy to have exchanged monarchy for democracy after WW I, yet it just took 15 years, less than a generation, to convert democracy into fascism.
We, the people, have been subdued to unjust governments for most of history, yet my fellow students take democracy for granted, and ridicule those who engage in activism.
We, the people, are now asked to give away the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the rule of law and the right to strike. All of this for the phony "war on terror", which poses a lesser threat than to be killed by lightning.
Enjoy your unsubstantiated fear, or choose to think for yourself.
I took my pick. And I don't mind if you shout out loud: "Godwin's law!". History has repeated itself over and over again, and if you think "political correctness" prevents this, dream on. It is so comforting to forget that a nominal democracy (like in Germany after WW I) smoothly slid into fascism, and to assume that a nominal democracy is inherently safe from fascism.
(In Australia, Faheem Lodhi is imprisoned for a "thought crime" for 20 years. Lodhi was convicted on the basis of alleged future intentions. No actual plans for a terrorist act were uncovered.)
I don't want to convert you into any political camp, as I'm not adhering to anything that deserves this name. I'm more than happy to meet anyone who dares to think for themselves. Dissent is the essence of democracy, which prevents proselytizing. I'd just like to encourage you, if you have more than two brain cells, to assess for yourself whether "terrorism" is a big enough problem to give away the basis for any democratic system.
Sunday 12 August 2007
Frankenfood or saviour of mankind?
Jason Koutsoukis lobbies a lot for GM food in The Age lately. He quotes a governmental report that claims that GM food poses no danger to human health and the environment.
The US and Canada, two nations that engage a lot in producing transgenetically engineered food, don't label GM food as such, which makes it virtually impossible to determine which impact on individual health this food has.
Cross-pollination with conventional crop spreads the transgenetic material around - nature is no lab. Genetic material from GM corn in the US was already found in remote areas of Mexico, which has not allowed planting of GM crops.
Per definition, organic food can not make use of GM food, which means that there will be no more chance to produce organic food in the long run, or just on a very limited scale.
GM canola probably looks and tastes like conventional canola, but it is sufficiently different from it to deserve being patented. Basically, it is a new species. Australia has some experiences with introducing new species into its ecosystem, as far as I know hardly any positive experiences. There's lots of toads here naturally, so the cane toad can't harm.... There's lot of canola here, so GM canola can't harm...
The way Jason describes the customer's desire for GM food is quite interesting as well. The acceptance has risen, he states, but mentions no statistics. Was the rise from 10% to 11%? Leaving out precise figures nourishes the suspicion that most customers don't want GM food. Asking customers whether they would want to pay more for non-GM food is not really an objective way to find out about acceptance, and maintains the myth (also known as sales promise) that GM food can be produced cheaper, and the consumer would as well pay cheaper prices. Somehow this contradicts the capitalist mantra of maximising profits, but it nurtures the myth of benevolent corporations.
If you suspect that I don't want GM food to be introduced here, you are right. In Germany, illegally planted GM crops have already cross-pollinated adjacent crops, and thus destroyed the livelihood of organic farmers. Monsanto sued a farmer in Canada whose crop was affected by cross-pollination and made him pay for things he didn't want to have in first place.
Although I'm quite happy with your implicit consent to my prior postings, I'm curious about your thoughts about GM food.
Do you want it? Do you think the introduction of a new species into the Australian ecosystem is a good idea? If GM food isn't labelled, can we with certainty conclude that it has no health impacts? Isn't it a reduction of consumer's choice, if "the whole world" plants GM crop? Wouldn't there be an enormous advantage for Australia to be one of the few countries to still produce organic food?
The US and Canada, two nations that engage a lot in producing transgenetically engineered food, don't label GM food as such, which makes it virtually impossible to determine which impact on individual health this food has.
Cross-pollination with conventional crop spreads the transgenetic material around - nature is no lab. Genetic material from GM corn in the US was already found in remote areas of Mexico, which has not allowed planting of GM crops.
Per definition, organic food can not make use of GM food, which means that there will be no more chance to produce organic food in the long run, or just on a very limited scale.
GM canola probably looks and tastes like conventional canola, but it is sufficiently different from it to deserve being patented. Basically, it is a new species. Australia has some experiences with introducing new species into its ecosystem, as far as I know hardly any positive experiences. There's lots of toads here naturally, so the cane toad can't harm.... There's lot of canola here, so GM canola can't harm...
The way Jason describes the customer's desire for GM food is quite interesting as well. The acceptance has risen, he states, but mentions no statistics. Was the rise from 10% to 11%? Leaving out precise figures nourishes the suspicion that most customers don't want GM food. Asking customers whether they would want to pay more for non-GM food is not really an objective way to find out about acceptance, and maintains the myth (also known as sales promise) that GM food can be produced cheaper, and the consumer would as well pay cheaper prices. Somehow this contradicts the capitalist mantra of maximising profits, but it nurtures the myth of benevolent corporations.
If you suspect that I don't want GM food to be introduced here, you are right. In Germany, illegally planted GM crops have already cross-pollinated adjacent crops, and thus destroyed the livelihood of organic farmers. Monsanto sued a farmer in Canada whose crop was affected by cross-pollination and made him pay for things he didn't want to have in first place.
Although I'm quite happy with your implicit consent to my prior postings, I'm curious about your thoughts about GM food.
Do you want it? Do you think the introduction of a new species into the Australian ecosystem is a good idea? If GM food isn't labelled, can we with certainty conclude that it has no health impacts? Isn't it a reduction of consumer's choice, if "the whole world" plants GM crop? Wouldn't there be an enormous advantage for Australia to be one of the few countries to still produce organic food?
Sunday 5 August 2007
Dynasty
A decent tyranny needs an evil family, willing keep the power in their hands, no matter what happens. Fidel gave his power to his brother Raoul Castro, Saddam Husseyn would have made one of his sons the next leader, and feudalism used inherited leadership systematically.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.
Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.
Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.
GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.
The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.
I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.
It comes as a bit of a surprise that in the US a single family got hold of the presidency twice. Yet, this will for power stems from the grandfather of the current US president, Prescott Bush.
Prescott Bush married into a wealthy family, which provided him with the job to organise financial support for Nazi Germany. At the end of the second world war he was found guilty of supporting the enemy, but was not penalised. The money earned in this nefarious activities built the basis for the wealth of the Bush family.
Prescott Bush's support for the Nazis was just consequential. A BBC documentary followed the traces of an attempt to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. There are very familiar names among the conspirators that planned to turn the US into a fascist country like Germany.
GWB has created enough Presidential Orders and Directives to declare himself as a dictator (in case of a national emergency, which is anything the president defines as such). He cannot be reelected, but he might simply cancel the elections.
The reason could be a terror attack, this time certainly done by terrorists from Iran, maybe even nuclear or chemical, in a place like LA or San Francisco. While the inevitable nuclear retaliation annihilates Iran, going to vote is uncertainly impossible. I hope I'm wrong.
I just wonder whether you still think democracy is healthy in the US when the next elections get cancelled, or another country gets attacked.
Sunday 29 July 2007
Semester 2: Revenge of the PIS
The PIS returns! Here is the agenda for this week's meeting, which takes place Wednesday at 1pm, in our new location of Room 109, Alice Hoy Building.
No smoking
Why is it that, if you is sitting in a drinking establishment with politically interested people, you can play devil's advocate on all manner of issues - defend the Iraq war, agree solemnly with the PM that fighting climate change must not be at the expense of the economy - but if you refuse to agree wholeheartedly with this new smoking ban of Bracksy's in bars and restaurants, you are looked at like you have just escaped from an asylum?
Is it possible that this ban is actually lousy policy?
Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's semi-benevolent dictator, is in a spot of bother. A few months ago he dismissed a judge, as dictators are inclined to do, but all hell's broken loose ever since, both with Pakistan's democrats, and, more worryingly, with its Islamists. Tensions reached a new high just the other week, with the storming of the Red Mosque. And the latest Newspoll finds he has made up hardly any ground on Kevin Rudd.
To take all this instability and supersize it, the Bush Administration, defying the general hope that its dumbest ideas are behind it, is planning on sending American troops into Pakistan.
What's going to happen in Pakistan? Is Musharraf going to have to get off the fence, and choose between a long-promised return to genuine democracy, or a metamorphosis into all-out dictatorship? Or, will Pakistanis choose to overthrow him first?
And: should America's policy of supporting Musharraf as an ally in the 'war on terror' be revised? Has it contributed to this whole mess?
Marriage
So less people are getting married, and those that do are getting married later in their lives. Is this regrettable? Or is there an upside? For example, maybe if our PM had remained an ineligible bachelor and hadn't tied the knot to Lady MacBeth, we would have been spared 11 years and might still live under the rule of law... Discuss.
Federal politics
Are the Coalition going to lose?
Should they switch to Costello?
How 'bout this Haneef business?
To be followed immediately by Hawkey Card-priced beer at PA's, on Grattan Street, from 2:15.
Previously, at the PIS ...
PIS President Dave Fettling won his second term. It was the narrowest election margin in the history of the Society.
One week later, he was inaugurated under a bleak overcast sky and with a record low turnout. While running the meeting that week, he was frequently interrupted and contradicted, leading to whispers he may already have become a 'lame duck PIS President'.
Despite this the President was talking big: 'Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it', he told the assembled media at the Prince Alfred hotel.
Meanwhile the PIS's mascot, the two-headed dog, was hospitalised again at the end of May, spending a night in Eltham East Veterinary Clinic. Flowers, get-well cards and Schmackos from concerned members of the Political Interest Society poured in. The dog is beloved by the PIS.
Blanche, wife of former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who agreed to become the official patron of the Political Interest Society in February of this year, wrote an apologetic letter to the PIS Committee apologising for her husband's poor attendance record at the club. But as she explained, "he's been hitting the turps pretty bad ever since the Keating! musical became a hit".
What sort of semester is it going to be for the PIS? There's ample evidence that the club is headed for disaster.
The Young Liberals on campus, who attempted to crush the PIS four years ago, 'like the Soviets into Czechoslovakia in 68', as their then President described it, have been growing alarmed at the leftward turn in the Society's emails. While the Libs cautiously welcomed the election of Dave Fettling back in 2006, they have noticed of late his growing tendency to don army fatigues, smoke cigars, talk about a 'politically interested utopia', and refer to his Secretary, Eddie Clarke, as 'Raoul'.
We tried to get a quote from the Young Libs, but they didn't answer.
Then we tried again and they answered and they said that they were all gay.
After being released from the vet in June, the two-headed dog has returned to the ranch he calls home, but has been feeling dizzy and lethargic. All PIS members are to pray for him.
Thomas Friedmann in his regular New York Times column has asked the question, 'Is Dave Fettling the PIS's Mikhail Gorbachev?' Friedmann pointed out that the Soviet Union was going swimmingly until Gorbachev launched 'glasnost', which is Russian for 'going to the pub', and 'perestroika', which is Russian for 'stupid emails'. Gorbachev, says Friedmann, 'attempted to reform the unreformable...as a result, the whole Empire came crashing down'. Hmm.
And the University of Melbourne Student Union has launched an investigation after two rank and file PIS members were caught breaking into the Clubs & Societies office and tampering with files.
But I'm sure it's nothing.
No smoking
Why is it that, if you is sitting in a drinking establishment with politically interested people, you can play devil's advocate on all manner of issues - defend the Iraq war, agree solemnly with the PM that fighting climate change must not be at the expense of the economy - but if you refuse to agree wholeheartedly with this new smoking ban of Bracksy's in bars and restaurants, you are looked at like you have just escaped from an asylum?
Is it possible that this ban is actually lousy policy?
Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's semi-benevolent dictator, is in a spot of bother. A few months ago he dismissed a judge, as dictators are inclined to do, but all hell's broken loose ever since, both with Pakistan's democrats, and, more worryingly, with its Islamists. Tensions reached a new high just the other week, with the storming of the Red Mosque. And the latest Newspoll finds he has made up hardly any ground on Kevin Rudd.
To take all this instability and supersize it, the Bush Administration, defying the general hope that its dumbest ideas are behind it, is planning on sending American troops into Pakistan.
What's going to happen in Pakistan? Is Musharraf going to have to get off the fence, and choose between a long-promised return to genuine democracy, or a metamorphosis into all-out dictatorship? Or, will Pakistanis choose to overthrow him first?
And: should America's policy of supporting Musharraf as an ally in the 'war on terror' be revised? Has it contributed to this whole mess?
Marriage
So less people are getting married, and those that do are getting married later in their lives. Is this regrettable? Or is there an upside? For example, maybe if our PM had remained an ineligible bachelor and hadn't tied the knot to Lady MacBeth, we would have been spared 11 years and might still live under the rule of law... Discuss.
Federal politics
Are the Coalition going to lose?
Should they switch to Costello?
How 'bout this Haneef business?
To be followed immediately by Hawkey Card-priced beer at PA's, on Grattan Street, from 2:15.
Previously, at the PIS ...
PIS President Dave Fettling won his second term. It was the narrowest election margin in the history of the Society.
One week later, he was inaugurated under a bleak overcast sky and with a record low turnout. While running the meeting that week, he was frequently interrupted and contradicted, leading to whispers he may already have become a 'lame duck PIS President'.
Despite this the President was talking big: 'Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it', he told the assembled media at the Prince Alfred hotel.
Meanwhile the PIS's mascot, the two-headed dog, was hospitalised again at the end of May, spending a night in Eltham East Veterinary Clinic. Flowers, get-well cards and Schmackos from concerned members of the Political Interest Society poured in. The dog is beloved by the PIS.
Blanche, wife of former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who agreed to become the official patron of the Political Interest Society in February of this year, wrote an apologetic letter to the PIS Committee apologising for her husband's poor attendance record at the club. But as she explained, "he's been hitting the turps pretty bad ever since the Keating! musical became a hit".
What sort of semester is it going to be for the PIS? There's ample evidence that the club is headed for disaster.
The Young Liberals on campus, who attempted to crush the PIS four years ago, 'like the Soviets into Czechoslovakia in 68', as their then President described it, have been growing alarmed at the leftward turn in the Society's emails. While the Libs cautiously welcomed the election of Dave Fettling back in 2006, they have noticed of late his growing tendency to don army fatigues, smoke cigars, talk about a 'politically interested utopia', and refer to his Secretary, Eddie Clarke, as 'Raoul'.
We tried to get a quote from the Young Libs, but they didn't answer.
Then we tried again and they answered and they said that they were all gay.
After being released from the vet in June, the two-headed dog has returned to the ranch he calls home, but has been feeling dizzy and lethargic. All PIS members are to pray for him.
Thomas Friedmann in his regular New York Times column has asked the question, 'Is Dave Fettling the PIS's Mikhail Gorbachev?' Friedmann pointed out that the Soviet Union was going swimmingly until Gorbachev launched 'glasnost', which is Russian for 'going to the pub', and 'perestroika', which is Russian for 'stupid emails'. Gorbachev, says Friedmann, 'attempted to reform the unreformable...as a result, the whole Empire came crashing down'. Hmm.
And the University of Melbourne Student Union has launched an investigation after two rank and file PIS members were caught breaking into the Clubs & Societies office and tampering with files.
But I'm sure it's nothing.
Saturday 28 July 2007
A win for justice?
The case against Dr. Haneef crumbled to bits and pieces, after Howard, Ruddock and Andrews celebrated this witch hunt as victory in the "war on terror". Now, without a visa, Dr. Haneef has to pay about 120$ per day for his detention, until he goes back to India. As he couldn't pay his rent while he was held without charge, he has lost his flat, which was searched by about 300 police forces to find no evidence.
No one as yet is willing to take responsibility for this act that concerns all foreigners in Australia. The anti-terror laws have no regulations for compensation, as they seem to be designed to make anyone a terrorist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is.
Dr. Haneef isn't the first one who felt the injustice of Australia's anti-terror laws. The Barwon 13 still wait for their trial, after more than a year in solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Faheem Lodhi will spent 22 years in prison for something, that can't even be described as a thought crime. Jack Thomas, by the media prejudiced as Jihad Jack, still suffers from a constraint order, being subjected to a curfew and restrictions which means of communication he is allowed to use.
And finally, David Hicks, who was subjected to five years in American torture camps, is held as a terrorist in jail, and will enjoy a similar constraint order like Jack Thomas, once he is a "free man" again.
David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef are not allowed to talk about their treatment, which would be essential to determine how Australia treats basic human rights. Human Rights Organisations consider solitary confinement as a form of torture, especially over long periods of time, and all of the former experienced this totalitarian treatment.
So much I would appreciate Philip Ruddock taking his hat for his repeated abuse of the anti-terror laws, I don't see this happen. Mick Keelty might end up to be the scapegoat, and/or Kevin Andrews, but this seems as well not too likely. However, it would satisfy my concept of justice and accountability in a democracy to see some heads rolling, though it wouldn't make up for the damage done to the victims of the witch hunt, nor would anyone pay back the taxpayers money used to pursue this paranoid trials.
Just personal responsibility could move Ruddock, Keelty or Andrews to resign, legally there is no reason. All of them can hide behind the anti-terror laws, which are the core of the problem. This legislation opened a back-door to circumvent to the rule of law, and thus can be abused by anyone in a position of power.
Although the media, especially The Age, played an important role to prevent the next innocent man being subjected to a life in prison, it is far from being innocent. Terrorists are an extremly rare breed, luckily, and the threat posed by them is far less than the threat by car accidents or suicide. However, reporting permanently about terror related topics maintains fear among the population, and the illusion of a real threat. But this paranoia is never backed up by numbers, because the numbers speak simply a different language.
I'm really curious who, if anyone, will take responsibility for this abuse of power. As mentioned, I would appreciate simply abolishing the anti-terror laws, which would automatically prevent especially Ruddock from interfering with the judiciary system.
The damage done to the life and reputation of Dr. Haneef can not be undone. He is one of 20,000 foreign physicians working in Australia (out of 50,000), and at least people from muslim backgrounds might no longer be willing to take the risk of supporting the Australian medical system.
Well done, Mr. Keelty. Well done, Mr. Andrews. Well done, Mr. Ruddock. Well done, Mr. Howard.
No one as yet is willing to take responsibility for this act that concerns all foreigners in Australia. The anti-terror laws have no regulations for compensation, as they seem to be designed to make anyone a terrorist, no matter how flimsy the evidence is.
Dr. Haneef isn't the first one who felt the injustice of Australia's anti-terror laws. The Barwon 13 still wait for their trial, after more than a year in solitary confinement in a high-security prison. Faheem Lodhi will spent 22 years in prison for something, that can't even be described as a thought crime. Jack Thomas, by the media prejudiced as Jihad Jack, still suffers from a constraint order, being subjected to a curfew and restrictions which means of communication he is allowed to use.
And finally, David Hicks, who was subjected to five years in American torture camps, is held as a terrorist in jail, and will enjoy a similar constraint order like Jack Thomas, once he is a "free man" again.
David Hicks, Jack Thomas and Dr. Haneef are not allowed to talk about their treatment, which would be essential to determine how Australia treats basic human rights. Human Rights Organisations consider solitary confinement as a form of torture, especially over long periods of time, and all of the former experienced this totalitarian treatment.
So much I would appreciate Philip Ruddock taking his hat for his repeated abuse of the anti-terror laws, I don't see this happen. Mick Keelty might end up to be the scapegoat, and/or Kevin Andrews, but this seems as well not too likely. However, it would satisfy my concept of justice and accountability in a democracy to see some heads rolling, though it wouldn't make up for the damage done to the victims of the witch hunt, nor would anyone pay back the taxpayers money used to pursue this paranoid trials.
Just personal responsibility could move Ruddock, Keelty or Andrews to resign, legally there is no reason. All of them can hide behind the anti-terror laws, which are the core of the problem. This legislation opened a back-door to circumvent to the rule of law, and thus can be abused by anyone in a position of power.
Although the media, especially The Age, played an important role to prevent the next innocent man being subjected to a life in prison, it is far from being innocent. Terrorists are an extremly rare breed, luckily, and the threat posed by them is far less than the threat by car accidents or suicide. However, reporting permanently about terror related topics maintains fear among the population, and the illusion of a real threat. But this paranoia is never backed up by numbers, because the numbers speak simply a different language.
I'm really curious who, if anyone, will take responsibility for this abuse of power. As mentioned, I would appreciate simply abolishing the anti-terror laws, which would automatically prevent especially Ruddock from interfering with the judiciary system.
The damage done to the life and reputation of Dr. Haneef can not be undone. He is one of 20,000 foreign physicians working in Australia (out of 50,000), and at least people from muslim backgrounds might no longer be willing to take the risk of supporting the Australian medical system.
Well done, Mr. Keelty. Well done, Mr. Andrews. Well done, Mr. Ruddock. Well done, Mr. Howard.
Monday 16 July 2007
Risk assessment
I got my numbers wrong in the previous posting, sorry for that. Let's do the math again.
New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, so I should I have said far less than 5,000 people were killed by terror in this century in the western world.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasize not in the original)
PS: I kind of feel very uneasy as international student in this country right now. The way in which Dr. Haneef is treated reminds me very much of the dark times in Germany. He is - in the view of the government, represented by Mr. Andrews - guilty by association, and while being here an temporary visa, the century old legal principle of "guilty until proven innocent" seem not to apply any more in Australia. While Ms. Payne, the judge that tried to keep up legal principles, granted him bail, because there is simply no evidence backing his alleged support of a terrorist group, the minister of immigration knows better than a judge.
This arbitrary interpretation of legal principles scares me a lot. I wouldn't be surprised, if in the near future the slogan "Don't buy at muslim shops" is propagated. It seems like the government has decided to scare skilled immigrants off. I'm used to live in a relatively free society and to speak my mind. But neither the Liberals nor Labour seem to have a problem to mix up legislative, executive and judicative powers, so that one of the basic principles of democracy, the separation of powers, has been abolished.
Martin Niemöller
I don't know whether one of you will speak out, when someone comes for me. But as long as terror paranoia can justify arbitrary decisions like in the case of Dr. Haneef, without any public outrage and severe consequences for those in government making their own rules, I feel like history is repeating. And I still doubt that 88 Australian victims in Bali justify the abolition of civil rights and centuries old legal principles.
PPS: Obviously, 2002 was the climax of terror victims from an Australian perspective. Rational Fear provides data as it was collected by the World Health Organisation. For your convenience, I pulled the data for people between 20-24 for this year to help you a bit in your personal risk assessment.
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for men in that age group were:
1. 84 (0.012%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 48 (0.007%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
3. 18 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
4. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, traffic accident (V031)
5. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours - Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours, unspecified place (X679)
6. 15 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified, unspecified place (X429)
7. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
8. 13 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
9. 12 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for women in that age group were:
1. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 8 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
3. 7 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
4. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Myeloid leukaemia - Acute myeloid leukaemia (C920)
5. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
6. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, passenger, traffic accident (V436)
7. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
8. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
I'm very tempted to kindly ask the next one, who wants to remind me of the threat that terrorism poses, to commit suicide. The age group 40-44 which pushes suicide to the second place (for males), but just because the counting distinguishes between different methods of suicide. Once you made it to 55, the suicidal tendencies decrease. Women tend to be less suicidal, but it's still the primary reaper for females between 15 and 30.
New York, 9/11/01: 2974 casualties
Bali, 10/12/02: 202 casualties
Madrid, 3/11/04: 191 casualties
London, 7/7/05: 52 casualties
Mumbai, 7/11/06: 209 casualties
Glasgow, 6/30/07: 0 casualties
Total: 3628 victims of terror, so I should I have said far less than 5,000 people were killed by terror in this century in the western world.
According to the Food and Agriculture Administration of the UN, more than 25,000 people starve daily. The daily loss of life due to our economic system is five times higher than the death toll due to terror in the last six years.
About 2,000 to 2,500 people annually committed suicide in Australia in this millenium.
According to the Lancet study, 655,000 people were killed in Iraq from March 2003 to June 2006. Assuming a similar rate of killing for the period from July 2006 until now brings the number up to 850,000 (conservatively). The estimate of about 150,000 to 250,000 during six years of war in a country with more than 30 million population seems very conservative, however, as both areas are still war zones just estimates are possible.
The use of Depleted Uranium and daisy cutters bombs increases civilian casualties even without actual fights, intoxicates former arable land and turns farming into a deadly adventure. The website Afghanistan after Democracy gives you an idea of the mutations caused by DU (warning: very graphic images).
Although the US rulez "war on terror" killing game is far from over, it is virtually impossible to catch up for the terrorists.
Terrorists: 4,000 Governments: 1,100,000
Corporatism (death by starvation): 60,000,000
(all estimates for 21st century)
I consider myself in first place as an Earthian. The winner in this cruel game are corporative interests fostered by governments, the loser is humanity.
And all of that because of the myth of scarcity. In the height of the cold war, 1983, Richard Buckminster Fuller, the Leonardo da Vinci of the 20th century stated:
In 1970 it could, for the time, be engineeringly demonstrated that, applying the most advanced know-how to the conservation and use of the world's resources, we can, within ten years of from-killigry-to-livingry reoriented world production, have all humanity enjoying a sustainably higher standard of living than any humans have ever heretofore experienced. It could be further demonstrated that we can do this while simultaneously phasing out all further Earthians' use of fossil fuels and atomic energy.
Bucky Fuller, Grunch of Giants (emphasize not in the original)
PS: I kind of feel very uneasy as international student in this country right now. The way in which Dr. Haneef is treated reminds me very much of the dark times in Germany. He is - in the view of the government, represented by Mr. Andrews - guilty by association, and while being here an temporary visa, the century old legal principle of "guilty until proven innocent" seem not to apply any more in Australia. While Ms. Payne, the judge that tried to keep up legal principles, granted him bail, because there is simply no evidence backing his alleged support of a terrorist group, the minister of immigration knows better than a judge.
This arbitrary interpretation of legal principles scares me a lot. I wouldn't be surprised, if in the near future the slogan "Don't buy at muslim shops" is propagated. It seems like the government has decided to scare skilled immigrants off. I'm used to live in a relatively free society and to speak my mind. But neither the Liberals nor Labour seem to have a problem to mix up legislative, executive and judicative powers, so that one of the basic principles of democracy, the separation of powers, has been abolished.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller
I don't know whether one of you will speak out, when someone comes for me. But as long as terror paranoia can justify arbitrary decisions like in the case of Dr. Haneef, without any public outrage and severe consequences for those in government making their own rules, I feel like history is repeating. And I still doubt that 88 Australian victims in Bali justify the abolition of civil rights and centuries old legal principles.
PPS: Obviously, 2002 was the climax of terror victims from an Australian perspective. Rational Fear provides data as it was collected by the World Health Organisation. For your convenience, I pulled the data for people between 20-24 for this year to help you a bit in your personal risk assessment.
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for men in that age group were:
1. 84 (0.012%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 48 (0.007%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
3. 18 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
4. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Pedestrian injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, traffic accident (V031)
5. 17 (0.003%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours - Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other gases and vapours, unspecified place (X679)
6. 15 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens], not elsewhere classified, unspecified place (X429)
7. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
8. 13 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
9. 12 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
In 2002 in Australia the leading causes of death for women in that age group were:
1. 14 (0.002%) deaths from:
* Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation - Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation, unspecified place (X709)
2. 8 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, driver, traffic accident (V435)
3. 7 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, driver, traffic accident (V475)
4. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Myeloid leukaemia - Acute myeloid leukaemia (C920)
5. 6 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances - Accidental poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances, unspecified place (X449)
6. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van - Car occupant injured in collision with car, pick-up truck or van, passenger, traffic accident (V436)
7. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus - Car occupant injured in collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus, driver, traffic accident (V445)
8. 5 (0.001%) deaths from:
* Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object - Car occupant injured in collision with fixed or stationary object, passenger, traffic accident (V476)
I'm very tempted to kindly ask the next one, who wants to remind me of the threat that terrorism poses, to commit suicide. The age group 40-44 which pushes suicide to the second place (for males), but just because the counting distinguishes between different methods of suicide. Once you made it to 55, the suicidal tendencies decrease. Women tend to be less suicidal, but it's still the primary reaper for females between 15 and 30.
Friday 13 July 2007
Let's hear some experts
Most of the club members are well aware that I don't believe the official myth of 911. And I'm well aware that some of you are pretty annoyed whenever I bring up the topic, while others happily use my different opinion on that matter for ad hominem attacks and put the tinfoil hat of a conspiracy nut on my head.
However, I feel mature enough to stand the heat and not to give in to peer pressure. Especially as I don't spread any particular conspiracy theory, but ask for explanations of physical phenomena that insult my understanding of basic principles of science.
One of the key issues remains the question why and how the trade center building 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. The most intelligent reply I heard about this topic asked for some statements by engineers (thanks, Sophie), which might have a better idea about structural integrity of building, and the ways and reasons why buildings might collapse.
A lot of literature has been published about 911, and you might happily say by conspiracy nuts to make a big buck. But it when comes to making money out of 911 other names come to my mind. Larry Silverstein for example, the lease holder of the WTC complex made several billion dollars just a few months after signing the lease contract for the buildings. Or Halliburton, which overcharged the US government for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but remains a primary supplier for the US army.
And probably you'll think it's just a publicity stunt, when celebrities like Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell raise their doubts about the official story. They lack - just like me - the professional credibility assumed by anyone the media calls expert.
Yet some experts use their knowledge to investigate on their own, with the little evidence that is left since most of debris of the collapsed buildings was sold off as scrap metal to China. Pr. Steven Jones, physicist, got hold of samples from the debris of the WTC, and found in it the chemical signature of thermate, an explosive used for controlled demolitions.
Richard Gage, an architect that designs steel-framed highrisers, held a lecture at the Sonoma State University to explain why he came to the conclusion that the buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. You can find the link to the presentation on the left side of the "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" website, and although the quality of the video is not too stunning, it is well worth watching. For a quick fix in better quality check the the first part of the lecture held in Canada.
The chairman and final editor of the 911 commission report, Philip Zelikow, is not only a participant of the occult Bilderberg meetings and co-author of a book with Condoleeza Rice (and thus not really "independent from the government"), but also, according to Wikipedia, an expert for the creation of public myth. Decide for yourself who might be more competent to explain why fire can or cannot destroy a huge steel construction in a neat, symmetrical fashion.
So for those of you who want to hear some expert opinion about the collapse of the World Trade Center building, have a look at the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or Scholars for 911 Truth website, before you refrain to the next unsophisticated ad hominem attack when I mention this topic.
You may wonder why I bring up 911 so persistently, which is easy to answer. 911 is used as a general excuse for abolition of civil rights world wide and the murder of about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia will spend 10 billion dollar on its "war on terror" in the next 5 years (according to The Age), which resembles more and more the endless war described in Orwell's 1984.
I think its absurd to claim to live in a civilised society when more tax payers money is spend on war than on education or health. Unless you buy into the doublespeak idea that citizen are civilians, which can be bossed around like the Aboriginal communities by the army.
We study at one of the most prestigious universities of the world, which implies that we will (possibly) earn better wages and therefore pay more taxes than average Joe. This means we contribute more to support governmentally initiated murder.
Less than 10,000 people were killed by terror in the 21th century in the western world (none in Australia), whereas western governments killed about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And historically seen, most governments abused their population at will. Full suffrage for all citizens just happened in the 20th century, in Australia less than 50 years ago. Good luck in numbing your conscience with luxury and trusting the government.
However, I feel mature enough to stand the heat and not to give in to peer pressure. Especially as I don't spread any particular conspiracy theory, but ask for explanations of physical phenomena that insult my understanding of basic principles of science.
One of the key issues remains the question why and how the trade center building 1, 2 and 7 collapsed. The most intelligent reply I heard about this topic asked for some statements by engineers (thanks, Sophie), which might have a better idea about structural integrity of building, and the ways and reasons why buildings might collapse.
A lot of literature has been published about 911, and you might happily say by conspiracy nuts to make a big buck. But it when comes to making money out of 911 other names come to my mind. Larry Silverstein for example, the lease holder of the WTC complex made several billion dollars just a few months after signing the lease contract for the buildings. Or Halliburton, which overcharged the US government for the ongoing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but remains a primary supplier for the US army.
And probably you'll think it's just a publicity stunt, when celebrities like Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell raise their doubts about the official story. They lack - just like me - the professional credibility assumed by anyone the media calls expert.
Yet some experts use their knowledge to investigate on their own, with the little evidence that is left since most of debris of the collapsed buildings was sold off as scrap metal to China. Pr. Steven Jones, physicist, got hold of samples from the debris of the WTC, and found in it the chemical signature of thermate, an explosive used for controlled demolitions.
Richard Gage, an architect that designs steel-framed highrisers, held a lecture at the Sonoma State University to explain why he came to the conclusion that the buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down in a controlled demolition. You can find the link to the presentation on the left side of the "Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" website, and although the quality of the video is not too stunning, it is well worth watching. For a quick fix in better quality check the the first part of the lecture held in Canada.
The chairman and final editor of the 911 commission report, Philip Zelikow, is not only a participant of the occult Bilderberg meetings and co-author of a book with Condoleeza Rice (and thus not really "independent from the government"), but also, according to Wikipedia, an expert for the creation of public myth. Decide for yourself who might be more competent to explain why fire can or cannot destroy a huge steel construction in a neat, symmetrical fashion.
So for those of you who want to hear some expert opinion about the collapse of the World Trade Center building, have a look at the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or Scholars for 911 Truth website, before you refrain to the next unsophisticated ad hominem attack when I mention this topic.
You may wonder why I bring up 911 so persistently, which is easy to answer. 911 is used as a general excuse for abolition of civil rights world wide and the murder of about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia will spend 10 billion dollar on its "war on terror" in the next 5 years (according to The Age), which resembles more and more the endless war described in Orwell's 1984.
I think its absurd to claim to live in a civilised society when more tax payers money is spend on war than on education or health. Unless you buy into the doublespeak idea that citizen are civilians, which can be bossed around like the Aboriginal communities by the army.
We study at one of the most prestigious universities of the world, which implies that we will (possibly) earn better wages and therefore pay more taxes than average Joe. This means we contribute more to support governmentally initiated murder.
Less than 10,000 people were killed by terror in the 21th century in the western world (none in Australia), whereas western governments killed about a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. And historically seen, most governments abused their population at will. Full suffrage for all citizens just happened in the 20th century, in Australia less than 50 years ago. Good luck in numbing your conscience with luxury and trusting the government.
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs that fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep the people frightened".Orwell, 1984
Wednesday 27 June 2007
Brave new world
“I think a lot of people would be really disturbed by what’s happening. People have this rose-coloured view of Australia as a democratic country. But we are seeing measures which have more in common with the Stasi or a police state. University is a time when people traditionally question things and open up and learn about the world. That spirit of inquiry is now under threat.”
These are the words of the President of Sydney University's Student Representive Council (SRC), Angus McFarland. His SRC fellow David Jones was approached by the police to spy on his socialist activists comrades.
There's quite some socialism activism in Melbourne as well, and many are annoyed hearing and reading about the socialist world revolution. However, a closer look unveils a very non-threatening crowd. It is hard to imagine that Sydney's socialists pose more of a threat than our own.
This raises some questions. Why does the government want to prevent activism? Who is the spy among the Melbourne socialists, or is there none? Is it illegal in this country to be against consumerism, conformism and neo-liberalism?
Who much freedom is left in a country that puts you in jail for dissent?
Wednesday 20 June 2007
Never ending story
As long as there are civil rights to be taken away, the universal excuse 911 will be used. Like it happened in the last six years while about a million people were killed as retaliation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A lot of people all over this planet doubt the official account of the day that changed the world. But as long as they are just someone, most people won't listen. The list of prominent people asking for a reinvestigation of 911 gets longer.
Rosie O'Donnell lost her chance to talk about the mysterious collapse of WTC7 on the show The View, she left the show in June. The left documentarist Michael Moore joined now the ranks of those thinking that 911 could have been an inside job.
Moore mentions explosions in the World Trade Center buildings, and wonders why we haven't seen any footage from the more than 100 video cameras capturing the Pentagon. Explosions were reported by several eye witnesses, yet the most confusing eyewitness account just broke.
Jason Bermat and Dylan Avery, the heads behind Loose Change, one of the most popular Google video since its existence, chased up somebody who has been in official mission in WTC7 just after the first plane crash into the north tower of the WTC.
Parts of the interview have been prereleased on Alex Jones Prison Planet, the interviewee will remain anonymous until the final release of Loose Change, which is due later this year.
Mr. X wanted to see Mr. Guiliani in the New York City Office of Emergency Management, which was located on a fortified floor with bombproof windows on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Just minutes after the first hit the emergency team has fled their control center in an apparent hurry.
The lifts were no longer operating, on the way down via a staircase he nearly fell into the gap ripped by an explosion. When he finally made his way into the lobby, "it looked like King Kong stepped through it and destroyed all".
Mr. X had been talking to the 911 commission, but his account was ignored in the report. Of course, you can imagine that this is nothing but a marketing scam for a long expected film. I'm quite curious which celebrity will come out of the closet after Michael Moore and this new evidence.
A lot of people all over this planet doubt the official account of the day that changed the world. But as long as they are just someone, most people won't listen. The list of prominent people asking for a reinvestigation of 911 gets longer.
Rosie O'Donnell lost her chance to talk about the mysterious collapse of WTC7 on the show The View, she left the show in June. The left documentarist Michael Moore joined now the ranks of those thinking that 911 could have been an inside job.
Moore mentions explosions in the World Trade Center buildings, and wonders why we haven't seen any footage from the more than 100 video cameras capturing the Pentagon. Explosions were reported by several eye witnesses, yet the most confusing eyewitness account just broke.
Jason Bermat and Dylan Avery, the heads behind Loose Change, one of the most popular Google video since its existence, chased up somebody who has been in official mission in WTC7 just after the first plane crash into the north tower of the WTC.
Parts of the interview have been prereleased on Alex Jones Prison Planet, the interviewee will remain anonymous until the final release of Loose Change, which is due later this year.
Mr. X wanted to see Mr. Guiliani in the New York City Office of Emergency Management, which was located on a fortified floor with bombproof windows on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Just minutes after the first hit the emergency team has fled their control center in an apparent hurry.
The lifts were no longer operating, on the way down via a staircase he nearly fell into the gap ripped by an explosion. When he finally made his way into the lobby, "it looked like King Kong stepped through it and destroyed all".
Mr. X had been talking to the 911 commission, but his account was ignored in the report. Of course, you can imagine that this is nothing but a marketing scam for a long expected film. I'm quite curious which celebrity will come out of the closet after Michael Moore and this new evidence.
Wednesday 13 June 2007
Citizen under siege
Ed and Elaine Brown from Plainfield, New Hampshire look just just like the nice, friendly, elderly couple that they are.
The Browns believe in the American constitution, and like many others they despise the 23rd December 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, which handed the privilege to print money to a handful private banks.
As a consequence the government pays the Federal Reserve to print its money and interest for the connected loans. In the US, the income tax is used to pay for the cost arising for the circulation of money, and the IRS is the muscle used to get it.
The IRS claims that the congress had given them the power to collect income tax, but according to the constitution the congress has not the power to introduce such a tax. Aaron Russo, the maker of the documentary America: From freedom to fascism took his time to investigate to strange legal situation of the income tax.
The Browns refuse to pay take income tax, because they assume that the constitution has highest legal authority. But the IRS stroke back. Their home is besieged since last week with armored vehicles, drones spy out their properties, snipers creep around their house.
Just a coincidence might have saved their lives when a SWAT team was about to move in on thursday morning. Danny Riley, a friend of the Browns, discovered the teams while walking their dog.
Electricity to the house is disrupted, phonelines disconnected and mobile phones get jammed. Several independent reporters have interviewed the Browns, while the rest of media shows no interest at all. The armoured vehicles and SWAT teams still hang around.
This style of law enforcements reminds of overly violent Hollywood movies, but not of a free society. The free American society, however, has been abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive finally grants the American President the right to introduce martial law when he like it.
Naomi Campbell joins those concerned about the slide towards fascism in the US. Her article inspired retired judge Peter Gebhard to reflect about the shutting down of democracy in Australia.
America is well prepared for a dictatorship, Halliburton received last year a $385 million contract to build detention centers in the US. And Australia builds its own Guantanamo-like facility far out on Christmas Island.
Your vote is a valuable thing. What you say often enough becomes true. And I hope the siege of Ed and Elaine Browns home will not to be next the Waco, but so far the publicity, especially by Alex Jones radio show, has prevented anything bad happening.
The Browns believe in the American constitution, and like many others they despise the 23rd December 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, which handed the privilege to print money to a handful private banks.
As a consequence the government pays the Federal Reserve to print its money and interest for the connected loans. In the US, the income tax is used to pay for the cost arising for the circulation of money, and the IRS is the muscle used to get it.
The IRS claims that the congress had given them the power to collect income tax, but according to the constitution the congress has not the power to introduce such a tax. Aaron Russo, the maker of the documentary America: From freedom to fascism took his time to investigate to strange legal situation of the income tax.
The Browns refuse to pay take income tax, because they assume that the constitution has highest legal authority. But the IRS stroke back. Their home is besieged since last week with armored vehicles, drones spy out their properties, snipers creep around their house.
Just a coincidence might have saved their lives when a SWAT team was about to move in on thursday morning. Danny Riley, a friend of the Browns, discovered the teams while walking their dog.
Electricity to the house is disrupted, phonelines disconnected and mobile phones get jammed. Several independent reporters have interviewed the Browns, while the rest of media shows no interest at all. The armoured vehicles and SWAT teams still hang around.
This style of law enforcements reminds of overly violent Hollywood movies, but not of a free society. The free American society, however, has been abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive finally grants the American President the right to introduce martial law when he like it.
Naomi Campbell joins those concerned about the slide towards fascism in the US. Her article inspired retired judge Peter Gebhard to reflect about the shutting down of democracy in Australia.
America is well prepared for a dictatorship, Halliburton received last year a $385 million contract to build detention centers in the US. And Australia builds its own Guantanamo-like facility far out on Christmas Island.
Your vote is a valuable thing. What you say often enough becomes true. And I hope the siege of Ed and Elaine Browns home will not to be next the Waco, but so far the publicity, especially by Alex Jones radio show, has prevented anything bad happening.
Tuesday 29 May 2007
When the elite meets
Economic summits create usually a lot of attention, both from the media and protesters. Last years G20 summit in Melbourne is a good example, like this years G8 summit in Germany, where democracy has been abolished to protect the participating politicians. Hearsay provided enough evidence for the German police for lots of unwarranted searches and arrests, the demonstrations planned for this events can't take place at the events site, but miles away from it.
German chancellor Merkel felt quite uneasy, when Putin reminded her that the way Russia deals with dissent is remarkably similar to Germanys stance towards G8 protests.
Though they are still two weeks to go before the G8 summits starts, it has raised already some attention. 146 article pop up on factiva with the keyword G8 for Australia in the last three months, yet not all of them related to the summit.
But if you search the Australian media for information about the Bilderberg group, you will find only one article, and it doesn't even mention that the next meeting of this mysterious group will take place next weekend in Istanbul, Turkey.
Is there no public interest in a meeting with the Queen of the Netherlands, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Jean Claude Trichet, and other noteable figures from politics, and the oil-, telecommunication-, media- and banking industry?
Paul Wolfowitz was initially invited to this event, but might not attend as his reputation suffered a little lately. But his planned successor as World Bank president, Bob Zoellick will be there for sure, like in 2003 and 2006.
And Gordon Brown will be there as well, and not for the first time. Did I mention that Blair attended some Bilderberg conferences, before he was elected? Even Angela Merkel was invited in 2005, some months before the German elections.
Of course, probably the participants simply enjoy meeting up with old mates, well protected by the CIA, and exchange stories about family, food and vacation. Yet in this case the extreme secrecy about this meeting would not be neccessary.
However, participants from the media (Economist, Le Figaro, NYT to name a few insignificant ones) are obliged not to report about this event. But then, does the public has any right to know what happens behind closed doors, when the World Bank president and the head of the European Central Bank have a friendly chat with the CEOs of the biggest commercial banks?
I think there is significant public interest in this meeting. But then, I'm sure it will go relatively unnoticed by the global mass media. And you, my dear friends from the PIS, can feel free to label this post as conspiracy, and go back to sleep, dreaming about democracy.
The presidential election in the US in 2008 will show much democracy remains in the western world. If the currently most popular Republican candidate (Ron Paul, in case you didn't know) is allowed to run against Hillary, there might be hope. If it's Rudi Guiliani, the man who is responsible for the death and disease of thousands of rescue workers (he sent them knowingly unprotected in the toxic waste pit of Ground Zero), the US empire will strike even more.
German chancellor Merkel felt quite uneasy, when Putin reminded her that the way Russia deals with dissent is remarkably similar to Germanys stance towards G8 protests.
Though they are still two weeks to go before the G8 summits starts, it has raised already some attention. 146 article pop up on factiva with the keyword G8 for Australia in the last three months, yet not all of them related to the summit.
But if you search the Australian media for information about the Bilderberg group, you will find only one article, and it doesn't even mention that the next meeting of this mysterious group will take place next weekend in Istanbul, Turkey.
Is there no public interest in a meeting with the Queen of the Netherlands, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Jean Claude Trichet, and other noteable figures from politics, and the oil-, telecommunication-, media- and banking industry?
Paul Wolfowitz was initially invited to this event, but might not attend as his reputation suffered a little lately. But his planned successor as World Bank president, Bob Zoellick will be there for sure, like in 2003 and 2006.
And Gordon Brown will be there as well, and not for the first time. Did I mention that Blair attended some Bilderberg conferences, before he was elected? Even Angela Merkel was invited in 2005, some months before the German elections.
Of course, probably the participants simply enjoy meeting up with old mates, well protected by the CIA, and exchange stories about family, food and vacation. Yet in this case the extreme secrecy about this meeting would not be neccessary.
However, participants from the media (Economist, Le Figaro, NYT to name a few insignificant ones) are obliged not to report about this event. But then, does the public has any right to know what happens behind closed doors, when the World Bank president and the head of the European Central Bank have a friendly chat with the CEOs of the biggest commercial banks?
I think there is significant public interest in this meeting. But then, I'm sure it will go relatively unnoticed by the global mass media. And you, my dear friends from the PIS, can feel free to label this post as conspiracy, and go back to sleep, dreaming about democracy.
The presidential election in the US in 2008 will show much democracy remains in the western world. If the currently most popular Republican candidate (Ron Paul, in case you didn't know) is allowed to run against Hillary, there might be hope. If it's Rudi Guiliani, the man who is responsible for the death and disease of thousands of rescue workers (he sent them knowingly unprotected in the toxic waste pit of Ground Zero), the US empire will strike even more.
Thursday 22 March 2007
American diversity
While the American President tries again his dictatorial powers, not every American happily agrees with his follies.
One of the icons of investigate journalism, Seymour M. Hersh, asks in his article The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
His analysis of the situation in the Middle-East, and the connection of terror groups with Vize-President Cheney's office should reap some mainstream media echo, but the media simply ignores Hersh.
Hersh broke the story about the massacres in My Lai during the Vietnam war, and build a network of contacts during his long career that makes even unnamed sources credible. His named sources include more than two sides of this complicated constellation.
Something seems to be wrong with the American government. Even talk show host Rosie O'Donnell joined the conspiracy nuts, or rather asks in her blog why WTC 7 collapsed. Besides other doubts about the latest propaganda coming out of Brain-Washington.
And again, mainstream media doesn't care, besides labeling her as insane. Instead of no longer trusting the government, most people decide to rather no longer trust their neighbour. Terror(tm) is per definition linked with islamic fundamentalism, and to assume that the CIA or even Cheney financed these groups.... is a thought crime.
That doesn't stop talk radio host Alex Jones in his aerial info war. He fights tyranny where ever he can find it, and that's in a lot of places. Paul Watson's take on the Khalid Sheik Mohammed confession offers a good insight of the mysterious world of government sponsored terrorism.
It looks like activism is rising again. Maybe we don't live yet in a world as happy and sterile as our daily soaps suggest. Government seems out of control, but some people still believe in a better world for all human beings, even though they have the 21st century motherf***er blues.
PS: I didn't want to end this posting with a nasty word, so I'd rather plug the dytopian article Survival At The Pleasure Of The President.
One of the icons of investigate journalism, Seymour M. Hersh, asks in his article The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
His analysis of the situation in the Middle-East, and the connection of terror groups with Vize-President Cheney's office should reap some mainstream media echo, but the media simply ignores Hersh.
Hersh broke the story about the massacres in My Lai during the Vietnam war, and build a network of contacts during his long career that makes even unnamed sources credible. His named sources include more than two sides of this complicated constellation.
Something seems to be wrong with the American government. Even talk show host Rosie O'Donnell joined the conspiracy nuts, or rather asks in her blog why WTC 7 collapsed. Besides other doubts about the latest propaganda coming out of Brain-Washington.
And again, mainstream media doesn't care, besides labeling her as insane. Instead of no longer trusting the government, most people decide to rather no longer trust their neighbour. Terror(tm) is per definition linked with islamic fundamentalism, and to assume that the CIA or even Cheney financed these groups.... is a thought crime.
That doesn't stop talk radio host Alex Jones in his aerial info war. He fights tyranny where ever he can find it, and that's in a lot of places. Paul Watson's take on the Khalid Sheik Mohammed confession offers a good insight of the mysterious world of government sponsored terrorism.
It looks like activism is rising again. Maybe we don't live yet in a world as happy and sterile as our daily soaps suggest. Government seems out of control, but some people still believe in a better world for all human beings, even though they have the 21st century motherf***er blues.
PS: I didn't want to end this posting with a nasty word, so I'd rather plug the dytopian article Survival At The Pleasure Of The President.
Friday 9 March 2007
Clash of fundamentalism
Not everyone agrees with Huntington's idea of the Clash of Civilisations. The British author Tariq Ali rather calls the current situation Clash of Fundamentalism, and his analysis about the diversity and history of the Muslim communities world wide, and its parallels in the Christian world provides probably a better background to the Middle-East conflict than the daily news yarn.
But not matter how you call this historic (or hysteric) era we live in, Islamophobia is noticeable even in multicultural Australia, and undoubtedly people in Afghanistan and Iraq won't embrace the attempt to mold their societies after the American ideal of freedom and democracy.
Politicians seems to have failed to find a peaceful solution to this conflict, but maybe people can have their voices heard if they unite. Online petitions become more and more popular, and personally I like the petition to Stop the clash of civilisations .
Of course I don't assume that this idea is endorsed by the PIS, but maybe some of you feel inclined to do a little bit more than nothing, and have at least a look at the compelling video accompanying this petition.
But not matter how you call this historic (or hysteric) era we live in, Islamophobia is noticeable even in multicultural Australia, and undoubtedly people in Afghanistan and Iraq won't embrace the attempt to mold their societies after the American ideal of freedom and democracy.
Politicians seems to have failed to find a peaceful solution to this conflict, but maybe people can have their voices heard if they unite. Online petitions become more and more popular, and personally I like the petition to Stop the clash of civilisations .
Of course I don't assume that this idea is endorsed by the PIS, but maybe some of you feel inclined to do a little bit more than nothing, and have at least a look at the compelling video accompanying this petition.
Wednesday 28 February 2007
Global Warming - Global Conspiracy?
When I checked news from good old Germany I stumbled across a discussion about global warming. The discussion was sparked off by an article comparing global warming sceptics with creationists. The strategies seem indeed similar, the sceptics will find some convincing specialist on internet, whose genius unveils that the 450 scientists working for the IPCC are nothing but fools.
The arguments of the Global Warming Deniers sound nearly religious: Man is not important enough and too impotent to influence our climate. Global Warming is just a hoax devised by big companies to make more money from the little man.
Now that's what I would call a great conspiracy theory. Manipulating climatologists, oceanologists, metereologists, geologists and physists worldwide to spread the evil lie of Human Caused Global Warming. I just wonder which global player would profit from a change toward more environmental friendly policies. And I wonder if I can ever get paranoid enough to believe somebody would push scientist all over the planet into 'Faking it'.
A reduction in CO2 emission could harm some businesses though, those producing and dealing with the commodity oil. Though they might already plan an exit strategy for their core business (Shell and BP research a lot into photovoltaic technology), the oil giants have some vital interesting that the consumption (and pollution) patterns of oil don't drastically change. But maybe that's just another conspiracy theory.
Some of the posting I read were simply hilarious, but I was amazed how some of GW-sceptics referred to their pseudo-scientific single sources on the internet. One article, written by a German physicist, sounded quite convincing, but luckily I found a reply to his yarn. A Professor Rahmsdorf, who works for the IPCC, managed to rebut his arguments with sufficient foundation, while being very comprehendable.
Stefan Rahmsdorf, oceanologist and member of the German Advisory Counsil on Global Change, published as well an interesting essay about the strategies of The Climate Sceptics. It deals with their primary pseudoscientific arguments and critics, and serves as a good example how to deal with dogmatic attitudes about the Unspeak expression 'Climate Change'.
The arguments of the Global Warming Deniers sound nearly religious: Man is not important enough and too impotent to influence our climate. Global Warming is just a hoax devised by big companies to make more money from the little man.
Now that's what I would call a great conspiracy theory. Manipulating climatologists, oceanologists, metereologists, geologists and physists worldwide to spread the evil lie of Human Caused Global Warming. I just wonder which global player would profit from a change toward more environmental friendly policies. And I wonder if I can ever get paranoid enough to believe somebody would push scientist all over the planet into 'Faking it'.
A reduction in CO2 emission could harm some businesses though, those producing and dealing with the commodity oil. Though they might already plan an exit strategy for their core business (Shell and BP research a lot into photovoltaic technology), the oil giants have some vital interesting that the consumption (and pollution) patterns of oil don't drastically change. But maybe that's just another conspiracy theory.
Some of the posting I read were simply hilarious, but I was amazed how some of GW-sceptics referred to their pseudo-scientific single sources on the internet. One article, written by a German physicist, sounded quite convincing, but luckily I found a reply to his yarn. A Professor Rahmsdorf, who works for the IPCC, managed to rebut his arguments with sufficient foundation, while being very comprehendable.
Stefan Rahmsdorf, oceanologist and member of the German Advisory Counsil on Global Change, published as well an interesting essay about the strategies of The Climate Sceptics. It deals with their primary pseudoscientific arguments and critics, and serves as a good example how to deal with dogmatic attitudes about the Unspeak expression 'Climate Change'.
Tuesday 23 January 2007
Listening Tour
One day in December, Kevin Rudd and I went to Queensland. Somewhere in the clouds after leaving Canberra and Melbourne, respectively, the newly elected Opposition Leader and I, in anticipation of landing, each turned back the clock. Watches and mobiles reconfigured for the absence of daylight savings time, we were both ready to land.
Rudd, with entourage, was going to Brisbane to begin his ‘listening tour’ in the state Labor must make inroads in at the next election. I, with entourage, set off by hire-car to the caravan park at Mon Repos Beach, north of Bundaberg, site of a sea turtle rookery, for a more typical tour. At 6.45 pm, according to my watch, it was getting dark. I stood surveying the place, the tents and caravans and cabins behind me, the beachside national-park ahead, irritated by Queensland recalcitrance on time, envying Rudd his Brisbane electricity.
‘Yeah, I been comin’ here forty years’, said Les, suddenly next to me. He was maybe 60, grey-haired, grey-stubbled. ‘Up from, ah, Maryborough’.
‘Yeah?…’ I said. Les stood with his arms folded staring out at the ghostly line of white waves in the blue-blackness to the east.
‘…It seems like there are a lot of places to see round here’, I said. ‘You don’t go to the Sunshine Coast or Fraser Island some years?’
‘Nah’, said Les. ‘…Nah, this place is good. Quiet. Beach for the kids. Good showers and all that’. He looked around. ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke, y’know?’
I said, ‘We’re just up from Melbourne. Came here to see the turtles come up to the beach’.
‘Melbourne?’ Les said. ‘Ah yeah…Yeah, the kids scare ‘em off a lot of the time, the turtles, goin’ on the beach just before dark. They ban people from the beach after six o’clock, but…’
That was news to me. ‘They should really put up signs or have rangers around or something at that time. There were people all over the beach before’.
‘…Yeah’, he said, carefully and somewhat suspiciously considering my proposed change. ‘Maybe…’.
I discreetly analysed my new acquaintance. Probably his group, like mine, had left the lantern home and so couldn’t play Uno. And as he was a Queenslander, I figured I was very probably in the presence of a "Beattie-Howard voter". For ten years of elections, Queenslanders have opted for the combination of a John Howard federal government and a Peter Beattie state government.
Les, too, was watching me with an analytical gaze.
I said, ‘After this we’re gunna go down to Hervey Bay’.
‘Hervey Bay’s bloody horrible, said Les. ‘All developed. Was good once. We was there in ‘74. Wasn’t bad then,’ he said, pausing meditatively. ‘But ah, no, not anymore’.
We stood in silence, bar the rasping bush heartbeat of the crickets.
‘But this place’, said Les. ‘This place hasn’t changed. See, in the eighties they, ah, wanted to develop this whole stretch. Big complex right on the beach. Make it like Noosa. But those turtles, they can’t have artificial lights. Screws ‘em up somehow, I dunno exactly how, but, yeah, it does. So there was this huge fight, dragged on for years, and in the end they banned any sort of development, ‘cept for this caravan park, ‘cos it’s been here forever and it don’t interfere that much’.
Except that, surely, Mon Repos had changed in forty years. An hour ago I had strolled about, in the last of the light. An asphalt road that looked newly paved was bordered on one side by a sugarcane plantation, sprinklers chugging water over the green stalks. The road was dotted with flattened corpses of cane toads.
I inched Les towards the subject of politics.
‘Well, I liked Hawke until that thing with the air-traffic controllers. When he sacked the air-traffic controllers, well, that did it for me, I couldn’t vote for him again’.
I asked what he thought of Keating.
‘Keating! Him and the bloody Indonesians! Keating and Suharto were bloody buddies for Christ’s sake. The Indonesians don’t like us, don’t respect us; and Keating was just falling over himself to please ‘em. He had’ve won again we’d all be eatin’ with chopsticks’.
Whitlam?
‘Whitlam! He was just a fool. Just ploughed ahead with any change he could think of. Didn’t matter to him if it was good change or not or what else it stuffed up. And he didn’t explain half of it to his own Guvvamunt, let alone the rest of us’.
The inner-city Sydney-Melbourne perspective tends to see the Howard Government steadily eroding the painstakingly-formed mountain of progress, whether whittling away one hundred years of industrial relations safeguards through WorkChoices, or eight hundred years of the rule of law in its attitude to David Hicks. But another perspective, common in Queensland, is that it is ‘progress’ which is eroding the world as they like it.
I hoped that, down in Brisbane with his electricity, the new Labor leader, as he enjoyed drinks with Queenslanders (or, for all I know, played Uno with them), was receiving a similar serve. Les doesn’t mourn the ghosts of Labor past: one who didn’t see a need to announce his economic policy at an election prior to implementation; another who hardly bothered to explain and justify dictator-coddling to the electorate; another who crashed through with all the subtlety of the Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil, and to hell with any collateral damage.
Too often, the ALP gives the impression of not realising, first, that not all change is inherently good, and second, that change should be articulated and explained to Maryborough. For too many, the Labor Party and its policy initiatives seem like legislative cane-toads hopping brazenly into backyards.
Howard, and also Beattie, buck the trend in the minds of many – in Les’s words, they’re ‘Alright’ – and are rewarded with the caravan park vote.
My watch said seven thirty. The sky was black, aside from pinpricks of stars. Almost time to go turtle-spotting. I said to Les, ‘What’s with this no daylight saving up here?’
Les said, ‘Mm. Yeah. Well, there have been referendums on it.’
‘Have there?’ I said.
‘Yeah. Beattie said just the other day, he reckons he’ll hold another vote on it soon’.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Personally I think it’s a good idea’, he said.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Well, yeah. Ya have daylight saving, ya get home from work, ya get an extra hour of light to, y’know, do the garden or whatever. Seems a good idea to me’.
‘So you’d support it if it were put to a vote?’ I asked him.
‘Well…’ he said. ‘I’d certainly consider it’.
Rudd, who is a Queenslander, even though he has taken to adjusting his watch in October and again in March, is a good candidate to perform a very necessary task, to reconcile the literal and metaphorical time difference between the states and peoples of Australia. If he achieved nothing else of consequence in government, it would in itself make him a successful Prime Minister; and it could serve as a useful platform for Rudd Labor to bring about permanent and popular-mandated change.
If he never becomes Prime Minister, Rudd will be a useful Labor leader if he makes the federal party realise that their long period in opposition is partly their own fault. Adolescent romantics aside, it is probably more sensible to ensure you will actually crash through and not simply crash. And, when skiing downhill, a full set of skis and poles are generally preferable.
Rudd may find inspiration from Les’s choice for State Parliament. Peter Beattie, member of a new generation of less tub-thumping Labor leaders at Premier’s desks, has paved the way to reconciling change-mongering with ‘relaxed and comfortable’, reconciling Les with the latte set, and maybe soon, Queensland with daylight saving.
In thongs we walked to the beach and joined the rangers, me with my tertiary-educated posse, Les with his grand-daughter. My watch and Les’s both said 10pm. It felt to me like 11, but as we all loitered and shivered on the deserted beach, awaiting prehistoric reptiles to materialise from the crashing waves, the clock’s importance faded. The wind whistled; the surf hissed; the moon was full. The hillside was pitch-black, development-free, just the way the turtles from South America, and Les from Maryborough – and I – liked it. Then, digging her flippers into the wet sand, humping awkwardly up the beach, was a green sea turtle.
The Queensland State Government has implemented a useful change at Mon Repos. A short way up the black hillside, behind the grassy sand-dunes, there is a tiny light. Without disturbing the turtles, it shows people, in the dark, the path to the caravan park. It is the light on the hill.
Rudd, with entourage, was going to Brisbane to begin his ‘listening tour’ in the state Labor must make inroads in at the next election. I, with entourage, set off by hire-car to the caravan park at Mon Repos Beach, north of Bundaberg, site of a sea turtle rookery, for a more typical tour. At 6.45 pm, according to my watch, it was getting dark. I stood surveying the place, the tents and caravans and cabins behind me, the beachside national-park ahead, irritated by Queensland recalcitrance on time, envying Rudd his Brisbane electricity.
‘Yeah, I been comin’ here forty years’, said Les, suddenly next to me. He was maybe 60, grey-haired, grey-stubbled. ‘Up from, ah, Maryborough’.
‘Yeah?…’ I said. Les stood with his arms folded staring out at the ghostly line of white waves in the blue-blackness to the east.
‘…It seems like there are a lot of places to see round here’, I said. ‘You don’t go to the Sunshine Coast or Fraser Island some years?’
‘Nah’, said Les. ‘…Nah, this place is good. Quiet. Beach for the kids. Good showers and all that’. He looked around. ‘Don’t fix what ain’t broke, y’know?’
I said, ‘We’re just up from Melbourne. Came here to see the turtles come up to the beach’.
‘Melbourne?’ Les said. ‘Ah yeah…Yeah, the kids scare ‘em off a lot of the time, the turtles, goin’ on the beach just before dark. They ban people from the beach after six o’clock, but…’
That was news to me. ‘They should really put up signs or have rangers around or something at that time. There were people all over the beach before’.
‘…Yeah’, he said, carefully and somewhat suspiciously considering my proposed change. ‘Maybe…’.
I discreetly analysed my new acquaintance. Probably his group, like mine, had left the lantern home and so couldn’t play Uno. And as he was a Queenslander, I figured I was very probably in the presence of a "Beattie-Howard voter". For ten years of elections, Queenslanders have opted for the combination of a John Howard federal government and a Peter Beattie state government.
Les, too, was watching me with an analytical gaze.
I said, ‘After this we’re gunna go down to Hervey Bay’.
‘Hervey Bay’s bloody horrible, said Les. ‘All developed. Was good once. We was there in ‘74. Wasn’t bad then,’ he said, pausing meditatively. ‘But ah, no, not anymore’.
We stood in silence, bar the rasping bush heartbeat of the crickets.
‘But this place’, said Les. ‘This place hasn’t changed. See, in the eighties they, ah, wanted to develop this whole stretch. Big complex right on the beach. Make it like Noosa. But those turtles, they can’t have artificial lights. Screws ‘em up somehow, I dunno exactly how, but, yeah, it does. So there was this huge fight, dragged on for years, and in the end they banned any sort of development, ‘cept for this caravan park, ‘cos it’s been here forever and it don’t interfere that much’.
Except that, surely, Mon Repos had changed in forty years. An hour ago I had strolled about, in the last of the light. An asphalt road that looked newly paved was bordered on one side by a sugarcane plantation, sprinklers chugging water over the green stalks. The road was dotted with flattened corpses of cane toads.
I inched Les towards the subject of politics.
‘Well, I liked Hawke until that thing with the air-traffic controllers. When he sacked the air-traffic controllers, well, that did it for me, I couldn’t vote for him again’.
I asked what he thought of Keating.
‘Keating! Him and the bloody Indonesians! Keating and Suharto were bloody buddies for Christ’s sake. The Indonesians don’t like us, don’t respect us; and Keating was just falling over himself to please ‘em. He had’ve won again we’d all be eatin’ with chopsticks’.
Whitlam?
‘Whitlam! He was just a fool. Just ploughed ahead with any change he could think of. Didn’t matter to him if it was good change or not or what else it stuffed up. And he didn’t explain half of it to his own Guvvamunt, let alone the rest of us’.
The inner-city Sydney-Melbourne perspective tends to see the Howard Government steadily eroding the painstakingly-formed mountain of progress, whether whittling away one hundred years of industrial relations safeguards through WorkChoices, or eight hundred years of the rule of law in its attitude to David Hicks. But another perspective, common in Queensland, is that it is ‘progress’ which is eroding the world as they like it.
I hoped that, down in Brisbane with his electricity, the new Labor leader, as he enjoyed drinks with Queenslanders (or, for all I know, played Uno with them), was receiving a similar serve. Les doesn’t mourn the ghosts of Labor past: one who didn’t see a need to announce his economic policy at an election prior to implementation; another who hardly bothered to explain and justify dictator-coddling to the electorate; another who crashed through with all the subtlety of the Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil, and to hell with any collateral damage.
Too often, the ALP gives the impression of not realising, first, that not all change is inherently good, and second, that change should be articulated and explained to Maryborough. For too many, the Labor Party and its policy initiatives seem like legislative cane-toads hopping brazenly into backyards.
Howard, and also Beattie, buck the trend in the minds of many – in Les’s words, they’re ‘Alright’ – and are rewarded with the caravan park vote.
My watch said seven thirty. The sky was black, aside from pinpricks of stars. Almost time to go turtle-spotting. I said to Les, ‘What’s with this no daylight saving up here?’
Les said, ‘Mm. Yeah. Well, there have been referendums on it.’
‘Have there?’ I said.
‘Yeah. Beattie said just the other day, he reckons he’ll hold another vote on it soon’.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Personally I think it’s a good idea’, he said.
‘Really?’ I said.
‘Well, yeah. Ya have daylight saving, ya get home from work, ya get an extra hour of light to, y’know, do the garden or whatever. Seems a good idea to me’.
‘So you’d support it if it were put to a vote?’ I asked him.
‘Well…’ he said. ‘I’d certainly consider it’.
Rudd, who is a Queenslander, even though he has taken to adjusting his watch in October and again in March, is a good candidate to perform a very necessary task, to reconcile the literal and metaphorical time difference between the states and peoples of Australia. If he achieved nothing else of consequence in government, it would in itself make him a successful Prime Minister; and it could serve as a useful platform for Rudd Labor to bring about permanent and popular-mandated change.
If he never becomes Prime Minister, Rudd will be a useful Labor leader if he makes the federal party realise that their long period in opposition is partly their own fault. Adolescent romantics aside, it is probably more sensible to ensure you will actually crash through and not simply crash. And, when skiing downhill, a full set of skis and poles are generally preferable.
Rudd may find inspiration from Les’s choice for State Parliament. Peter Beattie, member of a new generation of less tub-thumping Labor leaders at Premier’s desks, has paved the way to reconciling change-mongering with ‘relaxed and comfortable’, reconciling Les with the latte set, and maybe soon, Queensland with daylight saving.
In thongs we walked to the beach and joined the rangers, me with my tertiary-educated posse, Les with his grand-daughter. My watch and Les’s both said 10pm. It felt to me like 11, but as we all loitered and shivered on the deserted beach, awaiting prehistoric reptiles to materialise from the crashing waves, the clock’s importance faded. The wind whistled; the surf hissed; the moon was full. The hillside was pitch-black, development-free, just the way the turtles from South America, and Les from Maryborough – and I – liked it. Then, digging her flippers into the wet sand, humping awkwardly up the beach, was a green sea turtle.
The Queensland State Government has implemented a useful change at Mon Repos. A short way up the black hillside, behind the grassy sand-dunes, there is a tiny light. Without disturbing the turtles, it shows people, in the dark, the path to the caravan park. It is the light on the hill.
Tuesday 16 January 2007
Afghanistan - an example of democracy
The war in Iraq isn't over yet, and the US is already longer engaged there than in World War II. The 'new strategy' the of US, trying harder to do the same things that caused this disaster, has just been confirmed. Condi Rice uses all her Unspeak skills to redefine the increase of invasion troops as 'augmentation'.
Obviously, an augmented sense of reality is needed to support the American efforts for world domination. War always yields incredible suffering among innocents, and depending on the weapons the suffering might never stop.
The quagmire in Iraq distracts attention from Afghanistan, but how does Afghanistan after democracy look like? The average life expectancy is 44 years for females, 45 years for males.
Outside Kabul warlords rule the country, rape women and children, abduct children to harvest and sell their organs, and the opium trade (which was stopped by the Taliban in areas they controlled) is at an all time high, supported and organized by American military.
But besides the lack of government, which creates anomy (not anarchy) and poses the daily threat of sudden death for most Afghan people, another legacy of the 'liberation' produces a creeping genocide.
Mohammed Daud Miraki, a social scientist engaged in helping people in Afghanistan, travelled during March and April 2006 through this country and collected photographic evidence of the long-term consequences of the use of DU ammunition. Following the link to his photos is nothing for faint-hearted persons, and I wish I hadn't done this myself.
But images of such 'alien babies' will probably appear in most areas where DU ammunition was used, though not everywhere will be people caring enough to publicise them. The half life of DU is about 5 million years, and it has been used abundantly in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and the US forces considered using it in their Australian bases as well.
Nobody would seriously call Saddam Hussein or the Taliban just rulers of their countries. However, it is embarrassing for the Western World that it managed to worsen the life of millions of innocent people by attempting to liberate them. And whereas people from Iraq and Afghanistan could look for asylum before their countries were invaded, they will now by send back to a fast death due to chaos, lawlessness and unexploded bomblets, or a creeping death by the intoxication by DU ammunition.
Let's just continue to close our eyes and support the biggest mass murderers of the 21st century, George Bush and Tony Blair. Let us not blame John Howard and Alexander Downer for going arm in arm with them, 100 victims of the superior Australian race in Bali easily justify such horrible retribution. Or not?
PS: You can see an interview with Mohammed Daud Miraki in Alex Ansary's Outside The Box public access TV show. In case the link doesn't show up, just search for 'Outside the box #84' on Google video, unless you're afraid of alternative media.
Obviously, an augmented sense of reality is needed to support the American efforts for world domination. War always yields incredible suffering among innocents, and depending on the weapons the suffering might never stop.
The quagmire in Iraq distracts attention from Afghanistan, but how does Afghanistan after democracy look like? The average life expectancy is 44 years for females, 45 years for males.
Outside Kabul warlords rule the country, rape women and children, abduct children to harvest and sell their organs, and the opium trade (which was stopped by the Taliban in areas they controlled) is at an all time high, supported and organized by American military.
But besides the lack of government, which creates anomy (not anarchy) and poses the daily threat of sudden death for most Afghan people, another legacy of the 'liberation' produces a creeping genocide.
Mohammed Daud Miraki, a social scientist engaged in helping people in Afghanistan, travelled during March and April 2006 through this country and collected photographic evidence of the long-term consequences of the use of DU ammunition. Following the link to his photos is nothing for faint-hearted persons, and I wish I hadn't done this myself.
But images of such 'alien babies' will probably appear in most areas where DU ammunition was used, though not everywhere will be people caring enough to publicise them. The half life of DU is about 5 million years, and it has been used abundantly in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia, and the US forces considered using it in their Australian bases as well.
Nobody would seriously call Saddam Hussein or the Taliban just rulers of their countries. However, it is embarrassing for the Western World that it managed to worsen the life of millions of innocent people by attempting to liberate them. And whereas people from Iraq and Afghanistan could look for asylum before their countries were invaded, they will now by send back to a fast death due to chaos, lawlessness and unexploded bomblets, or a creeping death by the intoxication by DU ammunition.
Let's just continue to close our eyes and support the biggest mass murderers of the 21st century, George Bush and Tony Blair. Let us not blame John Howard and Alexander Downer for going arm in arm with them, 100 victims of the superior Australian race in Bali easily justify such horrible retribution. Or not?
PS: You can see an interview with Mohammed Daud Miraki in Alex Ansary's Outside The Box public access TV show. In case the link doesn't show up, just search for 'Outside the box #84' on Google video, unless you're afraid of alternative media.
Wednesday 10 January 2007
Corporate social responsibility
The Age had an interesting article about declining sales of Australian produced cars. Due to some incompentent management decisions (neglecting the fact that more Australians favor more economical and fuel-efficient cars) their sales plummeted, and now they ask to
In 2006, the same car manufacturers axed 1000 jobs, which equals to one million dollar as bonus from the government for each slashed job. Somehow, this begging for money from the government for multinational corporations doesn't fit IMHO into the idea of free markets, a credo propagated by the Liberal Party.
On the other hand, a lot of education instutions suffer from under-funding. And as neither Holden, Ford or Toyota are Australian companies, I wonder why the government should even consider bailing out this companies, who drove themselves into problems.
A billion dollars invested in the education system might help growing an educated workforce, which isn't as much distracted from the market reality as the management of these companies obviously is.
How free is the Australian market, and can subsidies for multinational companies really do any good for Australians? There are certainly markets, where home-made products could be sold worldwide, like environmental friendly technologies that reduce CO2 emissions or alternative energy generating technologies.
But those emerging markets don't have the same lobbying power as established industries. And probably will never have, as they don't follow the paradigm of one size (of gas-guzzling status enhancing vehicles) fits all, but require providing solution that fit into local conditions.
Does corporate social responsibility mean the government has to reward incompetent managers of non-Australian (ie multi-national) companies for slashing 1,000 jobs?
pump an extra $1 billion into the car industry.
In 2006, the same car manufacturers axed 1000 jobs, which equals to one million dollar as bonus from the government for each slashed job. Somehow, this begging for money from the government for multinational corporations doesn't fit IMHO into the idea of free markets, a credo propagated by the Liberal Party.
On the other hand, a lot of education instutions suffer from under-funding. And as neither Holden, Ford or Toyota are Australian companies, I wonder why the government should even consider bailing out this companies, who drove themselves into problems.
A billion dollars invested in the education system might help growing an educated workforce, which isn't as much distracted from the market reality as the management of these companies obviously is.
How free is the Australian market, and can subsidies for multinational companies really do any good for Australians? There are certainly markets, where home-made products could be sold worldwide, like environmental friendly technologies that reduce CO2 emissions or alternative energy generating technologies.
But those emerging markets don't have the same lobbying power as established industries. And probably will never have, as they don't follow the paradigm of one size (of gas-guzzling status enhancing vehicles) fits all, but require providing solution that fit into local conditions.
Does corporate social responsibility mean the government has to reward incompetent managers of non-Australian (ie multi-national) companies for slashing 1,000 jobs?
Tuesday 9 January 2007
Blood for oil?
Finally, Operation Iraqi Liberation, the original name for the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Greedy, oops, Coalition of the Drillers, oops again, Coalition of the Willing (to sacrifice international and human rights) has shown its real purpose.
I'm not really surprised to catch the American government with yet another lie. Allegedly the most valuable resource of Iraq, oil, should help to finance the reconstruction of the devastated country. This was at least the spin from Cheney & Co to excuse incarceration of innocents in Guantanamo Bay, torture in Abu Ghraib, random slaughtering of civilians and raping of women and children by the occupation forces.
Now the puppet government in Iraq, which already had a favorable timing to sentence Saddam (just before the election) and killing him (just when about 3,000 US troops were officially killed), gave away its oil wells.
The Independent published a report detailing how the oil industry, which was nationalized in 1972, is handed over to the evil overlords, ooops, liberators of Iraq.
I wonder how long Australia will feel comfortable being in bed with the American war criminals, as all the myths that eased an Australian engagement in Iraq crumble away like castles made of sand. WMDs? No, none there. Al-Quaida connections? Not while Saddam was in power. Human rights? That's what the Military Commission Act officially got rid of, so that torturers working for the US can no longer be prosecuted.
What remains, is blatant corporate greed, and Australian soldiers, who engage in the robbery of oil in Iraq. And of course, Alex Downer, who just can't get enough of Australian involvement in this bloody, unjust occupation.
Trust your government, it wants just your best. Your blood, your life, your integrity and your money.
I'm not really surprised to catch the American government with yet another lie. Allegedly the most valuable resource of Iraq, oil, should help to finance the reconstruction of the devastated country. This was at least the spin from Cheney & Co to excuse incarceration of innocents in Guantanamo Bay, torture in Abu Ghraib, random slaughtering of civilians and raping of women and children by the occupation forces.
Now the puppet government in Iraq, which already had a favorable timing to sentence Saddam (just before the election) and killing him (just when about 3,000 US troops were officially killed), gave away its oil wells.
The Independent published a report detailing how the oil industry, which was nationalized in 1972, is handed over to the evil overlords, ooops, liberators of Iraq.
I wonder how long Australia will feel comfortable being in bed with the American war criminals, as all the myths that eased an Australian engagement in Iraq crumble away like castles made of sand. WMDs? No, none there. Al-Quaida connections? Not while Saddam was in power. Human rights? That's what the Military Commission Act officially got rid of, so that torturers working for the US can no longer be prosecuted.
What remains, is blatant corporate greed, and Australian soldiers, who engage in the robbery of oil in Iraq. And of course, Alex Downer, who just can't get enough of Australian involvement in this bloody, unjust occupation.
Trust your government, it wants just your best. Your blood, your life, your integrity and your money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)