my favourite conservative columnist

I recently mentioned my favourite US Republican politician (ie, about the only one who isn't crazy?), so now I also thought I'd mention my favourite Australian conservative columnist, him being Gerard Henderson.
As you can see from this example of his work read it here , he has well thought out conservative positions. I may not agree with many of his views, but at least as opposed to the Bolts, Ackermans, and Albrechtsens of this world, his positions are at least considered, and in the original conservative style. While his credibility was badly hurt with his support of the Iraq war (almost to a man, conservatives just loath Muslims?), I usually enjoy reading his mild polemics. And while I'll never be too kind to anyone who at one time had a close association with John Howard, his writing at least is almost in the style of someone trying to hold back the walls of Jericho (ie countering the established popularly held view which I can identify with).
But unfortunately he is very much the exception on the conservative side, where we're used to hearing nothing except the usual anti Islam, Anglo centric rantings.

Be careful what you wish for in Tunisia

While most kind hearted people would naturally rejoice at the implosion of a corrupt brutal dictatorship, when you scratch the surface at the goings on in Tunisia, you can't help but get the feeling that nothing will change for the better. This sentiment seems to be best described by The Independent columnist Robert Fisk. Ive linked his article here , but I'd just like to highlight some of his points that especially resonate with me;

The French and the Germans and the Brits, dare we mention this, always praised the dictator for being a "friend" of civilised Europe, keeping a firm hand on all those Islamists. Tunisians won't forget this little history, even if we would like them to.
Yes, we would like a democracy in Tunisia – but not too much democracy. Remember how we wanted Algeria to have a democracy back in the early Nineties?

Then when it looked like the Islamists might win the second round of voting, we supported its military-backed government in suspending elections and crushing the Islamists and initiating a civil war in which 150,000 died.

No, in the Arab world, we want law and order and stability. Even in Hosni Mubarak's corrupt and corrupted Egypt, that's what we want. And we will get it.

It's the same old problem for us in the West. We mouth the word "democracy" and we are all for fair elections – providing the Arabs vote for whom we want them to vote for.

In Algeria 20 years ago, they didn't. In "Palestine" they didn't. And in Lebanon, because of the so-called Doha accord, they didn't. So we sanction them, threaten them and warn them about Iran and expect them to keep their mouths shut when Israel steals more Palestinian land for its colonies on the West Bank.

Ben Ali has fled. The search is now on for a more pliable dictator in Tunisia – a "benevolent strongman" as the news agencies like to call these ghastly men.

And the shooting will go on – as it did yesterday in Tunisia – until "stability" has been restored.

So what is likely to emerge when the dust settles in Tunisia? Another pro west strong man, or if we let the people actually decide their own fate, they may elect the previously banned Islamic Party? Dear oh dear, indeed be very careful what you wish for.......

The Australian sinks to a new low (if that's possible?)

The Australian newspaper is known for its hateful Islamaphobia, but its latest attempt at this black art really does take the cake read it here . They've managed to dig up a Muslim convert who's set up his own (probably three person?) sect called Sharia4Australia that aims to apparently destroy democracy, and introduce sharia law to Australia (yeah good luck with that). These sort of fruitcakes that can be usually found howling at the moon shouldn't be given print space by any respectable broadsheet, but of course The Australian is not a respectable newspaper.
Naturally the hundreds of heretic Christian sects don't seem to get a run for some reason in The Australian, only the "evil" Muslims do.
But if that's not enough, the designated "hero" of the piece is an "Australian army veteran" by the name of Jack Zedee, who - get this - is a senior member of a pro guns group called Firearms Forum. So these two opposing extremists (religious nut and gun nut) are set to square off in a public debate tonight at the bastion of civility, Parramatta Town Hall.
I mean really, this is comical stuff, this is all fodder for Today Tonight, but hardly fitting for our "leading" broadsheet.
So if anything nasty happens tonight in Parramatta, will The Australian accept any responsibility for enraging the simpletons?

who should pay for the QLD flood damage?

The political debate is now well and truly up and running as to how best to pay for the QLD (and now Victorian) flood damage. There's been plenty of talk as to whether the Feds can keep their "return to surplus" predictions, and whether initiatives like a temporary Medicare levy increase should be adopted?
While it's obvious that the Federal Government has a meaningful part to play in the disaster recovery, we need to take a step back and just consider for a moment who is really responsible for funding the recovery efforts?
There's are a whole range of issues at play here (which hopefully the judicial inquiry will look at), and they include;
Do people who willingly choose to avoid paying the "flood premium" on their insurance expect anything in return?
What about the (unwritten) assurances that after post 1974 building of the dam that Brisbane was "flood proof"?
What about the people who live in areas where "flood cover" is not provided by the insurers?
Do we need go down the path of compulsory "force majeure" insurance as happens in a number of places around the world? And how would this affect the viability of the insurance industry (not to mention the effect on premiums)?
Alleged mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam by the premature release of water from there (as insinuated in The Australian newspaper)? What's their responsibility in providing compensation?
And the big daddy of them all, what about the planning policy failures of (generations of) local, State Governments, with their cow towing to greedy developers (with brown paper bag in hand?) who've consistently downplayed the threat of natural disasters in order to get zoning approval to build profitable properties in flood prone areas?
So I now go back to the original point, why should everyone start pointing at the direction of the federal government with begging bowl in hand? The reasons for the unprecedented damage caused by these floods seem to (at face value?) lie within the purvey of the State authorities. This seems to be their mess....so let their tax payers clean it up!

Kennett responsible for increased drug use?

I was passing the time on youtube recently, and came across the Victorian State Coalition's election campaign advert for the 1996 election see it here , and noticed that they promised "alcohol free" discos. I assume this (absurd) idea was a pathetic attempt to be seen to be doing SOMETHING about the King St nightclub precinct violence that was spiralling out of control at the time?
But this got me to thinking, did this idea of "alcohol free" discos morph into the giant rave party scene which took off in the 90s, which were alcohol free, but contained about 95% drug use of patrons?
How ironic would that be, if by trying to lower nightclub violence, you've helped create a flourishing pill popping drug scene?.....which shows no signs of abating!

Thoughts of my favourite Republican politician Ron Paul

I must say that I like Ron Paul, probably because he's the only Republican who's not crazy?
He probably has next to zero chance of the Republican nomination for President in 2012, but based on his views current political and economic system below, he's certainly a Republican I can stomach;

"A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions, based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocrity"
"A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit"
"We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century."
"We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public's eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant."

sport belongs to the corporates....so what are you going to do about it?

Once again we have another whinge about corporate sponsors taking the best seats at sporting events at the expense of joe public, this time at the Australian Open tennis tournament that begins on Monday read here . But what is anyone really going to do about it?.....absolutely nothing, that's what! I've been going on for years with my disgust at the corporate world taking over sport, where it got to the point that I "retired" from watching (or caring) about competitive sport in the mid 90s.
But how many people actually have the courage to do what I did and abandon their beloved product when the administrators caved in once too often to corporate interests? None, that's how many....you all care way too much about your precious football team to ever give away the joy of seeing your team win. You'll sit on the sidelines and bitch and moan on talk back radio about how expensive it's become, and you can't get good seats anymore etc etc, but in the end you'll bend over and sing "moon river".
I personally have never felt so liberated as when I actually stopped caring about whether the team in the blue, or the red top actually won or lost the designated match. There's just way too many things to enjoy in life without worrying about the result of a manufactured game.
Organised sport really is a silly concept when you think about it, a concept essentially appealing to the raw human emotion of identifying with a particular tribe, which is superior to the neighbouring one. How absurd it is that soccer fans usually have to be separated at stadiums along their "tribal" colours, because human nature being what it is, they may kill each other if their paths cross. Yet these same human beings can chat about their differing team views over a beer at the pub the next night?
When I think about the silliness of organised sport, I immediately think about the Nika riots of Constantinople in 532. These riots almost brought down the greatest civilization the world has ever known - and over what? - rivalry between the blues and the greens chariot racing factions.
But getting back to the original point, if you're so enraged about corporate interests taking over your sport, then in the true corporate spirit, take your money and your interest elsewhere. If only a small percentage of people did that, the administrators would quickly be made to heel. Even a small blip on the chart can mean millions, so in the end, it's really up to you!

Gillard's lack of leadership

While I've made passing reference to the lack of ability of our lightweight careerist PM Julia Gillard in this (and other) forums, thankfully I'm not the only one who's starting to see through the thin veneer.
Labor thinker Bob Ellis fired off the first round recently when he said of her; "civilised people's hands are already over their faces every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there", and "she's not well-informed, she hasn't, I think, read a novel or seen a film with subtitles....she has not much except a kindergarten sandpit response to things" read here .
Granted, pretty catty stuff that we may snicker at and dismiss, but unfortunately in the wake of the devastating QLD flood crisis Gillard's complete lack of leadership talents (and instinct) are on full display. Somehow she's managed to make a wooden, barely competent State Premier (Anna Bligh) look like Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 see here . Can you imagine the difference has Kevin Rudd still been in charge? In his admittedly over the top style, he would've been out there in an SES jumpsuit up to his knees in water. It's at times like these where the victims need to hear the soaring rhetoric of a Rudd, a politician with an instinct of hitting the right note and resonating with the electorate (and while it all eventually came undone for Rudd, he showed he could connect with the people).
But alas, no such inspirational leadership from Madam Lightweight Julia Gillard, instead all we get are dry statements which are more at home in the Industrial Relations Tribunal in her old job as a labour lawyer.
But the great tragedy of all this is that the alternative is even WORSE. A Coalition led by the "mad monk" whose poll numbers increase every time he stays silent! What a vacuum of leadership we're forced to endure at the national level....and there's little respite in sight.

the real estate Princess...something rotten in Denmark?

While the Australian media is currently gushing at the birth of Crown Princess Mary's twins, I am again having the eyes roll in the back of my head.
Maybe I'm just an old sour puss, but I'm failing to share in "Australia's delight" at this momentous event. While it's terrific that she's given birth to healthy children etc etc, a moral black cloud remains in the air over all this gushing rapture in my view.
Let's just take a cursory look at the background of "Australia's" Princess, she was a Real Estate Agent by trade, by definition a profession with extremely low ethics with a barely concealed contempt for their clients. And so the story goes that after reading about the likely venue that the wealthy Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark was to attend while in Sydney for the 2000 Olympic Games, the ambitious Real Estate Agent coincidentally showed up at the same place. And I guess this is where her reported training in Marketing and Advertising really paid off in her courtship of the Crown Prince. But you know what, I don't think the poor bloke ever stood a chance of avoiding her evil clutches, she's also got a qualification from the Australian Direct Marketing Association!
So yes, let all Australia rejoice that our little Cinderella stumbled upon her charming Prince, leaving the behind all her inbred two headed Tasmanian brethren.....certainly that's no life for a "princess"?
Yes, let us bask in the joys of European hereditary monarchy, where all that was needed for the real estate princess to gain such well deserved opulence was to give up her citizenship, religion.....and self respect!

Order for the removal of the crucifix in Italian schools

Once again I was going through my archives of comments I've made on other forums over the last year or so, and I've reproduced it here;

Below is a summary of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to order Italy to remove the cross from Govt schools. While I'm a huge supporter of institutions like the ECHR, I believe on this occasion that they've over stepped the mark. The ECHR does a great job in protecting minorities victimized by the state, but in this instance, is it really an unbearable hardship to ask non Christians (in a christian majority country) to sit in the same classroom where a crucifix is displayed? Does that really impinge their human rights and make them feel like lesser people? It's not like they're being asked to recite (or abstain from) the lord's prayer or something, where it's clearly visible to all as to who is "different", ie non christian. But what really concerns me is what's the next step? Just like the forced removal of head scarves of women in French schools, will pupils be forced to remove religious symbols from their person in future? I believe in FREEDOM, and to me that actually means allowing people to wear Taliban style full head covering if they freely CHOOSE to, it's not my place to force them to remove it. And the same goes with a school displaying a crucifix on the wall....who bloody cares? These court cases are just a breeding ground for intolerance, regardless of which side of the ledger you're on.
And I like what one Greek Orthodox Bishop said about this case, basically that it appears religious symbols of tolerance will be replaced by adulation of tv stars and pop singers. Summed up nicely I thought?



"Decision of the Court

The presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.

The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.

The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention..."