Time for some straight talking on Malcolm Turnbull (now with extra glitter!)

Malcolm Turnbull has been gracious in defeat; he took it like a man and conceded the fact that his party was no longer willing to support him in his stance as sympathetic to the left.

That was until yesterday morning (7/12) with the publication of his blog entry: ‘Time for some straight talking on climate change’. I read it and laughed, purely because it pretty much summed up Turnbull’s leadership, especially in relation to the fallacious ETS.

To begin with, we have:

"While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy. So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, or lack of policy, on climate change has descended into."

Here we have the “Abbott told on me, so I’m going to tell on him” argument. Real mature.

"First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.. So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr. Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it."

Despite the fact that Tony Abbott may have crazy ears, he is not an idiot. In fact, in an article released by the ABC on December 7, the estimated amount of the coalition’s take on climate change is to be approximately $50B, a far cry from the government’s original proposition of $120B. We won’t know the final figures until 2010, however, but this seems to be the direction they are heading. I’m pretty sure they are aware it is going to cost money, just not some ridiculously huge amount.

And, based on the policies he has outlined in his book, “Battlelines”, instead of imposing massive taxes on pollution, take that $50B and invest it in new technology, such as improving the fuel efficiency of cars, buildings, agricultural techniques, and (dare I say it), developing technology for nuclear power. When it seriously comes down to it, Australia is one of the few industrialised nations which can afford to wait for this technology to be perfected based on its unsubstantial 1.4% emissions rate. Reducing emissions is not going to come from taxing everything that breathes for some ‘quick fix’, but accepting that technology is our most important ally. It may be close to rocket science, but it is also common sense.

"Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it."

No one is arguing that the party has once again returned to its rightist roots. But Abbott, again with the whole ‘not being an idiot’ thing, realizes that; a) public sentiment is towards perfecting a method of tackling climate change without making the cost of living unbearable is extremely high, and they would have no chance at the next election without an effective stance on the issue; and b) he also realizes we need to give the climate the benefit of the doubt (“It [is] common sense to minimize human impact on the environment and to reduce the human contribution to increased atmospheric-gas concentrations”). As far as I am aware, those who believed Climate Change was total “crap” were a minority in the party; most either did not believe Australia needed to act immediately (to the benefit of KRudd), protested against the ineffective method of carbon reduction, or did not believe Australia’s 5% reduction of a grand total of 1.4% worldwide emissions was worth the added $1,100 to family bills every year.

What Malcolm Turnbull seems to misinterpret is that he did not lose because of the “right-wing” extremists, but because of those who had far more common sense than he did. Sure Minchin, Tuckey and a few others have a firm “Climate change is bullshit” stance, but there isn’t a giant bucket load like Turnbull has proclaimed. Most want action on climate change, just not via being lackeys of the Rudd government.

"Not that anyone would doubt it, but I will be voting for the ETS legislation when it returns in February and if my colleagues have any sense they will do so as well. If the legislation is passed, incorporating as it does the amendments Ian MacFarlane negotiated with Penny Wong, then the issue will be settled. It is manifestly in the national interest and in the interest of the Liberal Party that it be so."

Like most moderates who read this blog would have undoubtedly asked: Why? Why is it so imperative? Will this tax be saving the polar bears? Will rain suddenly fall from the sky over inland Victoria? Seriously?

Again, here we have evidence that MT is always right, and that all else should bow down in support for their gracious leader. His and only his opinions are correct.

I think Malcolm “I am the leader” Turnbull has ignored is that he is not the leader as hasn’t been for some time. It is what allowed him to walk from the party room two weeks ago and proclaim the Liberals’ unwavering support for him, despite ultimately signing his death warrant; it is what compelled him to push for amendments to an ETS very few in his party supported; and finally, it is what encouraged him to post this blog entry, furthermore cementing in the minds of Liberal MPs that they had indeed made the right decision.

For a smart bloke, he can be awfully dense.

xXx

The ETS: My (very, very narrow) View

(Warning: May contain traces of bias. Guard your children)

I have posted this on Facebook as well as my blog, purely because I see it as such an important issue.

I have been asked my opinion of the ETS by far too many people to keep answering individually, and to everyone, here is my answer. I am writing this whilst watching Malcolm Turnbull’s press conference after the resignation of nearing half of his shadow ministry in protest of the final vote on the ETS. So to all those pro-Turnbullites, do not keep reading.

After the obvious distaste of his party, and the people of Australia in regards to what most have termed merely a massive tax which will make no difference to the climate, Malcolm Turnbull stands strong, reiterating for what seems the 50th time that he is in fact “the leader” and the issue is Australia’s gravest. Though it seems to me he repeats the phrase so often as to convince himself as much as the people that he is in charge, when it has become quite obvious he has very few allies in his increasingly divergent coalition. He is a sympathetic leftist leader of a moderately conservative party in coalition with a very conservative party. Recipe for disaster much?

Turnbull claims this is not a leadership issue; however, climate change and MT’s leadership have become so fused it is impossible to claim it isn’t so, especially when so many have walked out him, whilst still declaring their loyalty to the party.

I am a liberal, and a very loyal one at that, but I will not stand blindly by a leader who so righteously ignores so much of his party; it is not a one man team, and supporting this ETS is not part of the traditional Liberal way. He has refused to give us a happy medium: it is essentially Turnbull/Rudd’s way or the highway. He’s a very smart bloke, but when Barnaby Joyce makes more sense on the climate issue than he does, then you know something is very amiss.

The fact of the matter is that despite the fact that Australia has the highest rate of emissions per capita, it is still amongst the lowest in the industrialised world. But see, considering the bulk of our economy depends on the mining of non-renewables, and our population is only a little over 21M, it is not surprising that is the case. True, we release something in the vicinity of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per person each year (and, unfortunately, rising by about 3% each year), but when push comes to shove, our global emissions come to a grand total of 1.43%.

Come now, I am not saying that is an awfully good figure, but would the guaranteed 5% reduction of carbon emissions promised by this ETS really be worth the further >$1,000 added to the bills of lower-income families? That’s only the very start of it. It will eventually cost the Australian economy tens of billions of $$. Tell me, is this really worth pulling 1.43% down to about 1.35%?

And just to point out, like Wilson Tuckey exclaimed in Question Time today, the government is granting passes to the big polluters. So, in effect, is that not completely hypocritical?

And, dare I say it, is this not just another chance for Kevin Rudd to fuel his ego, so he can go to Copenhagen with the world’s first ETS in hand, flawed as it may be? Come on. And really, what is the point of having an ETS before Copenhagen, when most of the Western World will be gathering to set a world-wide standard in carbon reduction? We may end up needing to change it anyway!

These are questions one needs to ask themselves before they stone me and half the Liberal Party. What is this ETS really about?

This is not a blog about a “left wing conspiracy” as Greg Combet put it. It is not about fear of establishing a “World Government” under the a new deal at Copenhagen (which is RIDICULOUS; is anyone seriously ignorant enough to believe the world will unite under one government when there are so many converging ideologies? Sure thing, I can totally see America and China agreeing to the same doctrine). It is not about me being a climate change skeptic.

This is about a flawed ETS, costing families thousands every year for a result so miniscule it is almost non-existent. It is about common sense.

Like Barnaby Joyce said; this ETS will not re-freeze the ice caps; it will not cool the atmosphere; it will not save the world, which is what Labor and MT are making it out to be. You know things are really messed up when Joyce is making sense.

Yes, it is Australia’s duty to conform to an agreed standard of carbon reduction, but not one devised by Rudd’s ego. People are not stupid, they know what they want. Why the government is pushing this so vehemently when the general mood is against it could only point to the conclusion of Rudd’s pretentiousness. Seriously, I cannot see it any other way.

So yes, John Howard promised an ETS at the last election, but that was then. This is now. And I doubt that it would have come to fruition if Howard/Costello’s leadership is anything to go by. The Liberals are built on a foundation on conservative realism, and they sure as hell would not have pushed their ETS before a world-wide standard was set.

My overall message is: Do not support it. Take the time now to email your state’s Senators and PROTEST! Kevin Rudd is the PM of Australia, not any other country, and you cannot tell me that his intentions are purely for the benefit of our country. Coming from a family which runs a small construction business, I personally do not believe what cannot be called anything but a giant TAX will be of any benefit to the economy or Australia’s future. Thousands of jobs will be lost, as will billions of $$.

As I have stated before: Seeing as this ETS involves every-single-Australian, why not take it to the people? If Kevin Rudd is so sure this is what the people want, why not ask them? Of course he won't, because behind his spin he knows for damn sure no-one will pass it.

Now, I apologise. This blog post is purely a giant bitch-fest. To the unenlightened, I hope I made some sort of a difference.

By the way, the current count of resignations stands at:

Nick Minchin: Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Eric Abetz: Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Tony Abbott: Shadow minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Stephen Parry: Opposition Whip and Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate
Tony Smith: Shadow Assistant Treasurer
Michael Johnson: Opposition Whip
Sophie Mirabella: MP

Then there’s the 20 odd Senators willing to cross the floor tomorrow, including the front bench portfolio resignations of Mathias Cormann, Mitch Fifield, and Brett Mason.

Well done to all those involved; you’re sure to get elected next year.

xXx

The Changing Face of the Liberal Party

(Warning: Mind, it's 2,000 words and therefore gets quite boring, scroll down to the final few paragraphs for the real point of it all)

I had wanted to write a political profile about the Liberals a long time ago, however, due to my lack-of-being-able-to-follow-through on most of these entries, my many previous half-finished drafts have been sighed at and abandoned. Now, however, because I’ve become a member of the party, and recently spent far too much time revamping this site, I feel the time has come I actually get off my ass to finish it off. The way I see it, I wrote about Alan Carpenter; I can’t let anyone think I’m a swing voter. This entry focuses on the Liberal PMs and how each has interpreted the party ideals to generate very different leadership qualities. Don't see it as me trying to push people to vote Liberal (unless you want to see it that way), I honestly wrote it to outline where the party came from, and how it has transformed into the party it is today.

The Australian Liberal Party was officially formed in 1944 from the amalgamation the United Australia Party among others under Robert Menzies. Prior to its conception, the only lasting party with significant influence had been the Australian Labor Party. Despite however much Menzies despised it, due to the timing of its emergence and its opposing ideologies, the Liberals were labeled the “Anti-Labor” party, only winning government when Labor had become “unelectable” (this theory, of course, was overthrown when Menzies became the longest serving PM in Australian history). After a few uncertain years, the party gained the majority and formed government in 1949, further consolidating their power in 1954 with the formation of a firmer and more distinctive set of ideologies.

However, the point of this entry is not a history lesson, or to point out the ideas and beliefs of the Liberals, but to examine its ideological transformations. The mid 20th century saw support for the Liberals for a number of reasons. Menzies’ Liberal ideology focused heavily on the three points of “Race, Crown and Nation”. Race, being the supremacy of the white Australian man (examined later); Crown being his loyalty to the British Empire (thoroughly opposing the idea of Republicanism) and Nation essentially meaning Nationalism. These are all conservative views, however what sets him apart and gives his party the Liberal name is his focus on individuality.

The Liberals were drenched in ideological ambiguity by supporting the individual above all else, allowing them to connect to more classes, on more issues; Labor has restrictive membership and following by aiming their policies at the lower working classes and offering heavy support for unions (something which really hasn’t changed). Aside from the fact that communist ally-turned-enemy Russia had placed this grand-scale taboo on left-wing socialist parties, the Liberal Party’s messaged reached out to everyone, regardless of social status. An example of this would be the utter rejection from the nation of Labor’s referendum on price and rent control in 1948, almost delivering the 1949 election into Menzies’ hands. The problem with Labor is they near-ignored the increasingly large middle-class, whereas the Liberals, who believed whole-heartedly in political and economic freedom, appealed directly to the middle and upper classes which was beginning to comprise the majority of the Australian populous.

‘…the real life of the nation … is to be found in the homes of people who are nameless and unadvertised, and who, whatever their religious conviction or dogma, see in their children their greatest contribution to the immortality of their race.’ -Menzies

Where you can truly see the Robert Menzies in John Howard is (along with the near-stifling conservatism and the focus on individuality) in the issue of race. Menzies was a thorough conservative when it came to race and immigration, only relaxing the White Australia Policy when it became apparent that to continue the boom, Australia would need to allow non-white Europeans houseroom. It could be said Menzies’ ideas on Race are a complete contradiction to his belief in individual supremacy, but having said that, seeing as Aboriginals were only counted in the consensus in 1967 and (bad as it sounds), only counted as actual human beings when that legislation had passed, Menzies would not be seen as disloyal to his party’s ideologies at that time by excluding the Aboriginals, and pretty much everyone else of colour. But, seeing as I have ranted on enough, I’ll leave Menzies’ original Liberal ideologies at that, rather than examine every single aspect (or I’d be here forever). Next up: Holt.

Harold Holt; not known for much other than succeeding Menzies in 1966, reforming the immigration policy to allow more non-Europeans; introducing reforms for Aboriginals, building on Menzies’ work to increase relations with Asia, very controversially expanding Australia’s role in the Vietnam war and drowning in 1967 (although, that was all in 22 months!). His term was identified by the progression of social individuality by extending it to all races, not just the Caucasians, and praised for deviating against Menzies by initiating reform, something Menzies seemed to oppose. His work was followed on by John Gorton and William McMahon.

Gorton and McMahon both continued Holt’s ideas of reform, both in society and the arts. But, both these men had extremely poor political skills and were often overshadowed by their powerful state counterparts. So much so, that the reform they had initiated in regards to Aboriginals welfare and immigration was largely taken credit of by Gough Whitlam. These guys are generally recognised as being Australia’s weakest PMs. However, they too continued the ideas of reform semi-contradicting Menzies’ original ideas concerning the party’s direction. So in a way, they continued Holt’s left-leaning progressive social ideas. Next up: Malcolm Fraser

Fraser was a strong early advocate against increased government spending, which more often than not resulted in higher inflation. He was wary of the Keynesian credit system, and criticised the Whitlam government for its unnecessary spending (Whitlam too saw the birth of the Labor legacy of pointless government spending (*cough* KRudd *cough*) eventually cleaned up by the Liberals). He knew the trade unions needed moderation in their demands.

‘…the exorbitantly expensive trips and sight-seeing tours Whitlam and his large number of family, friends and others he took along for the ride, enjoyed at your expense? The expensive cars Whitlam ordered for himself with your money? The very lavish ALP conference at Florida Hotel, Terrigal, paid for by your money?’ - Fraser

Fraser focused on re-establishing governmental stability, something gone very much amiss by the gravy-train-riding Whitlam government. He had some pretty heavy opposition from the trade unions and middle-class intelligentsia (who were worried Fraser would revert to Menzies-inspired anti-reform conservatism). In a way they were right; Fraser campaigned and to some extent, ran his government as a reaction to Whitlam, and saw criticism for his reversal of some of the reforms and initiatives contributed to society by Whitlam, including cutting the Medibank and Urban Development Schemes in order to reduce government spending. Fraser continued the former four PM’s contributions to the arts and society (including multiculturalism, indigenous issues and women’s issues (much unlike Howard)) and deeply opposed racism. To think about Fraser’s leadership in party terms, he was perhaps the truest to the ideology of individualism and limited government intervention of those before him, however his reactionism, funding restraints and anti-Labor rhetoric labelled him the PM who focused only on fixing Whitlam’s mistakes, something he never quite recovered from. But, in the end, despite the fact Fraser saw himself as a nation-builder, his loss at the 1983 election was revered, and many were glad to see him disappear from prominent politics. Next up: Johnny “I-don't-apologise-for-anything” Howard.

The most conservative and creative PM since Menzies himself, John Howard prided himself on his legacy of market reform and government surplus. He and Costello made up the “Dream Team”, which is essentially what they turned out to be. Once again, Labor’s mismanagement of finances had left the country in a great hole of red; much of which was overcome by Howard’s transformation of the heavily-regulated economy into an open-trading economy, work which was originally initiated by the Hawke/Keating era, but finalized in Howard’s first and second term.

Howard’s way of thinking was criticized by many academics. First of all, he (especially in his earlier career) publicly advocated against multiculturalism, claiming it deprived the country of its national identity and diminished Australian culture. He went so far as to alter Australia’s immigration and refugee laws after a controversial speech by ultra-conservative Pauline Hanson, something which did not go unnoticed by the public. He was also tough on unions, with implementation of ‘Work Choices’ in 2006 which restricted union involvement and gave companies more freedom to hire/fire workers being just one example.He implemented the GST, allowing government to maintain high revenue without raising income tax, paving the way for interest rates to lower and keep inflation at a manageable level. He, like Menzies, believed in a limited government, social conservatism, economic liberalism and constituent monarchism.

Takes breath

He did not believe in Australians apologizing for the Stolen Generation (“Guilt is not hereditary”), he lowered unemployment levels, masterminded one of the greatest economic booms Australia had seen since the Gold Rush, and greatly improved relations with China. John Howard handed a country to Kevin Rudd fit enough to survive the worst world-wide economic disaster since the Great Depression -- which Rudd is systematically running to the ground in debt. With the rise in small (and big) businesses, the idea of individualism was transformed from a predominantly social idea into an economic one, removing government intervention and allowing the free-market to blossom. John Howard’s neo-conservatism and Menzies-inspired government, though had many flaws (actually claiming those who opposed him -- trade unionists and protesters especially -- to be “un-Australian” and expected it to be justification for them to sit-down-and-shut-up), was one of Australia’s most successful. BTW, I am fully aware these past few paragraphs have been very scattered. But it’s a blog! No criticism on the lack of structure!

Okay, even though there are holes in my analysis of the leaders, I’ve done my best to outline what each of these PMs have contributed to modernity. However, just briefly (and to extend the overall point of this blog, which I’ll EVENTUALLY get to) I’d like to touch on Malcolm Turnbull. Honestly, based on who he succeeded, I can’t understand why Turnbull is a Liberal. Firstly, he headed the Republican Movement in the late 1990s.That is such a deviation from the original Liberal ideology of complete monarchical support, it should probably have swayed him over to the side of Labor (although, having said that, the ALP is very selective over who they choose to lead; Turnbull has earned his millions from being a very successful businessman, kind of going against the Labor-grain). Just another example would be his current deviation from most of the party’s leanings by supporting an amended ETS; John Howard thoroughly opposed an ETS, and I suspect only included one into the party campaign to win over voters when he knew he was polling poorly. Many of the Liberals in government now, especially the backbenchers and the co-aligned Nationals, have expressed public dissent over Turnbull’s ETS stance, yet he ignores most of them (Wilson Tuckey...). It doesn't really bother me that he's a Liberal; the party recruits from all walks of life, it's just I don't know if he's seasoned enough to be party leader (he's only been in politics for five years). But, when it comes down to it, he looks good on TV.

Alright, to the point of this very, very long essay-turned-blog: I support the Liberals because it supports diversity. I have systematically proved that these leaders were all different (I, naturally, bulk Gorton and McMahon together); they have different ideologies, they have different leanings, but they all follow the same party doctrine, and have all taken the country to new places. They can be conservative (Menzies/Howard), or progressive (Holt/Turnbull) or anything in between. The Liberals allow for personal opinion, they encourage one to think outside the mould. They recruit from a much wider ocean of social institutions, not just a narrow pool of workers and unionists. The Liberal ideology may be ambiguous and ever shifting, but that in turn allows for interpretation, giving the country the opportunity for creativity, to grow with each differing leader outlook. If you’re a Labor MP, you’re fired for voting against the party (which explains Peter Garrett’s total hypocrisy), and there is little room for review when the ideology is so firm and long-standing. The Liberals have a long and proud history of reform, more recently of progression, and of surplus (something the ALP can’t say!!!), without negating good old fashioned family values; they give the individual a chance for individuality, it’s as simple as that.

But, I’ll admit that an unclear vision often leads to a complete and utter rabble in the party room. But this is a PRO-LIBERAL blog!

Comment/Rate/Appreciate!

Referenced: Brett, J. (2003). Australian Liberals. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

xXx

What Happened to Alan Carpenter?

I haven’t written anything in a while, but decided I would pick up the pen again after a long absence. Sorry to the people who enjoy my often ambiguous bitching, but I have recently been embroiled in state politics, and so I felt it was appropriate to put in my two cents about Alan Carpenter. The funny thing is that I actually didn’t mind him despite his affiliation with the opposite party and his government’s failure to do much good for the state. I thought I would take the time to explore the few ups and many downs of his Premiership.

Carpenter announced his retirement from politics on Friday, effective as of October 2nd. As it were, after the 2008 state election he still held the seat of Willagee, and committed himself to the full four-year term despite the general inclination he would step down from politics in general after the tumultuous loss. Again, six months later when former Labor Leader Jim McGinty retired from his Fremantle seat, there were talks Carpenter would follow, and infuriatingly, six months later he decided to follow suit, forcing the electorate of Willagee into a by-election and costing upwards of $1 million (which could have been mostly saved if the Fremantle and Willagee elections had been held at the same time, but never mind…). But back on to his time as top dog.

Carpenter took the top seat from Gallop in January 2006 after he stepped down for medical reasons. Since then, Carpenter’s often controversial policies and decisions have landed him in hot water on numerous occasions; something I don’t think he quite recovered from. Despite his arrogant demeanour, and his often too brutal honesty, I think perhaps in the back of his mind he knew he was never elected, and therefore it undermined his inner-confidence. The seat was Gallop's, he won it and Carpenter would always be second; he was thrown into a position he probably wasn’t equipped to deal with. Rebecca Carmody (Sunday Times; 27/9) reported that even though he seemed over-confident, his hands were always shaking (although it too could be premature senility), which would seem unusual as he was a journo by-trade, and an MP for 5 years prior to his Premiership. A well-seasoned parliamentarian such as himself should have no reason to be physically nervous. But, moving on.

I will start with the best before I hit the worst; Carps had made some excellent advances in education, with the raising of the school-leaving age to year 11 and 12, as well as the initiation of the Pluto gas project, creating billions of dollars worth of revenue for the state. He rarely succumbed to petty politics (forcing a Labor-authorised site focussing on Buswell’s past indiscretions off the web as just one example), and tried to keep the post as honest as possible. His focus was always on education, putting in place policies to ensure every child was educated, including the Indigenous. His attempts to keep the post respectable included aiding in the establishment of the CCC [Crime and Corruption Commission], which ironically enough aided in, if not caused his downfall.

But that’s where the buck stops. After an embarrassing defeat at the early election he had called to “clear the air” he wisely stepped down as party leader, returning to the embarrassing position of backbencher, forced to face the demons of his failures every time the Assembly sat. His arrogance and belief in his own decisive superiority in the end, pretty much caused his defeat. His decision to lift the ban on parliamentarians from dealing with disgraced former pollie Brian Burke was ill-advised by his staff, and the consequences saw interference from the CCC and widespread exposure of the corruption existing in his Cabinet. He ignored warnings concerning Marlborough and D’Orazio; his attempts to push his own people into the Labor pre-selections against the wishes of his party did not go unnoticed by the press or the public. But perhaps worse of all, throughout boom-time in WA where the state saw revenues in the $Billions, taxes still increased and the people saw so little of their hard work. The government was mismanaged, corrupt, and in disgrace. When Carps called the election early to start a-fresh with a clean slate, he failed to see past his own advisers who told him what he wanted to hear, that Labor was a sure-fire win. He ignored party advice, and instead surrounded himself by people who wouldn’t rival him or express honest opinion. The rabble which at the time was the Liberal Party pulled off a far more effective election campaign ending in a dramatic, yet not entirely unforseen victory. Carps knew the Nationals would never side with the Labor, and his attempts to sway them to a coalition were weak and with little conviction. He knew his race was run, and stepped down in favour of his deputy, Eric Ripper. Good on him though, for turning down the Parliamentary Pension, saving the state about $5 Million.

On a more personal level, if he taught me anything, it would be that Politicians aren’t the Hollywood superstars I saw them as (seriously, I really did and in many respects still do), and despite the fact that you may have severely mishandled your position and mangled your pride, you still have to suck it up and get back to work. People forget the past rather quickly (creating an “Oh-yeah” effect; someone tells you Kevin Rudd went to a strip club, and you would more than likely respond with “Oh yeah, I remember that” and shortly forget it once more) and you can’t set store on what happened, or what you should have done differently. I couldn’t possibly imagine the humiliation he suffered when he returned to Parliament utterly disgraced by his own party, sitting behind the leader he despises so much, and across from the Premier he resents. Don’t get me wrong, I have no sympathy for his loss, his bad decisions, or the way he mishandled his position, but I do feel a touch of pity when I look down on the Assembly floor, and find him looking back at me in the Gallery rather than caring what his colleagues are debating.

So it didn’t come as a surprise to me that, the day after I last saw him half-heartedly debate amendments to a bill for Racing and Gaming, that he decided to step down to “disappear into the great ocean of humanity” and live life privately. The only reason I write this, is because despite how very little I knew him, he struck me as being prevalently legit, unlike most careerists you see on the 6pm news. I may take the mickey out of him (constantly), like most critics would but in the end, when you are dealing with a living, breathing human and not merely a name on page four of the Australian, you have to assess their person before you assess their portfolio.

He’s not of my party, but he will always have my respect.

xXx

Ash's Life Lessons

Stumbled across this in my boredom a few weeks ago. I actually compiled this list when I was 16, still in high school, and thought it was the perfect insight to my weird and wonderful world. Also not really a comfort to know I haven't changed. At all.

(WARNING: Narcissism ahead. Wear protective gear).

Lesson One: Power is an inescapable part of all human interactions. Either you have it, or your opponent does.
Lesson Two: Life isn't fair.
Lesson Three: Every circumstance offers us a choice.
Lesson Four: I am a depraved bitch, get used to it.
Lesson Five: Retaliation is well and good, but one is better off revealing ahead of time the horrors people will face if they divulge a confidence.
Lesson Six: Never assume anything.
Lesson Seven: Continued nagging will get you nowhere.
Lesson Eight: Listen to what is not said as carefully as to what is.
Lesson Nine: The former is usually more correct than the latter; trust your instincts.
Lesson Ten: Always look below the surface.
Lesson Eleven: Few are clever enough to know when they are being dense, but even fewer know in what way or why.
Lesson Twelve: You would do better to be slightly naïve.
Lesson Thirteen: Say what you mean, mean what you say.
Lesson Fourteen: Once in a long while, what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.
Lesson Fifteen: There is a fine line between likeing a challenge and being compulsive.
Lesson Sixteen: One should not attempt to bite a snake.
Lesson Seventeen: Take advantage of a situation whenever possible, despite the consequences.
Lesson Eighteen: It is always smarter to align yourself with a more powerful person.
Lesson Nineteen: Don't try my demonstrably limited patience.
Lesson Twenty: Always hear an opponent out. He may give you ammunition by accident.
Lesson Twenty-One: It is impossible to reason with an irrational thinker.
Lesson Twenty-Two: It is much safer to be feared than loved.

xXx

(A/N: Lesson Twenty-Two was lifted right out of Machiavelli's "The Prince")
(A/N: Also have Deeble to thank)

Modern Anarchists: Why the likes of Noam Chomsky should be silenced.

You are no greater than, and nothing should humble you as much as the place you consider home, especially if it has provided for you opportunities not available in other nations. It is where you grew, and in the case of developed democratic nations, it has given you the luxury of freedom and human privilege. I love Australia, and although I am at odds quite frequently with our government, it is our ability to grow, learn and therefore evolve that I will always remain loyal to. Australia is the true land of opportunity, and I don’t blame so many foreigners for wanting houseroom here. No matter where you live, if your country has given you health, freedom and happiness, you should not devote your life to criticising it.

Then you have jackasses like Noam Chomsky, a man so revered in the US he has literally become the one of the most cited intellectuals in history, right behind Sigmund Freud (rightly so). In the sub-Ivy League universities of America on the west coast especially, he is literally bigger than the death of MJ, poisoning the minds of up-and-coming academics and providing a one-sided view on the state of modern America. He makes the writings of Dr. Peter Van O look completely impartial.

As put by Bernard Goldberg, he is the world’s most important anti-American American Intellectual. He attacks everything about America; its values, behaviour and generally everything in American society. In his words: “When you come back from the Third World to the West –the U.S in particular, you are struck by the narrowing of thought and understanding, the limited nature of legitimate discussion, the separation of people from each other” and “The Cold War? All America’s fault... (then begins comparing America to Nazis)”. This man has never met an American or American policy he liked, claiming after 9/11 that America’s foreign policy was “far more extreme terrorism”. If there is one thing this man has ever been successful at, it has been systematically dismantling intellectual support for a nation in control of much of the free world. This man should be gagged.

For much the same reason, I give a dishonourable mention to Michael Moore, often cited as “Chomsky for children”. His far more public open hostility towards America has made him more notorious than famous. His arguments are dripping with bias, with his facts often so far spun he is succeeds even John Howard. Take my advice; never see his docos, never read his books (I own them all, and they’re all rubbish), never listen to the dribble spat from his fat mouth. He doesn’t just target politicians, but citizens (circa “Stupid White Men”) and everyone else he considers sub-par. It isn’t even like he’s educated – he’s a college drop out. He isn’t an intellectual, he isn’t an academic, he isn’t anything. If I get strung up by my heels for what I write in a simple blog, then this ass should be strung up by his neck. There is nothing but virulent garbage spitting from behind his teeth; he too needs to be gagged.

What honestly got me started on this rant was a woman at a second-hand book store in Fremantle, who when noticing me buy political texts, questioned if I had read anything by Chomsky or Gore. I of course replied they’re both rubbish (Gore not as much, but I hate is desperate spotlight-grabbing. He lost, he should get over it and stop trying to return himself to the front bench), and left. I have read essays by Chomsky, own three of Al Gore’s books and three of Michael Moore’s. I have earned the right to criticize, because they all need to step back and stop being so high and mighty. It’s spin at its finest, and these dicks doctor themselves out of experience. I don’t buy it, and neither should anyone else. Seriously, bend over, grab a hold of the stick, and pull it out of your ass. People hate you.

The honest fact is that criticism of governments is necessary, it keeps parliament in check and keeps the power bases spread. These men are not criticising their governments, they are criticising their country, their culture. They judge their nation based on what it should be, rather than what it is. I am a Liberal, and therefore am a sworn enemy of the Labor government, but I am not stupid enough to actually believe the Liberals should be in power right now, especially after the last few weeks and the party splits being made extremely public. These men see the world from their own narrow-minded eyes and are too stubborn to shift their ideologies and see the greater picture. They are not rational.

America is a great, however misled nation. But until the high horses are tied up and the ass-sticks are extracted, the world will never be analysed through impartial eyes. These men are anarchists; they will feed off sedition and chaos until the modern Liberal Democratic tradition is bled dry.

So next time you see a Sicko on television, or feel the need to cite On Nature and Language, remember what these men represent, and find another source of information. You’d have better luck with Charles Firth, at least you’d get a good laugh.

xXx

Ash vs. Separatism

The glorious grandiosity that is the Australian pride cannot overshadow the ridiculous amount of debt the Rudd Labor government has vomited all over our people. Fair call there is a recession and funds are short, but in times like these, the Labor ideology of “cradle to grave” welfare and increased separatism is not the way to bring the country out of the Red. We need someone who has a tougher stance on unnecessary funding. We need someone strong enough to sometimes abandon party politics and policies in favour of the greater good. In short, we need John Howard.

The fact of the matter is that this deficit will not fix itself overnight; Labor have this running idea that we can eradicate twice the amount of debt achieved by the last Liberal government in half the time. That is a ridiculously unrealistic goal. Labor is notorious for making debt, and Liberal has been there to pick up the pieces (look at the Keating government for Christ’s sake!!). Kevin Rudd is not suited to run this country – his stupidly “generous” mishandling of the nation’s spenditure has forced us into debt. The Swudd Budget is a disgrace.

But the point of this topic is not the budget essentially, but the increasing relevance in today’s society of the separatism of the people – In other words, some people getting a greater advantage over others because of their place in a minority group. This is not fair. I believe in the conservative ideology that you should work for your buck. I hate moochers. I hate the fact people walk into Centrelink and are handed over cash for being lazy sons of bitches.

Austudy and the Youth Allowance is a particular peeve of mine. I believe you should only take from the government what you desperately need, and nothing if you have the means of making your own money. Fair enough if you’re forced out of home and can’t make ends meet while studying; fair enough you have a full course load and can’t work; fair enough if you’re moving away from home to study; fair enough if you are disabled and can’t work and study. I don’t want to restrict the welfare state to nothing; I just want the means testing to be reviewed. You shouldn’t get anything if you simply can’t be bothered finding work, or working a few extra hours, and it’s absolute bullshit to say you need more time to study. People have been doing it for years and getting excellent grades, and most people now days have contact time of less than 20 hours a week anyway. Stop complaining and harden the fuck up. Get a job; quit being a leech on our government.

I also think the benefits handed out to the indigenous community are unfair and completely guilt driven. What has happened to them in the past is unforgivable, I admit it, but I did not participate in the Stolen Generation. Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull, Pauline Hanson and the rest of the people running this country did not participate. It was not our fault. The fact is we can’t keep punishing ourselves for what happened decades ago, it does not allow us to move on as a country. As John Howard said, “Guilt is not hereditary”, and he’s right. I think it was a terrible injustice, but I’m not about to stand back and watch as the community takes from the government, believing it’s their right, and then giving nothing in return. We are all human and perfectly capable of getting a job – why is it those of colour can receive greater benefits than say, that of a disabled person who has no chance of holding down a steady job? The government needs to stop feeling so guilty and start seeing the situation as it is; they are human too. Their blood runs the same red, and it is not our fault for our past. I can be compassionate, but I am not stupid.

Besides, isn’t war a part of history? A part of human nature? I don’t condone war, or the bloodiness history. Fair enough we have a Sorry Day, and we yearly recognise their hardships, but taking money because they can is not okay. It’s not okay for anyone.

I’m not preaching racism or anything of the like, but I express the need for things to change. Everyone is equal, but in the words of Orwell, does separatism make some more equal than others? No one should be given an advantage because of their skin colour or racial history. That is not fair on those who are out there, working hard every day to provide for their family. My parents never got anything, hell they had the pay the government back when they received the baby handout everyone was getting 20 years ago. The first money they ever received was the Krudd $900 handout. But I turned out fine, my sister turned out fine – we are still alive. My folks struggled for money for many years, but I’m pretty damn sure they’re not dead.

So ask yourself- Is it fair people getting offered free money based on their colour, age, racial background, or just because they’re too damn lazy? I pay those tax dollars, and I sure as hell don’t want my money going to those who don’t need it.

But I’m sure those who read it, will just take the money anyway, totally ignoring the point of this whole blog, or labelling me a racist (which I'm not), because I picked on a minority group. I'm just expressing the view that NO ONE, despite colour, age, race, history, or state of their left foot has the right to just take money for no legitimate reason. To each according to his need. Thats the way it should be.

Archive (4/5/2009): The Proverbial Russian Roulette

Or in other words – How to rule the world! (Thought it was a bit presumptuous to make it the title...)

I came across the theory of Emotionalism vs. Rationalism, the idea that human beings adhere to their emotions rather than good old fashion common sense whilst reading and just because I’m a complete nerd, decided to apply it to the people around me. As it was, I ended up slotting into the back of my mind as the most important tool of any political campaign – Human beings aren’t rational, and you can win almost anyone over if you can tell them what they want to hear. Bugger if it’s true or not (hell, those seniors still haven’t gotten their fuel cards), it’s essential for people to believe they’ll be supported.

This is probably the main reason I’m joining the Liberal Party – their lack of a solid, coherent ideology could possibly make them the most powerful party in the system. It allows their policies to be reactionary – it allows them to be an “anti” party – as in they can be anti anything they bloody well want according to the current social, economic and political climate trends. Take for example the ALP – if in the next few years the Trade Unions get too far ahead of themselves, demanding too much, getting it, and coming close to running the bloody country, the ALP is in a hell of a predicament; Labor is for the proletariat, campaigning for a solid welfare state – being far too left for my tastes – and favouring the worker over the employer. If the government was to be usurped by the Unions, it would mean a bloody hard time for the business owners, but it would go against the Labor ideology to reject them, allowing the Liberals to open fire on them. Now, as evident under the watchful eyes of Johnnie “I-don’t-apologise-for-anything” Howard, the worker was kicked up the backside with “Work Choices”, which was probably a deciding factor in their campaign loss (That and the fact that Costello is an ass). The conservatist Liberals hate the Unions, favouring big business over smaller ones and not really giving a rats bloody ass about the worker. The Liberals can govern with limited ideological restriction (they can’t rightly turn Commie or Fascist though), however one of the prominent reasons they aren’t in power is their inability to get their act together – the party divisions are deep and far reaching, Malcolm Turnball is weak to the point he fears colleague Colin Barnett, Julie Bishop hasn’t actually done anything of value except rip off other people’s work and Troy Buswell’s a chair sniffing, squirrel grabbing, crude sexist creep. Then there’s the whole ETS debate...but that’s for another time.

I think I’ve gotten severely off course here...

Anyway, the point of this rant is to deal with the idea I brought up in my Religion rant: Emotionalism vs. Rationalism. If a speaker can harness this, it would ensure full audience support, no matter what ridiculous point they were pushing. It most probably originated with Machiavelli’s ideas of submission; that it is to be better to be feared than loved as a leader and that one must govern by his own rules, not the ones set out for him (Liberal Party mate...). He coined the idea that a leader needs to make use of the “crowd”, to sedate them. A powerful orator knows his audience and can therefore manipulate them.

The one good thing about the “hollywoodization” of society is the fact that people remain stupid. Illiteracy and blind anarchy allowed Russia and Germany respectively to be ruled by dictators. Ignorance is the illiteracy and anarchy of the 21st Century. It’s what allows Julia Roberts to stand up and say George Bush was an idiot, and have people reply with “Yeah, that’s true”. Okay, not that I’m saying he wasn’t, but who the bloody hell is Julia Roberts to say anything? Last time I checked she wasn’t a historian or political analyst, or anyone who had the right to publically say anything. If I’m put on the chopping block for the things I’ve written (which are all true... to my views on the world), then she can’t just get away scot free. The point is, that people believe anything, especially if it is someone society sees as “valuable” who says it.

I know people who have said some stupid things to me. I don’t mean stupid as in sarcastic or funny (my mates have stupid humour, though I do too...), but I mean genuinely stupid. No, I correct that, stupidly ignorant. Stupid ignorant twats who couldn’t see reason if it was hurled at them like vomit in Northbridge. Revenge on police officers for doing their jobs properly; voting for daylight savings just because everyone else is voting ‘no’ and going all “Crazy Christian” on me when I do the annual Christmas message rounds, wishing everyone a ‘Happy Christmas’ with ‘Heaps of Prezzies’ (because suddenly I hate Jesus Christ and have forgotten the meaning of Christmas...pfft...) just to name a few. I don’t claim to be perfect but come on, don’t go all Julia Roberts on me.

So, if you can tell the people that “We will make getting a job easier for you!” to a desperate crowd, they will believe you. It’s just the “But getting fired is easier too” part which is left up to the opposition to provide which keeps Australia’s government in check.

I just think it’s interesting that the new generation is now voting, and I’m guessing that not one would have even registered what that last paragraph meant, or what it was referring to, or how it affected the last election:

Or even how it affected them.

So, the message I’m trying to get across is that ‘not giving a shit’ is like playing Russian Roulette. It’s all well and good when you have the media, the opposition and ridiculously politically driven people like me performing checks on parliamentary activities, but as evident with leaders such as John Howard and Paul Keating, and War legislation in 1914 and 1939, censorship can be a powerful thing, and your ignorance might just end up shooting you in the head.

Okay, exaggerating just a titch...

xXx

Archive (28/4/2009): Pauline Hanson's Maiden Speech - 10/9/1996

Came across it in research, and I think it's interesting. I won't post all of it, just the less tedious parts.

"Mister Acting Speaker, in making my first speech in this place, I congratulate you on your election and wish to say how proud I am to be here as the Independent member for Oxley. I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life's knocks.

We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded "industries" that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups. In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do-gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most - their power, money and position, all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.

Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one's skin determines whether you are disadvantaged.

This nation is being divided into black and white, and the present system encourages this. I am fed up with being told, "This is our land." Well, where the hell do I go? I was born here, and so were my parents and children. I will work beside anyone and they will be my equal but I draw the line when told I must pay and continue paying for something that happened over 200 years ago. Like most Australians, I worked for my land; no-one gave it to me.

Reconciliation is everyone recognising and treating each other as equals, and everyone must be responsible for their own actions. This is why I am calling for ATSIC to be abolished. It is a failed, hypocritical and discriminatory organisation that has failed dismally the people it was meant to serve. It will take more than Senator Herron's surgical skills to correct the terminal mess it is in. Anyone with a criminal record can, and does, hold a position with ATSIC. I cannot hold my position as a politician if I have a criminal record - once again, two sets of rules.

If politicians continue to promote separatism in Australia, they should not continue to hold their seats in this parliament. They are not truly representing all Australians, and I call on the people to throw them out. To survive in peace and harmony, united and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag.

I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.

I call for the introduction of national service for a period of 12 months, compulsory for males and females upon finishing year 12 or reaching 18 years of age. This could be a civil service with a touch of military training, because I do not feel we can go on living in a dream world forever and a day believing that war will never touch our lives again.

Wake up, Australia, before it is too late. Australians need and want leaders who can inspire and give hope in difficult times. Now is the time for the Howard government to accept the challenge."

(This is really to make up for my inability to write any new material on account of the ridiculous amount of uni work I have)

Link: http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm

xx

Archive (14/4/2009): I'd go for $43b Mr. Rudd.

I love the internet. I love the fact I can be in three countries at once from the same seat. I love the fact I can have a thousand different aliases from a thousand different nationalities. I love the fact I can find movies, programs and music anywhere at any time. I love the fact I can stay in touch with primary school friends 24/7. I love the accessibility, I love the variety, I love the unsourced biased opinions, I love YouTube, I love Facebook, and I love everything about it. I can honestly say that $43 Billion dollars later, I would still love it just the same. It’s like making an Olympic champion fitter – they’ll still win the race regardless of how many steroids they’re packed with.

$43B is a hell of a lot of money. It’s even more than the stimulus package designed to help out the citizens, education, health and public service. It’s more money than most people can contemplate, and far more than anyone will ever see in their entire lives. I hate it. I hate the idea of it. I hate the fact that 111 West Aussie towns won’t benefit from it, and the rest won’t see its ultimate effects for almost a decade. I hate how we have no say in the matter. I hate how the West Australian Government has taken a 3% budget cut because the country has no money. Public Servants get screwed, the elderly get screwed. In the end, it is the future than will inherently get screwed – if we’re spending all the money now, what will be left? The recession is far from over, and the government can justify throwing tens of billions of dollars to make internet surfing a little (well, a lot) faster.

The consequences of this proposal are so far reaching. For example, the entertainment industry will suffer; faster downloads means more people scamming of them. And of course, it’s not like we won’t be paying for it; internet bills will skyrocket, usage will lag and more and more computers will become infested with viruses due to the extra circulation.

What about our hospitals, our schools and our Public Sphere? Emergency Rooms are filled to the brim every night with people stored away on tray beds in corridors. Students are unable to get the most out of their education due to the lack of school funding. Public Servants take a slap across the face as their pay increases become fixed and may not suffice over the growing inflation. This is absolute rubbish. I would rather my mother stay in the Black than make Googling easier. I can understand the general motives of the idea, but why introduce it when we have no money, where lower level Public Servants have to stem the tide of Recession without government help? Give it 3 years, it’s not that important.

Then again, Mr. Rudd has also gone the opposite way, throwing money into the Public Sector where it is not appreciated. Alinjarra benefitted 2.5M from Kevin’s $41B stimulus package, but they had no sway over how that money was to be spent. They’re receiving a new oval (which is needed), re-carpeting (also needed in one of the blocks), and a brand new school building. Seeing as they have empty classrooms as it is, I doubt a new building is necessary, especially when it is going to cost over 2M to build. It has been generally recognised as the biggest waste of money. A more beneficial use for the money would have been to, I don’t know, consult the teachers on what they essentially need before throwing the school an unwanted new block. Not just handing the money over, but allowing the teachers to petition what the school could use – new equipment, furniture, the leaks to be fixed, better heating systems, stationary etc. The school couldn’t even scrounge money from the government to put on a service and a notice in the paper after one of their children died. It is pathetic. Money is supposed to be so tight, yet here the state government is, throwing money away. I’ll gladly take that $2M. Giving it to me doesn’t seem any more wasteful that what they’re actually doing with it.

Fair enough the recession has made everything tight, but all the government is trying to do is win votes. It is such bullshit, I can’t even express how frustrated I am. I would rather the state not take a 3% budget cut than be flippant about the money Ruddy has somehow picked up. The nation is in debt, heaps of it, and fair enough if some schools need new buildings, but you can be damn sure Alinjarra isn’t the only poster institution to buy more votes.

I could do a better job in the treasury!

xx

Archive (7/4/2009): To Believe or Not to Believe...

I am not religious. Hell (pun intended), I’m the first to advocate against the support of the invisible deity whose existence lies upon one’s ability to set aside good old fashion common sense in favour of devoting their lives to an institution based entirely on theory without extenuating evidence *takes breath*. Wittgenstein was a famous philosopher who, before going senile and almost completely contradicting and therefore making redundant his earlier theories, proposed the idea that if, for example, someone was able to honestly try and tell you there was a chair on the other side of a solid brick wall, could you believe them? It may nor may not be true; you cannot prove it either way. You have not seen this chair and only have the word of a complete stranger to convince you of its existence. Do you trust they are being truthful? Would you devote your entire life to the theory that this chair exists? Would you lay down your life for this chair? Would you fight wars for this chair? Of course not. It’s a chair.

I came across that theory when I was 16 when my semi-insane English Literature teacher explained the theories of the Enlightenment and the inspiration behind the Australian poet Gwen Harwood. I was particularly interested in the idea, so I researched Wittgenstein and discovered Agnosticism. Now, for the few who are unaware of Agnosticism, it is, in a nutshell, the idea that there may be a God, but you essentially haven’t seen enough evidence to prove it. Then again, you refuse to believe there isn’t a God because there isn’t enough evidence to prove that either (even though the bias of Richard Dawkins is starting to convince me otherwise). To put it crudely, they are fence sitters. I am one too – I refuse to believe in God, but I refuse to go to hell (just in case there is one), so I won’t toss the idea out completely. What has started to annoy me, however, is the fact that ironically enough, the Atheists and the crazy-Christians have teamed up against me, placing barbed wire and spokes on my comfy asbestos fence. Apparently they don’t like it; apparently I have to choose a side.

Okay, in the words of the great Dawkins himself, he described people like me as “namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak-tea, weedy, pallid fence-sitters”. The idea is the effigy of indecisiveness, of bailing out, of drinking white wine rather than red or some form of virulent vodka Alco-pop. I can understand why Atheists and Christians think we’re sell-outs – it really is the lazy path. No fighting against God, no wasting every Sunday morning in Church. No ideological sacrificing, no ideological slandering. Nothing. We are looked down upon for being quasi-Nihilistic; easily moulded, easily led, easily dominated. We don’t essentially believe in much at all; at least Atheists believe in believing in nothing; that has to count for something.

I dislike Atheism for the fact it is too critical. I am critical, but not when it comes to human emotion and their capacity to be swayed by them over reason. It’s the old Political debate: Emotionalism vs. Rationalism; people adhere to their emotions before they adhere to sense. Good Politicians are aware of it, cleverer Politicians use it, but greater Politicians shape it. Look at Martin Luther, then look at Hitler. Hitler was clever; he saw the people’s capacity for emotion and stirred it into fanatical Nationalism. I do not underestimate man’s emotional extent, and neither should anyone devote their lives to ignoring it.

I do not hate the idea of believing in something. I think it is the healthiest thing in the world to be able to fixate all hope into the idea that there is something out there working for the greater good of mankind. I think it is important for humans to have an outlet to vent that emotion, to have something to work for, to push them to become a better person. I don’t hate Christianity as a institution which instils hope into the lives of those who have nothing, I dislike it for the rules, for the wars fought in its honour, for the bloodshed, for the moral and ethical implications, and for the cult-like fanaticals who dedicate their lives to the destruction of all non-believers. But, having said that, I also dislike the religion for the idea that someone else will give you hope, that only with the support of God can you truly see yourself. I think that, above all is bullshit. Why is that people see the need to look higher to find happiness? Why can’t you be the one working for the greater good? Why is it that people need to assimilate the life of God to truly be able to live your own? Why is it that people find it so difficult to reach into themselves to find this higher ground, this insatiable hope that someday things will be alright. Why do people need an invisible man sitting upon a cloud, whose existence still in the midst of ambiguity, to be able to have faith in their own ability to get up every morning, to make a difference? Look to your friends, family – look to yourself.

I think it’s time we all start being a little narcissistic. There’s nothing wrong with believing you will someday change the world.

And now for the retaliation of all Christians (don't worry...I expected it - I think I can handle it)...

xx

Archive (31/3/2009): The Great Daylight Savings Debate

The time is drawing nearer for that referendum to decide whether or not we get to make use of that useless hour of sunlight at 7am, and unusually, the polls are pretty tied up. I thought it would be clear cut “No” from Westralia; we are known for being the most conservative of the bunch (hell, the Liberals are in power again), but I think it’s time I put my two cents worth forward.

I hate daylight savings. Honestly, personally I can find nothing remotely helpful about it. Why in God’s name would you want to elongate a 40C day? To sit out the back and enjoy the summer heat? Bullshit you do; you’re inside, huddled up under the humidifying air-conditioner with half your clothes off begging for this day to end. And what about the people in the country, where they’re lucky to get a day under 40C? I know first-hand the heat of the country – it is dry, blistering and unforgiving, and you could not pay most of the residents of Kalgoorlie enough money to keep it. My own grandmother refuses DLS time. I don’t blame her.

And what about the farmers? Those whose livelihoods depend on a strict time schedule, where cows grow restless if they aren’t milked the same time to the minute. Most, if not all, don’t adhere to the clock changing rules of the summer because they simply have too much to lose because of it. Ever think of them? Ever think where you get that milk from when you’re pouring it into your cereal, or where that wool came from on your blanket, or the wheat in your Weetbix? No, because Daylight Savings is all about a selfish agenda – people wanting an extra hour after work to have some extra leisure time. We didn’t steal that hour! If you’re so set about having an extra leisure day, get up earlier. You bloody well survive during winter, it is NOT going to kill you!

Then you have the business owners of pubs and clubs whose businesses are suffering – the partiers don’t arise until the sky is black – and most pubs are closed by 12 – most clubs are closed by 2. For the pubs, all they get is about 3 and a half hours maximum of solid business on a Saturday night, costing the company thousands. The Carine sees this every Friday night, as well as the annoying kids out of their cages past 8. It is bullshit.

Kids are an interesting one – because many of those who are vying for DLS are the families, but I find that really unusual. How the bloody hell do you get your kids to bed? It’s still too bloody hot and light – I know I can never sleep unless I am enveloped in darkness and cool enough to snuggle under blankets. Instead the kids are running rampant across restaurants – which I have to deal with. Hell, a kid projectile vomited a few weeks ago – at 9PM! We have to clean that up! I can honestly say that the mothers and their untrained little shits who run everything down have turned me off procreating. I don’t want kids – I HATE kids, but I especially hate their over-bearing, over-protective, over-demanding mothers who think they are superior to every other human being. It is these people who officially turned me off Primary teaching – after 18 months of study. I have demonstrably limited patience for anyone anymore. Thankyou.

Worst of all was the government’s handling of the referendum. Or the fact there even is one at all. People in the past have voted no, and I am pretty sure they’ll do so again. They don’t get it – days are getting hotter, money is running out – why should we waste 9M on a referendum which will most probably be rejected...AGAIN! This is an economic recession – don’t spend our money on this bullshit. Either introduce it, or don’t. Don’t waste 3 years and millions of dollars on a decision the government had the power to introduce alone. Mr. Barnett is introducing later trading hours without a referendum and that affects workers more than daylight saving ever would. I think it’s time the government cuts the crap and makes a decision once and for all. Yes or no.

But for the average Joe – Vote NO! Or I’ll come after you.

xx

Archive (26/3/2009): When you know it's time to grow up...

I was in bed last night realising I haven’t written one of these in a week – which probably explains why I kicked those kittens on the way out to my car this morning. It’s good therapy.

I decided that this week I’m going to hit a little closer to home, because something has been really bothering me lately. This is a general rant, so if anyone sees any personal “coincidences”, then it probably does include you – but also half the Australian population. Well, more like three quarters. At least.

It’s just that it’s getting so frustrating that I feel like I literally have nothing in common with anyone anymore. I started a new course at uni a year ago, purely because I’m too political for primary school kids, and I find it fascinating. Even though it’s about 3 times as full on as primary teaching, doing a double degree of Education and Politics/History is literally the most rewarding decision I have made in years. I’m surrounded by academics, intellectuals – people who literally make me want to better myself – who push me to write better, to speak better, to form opinions, to make arguments, to listen, to learn and never want to stop. For the first time in quite a while I know exactly who I am, what I want and where I’m going, and I’m not going to stop pushing myself until I get there.

I don’t see life as easy – I see it as damn hard. I got paid 2 days ago and my bank account balance reads: $0.00 – I have no money; everything I have goes towards bills/holidays/petrol – I rarely buy anything for myself anymore; but I am so much happier. But people can’t understand that; and I can’t understand them.

I honestly can’t understand people who turn their backs on their country; who accept ignorance over thought; who would know the difference between authoritarian and Libertarian, and if told they probably wouldn’t care. Newsflash: It’s the difference between Stalin and Kevin Rudd! If you reject the politics of your country, in my eyes you reject your right as a citizen to live in a country such as this. People don’t get it – You have a right to vote, a right to make a decision on how your country is run, and you reject it! You might as well move to China, or Korea where you don’t get a damn say. But they wouldn’t – they would stay and claim themselves “patriots”, who love this country more than anything – who roam the foreshore on Australia Day, draped in the Australian flag, screaming out “Aussie Aussie Aussie” whilst cracking open your sixth coldie and believing yourself to be the epiphany of Australian culture – believing yourself to be the model of what an Australian should be. Yet when it comes to voting time, you turn your back, you don’t care. I don’t call that patriotism, I call that fucking lazy - “Someone else’ll do it”; Seems to be the slogan of the decade.

I would also like to point out another sector of our society – the “pretty voters”. This breed of human votes, but only for the one they believe “looks the best”, or “has the nicest television voice”. This, too, is absolute bullshit. Hitler had a nice voice – he was a very gifted public speaker – would you vote for him? This puts you in the same class as those fools who fell for him in Germany – you do not have a right to vote if you choose to throw it away. Go live in China.

I’m not saying everyone should matriculate and get a degree, I’m just saying that maybe, just flick over to the news occasionally. Read the paper, especially when it comes time for election. Even if you know the very basics – I want to vote Green because they’re all for environmental conservation – I want to vote Labor because they support the workers – I want to vote Liberal because... (give me a few minutes on that one...). I’m just saying that you live in a country which has many options – it gives you so many choices; you should count yourself damn lucky to be one of the 20 million living here because it really is the greatest country to live in.

And most of all, seriously, don’t mock me when I bring up a conversation about politics, or history, or current events, because it just means I have moved on from the mindless gossip we lived for in high school. I do enjoy the occasional burst of it, and the occasional mindless conversation that goes nowhere, the movie nights and “The Brak Show” marathons, but it doesn’t define me. It really is shallow past the age of 17. My happiness centres around me being out there – learning something new – feeling as though what I am doing and learning will someday make a difference – whether as a teacher, or, hopefully, as a politician. It has taken me 3 years, but my interests have moved on. I will lose interest in you if you don’t grow up – I will find reasons not to talk to you – I will bitch more often – I will distance myself from you – because I don’t want you to bring me down. I’m in a good place, and I don’t want, need or deserve anyone to be dragging me down because I have taken that step away from high school. Maybe you should listen to me occasionally – you might actually learn something; maybe build your own opinions, not those forced upon you by an MTV friendly society. I want you to argue - if you don't like what I say - damn well say it! It helps to form opinion and belief when you get so adamently refuse someone else's. Bring on the anger - speak out. Don't just sit back as someone else runs your country - spends your tax dollars - attacks your foundations and makes life that much harder. Don't just sit there if I make you mad - if you hate prostitution - if you enjoy the bias of Peter Van Onselen - if Valentines day is your favourite day. Bring it on!

xx

Archive (15/3/2009): Self Censorship and my own Contradictions

I have pretty much fallen down the slippery unrestrained-bitching slope as of late and I want to clear a few things up before I go back to doing on this site what I do best (pretty much unrestrained-bitching...I really can’t be changed).

I was narcissistic to the point that I believe that what I have to say has value, however was smart enough to know that those of value don’t exactly read it. Hell, my theory was blown out of the water when I came close to losing my job over my “A Compass Pointing South” rant after I had had enough of one of my managers. Apparently it travelled across from the Greenwood before I was confronted by the Big Cheese. To those who read anything I write, especially those who are studying, would probably have been this told at least once; in the real world, what you have to say means nothing unless you have the means to say it. Or in other words, nothing I say means Jack Shit until I get my BA and MA in a few years. Why do you think essays need to be fully referenced – that nothing would be accepted unless it came from a credible source? It’s because your opinion is worthless. Educated academics look at anyone who makes an opinion public as we would view Teeny-Boppers; We were once like them, would never admit it, and hate them for it. This is why everything that I say should be taken with a pinch of salt. Or a fistful.

But, having said that, I will not stop writing these notes. They break the melancholy of constant uni work nicely. I'll say what I want and know I have no credibility, but I think I'll leave Compass alone for now (money is important these days) - I do apologize for making the Chinese Whispers public.

I also want to point out how much of a hypocrite I am – purely because in one of my previous entries entitled “Compassion in the Political Spectrum” I took the mickey out of my lecturer for publically humiliating Julie Bishop. Here I am doing the same thing (Although he is an academic), and even though I in no way though I had the audience I did. Turns out I do, so my bad! Another reason to NOT listen to me and just enjoy my fits of anger.

I’m not taking back what I wrote, but seriously. I’m 19. I’m a student. Why would you listen to me?

If this is the shit I’m stirring now, it’s awesome to think what I’ll be doing in 10 years.

You know you love me

xx

Archive (11/3/2009): Prostitution: Should it be Legal?

One of my assignments due next week is about constructing an argument on a woman’s right to her body. With all the emancipations, equality acts and feminist movements, the freedom of one’s body seems to have been lost in the midst.

Now I’m not about to rip my clothes off, throw on a corset and step into some hooker heels (unless I’m dressing up as a pirate), but neither do I think that a woman should not be allowed to sell sex for profit. The fact is that women sell themselves as cleaners, as bar tenders, as waitresses and even as no good Shadow Deputy Ministers, we have the freedom to tattoo and pierce our bodies, we are allowed to sell our clothes, furniture, cosmetics and office supplies but we are not allowed to sell the most basic of human activities; sex.

Prostitution has, since the establishment of the bible and the ever present fear of God’s wrath been dubbed as a below-standard work force. However before then it, believe it or not, was seen as God’s work. Brothels, or “Temples” as they were called, were set up in ancient cities where men would go to cleanse their soul by having sex with one of “Venus’s Priestesses”. Even with the coming of monogamous marriages, these women were still viewed by society the same way we today view nuns and priests. They were seen as “God’s children”. Things have really changed.

As the time went by, prostitutes began to lose their favour with society. By the Middle Ages, they were excluded from society the same way Jews were during the reign of Hitler. If they even touched a loaf of bread, they would be forced to purchase it as it was seen as “contaminated” due to the stigmas they have attached to them.

Having said that, however, I can honestly understand why they were rejected. To be a prostitute some 500 years ago meant you were most likely the carrier of some virulent disease such as Syphilis or Cholera, and I wouldn’t want some dirty bitch touching my bread; but what about now, in the time of condoms and sleazy hotels? Prostitution is far safer than it once was, yet still has that same stigma attached to it.

Personally, I see Prostitution as a form of power, as do most women. You are literally forcing a man to pay extravagant amounts of money for something so basal, for such a basic human instinct. There is literally no greater satisfaction than for a woman to be placed in that position of power over a man. They are literally begging for sex – so much so that they have to pay for it.

But then you have the powers that be in parliament saying that it should be banned for the safety of the woman. I think that is semi-bullshit. Bullshit for the fact that most women can care for themselves, and it is their choice what they wish to do with their lives (and in this economic climate – some don’t really have a choice), but probably safer because of the abuse women have had to face in the name of their profession. The solution is easy: Why not just provide a safe outlet for both the women and men? I have no problem with a government run brothel – but most conservatives probably would, and nothing is so important that votes are risked in the next election.

Feminism has come so far, but it has also contradicted itself. They fought for the eradication of brothels in the 19th Century and for the most part they got it (In the UK, the act of selling sex is legal, but there are so many restrictions that it’s barely possible. It’s like being allowed to eat blue apples... not really possible), but did they really succeed in liberating women? Sure, they got rid of the White Slavery and Sex Trafficking (although underground activities still goes on today), but did they really give full and equal rights to a woman? Do we really have full rights to our bodies? If Prostitution is legalized, it opens doors for regulation, for an input of laws designed to retain the dignity and safety of the workers. Now sex is sold on the proverbial Black Market.

So my point: If stripping is widely accepted, then why not prostitution?

xXx

Archive (3/5/2009): Behind every great woman...

...is an even greater man?

I am one of those self believing natural feminists who value not the idea of bra burning and radical revolution-like changes, but of the role women play in society, whether it be a 1950’s home maker or the successful deputy Prime Minister Julie Gillard. It is what they contribute to society which I value, classifying me as a feminist, but a more conservative one. But even I have to put my foot down when I see movies such as “The Women” and even “Sex and the City”, both of which are supposed to be about successful, independent women who don’t need the validation of men. But are they really?

Take for example, “The Women”. The film literally does not show a male until the closing scenes when a woman gives birth to a boy; there isn’t even a male extra in wide shots of the busy New York streets. The movie is supposed to be about women in power, not necessarily professionally, but in control of their lives, hence the reason no man was visible. But I could help but notice that the entire storyline revolved around men and how to get revenge, suck up to one at work or depend on one for the source of income for a young, flourishing family. No man was seen, but one was always present in their conversations, emotions, and all the basic motivation for the character’s actions. It showed women cut up over broken marriages, women desperately trying to cling to their youth as they run a cutting edge-fashion magazine under an idealistic male boss, women depending on the support of their husbands as they go through their fifth pregnancy in the hopes of finally being “blessed” with a boy. The same can be seen with Sex and the City; Powerful women who seek the presence of a man to complete them. It’s such bullshit.

I am a student who barely has time to see her friends, let alone have a boyfriend, so the time I dwell on men is very little, but I can’t help but wonder why it is most of my friends seek only that of a male companion. Is it so difficult to be satisfied with being narcissistic enough to actually be happy with whom you are without a man? We are surrounded by a culture, whether it be typical Australian or the culture Hollywood has instilled upon us (although these days the two have merged in the slow Americanisation of the world), that insists we not die alone and find someone to share our life with. Women who are 35 and single are seen as outcasts, looked down upon by society for being alone despite the fact they may have a blossoming career. I am 19, yet my own friends and family think I am the black sheep for not actually being interested in a relationship. Why should I? These are the best years of your life – I don’t want to have to live them with the lingering expectation of “something more” or “something completing”.

I also wish to mention a comment in my Political Journalism class made last week by a girl who raised the issue of Sarah Palin’s feminist beliefs. Overall, Palin was unclear over her answers, giving different responses each time she was asked of her feminist ideas, and this girl found that puzzling – is she one or not? Now I can understand fully why Sarah Palin was so hesitant about giving an honest answer – feminism is still a taboo subject in such divided societies as America. On the one hand she would be criticised by conservative men (and even women) over the liberal idea that women are the “master gender” if she were to answer in the affirmative (because of course all feminists are radical feminists), but one the other, more liberal people would criticise her for being too “conservative” and not appreciating the genders equally if she was to answer in the negative. Feminism has such a stigma attached to it; most people see feminism only as the radical extremists who go around bashing men, having sex with women and burning their undergarments because history has not taught them any better. So if I was asked the same question by the press, I would be hesitant to answer also – wouldn’t you? Like the old saying goes “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you label yourself a feminist these days, people will judge you for it.

I just think it’s time the judgement ends. We live in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs, yet a woman who freely speaks of her self-belief gets criticised. Modern Liberal democracies contradict themselves in many ways, but today, this one point just got to me.

Archive (26/2/2009): Compassion in the political spectrum

Those who know me well enough (and those, I suppose who have only just met me), would know that I am a narcissistic semi know-it-all who can rarely keep silent when it comes to expressing my beliefs and certain views I hold of various people. I actually learned today that Narcissism can be a Personality Disorder, in which the more severe forms were axiomatic in both Hitler and Stalin...just a little fun fact. The point of this entry, however, is to address compassion and self-censorship when it comes to proverbially disembowelling (nice image for you) others publically, humiliating the target, and in most cases, the shooter.

My example this week is Dr. Peter Van Onselen, who is fast coming to be my professional idol. He is an Political scientist, who has received both his Masters and PhD in Political science. He is the example of one of the few people who have made something of themselves with only their single BA – don’t kid yourself and expect anything the same if you’re graduating your Arts degree and seek a decent job. It won’t happen. You wasted your money. Arts degrees mean shit these days unless they are attached to a 2nd BA like Law/Education/Business/Psychology etc, or followed up with honours and Masters. Back to my point; Dr. Van Onselen has become a well received political commentator and analyst, writing Op.Eds for Australia’s largest papers, as well as having released three books on Howard and the Liberal Party. Overall, a household name when it comes to Politics. Well, at least he has become lately.

His latest offering, Liberals and Power: The Road Ahead, is a manifesto, if you will, of the Liberals and their plans for the future and eventual re-election. As a standard, Onselen requested Julie Bishop (The deputy leader of the opposition) to write an essay entry for the text. However, what he received was written not by her but by her Chief of staff, Murray Hanson, with chunks of it lifted right out of a speech by New Zealand Businessman Rodger Kerr made in 1999 without any sort of acknowledgement (all students know what a crime this is; referencing’s a bitch). I mean, if it was me, I would be psycho about it too. If I was releasing a book which was to be received by the public as the future of the opposition, I would be pretty pissed off the deputy leader couldn’t be assed writing it herself, let alone proof reading. Now, Hansen took full responsibility, but it makes little difference. This event occurred only a month after Bishop was in a plagiarising scandal with a speech she had made ripping off an entry in the Wall Street Journal. Bishop’s a lazy knob-head, and I say that knowing that no one else will read this, because I know I could probably count on one hand the losers who actually read my crappy notes, but Van Onselen went one step further. He doesn’t write a crappy blog for Facebook, he writes for the Sunday Times.

His reaction was a little extreme; “Julie Bishop has the stench of political death about her” and so forth. Wow. Harsh much? Now I initially applauded him for having the guts to speak out about something which until then had been mostly confined to jokes in Parliament house, but then I thought again. His entire article had absolutely no compassion whatsoever. Most people who know politics know she is not all up to the job of deputy, but confronted with her, we would not tell her; because it is our humanity which would give her a second (or third..or fifth) chance. I mean, there are ways, and there are ways. His response from the public was just that; ”Peter van Onselen, we are all sick of your self-promoting, ubiquitous presence”. People can sense an asshole, they’re not all stupid. Bishop herself addressed Van Onselen directly, labeling him a “Political stalker” with an “unhealthy obsession”. To be honest I agree with her.

His first lecture last week revolved around his criticisms of the political spectrum and its visibility in today’s media. Again and again he reverted back to Bishop, and at first I did not know why. I had already known she was a bit of a discredited outcast (can you guess the interest rate today folks?), but hardly worthy of repeated mention in a room full of soon-to-be academics. I did my research and found out about Van Onselen’s personal involvement and then understood his side, but not the underlying venom in the words he spat. He then went on to appear on Lateline which I also watched, crediting her as deputy shadow minister “In name only”. She’s a smart woman, perhaps not deputy worthy, but not virulent bitching either. Enough is enough. I think Van Onselen should go on hiatus for a while so people stop resenting him and his omniscient presence in today’s media. As it is now, he is too overexposed; if you read the paper carefully, or have been for years, his name will at least ring a bell. He is supposed to be a Liberal, but here he is criticising one of their prominant leaders. He is not acting as a political analyst, but as a political aggravator; however all he seems to be aggravating are the people he is supposed to be informing. Time to hang up the pencil and hide under a rock I'd say.

Ash OUT!

xx

Archive (26/2/2009): How far is too far?

How far is too far?

One of my units this semester at uni involves looking at the Political representation in the media. I have always been interested in journalism, and nearly chose it as my course 3 years ago, but decided against it for teaching. Anyway, a question asked by my lecturer got me to thinking? Does the media go too far concerning politicians and their personal “activities”? At first I answered no, because deciding to dedicate your life to national politics generally elevates you to near celebrity status, so whatever is posted, whether it be in a gossip magazine, an article in the newspaper, or general propaganda from the opposition, should be accepted and pretty much expected (exhibit A: Julie Bishop) as part of the territory.

But then I realised something that blew my initial theory out the window: I learned of Bill Clinton long before I learned of Brian Burke. Is that right? Even now, having studied both, Clinton is more of a presence in my mind (In the gay American accent: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”) than Burke will ever be. Most who read this would probably never even have heard of him, or at least the kind of dodgy, corrupt, money laundering West Australian Premier that he was. Now when you think about it, when we live in a Federation, where most of our lives are concerned by the State Government rather than the Federal one, why is it that the private life of a President on the other side of the planet has become far more of a household scandal than that of the indiscretions of Brian Burke, who ran our state and educated our kids? Does it really matter all that much? Who cares if Josh Brogden self harmed? It is his choice; his decision; his life.

JFK and Clinton philandered. Whatever. I’m sure, just like Cousins and the drug scandal of ‘06/’07, that a hell of a lot more have done it, just not having being caught. They were the presidents of the United States for Christ’s sake. But most of all they are human. I’m not condoning cheating, but people have to stop idealising them, and start treating politicians like people, warts and all. People make mistakes; hell, I’ve made plenty, but I don’t see my indiscretions being splashed across page 1. If people look for a scandal, they will find one (Exhibit B – the latest offerings by the New York Times Art department – apparently the artists wanted Black people to hate him). Kevin Rudd walked into a strip joint; does that suddenly make him a baby-eating anti-Christ? No! That makes him human. What annoys me is that making every aspect of a politician’s personal life on show makes them more human than everyone else. Like Orwell’s infamous quote “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

“All people are human, but some people are more human than others”

Now that’s just tacky!