Bakir for MP

Throughout the entire Corby Saga people left right and center have been speculating on why Gold Coast businessman Ron Bakir decided to be the frontman for the free Schapelle effort, spending considerable personal funds in the process. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as to any ulterior motives he may or may not have had as the "self appointed white knight," as what he is doing is admirable - however I have received exclusive information that casts this into doubt.

My sources within the National Party have informed me that Ron Bakir approached the Queensland Nats asking to join the party, and to be granted preselection for a Gold Coast seat at the next state election. The move has some support, but state president Terry Bolger is hesitant given that Bakir has been bankrupted multiple times and as a result is not popular with some Gold Coast locals.

It is therefore conceivable that Ron Bakir is using the publicity and kudos he is receiving for his part in the Corby affair to enhance his political potentcy. If this is indeed his motive and they aren't just coincidental events, Bakir must be forced to come clean to the Australian public.

I will be on the phone to the Courier Mail tomorrow morning. Let as many people know as you can via posts on your blogs and eventually someone will get to the bottom of this. More details as they become available.

Update: Everyone buy the Courier Mail tomorrow, or keep an eye on their website.

Update 2: More here.

Shooting Corby - in the foot

The media and public opinion frenzy that I discussed in my last post was probably counter-productive. In what is possibly one of the best articles on the entire fiasco, the editor of the Jakarta Post has suggested that Corby would have been given a much lighter sentence if it had not been for the hysteria, especially the calls for intervention and those slamming the Indonesian justice system. He also notes there was no way Corby was ever going to be sentenced to death, that was a myth perpetuated by the media.

"...looking back now, we wonder, hypothetically, how many years Corby would have received if there had not been so much public pressure and publicity supposedly waged on her behalf in Australia during the trial. Going by the Mexican woman's case, Corby should have been given three or four years."

Great work guys.

Also in Corby news, the family and Schapelle herself are doing the right thing and rejecting interference into the Indonesian government and courts by saying they do not want a prisoner exchance or a pardon, despite Downer and others saying they are her best shot. I saw the articles last night but they are lost under today's mountain. She has signed for an appeal though.

Online Opinion has a piece on the supporter hysteria.

Schapelle Corby Inc.

No, this is not a dig at Ron Bakir - I actually think he's awesome. This is just a snapshot of the complete and utter hysteria that has followed the verdict - the triumph of emotion over pragmatism, fact and common sense. You can see it everywhere and it's frankly a cultural embarrassment. I even got hate mail for that piece I did on Friday night.

Discussion has been rife in the last 12 hours after I copied the last article onto LJ, take a squiz. About a dozen Australian blogs have posts on the subject but I'm not going to do a metapost here, Saint has a good roundup of the very divided blogosphere. FarisQC is actually coherent.

Before we launch into the hysteria I should clear a few things up and dispel some myths and such that surround this case, that I have to keep repeating:

Indonesia does not have a "guilty until proven innocent" system, it is very similar to ours in that respect, but different in others.

20 years is lenient in comparison to what most people get for the same crime in Indonesia, not in comparison to Australian laws where it's 10 maximum. My point was that she was lucky to get what she got given the circumstances.

You can actually get seriously good money for Australian cannabis in Bali.

The Bashir and Corby cases are completely different and cannot be compared.

The "Boycott Bali" idea is an absurd one. All this will do is punish the innocent Indonesian people who rely on tourism to survive.

Corby's conversion is irrelevant because the judge is Christian, Indonesia is Muslim and Bali is Hindu.

The Bali bombers were sentenced to life imprisonment or death. They actually killed more Indonesians than tourists combined.

"How would you feel if you were Corby?" arguments don't work on me.

Continue reading 'Schapelle Corby Inc'The media have really gone to town on this, it is staggering how much publicity the whole fiasco is getting. It is not even worth 1/1000 of the airtime it has received. This is the death of journalism, we should be hearing about more important things, like the IR reforms and such. This isn't news, it's fodder for the tabloids to pump up ratings. It wouldn't be so bad if they were just reporting the facts in a responsible, professional manner, but instead they are perpetuating the hype to unprecedented levels in order to drive for more and more sales from the hordes jerking their knees simultaneously. It's a bonanza, so they aren't going to stop until the hysteria subsides - and they are doing their best to delay that - until then it's in your face every bulletin every single day.

This is the front page of today's Sunday Times:

Note the headline "20 years in hell"? That is the headline for the entire section dedicated to Corby, which amasses over four other pages. It's biased, superficial, emotive money getting posing as proper objective journalism. Lets take a closer look.



Big heading across pages 4 and 5 "Help our friend beat this torture." - immediately implies her condition is torture, invoking emotional feeling in the reader which overpowers rationality, making the reader want to help out their "friend" - automatically making you identify with her. How do you help? Well, you keep reading, of course.



Big photo of her scantly clad with surfing gear right in the middle of page 4 - she's your friend she needs your help, she's gong to spend 20 years in hell, and she's attractive, look. Look at her! Come on, how can you not be upset now, she must be innocent! Get angry!

Sub-heading for the main article is "Family worried but locals want life term." Instantly anti-Indonesia - make a generalisation about the "locals", most of whom don't even have anything to do with this, and you turn the readers against the lot of them.

Then there is an article about the two WA QCs that have been asked to do the appeal "WA silks asked to help." Wow! State pride! They asked US!

Of course there is also the "Charities report backlash" story tucked next to the giant media crush picture in small font headline. They don't really want you to read that.



Turn over to page 7 and the headline screams "Cousin's anguish." Hurrah, let's bring in an obscure relative who hasn't really made much of an appearance get an entire article to herself. Oh, she's from Perth, that's why. Wouldn't have guessed. "Perth relative says battle is far form over." Tally ho! It's on! Don't give up lads, we can still get the Indonesians to capitulate and bow to our will, Howard will come around eventually! Help us!

Then of course immediately below this is the only sane, non-sensationalist article of the entire coverage. "Verdict was fair and just: judge." Well, seeing as they have just convinced the readers with emotion that the verdict was anything but fair and just, the judge is obviously a bastard. They even have an unflattering photo of him. Look, he's funny-looking, Asian, old and thinks that hot chick is guilty, he obviously sucks and is wrong!

This is actually a good article, the judge sticks to his guns, stays consistent and provides a clear, legal case justifying his decision, and isn't intimidated by stupidity from Corby's mother.

"despite Corby's mother, Rosleigh's, claims in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, that the judges would never sleep and had taken the word of a liar, Judge Sirait said he had slept "very well last night"."

He is possibly the most level-headed person quoted other than possibly the QCs and legal experts. He's just doing his job, there is really no reason for the hysterical vilification he has been subjected to, which, to his credit, he has largely ignored.

Here is the main article online, it's absurd how sensationalised and emotion-prompting it is. Like the rest of the coverage it is designed to make the audience feel rather than think. There are graphic descriptions of life inside the cell, which does suck, but is far from the the inhumane treatment everyone is trumpeting, try as the article might to exaggerate it. "Kerobokan Jail has little entertainment to quell the boredom of life behind bars." It's a Colin Barnett style prison, what did you expect? Then we finally get to the point of what they want you to do to help, they want information that could help clear her name, of course. But The Sunday Times makes you read the entire article to get to that.

According to the Herald Sun, the other inmates are "giving her hell", and a national day of protesting and possibly a minutes silence are being planned. The ridiculous "Boycott Bali" slogan will be sprayed everywhere. Actually this post is a cracker for all the wrong reasons, just read it and put your head in your hands at the sheer stupidity of some of these people. See, what I said in the last post is true, this is showing a side of Australia we do not want to see. Of course they also decide it's relevant that she's a beauty student for some absurd reason. Oh and here comes the paranoia too.

"Meanwhile, thousands of travelers are having their luggage plastic-wrapped because of fears they will be used as unwitting drug couriers. "

Wonderful. Oh and don't forget the "journey into hell" in photographs. I'm so not opening that link, the ones of cute, crying Corby that are supposed to invoke yet more emotional reactions are nauseating enough.

Courier mail reports that talkback radio callers are saying they will turn Bali into a "ghost town" and then ups the stakes with this choice quote:

"an emotional Lily Lubis, who headed the defence team, said Corby, who has already spent eight months behind bars, could die if forced to serve the term in an Indonesian jail. "I know for sure she will not survive this sentence,""

It's becoming like the boy who cried wolf. They also take the cake for emotive photos in their article on the grief of Corby's supporters. You know, the people who thought she would actually get not guilty and are now devastated"?

The Daily Telegraph has a look "insides Corby's nightmare" "the hellhole she will call home." Please spare us from the hyperbole. They even have a "Will you still go to Bali?" poll.

The Age has several dozen different articles, each one with one of those annoying emotive photos as thumbnail next to them. I'm not even going to bother reading past the headlines, one of them says that an appeal risks her being given the death sentence - so lets not have an appeal, lets exert pressure on the Indonesian government and circumvent the whole messy thing!

The Sydney Morning Herald has an article mostly about her praying and seeking comfort in the spirit and all that, includes a picture of her praying while being escorted by guards. There's some really silly quotes too:

"Corby's sister, Mercedes, said: "Schapelle doesn't want to spend one day in jail anywhere. She's innocent. What's the difference between a jail in Indonesia and a jail in Australia for an innocent person. She should not be in any jail anywhere.""

Of course, but she's been found guilty, so accept that or work on the appeal. And about Boycott Bali? Well, a friend of Corby has rejected the idea, that should say something.

The Australian is much less given to hysteria, but still has some videos and an article about the blame game in the aftermath of the trial defeat.

That's the ridiculous media hype dealt with, what do the people who are being sucked in by it think? Let's have a look for some of the best, though not for too long or I may have to tear my eyes out.

"I am only one person but I have a voice. I am not waiting for Government action - I am boycotting all Indonesian products and I will not be traveling to or through Indonesia, ever."
I wonder how long that will last when she realises how much is made in Indonesia.

"I will never fly Qantas again."
Paranoia ahoy!

"I am outraged in the verdict and think australia should black ban travel to Bali. I will never ever go there nor will anyone I know. Im in total shock at their lack of interest in actual evidence. Shame on BALI. What happened to innocent till proven guilty."
Um, I think you missed the fact that the Indonesian justice system actually does work on an innocent until proven guilty basis.

"AN ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE... i am lost for words."
This got printed? Oh, its the Herald Sun, right.

"The mastermind of the Bali bombings that killed and maimed hundreds of innocent people gets out in two years. An innocent young lady accused of importing a few dollars worth of drugs into a drug exporting capital gets twenty years. Now that is supposed to be justice? Our Government wants us to accept this verdict? No way!"
I have to repeat myself again.

"I think the Indonesians should just train a monkey to hand down the verdicts seeing as how all they need to know how to do is say 'guilty'. What do they need a judge for?"
OK, all the bad things they tell me about Hun readers are true. You, sir, are exhibiting the epitome of this entire sorry saga.

"I will never visit the country of Bali again."
LOL. That's the best one yet.

"We will not be going now, although nothing may happen, there is that risk that we could lose our children & pets, loved ones & everything we have worked for."
Someone think of the pets!!

"John Howard wants us to accept the verdict. Well I say NO you wisel. If the PM was in her shoes, then I would accept any verdict they gave him."
Your logic is undeniable.

"because of the australian federal police commissioner lack of support for a fellow austalian he should br sacked."
So should that letters editor.

"Indonesian justice - what a contradiction in terms - in the eyes of those so called judges she was guilty as soon as she entered the court room - send in the SAS to break her out of jail."
I did mention there were people like this...

"I dont give a flying fuck what the Indonesian judges say... hearing what they based their sentence on, I can only say that I'd love to see them done in their own court system for the same crime... just so I can sit back and watch how THEY feel going through it all."
Such selective compassion.

"If the people in the Bali tourist industry don't like [a boycott], they can leave their shitty country and get jobs elsewhere."
Go where exactly? A lot of them a are very poor, and they had nothing to do with this at all. Why should they be forced into poverty over this?

"Indonesian law is fucked, i will never visit their fucking country ever, if we are supposed to have such a great relationship with these wankers why don't they pay attention to the fucking flaws in the case. Not only was the verdict harsh and unfair, the support and cheering from locals was disgusting, they can come here and most likely let off of any punishment, we go there do something wrong an we're up for death, for such a close neighbour the have severly pissed off the australian public, which cannot be a good thing."
Generalisations, ignorance, xenophobia... where do I begin?

OK that's enough.
It is a really sad situation where a country will believe everything that is put in front of them by an opportunistic media hell-bent on capitalising on this case to boost sales. As I said before, the Australian people as a collective should be ashamed of their conduct during this disgraceful saga, as should the media. This is why we have a Howard government, because people just do not use their heads and behave in a sensible fashion, rather they are driven along by hype into exactly where those creating it want them.

Very sad state of affairs.

They're Liberals, what did you expect?

Tim Dunlop has a cracker of a post on the philosophies behind the new IR "reforms" due to come into parliament once the Liberals seize control of the senate in July. In this post he spells out the dichotomous attitudes on IR policy between the left and the right. While I think the left/right comparison is too superficial, the dichotomy certainly holds for the Labor and Liberal parties - and Tim has the thought processes and priorities of these two groups dead right.

What is also very clear is that this is not an unexpected move at all. As Tim rightly points out, this is Howard's chance, with control of the senate, to fulfill his ambitions and shape Australian policy in his own image. The Liberal party has always been about this sort of policy and we should have, and many of us did, see this coming on the horizon as soon as the senate majority was confirmed. The Liberals are interested in forcing their oh-so-precious economy into the sky at all costs. Businesses must have more freedom to gain more revenue, more profit, pay more tax, sell more goods and services and increase their stock prices. This has the net effect of making the economy better. But it has a cost.

With business having their leashes loosened they will be able to cut more costs to up their profit margins, and further dilute the power of those annoying union reps that keep leading protests when they won't give sane pay and conditions to their employees. Business under 100 employees are able to randomly axe workers they don't like or who have become surplus to requirements, and increase casualisation (you know, that pond scum that you call to do work at odd hours and sack afterwards) to fill the gaps. Probation periods are increased to six months, so if you have a job after uni down at Woolies you have to wait six months, six months that you probably don't with all those rent, bill and fee inspectors leaving notices under your door, before you start getting reasonable pay and enough hours to balance the books. The disabled are going to be hit even harder, and then be doubly screwed with the new welfare reforms that mean low pay, low hour casual jobs count as employment, and you lose your benefits. Howard is also continuing to annihilate unions, as has and always will be his policy.

Is a better economy worth these and further injustices? Hell no.

Having shown that the government is not only illogical but also dishonest yesterday, it is unlikely that the Liberals will admit that this is actually their game, as Tim Dunlop points out.

"Put simply, most workers will be worse off. The second thing is that conservatives will never admit this."

That's exactly right, they will stick to the same rhetoric they have always stuck to and swindle Australians out of the pay, benefits and quality of life they deserve, while lining the pockets of already wealthy businessmen. The most depressing part is that within a year of their implementation Australia will have forgotten them, and so many that were screwed over by them will again vote Liberal. All you can do is scream "Why?" into the heavens and weep for a nation that doesn't look out for itself and doesn't listen to common sense.

Update: Mark has another excellent IR post.

The Corby media circus

For those living under a rock, Schapelle Corby has been found guilty of smuggling cannabis into Indonesia, and has been sentenced to a very lenient 20 years in a Bali jail. This result was far from unexpected, it was always close to a certainty that she would be found guilty, and always unlikely that she would be sentenced to death. Now, I do not know if she is innocent or guilty. There are those who say the evidence is conclusive, and there are others who say she is definitely not guilty. But the reality is that no matter what your opinion, the Indonesian courts have handed down a guilty verdict and slapped her with 20 years. There is now nothing that can, or should, be done by anyone in Australia. It is time to move on.

Of course many people do not like the idea of moving on. They want to fight it out tooth and nail and use any and every possible avenue of getting Corby home, at all costs. I have said it before, and I will say it again, it is not our place to interfere with the laws, sentences or judicial procedure of another sovereign nation. The war is over, we lost. Yes there are appeals, and they should be used if Corby decides to risk a possible heavier sentence, and yes Australia should provide legal representation - but that is the only acceptable avenue left.

The demands from the Australian public and the huge media fiasco that has been calling for her release almost since day one have been disgraceful. Some have sought to circumvent the entire Indonesian legal system by calling for the Australian government to intervene to secure her acquittal by strong-arming the Indonesian courts and government. Some are demanding a treaty be signed, in an unprecedented and thoroughly unrealistic move, to allow her to serve her time in Australia. A few even think we should pull the plug on our aid programs or send in a SAS team to liberate the poor, innocent, white, Christian, attractive girl with huge tracts of open land. It's hysteria, unadulterated hysteria, that ignores the pragmatic realities of international relations and nation jurisdiction. The trial by media and its associated unsavoury affects on talkback radio, letters to the editor and everyday conversation about the warped state of affairs portrayed by the hype. Racism, xenophobia, blind patriotism, unfounded assumptions about our Muslim neighbours and state-sanctioned ignorance have come to the forefront and exposed a side of Australia that is detestable, and what's more destestable is that is glossed over as socially acceptable.

The Australian government cannot and should not push for an exception in Corby's case just because public opinion wills it to. When you are overseas you must and will obey their laws and submit to their justice system. It is your responsibility to know what you are going into and weigh up the risks - this includes a perceived dodgy legal system. You are essentially a de-facto citizen of that country while you stay at their pleasure. Australian must respect the jurisdiction of the Indonesian government and courts. We cannot send Downer off to chat with the Indonesian president and convince him to circumvent the courts and pardon Corby - that would be the ultimate farce. John Howard is dead right when he says "when Australians go abroad they are subject to the justice system of the countries they visit." That is the truth of the matter and we must acknowledge it.

The whole Corby saga has been a disgrace and it must stop.

Fool me twice...

Also in Tuesday's question time was a nice piece of illogic from the Prime Minister on the subject of the upcoming workplace relations reforms.

Since some remarks were made by the Member for Perth yesterday, I have had a bit of further research done on the issue of workplace relations reform. It is very revealing research. For example, on 17th June 1996, the Leader of the Opposition said:
"...the government is attacking the very basis of people's living standards... Attack wages and you attack families."

On 8th October 1996, Senator Faulkner, then Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, said:
"In my view, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill signals the end of cooperative industrial relations as we know it today."

The Member for Bantam, not to be forgotten, said:
"I rise to speak on the workplace relations bill, which I strongly believe threatens the very fabric of our society."

Senator Kate Lundy, on 6th November 1996, said:
"...what the bill really means is much lower pay without extra jobs."

The Member for Jagajaga, on 21st November 1996, said:
"There is no question that the workplace relations act, when it is finally brought into play, will make the work environment much harder for women."

And, of course, the most comprehensive of all was the remarks of the Member for Perth, when he said this on 17th October 1995, before the government came to office:
"The Howard model is quite simple. It is all about lower wages; it is about worse conditions; it is about a massive rise in industrial disputation; it is about the abolition of safety nets; and it is about pushing down or abolishing minimum standards."

They were the predictions made nine years ago our then industrial relations reform. Fast forward to today, Mr Speaker, and have a look at what has happened... [blah, blah, brag about how good the economy is, quote some statistics]

I remind the Australian public of those predictions, because undoubtedly, when we release our reforms in the next few days, the same predictions will be made. They will be just as false; they will be just as exaggerated; they will be based on scaremongering and not on fact; and they will be proved by the passage of time to be the complete falsehood and deception of the Australian people that the arguments nine years ago were.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, then chimed in with similar rhetoric:

We have the Labor Party at it again straight away. Yesterday the Member for Perth claimed:
"...so far as they impact on Australian employees and their families, they will have the effect of reducing their wages, stripping their entitlements and removing their safety nets."

One thing about the member for Perth is that he likes to be on message. The problem is that he has been on the same wrong message for the last 10 years... What we are getting is the same old, sad litany of tales from the opposition. They are saying the same things that they said in 1995 and 1996. They were wrong in 1995 and 1996 and they will be wrong in 2005 and 2006."

So, because a set of industrial relations laws that you passed back in 1996 happened to not send the country into a spin and the ALP happened to be off the mark with their predictions, does not mean that entirely different legislation is going to be just as good for the nation as the last one was. Using this as evidence that the new reforms will be good is absurd, and just another attempt to vilify the opposition.

Update: Robert Corr points out that the 1996 reform was actually blocked and eventually passed with many amendments, so it is possible that "the sky has not fallen in because the reforms were blocked." This would make the government not only illogical, but also dishonest.

Mark Bahnisch has more on the reforms and on tonight's Lateline interview with Andrews. As do Flute, Catallaxy and Alex White.

Update 2: Mark runs a post on the possible implications of the reforms, Tim Dunlop examines the underlying philosophies of the dichotomous left/right attitudes towards IR, Liam Hogan and John Quiggan have further analysis. I'll have another post later tonight.

Tales from the hansard #1

Jules was in fine form yesterday, going into battle with the Liberals during parliament question time as they tried to fit snarky, irrelevant comments into their answers.
Exhibit One: De-Anne Kelly.

(Kelly is bragging about how much the government is spending on VP day commemorations. Member for Oxley has attack the Liberal's plan.) Kelly: "I notice this has not held the member for Oxley back at all... This is another attempt by the Labor Party to denigrate our commemorations program for our veterans."

Jules then takes her to task on a point of order for being offensive under page 491, and stands her ground until the speaker forces Kelly to withdraw her comment.

Exhibit Two: Tony Abbot.

(Abbot is talking about what the government is doing to tackle smoking) Abbot: "When this government sees a problem, it acts to address the problem. We never go around determined not to determine a position. We never go around decided to be undecided. We never go around, like the Leader of the Opposition, resolved the be irresolute. All powerful to be impotent!"

Julia Gillard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this was, surprisingly, a health question about smoking, so I do not see how the minister's later remarks can be in any way relevant. We know he does not know much about health, but a whole answer would be interesting."

Abbot then tries to weasel his way out of it by saying he was quoting Winston Churchill.

Abbot: "...I was actually quoting some statements of Winston Churchill. Back in 1938 in the House of Commons he said of the then government's indecision and irresolution that they went on a strange paradox, above all else, "All powerful to be impotent""

I suppose that makes it OK to go off topic and make a slight at the opposition then. Sigh.
Read the whole thing, some of it is actually quite fascinating.

Queensland Nationals leadership stoush?

This just in from today's Townsville Bulletin editorial:

"After three years in the chair as State National Party Leader Lawrence Springborg... looks like being set up for a challenge. The challenger will be none other than Mr Springborg's deputy, Jeff Seeney. At the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's funeral in Kingaroy Mr Seeney was said to be positively upbeat, slapping backs and shaking hands. This was in stark contrast to his leader who, with chin dragging on the ground, looked like he'd been trampled by a herd of buffalo."

Beatup or is there some merit in this?
More information as my sources gather it.

Shudder

This is why I don't go to protests.

1 in 3 soldiers want out, Germany swings right

One in three Australian defence personnel want to quit their jobs - and not over Iraq either. A recent survey of 8000 military and civilian personnel reveals that they are unsatisfied with the pay and conditions along with competition from the private sector where many feel they could have better careers.

"And more than half said they would stay in the defence force longer if there were more flexible work practices and "career respite", citing the level of childcare and support for spouses as crucial to their decision. Among those who had left, the top 10 reasons for quitting were the desire to stay in one place, separation from family, ability to make a career change, better civilian career prospects, lack of job satisfaction, the urge to live in their own home, little reward for overtime, desire for more challenging work, impact on family life and lack of confidence in senior defence leadership."

The navy has the most unhappy campers with 37% of sailors surveyed saying they were considering quitting. 32% from the army and 24% in the air force. 52% said they didn't think the army had enough resources, 70% said there has been "a decline in military values and standards."

Of course Howard insisted on the news last night that morale remains high and there is really nothing to worry about, and Defence Minister Robert Hill attempted to trivialise the troops concerns saying something to the effect of "they want better pay and conditions, just like the rest of the population." De-Anne Kelly then had the nerve to say that this government looks after its veterans in parliament today.

Howard also didn't miss the chance to shamelessly plug the economy.

"In a strong economy ... with full employment and extremely competitive salaries, it's always a challenge to retain highly qualified, ambitious people in the defence forces"

In other concerning news, the German election could mean a landslide victory for the conservative opposition, the Christian Democrats, with opinion polls predicting 46% for the CDU, against only 29% for the incumbent Social Democrats. Yesterday the CDU swept to power in the North Rhine-Westphalia state election with a massive victory - breaking a 39 year Social Democrat stranglehold.

Christian and conservative in the same sentence is never a good thing, let alone in the context of a political party. This election should be watched very closely by those not wanting yet another potential theocracy. Read the linked article, it gives a good roundup of the political goings-on.

I won't vote for that Guy

Ms Fits reveals that Australian Idol winner Guy Sebastian, conservative Christian, is opening an anti-abortion counseling clinic. As far as I am concerned, so what? I mean I don't agree with the far-right Family First Party position on abortion, but women should at least have the option of hearing it if they so desire.

Ms Fits voted for Guy in Australian Idol and now wants her vote back. So let's see, you voted for a singer in a singing competition and you want to retract your vote on account of his politics? Right... that makes perfect sense.

These things need to be kept separate when voting for someone in something unrelated, or when talking about them and their views. That goes for politics too. So what if Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary? So what if John Howard has huge eyebrows? So what if Amanda Vanstone, Michael Moore and Kim Beazley are fat? So what if John Kerry "looks French"? So what if a presidential candidate has a good military record? So what if the Greek Eurovision band are homosexual, Jewish, black, Bush-loving amputees?* They are all completely irrelevant factors and should be ignored.

*Disclaimer: They aren't

Eurovision insanity

Dave Murray live blogging on the Danish Eurovision Song Contest team:

"I have a friend from Denmark. She just came online 3 minutes ago and said this: "I'm sorry." Come on Princess Mary, abuse your royal privileges and have this man killed."

I laughed so much.

Flute and Alex have more live blogging of this excruciatingly bad pop culture phenomenon.

Star Wars 3 and why Chrenkoff is wrong

Ok, so I saw the movie on Wednesday night at 12:05am with a number of friends in a packed cinema complete with dressups and a big red beach ball, and you all, or at least Harry, want to know what I thought of it.

Well, there's an interesting question. It was undoubtedly the best of the three prequels, that much was very clear. It's being hailed by people everywhere as being almost on par with the original trilogy - which is definitely over the top, they aren't even in the same league - but definitely a big improvement. It was much darker and placed much more emphasis on the plot and the chain of events that led to the downfall of both Anakin Skywalker and the Republic with key philosophical lines interwoven to show the why as well as the how. Some good acting performances with improvements from everyone, better gags and better plot. Unfortunately it still had the superficial character development, abysmal dialogue and excessive special effects.

Continue reading 'Star Wars 3 and why Chrenkoff is wrong' (spoilers beyond)The fatal flaw with the movie and the preqel trilogy as a whole is the characterisation, made bad by woeful direction and the poor script. The way lines were delivered was a big problem. Lucas had good quality actors at his disposal in McGregor, McDiarmid, Jackson, Lee and Christensen, who proved himself to be at least slightly competent, but he wasted their abilities. The line delivery was wrong, wrong, wrong - I had to stop myself from crying out in anguish when was could have been a great series of lines was rendered impotent. They weren't forceful enough, it was all too relaxed and flat when that was not the mood of the scene and those that were delivered forcefully were uncontrolled and out of place, the wrong words were emphasised and the timing could not have been worse for some of them. Even McDiarmid's comparatively outstanding performance as Palpatine is scarred by Lucas' failures here.

As a result the audience is completely unable to identify with the characters, to in a way feel what they are going through - their fears, their anguish, their elation, their anger, their relief - they don't seem real, they seem like a bunch of actors going through the motions. The audience can't feel the mood of the scene, sometimes even manifested as a physical feeling - there is no tension where there should be, your breath isn't taken away in a sudden realisation in the character's eyes or a gulf between two even when they are only meters apart - nothing like the scenes in Empire Strikes Back when Han is lowered into the vat, or the conversation that leads to "Luke, I am your father", or the Return of the Jedi scene where Leia tells Han she is Luke's brother. In these scenes you are awash with the emotions of every single character that is involved, but in Revenge of the Sith there is nothing, it is flat, lifeless. The closest you get is towards the end when Anakin is lying in front of Obi-Wan and McGregor says "You were the chosen one" and "You were my brother Anakin, I loved you", only to be returned with "I hate you." In that scene you can feel his anguish at having the boy he had trained and had by his side for so many years turn to the dark side and have to be eliminated. He isn't even able to properly finish the job and leaves Anakin burned on the lava bank. It was approaching a great scene, but it just didn't have it to the extent of any in the originals, or of countless other movies. The characters are superficial, shallow and two-dimentional because Lucas just does not allow you to involve yourself with them.

So you just don't care about them. Hell, I cared more when R4 was destroyed at the beginning or when the young jedi holds off numerous clones long enough for Senator Bail Organa to escape than I cared about the principle characters - especially Padame who was the absolute worst of the lot. You see Anakin's dreams of her dying and you almost think "so?" In the birth scene I was waiting for her to die so we could get on with the next one. Every scene involving her is a lowlight of the film, especially when she is in the same room as Anakin. Those scenes are mentally and almost physically excruciating. They encompass almost everything that is wrong with the movie - ridiculous, unbelievable, superficial, shallow, fake, forced, wooden. She is even worse than she was in the previous attempts - at least there she was independent and strong-willed - now she is reduced to a piece of luggage that hangs around being generally annoying as well as a damsel in distress and then goes and dies of a broken heart. "Oh Ani." Oh Lucas, what have you done? Windu was marginally better but still completely flat, predictable and impossible to care about, the only bad thing about his death was that he didn't take Palpatine with him. The scene that followed was another classic example of this movie's failings. One minute Anakin has helped kill Windu and has his head in his hands saying "What have I done?" and the next he has completely submitted himself to the will Palpatine, with absolute resolve too. This happens in a matter of seconds and is completely unbelievable. If this were to be possible, the scene should have been shot differently. His fall to the dark side under Palpatine's spell needed to be emphasised stronger - you had to be able to see it, feel it, hell you needed to almost taste it. Instead you thought "what the?" and chalked up another squandered opportunity.

Instead of substance and depth to his characters and scenes, Lucas tries to dazzle us with special effects and cute and funny gags. These are good, but overdone in the extreme. There are moments of brilliance, such as when R2D2 squirts two battle droids with ink and sets them on fire, deals with a phone that is way too loud and an elevator he keeps messing up with dire consequences, and then tries to zap a battle droid and gets kicked over - all within the first half hour of the film. He was just excellent in every possible way and it really added to the film. Then there was the part where Yoda enters Palatine's chamber and knocks out two red guards against a wall while still looking bored, Chewbacca giving Yoda a piggy back, and the antics of the droids and their personalities. Another moment that wasn't a gag but I still thought was significant was when Palpatine tells Anakin to "search his feelings", which is exactly what he tells Luke to do in Episode V - this is no coincidence. The effects also had their moments. They are cool, but they are no substitute for actual filmmaking. General grievous was a pointless distraction that should never have been brought into the film. He was ridiculous and almost as irritating as Jar Jar Binks, and has far too much screentime, causing the middle of the movie to drag on for ages because you knew he was the next major character to get disposed of after Dooku. It was the epitome of special effects over actual story. He was so one-dimentional it made me cringe, and when he pulled out those four lightsabres and said he had been trained in Jedi arts I almost buried my head in my hands it was so monumentally stupid. Another downside for the special effects was the opening battle - it was crowded, clunky and overdone. There simply was not enough space between the bolts left right and center for any fighters to get anywhere without being nailed within a matter of seconds. The Yoda vs Palpatine in the senate room was another useless overdone sequence, as was the annoyingly long bits involving lava. Unfortunately this is what draws the crowds these days and leaves a section of your average fans raving "it was sooo cool, there were explosions and stuff." It doesn't matter how bad it is, if it makes you money from gullible fools it's a success.

The movie redeems itself a bit by chronicling the chain of events that led to the formation the empire and the rise to absolute power of Palpatine. He is more cunning, opportunistic and manipulative than John Howard could ever aspire to be and those around him don't realise what his endgame is or how they have been playing into his hands the entire three films. To see how he pulls it off and fits all the pieces of his puzzle together is wonderful. But still it is woefully predictable, at least I thought so - I know others did not. I predicted what a scene would ultimately contain well in advance - who would escape when, who would die, who would decide what, what the next bit of Palpatine's plan was, etc. I don't know if this means I was more perceptive or whether this was yet another flaw. Anyway I thought the basic plot from Palpatine's perspective was marvelously constructed, even if the rest and the details were badly put together and delivered. McDiarmid carries it well and brings out some reasonable scenes with Anakin, and also has the lion's share of the important lines which for the most part he doesn't fail in getting out coherently.

I think it's OK. On the higher levels of OK, but I can't say it's "good". It's well above average certainly, but not "good." I think there needs to be a Wikipedia entry for the "Lucas effect."

Now to the second part of this gigantic post: What is Chrenkoff on about and why is he wrong?

Arthur Chrenkoff wrote an open letter to George Lucas expressing his annoyance at Lucas' political implications throughout the series. To Communist Poland refugee Chrenkoff, Star Wars was about the struggle against communism.

"...all of us who saw the "Star Wars" trilogy throughout the communist world saw it as an entertaining, yet still nonetheless powerful commentary on the current world events. We simply couldn't escape the conclusion that the militaristic and freedom-crushing Empire with its legions of stormtroopers is a futuristic version of the Soviet Empire, which had conquered and enslaved hundreds of millions of people like myself. For us, of course, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and all the others fighting to restore the Republic were brave oppositionists and freedom fighters in the truest sense of the word. ...for us it embodied the hope... that one day the specter of totalitarianism will vanish and we will be free again."

Setting aside the nauseating "freedom" rhetoric, this is a legitimate interpretation - it just happens to be one that Lucas' has now proved wrong. Of course our dear Arthur is not so happy with Lucas' actual political message and instead loses all common sense, essentially accusing him of siding with the terrorists (you didn't see that one coming, did you).

"...to [Lucas], the Empire was the United States of America, and if that's the case, then the brave rebels could only be all those people around the world fighting the American Empire - the Castros, Che Guevaras, Ho Chi Minhs, Pol Pots, and by extension, the Brezhnevs and the Mao Tse Tungs of this world."

He then goes on a predictable right-wing tirade saying how Lucas' "rebels" enslaved many people such as himself and then goes onabout how the lovely USA is bringing good stuff, oh I mean "gift of freedom and democracy" of course, to those in Iraq and so on. He then takes the moral high ground with comments like "things that you enjoy every day probably without giving them much thought" and "had the Rebels won, you would have never had a chance to film a critical allegory on your own government." Yes Arthur, this is entirely relevant.

Obiously he is letting his own personal feelings get in the way of common sense here. It's telling that he uses the soviet example rather than the modern Islamist example. Likening the Rebels to all the evils in the world, such as those he listed, because they fought against what he thinks Lucas' empire represents is plain foolishness. Let's have a look at what Lucas' actually said, shall we.

""Star Wars" director George Lucas says that although he wrote the original film during the Vietnam War, his six-part saga could apply to the war in Iraq.
"In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship," Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere."
The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
"On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons.""

Lucas is not saying that the current USA is the Evil Empire that the Rebels were fighting, the current USA is the Republic portrayed in Episode 1, as The Bellman aptly points out. Lucas is not speaking of the here and now, his is issuing a warning for the future. Watch in Episode 3 how Palpatine has been and continues to manipulate the senate. First he starts a war involving his cronies the Trade Federation. He has an army of clones for the republic fighting an army of droids for them. By Episode 2 he is is Supreme Chancellor, which is the leader of the senate, and has the senate worried enough by the war to give him emergency powers to better combat the threat to the Republic. This is basically the equivalent to giving the Preisdent extra powers to combat the communists and Vietnam, or in our case the terrorists and Iraq. As the war escalated Palpatine was granted more and more powers to bring the war to a close.

The last stumbling block that stopped him from gaining absolute power was the Jedi order. The Jedi order in the real world are political dissenters and activists that keep the government accountable and oppose their policy where they think it is wrong, and do their best to stop it. They are to safeguard the country and its principles. That is why Obi-Wan says to Anakin "my allegiance is to the Republic... to democracy." As citizens, our duty is to the principles, the ideas, the rights and fundamental pillars our philosophies are based on, not to the leader or government that is in power, whether we voted for them or not. Anakin declared that his allegiance was to the leader of the senate, Palpatine. This is the same as someone declaring their allegiance to a political party over their allegiance to the basic ideas of their country, supporting their leaders even when they know they are wrong, which is why I get steamed up at the "well Bush is elected, we should respect him as the President now" attitude. You can't do that, you have to call him on his bad policy every time he makes one, and it's the same if the one you liked got in. That is what Lucas is saying.

Palpatine was able to destroy his opponents, the Jedi, and then vilify them enough for the senate to have no sympathisers to the Jedi ideals and instead support him in whatever he wanted. Having being credited with the immense victory in a war that he created for this very purpose, he had enough popular support to mould the Republic into an Empire, with him as emperor. As Padame said, "This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." Palpatine did not need a coup to seize power, he was able to manipulate the senate, and the people, to the point where they embraced his tyranny. Lucas thinks there is a remote danger that this could happen with the path the USA is taking, and he is warning people to not let America end up like the Republic. With some of his lines he attacks some of the rhetoric that is being forced upon the American public by comparing it to the rhetoric of Palpatine and the indoctrinated Anakin. Lines like "If you're not with me, you're my enemy" and "I have brought peace, justice, freedom and security to my new Empire" to Obi-Wan from Anakin. The comparisons should be self-evident.

The Rebels are not what the hysterical Chrenkoff says they are - they are those who wish to reform and better a hypothetical future America, should it become, ironically, another Soviet Union. The Star Wars series is a powerful warning to us all, and a warning well placed even if it could have been better conveyed.

The states - that minor inconvenince

Anderson on 7:30 report talking about the ports debarcle.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So if it's so obvious and if the logic is so strong, you've been in government nine years. Why has it taken until now to come to this decision, to come to this view?

JOHN ANDERSON: [Some other stuff] ...Well, at least we've finally got there but we had to have control of the railway network first to justify those investments. I just think the last link in the chain, frankly, would be...

KO: To have a single regulator?

JA: On the ports, yes.

KO: So, you've made that announcement. Have you spoken to the States yet?

JA: No, I haven't.

KO: You want a cooperative arrangement, but you've gone public with it before talking to them?

Typical.

Say it aint so

Mr. Lefty considered joining the ALP.

"I went as far as getting an application form. But you have to promise, if you're ever in a position to hire someone, to only hire union members. What if one doesn't apply? Or what if they're not the best person for the job? Isn't that corrupt?"

Please explain? This is outrageous.

Update: It aint so. Phew.

Anti-Nazi shenanigans

Fight Dem Back is now live.

Q&A

Ask me a question.

M.E/CFS Awareness week

Everyone promote this cause on your blogs ok?

This week (9th-15th) is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Awareness Week in the UK. However, Australia, America and other countries do not have an officially recognized equivalent and in Australia only the M.E/CFS Society of NSW have taken the initiative and launched their own campaign. M.E/CFS is a debilitating medical condition that involves central nervous system dysfunction resulting in neurological problems, muscle pain and severe persistent, recurring exhaustion that cannot be relieved by rest. Many sufferers have their quality of life significantly diminished and 80% are unable to work or attend school. Only 4% will fully recover and 39% will improve after four years

The precise cause for M.E/CFS is not currently known, though research is making significant inroads to finding it. “Published studies continue to demonstrate that the basis lies in abnormalities of the central nervous system and immune system.” There is also evidence to suggest that it can be triggered by viral infections such as glandular fever, viral meningitis, viral hepatitis, and less commonly infection with bacteria, or other organisms like Q fever. In rare cases vaccinations and toxins in the environment can also be triggers.

Once the condition has been triggered it is still very difficult to diagnose due to the nature of the illness and that no tests exist. Doctors need to pay careful attention to the patient’s medical history and consider all displayed symptoms. A series of blood tests can be made to rule out various other diseases, and then certain symptoms must be present and have been reoccuring for at least six months. Information on additional symptoms can be found here, here and here.

There is no cure and no definite treatment as research is still in its infancy but there are a wide variety of them. The most popular, a reportedly most successful, one involves the patient “pacing” themselves to avoid the boom and bust cycle where patients over-extend themselves and relapse – to the point where they are unable to do anything. Graded exercise is another treatment, but has been proved to be ineffective or even counter-productive for the overwhelming majority of patients. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is another treatment strategy that may be helpful.

One of the problems with M.E/CFS, and something that separates it from other conditions, is that it is wildly unpredictable. Not only do symptoms and the effectiveness of different treatments differ between patients, the severity of each individual’s case fluctuates from day to day.

A Functional Ability Scale is used to determine the severity and functionality of the patient at any given time – and how the patient should behave at each point on the scale.

In the USA, M.E/CFS costs the economy a staggering $9 billion each year in lost productivity, this does not include healthcare benefits. A quarter of sufferers cannot work at all and the rest will lose a third of their income – a significant amount when you factor in treatment costs.

M.E/CFS affects over 134000 Australians and 800000 American adults but awareness of the condition is still astonishingly low, even in the medical profession. It is absolutely vital that awareness be increased for two important reasons:

Firstly, there is a very strong link between the length of time taken to diagnose the illness, and the severity and length of recovery. 27% of severe cases were diagnosed within a year compared with 54% of moderate or mild cases. Patients can also be given harmful medical advice and have reduced chances at gaining much needed government benefits. For this reason the recommendation is six months, but only 25% of cases meet this, some take up to six years. 90% of cases are not properly diagnosed, often because M.E/CFS is difficult to diagnose and GPs simply do not have the training – not helped by the fact that 42% do not believe it is a physical illness, even though the myth that it is psychological has been comprehensively disproved.

Secondly, public misunderstanding and disbelief concerning M.E/CFS leads to frustration, stress and depression for the patient, with a number of cases resulting in suicide. As a result they lose friends and strain family relationships, causing feelings of isolation and anxiety. This must be addressed.

Awareness must be increased, medical training must be improved, research must be funded and greater media attention must be given.

To do this, as well as providing support and services for sufferers, charities and researchers need donations from the public, corporations and government grants. There is a long, hard road to go before the cause is even pinpointed, let alone an effective treatment or cure. This worthy cause is one worth making your wallets a little lighter for; many more people are affected worldwide than were affected by the tsunami, for which millions worldwide gave generously. Remember donations are tax deductible.

If you are in Australia you can donate online here.
UK: here and here.
US: here.
You can also buy Leigh Hatcher's book “I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just a Little Unwell”, presumably part proceeds will go to Australian M.E/CFS charities.

There will be a longer article from me on Plasma Rag in the next couple of days.

"Somebody think of the children!" #47957

The West Australian has done a spectacular beatup with a story screaming "Girls as young as 13 are being prescribed the contraceptive pill in Perth and doctors are under no obligation to tell their parents." The West gives Australian Family Association (total active membership: less than 100) and anti-abortion group Respect to Life a virtual free kick, giving them the first and last word, along with the inflammatory headline scrawled across the front page.

More quality journalism from the one newspaper town.

id Software

Not the PC gaming company, but a new breed of identification that will be brought into the United States. Dubbed the "Real ID Act", the proposal has cleared the senate unanimously, following a 261-161 vote in the House of Representitives. The act essentially involves the standardisation of ID cards across the country, and a nation-wide database constructed by all states linking their systems. These ID cards will likely replace drivers licences with an updated version that must be provided to "travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, enter federal buildings or take advantage of nearly any government service."

Predictably there was hysteria from many. UnRealID.com alledges the card's introduction will result in "Dead Cops, Stolen Identities, Government Spying and Unsafe Roads." Others are planning an all-out assault on Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's bid for reelection in 2006. The vitriol is of course spiked with tired old rhetoric, screaming that American's "privacy and civil liberties" are being taken away and that this day marks "the beginning of a struggle to restore our birthright." Please, spare me.

I give in principle support to the idea. The question is in the details and implementation, not in whether the concept is a good one. It will be useful in tracking the movements and activities of suspicious citizens, without impeding too much on the privacy of innocent citizens, a boon for law enforcement and intelligence agencies against terrorists and other criminals. However the technology obviously has to be approached and planned very carefully to minimise the adverse effects it will have on society. I reasonably good just-the-facts FAQ exists for interested readers, it explains many of the practical aspects that are public knowledge.

I think the ends justify the means here, so long as they proceed with caution.

Relics of the theocracy

Seeing as America was mainly settled by Puritan pilgrims fleeing persecution in England, there are a lot of old laws from that and subsequent times still on the books that no one ever bothers to enforce because they are so outdated and farcical. Well, at least that is what you would hope.

This appears not to be the case. In the state of North Carolina, three dozen charges were laid between 1997 and 2004 for no reason other unmarried couples living together. Utterly mind-boggling as it is, this anarchic 1805 law is still dealing out a penalty of a fine of up to $1000 and up to 60 days in jail. One woman who was faced with this law is Deborah Hobbs, who was forced to quit her job at a sheriff's office after he discovered her domestic arrangements - he told her to "get married, move out or find another job." Ms Hobbs is suing to get the law declared unconstitutional.

The sheriff's response? "...Miss Hobbs' employment was a moral issue as well as a legal question. He said that he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together, but he doesn't send out deputies to enforce the law." How nice of him to not send in the deputies to drag her off to jail, no, he just won't employ them. Can you say discrimination? Of the most absurd kind too.

"Is she Jewish?" "No." "Is she black?" "No." "Is she gay?" "No." "Is she Muslim?" "No." "Did she vote for Kerry." "I don't know." "Then what?" "She isn't married and lives with her boyfriend." "..."

Fortunately sanity will most likely prevail as there is a precedent. "...a 2003 Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law... protects consensual sex among adults, "it's hard to understand any serious argument that it would not include" the right to live together." But then there are seven other states to go, with Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota all still having the law in place.

In fact, "In January, the North Dakota House defeated a challenge to its cohabitation law on a 52-37 vote." Some judges in North Carolina are also unlikely to support its abolishing.

"U.S. Magistrate Carl Horn in Charlotte, regularly asks defendants whether their living arrangements violate the cohabitation ban. Horn, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has refused to release violators unless they promise to comply."

So much for the vast left wing conspiracy in the judicial system.

These laws need to go, and they need to now and stop persecuting innocent people for exercising their civil rights.

Elsewhere: Mark Bahnisch also has some commentary.

Big Brother: Blog Edition

Mwuhaha, a cunning plan.

Basically the idea involves getting 12 bloggers to be the "housemates" on a group blog. They will post on anything they please, preferably referring to each others posts as much as possible, and having fights in the comments threads, along with the mandatory boobies, flirting, bitching and booze. Each week the readers will vote one blogger out until just one remains. Currently the prize would just be bragging rights, but it's not unheard of to have some of the richer bloggers finance such competitions.

Interest? Suggestions? Think it's a crap idea?

Bonsai Kittens

Remember that picture going around the internet of a cat shoved into a bottle? Well this is the same thing, with a twist. The art of making bonsai kitten involves giving a young kitten a muscle relaxant and shoving it into a small transparent container. The cat's anus is superglued shut and it is fed Terry Schaivo style via a feeding tude with another tube removing the excretions "As the kitten's body is still developing, a natural rectal diverticulum will soon form around the tube, which can be drained in any convenient fashion." As the kitten grows, its skeleton takes the shape of the container - assisted by the use of a calcium sequestering agent to soften bone structure. Once the kitten is fully grown it is removed "producing the lovable, furry pet you've always wanted, but it remains in the shape you've always dreamed of."


This is a picture of a kitten one week after it has been shoved in. It is developing the "bonsai kitty" expression, i.e. it's having its face squashed by growing into the container. The website gallery has lots of similarly disturbing images.

This is akin to foot binding, the author of the website does not deny this.

"Both foot-binding and head-binding were practiced in the Far East, for the purpose of miniaturizing the feet and shaping the head into attractive shapes... By physically constraining the growth of a developing living thing, it can be directed to take the shape of the vessel that constrains it."

Didn't the civilised people of the world do away with foot and head binding a long time ago? The barbaric practice of foot binding was banned in China in 1949, clearly as a result of the mutilation caused by it which basically rendered the woman unable to walk properly and doomed her to a lifetime of pain, simply because her parents wanted to be able to marry her off more easily. For the same reason kittens are being exploited to make "pets" that look better after you mutilate their bone structure.

It is a a regressive practice and harks back to the time where this kind of barbarism was socially acceptable, even desirable. What is scary is how popular these things actually are. According to a chain email I was sent "These are the latest trends in New York, China, Indonesia and New Zealand."

However, this is not actually real. But, the website should still be taken down because people might actually think it is real and actually do it, resulting the death of the kitten, as the process is not actually possible without killing them.

It's the two party system, stupid

One thing that irritated me about the British election, is that so many people I know voted for the Liberal Democrats. Now don't get me wrong, I really, really like their policies, but a vote for them, unless you are tactically voting in a seat where Labour is not in the top two parties, in an attempt to snipe a Tory candidate, a vote for them is a vote for the Tories. This is because there is no preferential voting system in Britain, it's all first-past-the-post. If you voted for the Liberal Democrats it is highly unlikely that you would have preferred the Tories over Labour, so therefore you are removing a vote that could have gone to Labour and help them keep the Tories out of office. No matter what, this is bad.

My line of thinking is essentially that the Tories are the enemy, therefore all steps must be taken to defeat them, and that means holding your nose, closing your eyes and voting for Blair. The facts are that the Liberal Democrats will not form government, it will not happen. In this election they gained 62 out of 646 seats, that's less than 10%. All they are good for is sniping Tory candidates in marginal seats where Labour doesn't feature in the top two - tactical voting.

People say "I'll vote for the party I believe in" and completely fail to understand the realities of the political system. In a two party system, you are voting against the major party that you don't want to form government, you must vote for the lesser of two evils every single time. It's people that vote for parties that won't win because they "believe in them" that help cause bad governments to be elected. It happened in USA 2000 with Ralph Nader, it happens in Australia with voters not paying attention to where their preferences are going, and it could have happened in Britain.

Smarten up and stop doing it, please.

Disclaimer: I'm not actually attacking anyone personally here, I'm just ranting, don't take offence.

UK Election: Tony holds!

Hurrah, Tony Blair will continue for his last term in office after being declared the winner after passing the 324 seat post thereby gaining the majority of Britain's 646 seats and forcing Michael Howard to concede.

Mark Bahnisch has brieflets and Tim Dunlop has more extensive theoretical phespological analysis. I will just provide live updates, statistics and some observations

The current results stand at LAB 351 CON 191 LD 59 with 613 of 646 seats declared. Labour has so far suffered a 3.2% swing to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats have so far had a net gain of 12 seats, Labour has lost 46 without a single gain and the Conservatives have a net gain of 31 seats. The issues of Iraq - resulting in widespread mistrust of the PM Tony Blair that has been a real problem for every Briton I have talked to - and the London Disaster, resulting from immigration and Iraq combined, have caused massive swings as high as 30% in some seats - completely unheard of here in Australia.

There is also not yet any results in Northern Ireland, which is interesting but will have no bearing on the results, except in the case of a hung parliament, because all three major parties have no hold there.

All updates in WAST time, which seven hours ahead of British time.

1:54pm: Conservatives gain Ludlow from LD.
LAB 351 CON 192 LD 59 with 614 of 646 seats declared.
Vote share: LAB 36.3% CON 33.1% LD 22.6% Other 8.0%

2:06pm: Labour holds Sheffield Attercliffe, CON gain Croydon Central from LAB.
LAB 352 CON 193 LD 59 with 616 of 646 seats declared.
Vote share: Others drop to 7.9%, rest constant.

2:06pm: CON hold Norfolk Mid.
LAB 352 CON 194 LD 59 with 616 of 646 seats declared.
Vote share: Others back at 8%, rest constant.

2:14pm: LAB hold Selby
LAB 353 CON 194 LD 59 with 618 of 646 seats declared.
Vote share: LAB 36.3% CON 33.1% LD 22.5% Other 8.0%

2:33pm: Just as an example of how much the swing against Labour has been, in the Welsh seat of Blaenau Gwent there has been a staggering 48.9% swing from the incumbent Labour member Maggie Jones to independant Peter Law, the previous margin was 60.8% to Labour which is about as safe as you can get. Law picked up a swing of 58.2% and Jones copped a 39.7% negative swing. Final margin was 58.2% - 32.3%

3:06pm: CON hold Hampshire North East.
LAB 353 CON 195 LD 59 with 619 of 646 seats declared.
Vote share: LAB 36.3% CON 33.2% LD 22.6% Other 7.9%

4:25pm: Im going out now, there have been no new results since the last update. Post-mortem on my return.

12:42am: LAB 355 CON 197 LD 62 with 632 of 646 seats declared
Vote share: LAB 35.9% CON 32.9% LD 22.5% Other 8.7%
Northern Ireland results have started to come in, so far the UUP are doing badly, losing two seats to DUP and SDLP. Going to bed now - most, if not all, of the votes should be counted by the time I get up and update again.

11:28am: Nothing but Northern Ireland results last night. Basically Sinn Fein gained an extra seat, the DUP gained four to own the entire north east, and the UUP was completely routed to lose all but one of their six seats - what happened there?
LAB 355 CON 197 LD 62 with 644 of 646 seats declared
Vote share: LAB 35.2% CON 32.3% LD 22.1% Other 10.4%

9:18pm: For some weird reason 645/646 seats counts as all of them, don't know what happened to that missing seat.
Further Update: The missing seat is Staffordshire South, which had its election cancelled because the LD candidate died just before polling day. There'll be a by-election for it, but it's a safe Tory seat, so the outcome won't affect Blair's majority. (Via ZachA)

But anyway, Labour's final majority stands at a paltry 66.

Final seat count: LAB 356 CON 197 LD 62 DUP 9 SNP 6 SF 5 PC 3 SLDP 3 IKHH 1 UUP 1 Respect 1 Independant 1.
Vote share: LAB 35.2% CON 32.3% LD 22.0% Other 10.5% - this contrats in starking fashion with the exit polls of LAB 37% CON 33% LD 22% Other 8%, especially the increaeed vote for other parties despite a 5.5% drop in the Northern Ireland vote turnout.
Turnout: 61.3% (up 2% on 2001)
Final swing: 3.0% to CON.

Interestingly enough, the BBC's seat counter predicted LAB 370 CON 187 LD 59 Other 30 with the final vote percentages, so that was proved to be innaccurate, however fine tuning for tactical voting made it a little better.

So that's it. Yay Labour for another five years but probably not Blair. Brown doesn't seem too bad a chap though so I'm not worried.

Students incapable of time management

As I predicted, if you use the argument of essentially forcing people to do things because it's supposebly good for them, you could justify all sorts of heinous legislation. It's happening again.

Mark reports: "The Queensland government is considering legislation to restrict young people's working hours to encourage concentration on studies."

What an utterly ridiculous idea, not to mention patronising and insulting to the individual. Even in they are still in high school, students need money, and they need as much of it as they can get their hands on, whether they are living at home or not. If you limit their ability to work, then you limit their ability to make money. It is their problem if they work too much, study too little and fail. The idea also fails to realise that there are many students who have to work as many hours from as many jobs as they can to supplement their family's meager income - whether it be because of parental unemployment, parental disability, single parent family, debt, or just the expenses being too high to be covered by the family income.

If this idea were to be introduced, there will be a big market for off-the-book cash-in-hand jobs in Queensland. This is just another band-aid, and it will do absolutely nothing to solve the root causes.

British Election 2005

Polls are probably just opening in Britain and Tony Blair's Labour Party looks like easily winning, but probably with a reduced majority from an increased Liberal Democrats vote. This is good, because five years of Michael "its not racist to" Howard is too horrible to contemplate. Hopefully Britons will do the right thing and not let their opposition to war or any other objections to Labour policy prevent them from picking the lesser of too evils, or voting for the Liberal Democrats, as good as they are, and in doing so help the Tories get over the line.

Go Tony!

Gay marriage

This is a rant originally posted on an internet forum and then on my LJ several days ago. The fact that it's a rant means it's not a properly constructed argument, and involves my fingers having a mind of their own. Occasionally these can be good, don't know about this one, you decide.

A big yes for legalisation. No person should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Neither should they be discriminated against due to race, colour, religion, gender, class, wealth or anything else of the sort. It is unjustifiable.

Marriage is, legally, a piece of paper that recognises an official partnership and entitles them to tax benefits. That is all. Not some airy-fairy explanation or some special bond, or whatever you want to make it up as in your mind, that's what it is. It comes with rights and benefits, and saying because someone happens to prefer someone of the same gender as their partner, that they cant have said entitlements is a clear example of discrimination and a breach of basic civil rights.

Furthermore it is illogical on a biological, physiological and ethical level. What's to say that a man cannot love another man, or a woman love another woman, as much as a man can love a woman or a woman can love a man? Absolutely nothing. There are hormones and there are emotions involved that determine attraction and love, because that's all love is, a bunch of chemicals doing weird stuff. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any less capable of love than heterosexuals, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

It is a perfectly natural state of affairs. Those who say it is becoming more common are fooling themselves. You see more of it because people are now able to come out of the closet without fear of being lynched by pitchfork-waving rednecks. Contrary to popular belief, people do not choose to be gay, they were created that way and genuinely feel attraction to the same sex and do not feel attraction to the opposite sex. It could be said that God made them that way. The bible does not condemn homosexuality, its condemns homosexual acts.

With the above in mind there then comes the basic and necessary, in fact vital, tenant of the separation of church and state. Why should people of different religions or of no religion be forcibly subjected to the beliefs of a minority that happen to worship one particular religion, to which doctrine they cant even agree on!? For this reason legislation is passed, or at least damn well should be passed, in an entirely secular fashion and completely out of the bounds of religion of any sort. You cannot run a western nation as a theocracy, and you should not. Not only is it not feasible and ethically illogical, it leaves the government open to dangerous levels of absolutism and infinite moral high ground - and has the very real possibility of the usurping of God's authority for their own purposes.

Those, like John Howard, who claim that "marriage is between a man and a woman" are holding on to a fantasy! It is a legal partnership, whatever the umpteen religious of the world say. It was limited to heterosexually by the of actions successive bigoted generations, in which the view of society was so warped that it accepted this as the norm and oppressed a minority. Once upon a time mixed-race marriages were viewed the same way, do the neo-conservatives among us want to return to this archanic time?

It is your right to personally disagree with the hypothetical notion that were you homosexual, you would get married to another homosexual, and it is the right of religions to impose moral codes upon their followers and for individuals to impose them on theirselves - but do not be so arrogant as to assume you have the right to dictate this belief to the rest of the world. Let people make their own choices, bad or not, and let them suffer the consequences, should there prove to be any. It does not directly affect or hurt you, its their own damn business.

The Athens distraction

Back in March when Alby Schultz defected to the Costello camp from being a staunch Howard supporter, I said it was a clear case of sour grapes and nothing would become of it. Now, with the budget on the horizon, John Howard has made some statements to journalists in Athens indicating that he's going to be around for a while. This has been covered in detail by Tim Dunlop and Mark Bahnisch among others. I maintain my position that this will all blow over very quickly with Costello unable to mount a challenge; but this announcement does make the whole saga a bit more interesting and no one is really sure what is going on inside the rodent's head, although I note there are several explanations.

The one thing I will point out in this post is tonight's 7:30 report interview with John Howard, following a conversation between him and Peter Costello. It seems Howard is backing away from his comments, or at least from what the press and and blogosphere think he said - he claims either his words were misinterpreted or he made a mistake.

"...at no stage during my interview in Athens did I intend to announce or imply that I had decided that I wanted to lead the party to the next election."

"I assert that the comments have been misinterpreted. I'm not saying misrepresented. There is a difference. Misinterpreted. And I hold that view quite strongly, but if that is not a fair observation, then of course I've made a mistake. But to me the important thing is that people should understand, I was not setting out to make a declaration about the future."

So what Howard is basically saying is that this was a business as usual statement, and not something for the media to latch onto and blow out of proportion, as they have done. He does, however, admit that he may have made a mistake in his choice of words that allowed this to occur. He says his reference to not thinking about life after PM and saying he is enjoying the job were meant to say he is on the ball.

"...my greatest responsibility is to the Australian people, and they don't want a prime minister who's musing all the time about what he might be doing when he's not in the job... I was only re-elected seven months ago, and the idea that I would now be musing about the future or jobs beyond the prime ministership is really a bit insulting to a public that re-elected me."

What he wants us to think he said, is that he's not ruling anything out and will stay as long as the party wants him to. He says that Costello will be the first to know and he will have plenty of time to establish himself before an election. The question is, which one?

The possible meanings from the interview are:

1. He said somethings he either didn't mean to, or that he regrets, and is now trying to take them back by saying he meant something different.

2. He meant what he said he meant and the media is blowing it up.

3. Hes not ruling anything out and will stay until the party wants him to go, which me might actually mean, or might just be a cover explanation.

4. Costello got upset in the meeting and Howard agreed to soften what he said at he next interview - this one.

5. He's playing games with Costello and will hang around until he switches his support to someone like Abbot who is more in line with his vision.

6. He's avoiding the lame duck title even though he is leaving soon, and possibly came on too strong.

Either way, there will still be no challenge and this will blow over within a week.

Do not negotiate

It goes without saying that you don't negotiate with terrorists under any circumstances, especially ones like those surrounding the abduction of Australian Douglas Wood by Iraqi militants. As usual, the Islamists are demanding our 1300 troops currently in Iraq go home or they will kill the hostage. It is vital that this demand is not met, as it was by The Philippines when one of theirs was captured; Downer has stated that there is no chance that Australia will be following suit.

If we were to capitulate and pull out we would not only be abandoning the vital role we have in Iraq's reconstruction, but we would be sending a clear message to the terrorists that we are susceptible to having our foreign policy dictated by the whims of hostage-takers. Clearly this would be a catastrophic result that we must avoid.

So where does this leave Mr. Wood? Well, that depends on the group that he has been taken by. If he was captured by Ansar al-Sunnah or Al Qaeda we could write him off as dead, as they usually don't release hostages unless their demands are met. Criminal gangs masquerading as Jihadists are the easiest to deal with, often offering a ransom and rarely executing. The group Douglas Wood has been taken by is the Shura Council of the Mujahedden of Iraq, who so far have abducted and then released a Turkish driver. Downer says "not a lot of emphasis should be placed on the claimed name of the kidnappers." I think this is a mistake - it is important to know who you are dealing with and know how they work. If they released the Turk, then they may be persuaded to release Wood; we should be looking into his case to see what is the best way to deal with the insurgent group.

In other hostage related news, the US military report on the incident involving Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was released as a .pdf file, all the Italian media had to do was save it as a text file and they were able to see all the blacked out text. Go take a look.

Military and police

"There's a reason why you seperate military and the police. One fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Cdmr William Adama, BSG.

Discuss.