Caspar Conde is from the Centre for Independent Studies, another Australian right-wing think-tank (along with the Institute of Public Affairs featured regularly on OLO), which is also a sponsor of this OLO website. Caspar is concerned about the "nanny-state" interfering with our personal freedoms by attempting to regulate business (thereby interfering with profits).

The Centre for Independent Studies has an interest in "tort reform" and "contract compensation" in Australia, in our "increasingly litigious society" as Howard recently intoned in refusing to apologise to Cornelia Rau. Tort reform is now all the rage in Bush's america, where people injured through industrial or professional negligence are increasingly unable to sue for compensation. Who benefits from this? Anyone interested in an alternative point of view might have a look at http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/10/30-0002.html.

The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) has been described as "Australia's most prolific think tank source of conservative 'family values', loosely tied to Christian theology." (Marion Maddox, "God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right under Howard", Allen & Unwin, 2005, p 212). Maddox goes on to describe its origins as follows: "The CIS was formed in 1976 in the garage of a high school maths teacher Greg Lindsay, still its director. Its rags-to-riches origin myth tells of its founding conference, reported in Paddy McGuiness's appreciative newspaper column headlined "Where Friedman is a Pinko". That led to a wave of supporters, notably Western Mining Corporation's CEO Hugh Morgan in 1980. His largesse rescued Lindsay from among the 'lawnmowers and the odd spider'...."

Grace,

Neither the CIS, nor the IPA, is a "sponsor of this website". They are both welcome to be, but they aren't. The sponsors are a diverse crowd including Sydney Uni and QUT, Oxfam/Community Aid Abroad, the AMWU and a variety of others. But even if they were sponsors, what's your point? Are you saying that because you disagree with what you see as their philosophies their arguments have no merit?

Graham - I took this assumption from your sidebar on your main page, which says, "we need to thank the following organisations for their generosity" that CIS is a sponsor of OLO. (I made no mention of IPA in similar terms.) I did not intend to misrepresent your website by saying this, so perhaps you could explain to me what your sidebar note actually means.

With respect to your question, "Even if they were sponsors, what's your point? Are you saying that because you disagree with what you see as their philosophies their arguments have no merit?", I have made it clear in my postings here and previously in other forums that sometimes I think the arguments put forward by employees of IPA and CIS have little merit, given the revealed sources of their funding, and the coincidence of these funding sources with the vested interests of particular sectors of the business community and the electoral interests of the Howard government. That is my opinion.

I remain of the view that it is important to consider the motivations of the writers on this website (and other websites). In return, my motivations are frequently questioned (if not subjected to abusive criticism) by your other contributors on OLO, and I make no complaint about this.

In any case, I would have thought that my questioning the motivations behind certain political, social and scientific arguments on this website is well in line with an intervention you made yesterday in another forum, where you said you welcomed "critical thinking". We have no disagreement on the importance of critical thinking, and this sometimes involves having a hard look at where opinions arise and whose interests they serve

Don't you love how Grace blasts everyone for being biased then trots out the old chestnuts straight from the mouths of the fellow travellers.

Good on you Grace! In these times of hopelessness, fear, unhappiness, ruthless right wing dictators, evil big business, rabid fascist commentators, gulag-like detention centres, our saunaish atmosphere and an unbelievably ignorant, zombie-like population it's great that we have people like you pushing for more government control of our lives. If we're really lucky government will take over everything and we won't have to think at all! Wouldn't that be marvellous! No more worrying about what to wear in the morning. No more worrying about our dinner menu, no more worrying about what to think or say or do - it's all centrally planned for us by our loving leader. Maybe the government could pick our partners for us? We're obviously not doing a good job; look at the divorce rates. And if we're real lucky maybe the government could kick in with free lobotomies for all.

Grace just because you've already surrendered your mind and reason to political ideology doesn't mean the rest of us want to.

Another hysterical posting from bozzie, making wild assumptions about my "ideology". What do you think about tort reform bozzie, or don't you have an opinion. Too hard? Much easier to just blast away like a silly bag of wind, isn't it?

Actually Grace tort reform happens to be a little pet subject of mine. (NOT!) But since you mention it if greedy self-serving lawyers hadn't flogged the cash cows for all they were worth, or if "progressive" judges had exercised some common sense to begin with there wouldn't be the need for any reforms now.

My first point Grace was simply that it's a bit much to question ones motives or whose interests those motives might serve and then trot out little tid-bits to back you up written by people who also have motives and interests to serve. It cuts both ways and I really can't understand your need to try and deny this.

My second point was that if you launched an attack relating to this article, then you obviously don't agree with the views expressed. Logically then you are in favour of the government legislating for control over the miniature of our everyday lives. If that's the case then good on ya! But I still prefer to think for myself.

By the way if I'm "hysterical" then you're "shrill".:)