Sorry for the confusion, viewers, but it seems I must have made another mistake.

I was sure I had put up a post attributing mikk's un-attributed 'First they came for the Communists, but I said nothing, for I was not a Communist ...' to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I thought just after my post of Friday, 2 July 2010 at 10:10:32 PM.

I have just checked my email (at 7:30 AM AEST Sunday 4 July), and there is no notification from OLO of any post of mine having been taken down, so I will just have to take responsibility for all this unfortunate confusion myself,and accept that I somehow just failed to post it.

Since I can't put the referenced post into the thread in what would have been its proper place now, the best I can do is post this link to a twitpic of my apparently unposted but nevertheless intended-to-be-posted draft, just so viewers will know what I am talking about.

http://twitpic.com/21zm31

Viewers can use the 'View full size' mouse-over feature on the twitpic to view the text clearly if it is otherwise too small. Just wait a few seconds for the image to fully load, then scroll a little, and this option will become available to you if you hover your mouse over the top right area of the twitpic image.

Perhaps I was a bit too trenchant in my intended post, and some viewers may take offence at my nazism references. Let me make it plain that such references are really to what I see as an apparent 'groupthink' surrounding the various parliamentary parties mentioned. Clearly Kevin Rudd, as an admirer of Bonhoeffer, is no nazi at heart. Certainly Lindsay Tanner is not. I very much doubt Julia Gillard is. Then again, many, many good Germans were not nazis either, but nazism still ruled for a time there.

Lessons there for the learning.

Once again, sorry to all viewers for disrupting the flow of the thread with my incompetent posting.

Back to topic.

Houellebecq, in his post of Thursday, 1 July 2010 at 9:17:13 AM, asks:

"Where is all this outrage when we treat
aboriginals in this dreadful way?"

A perhaps not all that flippant answer might well be that the outrage is absent because, as the saying goes, "what the eye don't see, the heart don't grieve over". Poster 'dane' drew attention to "remote indigeneous communities [being] an exceptional case where social norms have broken down and have forced the government to take drastic action". Few in the Australian community at large will have seen these remote indigenous communities first hand, only perhaps through the eyes of others, others perhaps with ulterior objectives in mind that may have coloured their reporting of the precise nature of these remote communities' plight.

Given that Constitutional matters have come into relevance in this discussion, the great irony is that the referendum held in 1967, the referendum that secured the greatest proportion of 'Yes' votes in any referendum held since Federation, the one that resulted in the amendment of the then placitum (xxvi) of Section 51 of the Constitution, which read:

"(xxvi) The people of any race, other than
the aboriginal race in any State,
for whom it is deemed necessary
to make special laws:";

by the removal of the words ", other than the aboriginal race in any State," removed what was in fact a PROTECTION of the aboriginal community against just such discriminatory laws as permitted the recent Northern Territory intervention, where this welfare income quarantining started out.

Viewers will note that removing 'racism' from the Constitution was evidently not on the then bi-partisan agenda, for placitum (xxvi) today reads:

"(xxvi) The people of any race for whom it is
deemed necessary to make special laws:"

Those promoting that referendum sought removal of those words not to advance the cause of aboriginal Australians but to provide a means whereby the Australian community at large could be ripped off and set at each others' throats! And I thought I was giving aboriginal Australians the vote. They all had it by 1965!

Interesting stuff.

I had a squizz at the...er, Twitpic? (the UK refers to idiots as 'Twits' !).

I can understand fully where Mikk is coming from. There is a real irony in the condemnation of the 'nanny state' by more conservative thinkers; ironic because this action is right up their alley!!

That Labor today largely emulates Liberal philosophy, seems of no concern to them (Labor); clear evidence that there is little difference-if any at all-between the two majors.

My view is apolitical. I AM apolitical.

This pernicious and lazy scheme WILL engender a damn sight more interest when it comes into being. People are not so much in agreement with it, as being unaware of it or its potential impact on those already under a deal of pressure.

I feel a complete loathing for a Party that evolved as a 'Party of the people', that has instituted a system which blatantly creates and categorises an underclass.

Damn and blast them!

TBC: if I can!
______________________

2)!

WHY do we as a society feel such a need to condemn and vilify those who are struggling in society (unemployed people/....and yes;-also asylum seekers)--and yet there is hardly a murmur over the gross excesses of those who have ultimately created these disasters. Indeed, we seem to admire power and wealth-with little or no regard for how it was achieved.

We simply don't care. (Both Obama and Cameron have agreed that BP must not face collapse over its oil spill in the MexGulf. The livelihoods of thousands are damaged beyond repair--Obama's own nationals--......., but hey! BP and its cohorts in the matter, must be protected. See how it works?? 'Heads we win, tails you lose').

Nah! Don't concern yourselves with the travesty of that, folks-those on the arse end of society have a nice bared skin that we can kick black and blue.

Easy peasy.

YES. We must protect against abuses;-of the system; of children. Targeting ALL (two exceptions) is a disgraceful way to do it!

BUT: it is a popular way isn't it? "See? we can be tough on them-Labor can be tough on all these wastrels of public monies".

At the same time Gillard goes out of her way to minimise any offence to the mineco's!!

Governments are held to ransom by 'big business', because of its impact on the economy/employment.

Welfare recipients? Pffttt! They are of little consequence.

Greed IS good eh

FG the reason I didnt attribute that quote was I didnt want to get into the "nazi" argument. It is a good quote that happened to fit but I dont think we can go as far as saying the Australian government are nazis.

I still stand by my "nanny state" comments. There are a number of OLO posters who are quick to come in here and quote Mises and the like and critisise any government interference in their lives. They seem remarkably silent when it comes to the government nannying others though. Im sure they will be back bleating next time there is talk of a capital gains tax rise or any attempt to combat climate change but if it is the poor being shafted they are silent.

Ginx said:

<"WHY do we as a society feel such a need to condemn and vilify those who are struggling in society (unemployed people/....and yes;-also asylum seekers)--and yet there is hardly a murmur over the gross excesses of those who have ultimately created these disasters. Indeed, we seem to admire power and wealth-with little or no regard for how it was achieved.

We simply don't care. (Both Obama and Cameron have agreed that BP must not face collapse over its oil spill in the MexGulf. The livelihoods of thousands are damaged beyond repair--Obama's own nationals--......., but hey! BP and its cohorts in the matter, must be protected. See how it works?? 'Heads we win, tails you lose').

Nah! Don't concern yourselves with the travesty of that, folks-those on the arse end of society have a nice bared skin that we can kick black and blue.

Easy peasy.

YES. We must protect against abuses;-of the system; of children. Targeting ALL (two exceptions) is a disgraceful way to do it!

BUT: it is a popular way isn't it? "See? we can be tough on them-Labor can be tough on all these wastrels of public monies".

At the same time Gillard goes out of her way to minimise any offence to the mineco's!!

Governments are held to ransom by 'big business', because of its impact on the economy/employment.

Welfare recipients? Pffttt! They are of little consequence.

Greed IS good eh">

One of the best posts I've ever read so I am repeating it.
You got so much into a couple of paras.
Brilliant!

(Hiya Ginx:))

pynch