"Young people generally in the past have had a heightened sense of what is moral and what is not; this is now not as noticeable."

Sorry everyone, I think Ant accidentally typed the wrong thing. What Ant meant to say was

"Young people generally in my past had a heightened sense of socialist morals but this generation is more conservative and this is a very bad thing because people actually get on with their lives rather than raging against the machine."

Hope this clears it up for everyone.

t.u.s

These posts seem to transform ideas;

Take this simple assertion that the processing of legislation in relation to anti terorrism represents an attack on democracy - all of a sudden we have references to the folly of multiculturalism and the rise of islam - some have even referred to muslim nations as cess pits.

It is about the process - or lack there of.

It is not about Islam or anything else - even Johny H assures us the muslims have nothing to fear; However the feds did not want this debated and they wanted it rushed through - you gotta ask why? - a week ago the rapid passage of the law was essential for our safety because of things only the heads of government seemed to know - now JH is comfortable to wait until Christmas - but there are those who reeeeeeally believe they might be blown to bits before then.

The laws remain unnecessary.

And as for rednecks fear of Muslim colonisation - who cares. What comes round goes round. I 've said it before; maybe its time for the Moors star to rise again and herald in another era of prosperity and glory - much in the same way as they did centuries ago - the West has had its turn and the results suggests we've not been very good at world domination - history, and if redneck ir right, fertility will decide.

What I miss however is Rednecks solution to this pending crisis - he and a few others have alluded to this tsunami of islamism looming over us - I am keen to know what the final solution to this dillema might be.

In the mean time however the question is the legislation at hand; There are too many internal contradictions in the way it has been handled and processed for a people to trust the government(s) proposing it, let alone the reprehensible nature of the content.

Any way thats enuff from the Sneekmeister; so little time, so much chattering to do, so much chardonnay to sip.

About quoting: Sometimes one reads something or hears something and I remember it, and where it matches what I want to say, I quote it. Maybe it means that I am not smart. Oh well!

Did Thoreau have anything to say about avoiding being a terrorist bomb victim? asks Col Rouge.

Brilliant question!

Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 and examined the morality of government. His idea of disobedience was not violence but not paying taxes. He was opposed to Texas (formerly part of Mexico) becoming a slave state.

I have not read them but in "Economy" (1854) he writes: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root".

In "A life without principle" (1863), he says to fellow Americans: "Do we call this the land of the free? What is it to be free from King George and continue the slaves of King Prejudice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? ... We are a nation of politicians, concerned about the outmost defences only of freedom."

The "Clash of Civilisations" was a paper by Samuel P. Huntington. If anything, the theory is refected by the break up of Yugoslavia or US invasion of Iraq against Saddam.

But this is what Huntington said of Japan vs America: "The economic issues between the United States and Europe are no less serious than those between the United States and Japan, but they do not have the same political salience and emotional intensity because the differences between American culture and European culture are so much less than those between American civilization and Japanese civilization."

Huh? Thoreau (after 150 years) makes a lot more sense.

My conclusion: The only place for Huntington's theory is in terrorist propaganda.

I guess this is the sort of problem we should be concerned about.

http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html

The upside is that they didn't actually shoot him.

Christopher Michaelson has the posed the question of whether the Howard Government’s new Anti-Terrorist laws presage the end of "Australian democracy"?

Let’s get real! Democracy is an ancient Greek practice, being the 'Kratos' (rule) of the 'Demos' (people). By this standard, Australia has never been a democracy but rather, what the social critic Castoriadis called, a “Liberal Oligarchy”, the rule of the privileged few supposedly “representing” the rest of us. At best democracy in Australia has been an ideal of popular empowerment towards which people aspire but its reality is more elusive than ever.

The question Michaelson should ask is do the new laws represent the end of Liberalism in Australia? That is, are we at risk of losing those civic freedoms and rights ceded to the general population against arbitrary state power by the ruling Parties since Federation (beyond the right to mere biological existence)? Clearly, the answer is yes!

We are moving from a liberal parliamentary regime to parliamentary authoritarianism. The latter is a half-way house to dictatorship and has precious little to do with protecting us from terrorism.

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of “representative” Governments for somebody else to rule instead of us (including those who voted for them). This new legislation just makes that process a little more efficient for our rulers. The nakedness of this power play is being concealed though by the extraordinary “secrecy” provisions surrounding anyone being detained or monitored by the state. Gosh, imagine how the masses would feel if they knew it was their mother or next door neighbour ASIO had under surveillance! What if they knew it could be one of them?

Democratic freedoms cannot be protected by Governments "from above". We, the Australian people, have to fight for them over and over "from below". Against our Government, just like at the Eureka stockade, if necessary.

Indonesia a Democratic moderate Muslim country:

Vilest of Animals in Allah's Sight Are Those Who Disbelieve
Written by Pete Fisher Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Surah VIII 55 certainly spells out the mind of so many Muslims that walk in our midst in America, Europe, Canada, and Australia.
We hear from our politicians and liberal news sources about how peaceful this religion is supposed to be. We have seen the PC world take over and decide for us all that even to speak against Islam is as bad as speaking against a race of people simply due to the colour of an individual. Yet the president of Iran calls for Israel to be "wiped from the map."

The issue is not race. Islam is not a race; it should be like any other religion where one can freely study and contemplate the tenets and make a personal choice to adhere or not. Theoretically people should not be born into Islam or forced to follow Islam as I have been corrected many times by some Muslims over the years. But how can one argue with the words of the Koran? It is contained within the writings of Islam: world domination and eliminating the infidels is accepted and commanded.

What prompted me to write this was the recent warning in Indonesia to Christians in particular that followed the beheadings of some local Christians. Three schoolgirls who were walking to their Christian school were attacked. One girl who escaped the beheading was severely injured. This is not a new issue in the region, where similar situations have been ongoing for a long time. If this were an isolated incident, I would shrug it off as just that. Yet the echo of Islamic assaults on people rings on every continent inhabited by humans