Off Topic

INAUGURATION SECURITY

Joe Bidens Inauguration begins 3am Sydney time Thursday 21 January live on SBS TV.

Trump has organised 2 distractions hours before the Inauguration:

1. A military parade at nearby Andrews Air Force Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrews_Air_Force_Base to which a pro-Trump crowd is invited. The crowd are due to assemble from 11.15pm (Sydney Time) Wednesday 20 January. Trump may well do more crowd incitement. Trump's timing allows several hours for this crowd to travel to central Washington, to do their worst during the Noon (US time) Inauguration. As Andrews Air Base is only 14km southeast of the Inauguration at the Capitol Building pro-Trump people could start a riot distraction within the Andrews area itself.

During Trump’s 6 January Insurrection many pro-Trump people appeared to have military training in coordinated action. So riots drawing the attention of security forces (Secret Service, FBI, National Guard http://www.9news.com.au/world/fbi-vetting-guard-troops-in-dc-amid-fears-of-insider-attack/374127e2-e1dd-4685-9216-33b0c8660186 and police ) may be coordinated with more deadly pro-Trump people shooting and bombing incidents.

2. Instead of attending the Inauguration (as is customary) Trump will fly from Andrews Air Base to one of his palaces, just north of Miami Florida. This will establish an alibi before the likely riot in Washington. It is also possible Trump may incite a crowd in the Miami area.

Additional scenarios to pro-Trump people violence in/around Washington are pro-Trump people Riots of Opportunity in US State Capitals and other major US cities. These may happen while most US security attention is focused on Washington.

If any violence happens this will dominate Aussie morning news, on Thursday 21 January. The most sustained reporting for us, is likely to be "ABC America World News" 12.30pm Sydney time, on SBS TV. This will be immediately followed, at 1pm, by "PBS NewsHour" on SBS TV.

Here's hoping nothing violent happens.

More see http://www.9news.com.au/world/joe-biden-inauguration-explainer-date-what-to-expect-how-to-watch-everything-to-know/ef3a5c33-a7a7-4e2b-9d77-1471daa33e2a

Fortunately most Australians are in the "sensible centre" to which the article author refers. But sensible is a little boring.

The author's comments on the killings and damage of the BLM riots are more easy to accept because the author is so even-handed.

US politics is much more polarised than Australian politics. This makes it much more ideologically exciting than Australian politics.

Such excitement can be quantitively demonstrated in the vastly larger number of comments on those OLO General Discussion Threads that deal with US politics.

This US excitment, in turn, polarises we OLO commenters between pro-Trump "Trumpsters" and anti-Trump "leftists".

Extrapolating to History - generally the dates of polarised Wars/Conflict are much more clearly milestoned than sensible times of Peace.

Pete

The word 'centre' means different things to different people. To me, it means that you don't believe in anything much; I prefer to be right if centre. 'Moderate' is just another word for Left.

I am amused that some posters here call themselves 'centrists' when everything they utter is dogmatic hard Left.

being centrist is a worthy goal as a student of politics.

While extremely difficult to pull off, given our own bias and preferences (as ttbn suggests), it is about highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of all sides of the debate.

Still, some bias may be evident, but that is the type of scholarship I appreciate.

'Moderate' is just another word for Left.
ttbn,
Other way round !

A quick search reveals that Dave is an admirer of the psychotic world-view promoted by the all American loon Eric Metaxas:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2018/04/1995-eric-metaxas.html

Eric hosted the recent absurdly pretentious Jericho March in Washington. A march which featured the very best (sic) of all American loons. It is interesting to note that the conservative blogger Rod Dreher was unreservedly deeply critical of Metaxas's involvement in that march. Rod and Eric have been life long friends.

Rod Derher is very popular in conservative circles in Australia and has come to Australia as a guest speaker at Campion College and The Ramsey Center. As far as I know Campion college has close links to the right-wing "catholic" outfit opus dei.

Rod was quite rightly deeply disturbed with the Trump phenomenon - right from the start. Which is sort of interesting because he has been a featured writer for Quadrant magazine and is occasionally cited on the online Quadrant site. Most/all of those who scribble for Quadrant are of course enthusiastic supporters of the Donald, which is to say that THEY are deeply deranged.

It's only a myth to those on the far right! For them, anyone not in that crazy club is a progressive or lefty.

We came out of a depression and WW11 on the back of progressive policies and bold economic vision to, for a period, become the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that!

We could engage those progressive ideas yet again except the crazies on the far right think they'll all have to lose something! Nothing could be further from the truth!

The only impediment are the crazies on the far right, who to a creaking aged white man, will die in a ditch first!

And they permeate the political landscape and the media! The beguiling myth will vote and again we will face the political roadblock to real independence and economic sovereignty! Courtesy of the (tin-eared vociferous minority) crazies on the far right and their (selectively deaf, jabbering jabberwockies) left-wing adversaries!

Both of who have combined to send this country to the nearest taxidermist!Because they're ideologically opposed to the ideas of others on political grounds only, and not because they lack merit!
Alan B.

As someone who ttbn regards as "dogmatic hard left" there is much in this article that I disagree with. The most obvious problem is Dave Pellowe's basing his opinion's of the Left's position on stereotypes rather than reality. Another problem is his failure to acknowledge the existence of possibilities beyond his very limited imagination.

>Corporate media and other "progressive" elites (including all those suddenly
>decrying political violence), celebrated and promoted the behaviour, rationalising and
>justifying it – even calling it "mostly peaceful".

ITYF they called the BLM protests "mostly peaceful" and AIUI most of them were peaceful. But there were a lot of such protests and a significant minority did turn violent.

>They claimed the Constitution, democracy and justice system were inadequate to achieve the social
>"progress" they desired, therefore political violence was at least understandable if not necessary.

...Which makes them traitors to the Left... if that's genuinely what they were saying. But because reporting on this was so polarised, I'd urge you to make sure rather than take anybody's word for it.

>It would be so much more comfortable if there was a "sensible centre", a third option
>somewhere between the lunacy of gender theory and the biological reality. There isn't.

Of course there's a sensible centre! You just have to realise:
• Biological reality is not binary; some people are intersex because of biological conditions.
• Unwillingness to accept your biological gender is an epic fail, but trying to force someone to accept their biological gender can be even worse, leading in many cases to suicide.

(tbc)

(continued)

>It would be just dreamy if there was a way to end coal mineral mining without making
>electricity unaffordable to those individuals and industries which can least afford the most
>expensive electricity in the world, and even better if such a human cost would have a
>significant slowing effect on historically inevitable changes to global climate patterns. Wake up.

You say "wake up" but you're the one who's asleep! Humans have increased the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere by 50% (and rising) and that's having the expected warming effect that can't be accounted for by "historically inevitable changes". You've also slept through the changes to energy economics: coal is no longer a cheap option, as the cost of renewables has plummeted due to technological progress, and lower interest rates have made high fixed cost (low running cost) options more attractive.

>Is there a middle ground somewhere between the Christian belief that all human life
>is sacred and the "progressive" dogma that a human life in utero is merely a
>disposable piece of property which can make it sometimes okay to kill? Nope.

Of course there is! You have to recognise that:
• A woman's health is important
• A human doesn't become an individual at the moment of conception
• Outlawing abortion is not sufficient, nor even the most effective way, to prevent it from occurring

So the middle ground would be to allow medical abortions under some conditions, with more restriction as the pregnancy progresses, and also to ensure there's always sufficient support that nobody finds herself in a position where abortion seems to be the only option.

>But what about law & justice? Surely there's a third philosophy which appeases the >"progressive" demand for an activist judiciary, democracy if convenient and a fluid Constitution?

No such demand exists. The real difference is where there is an ambiguity in the law or the constitution: the Progressives think the principle of justice should be more important than the intentions of the legislators/Founding Fathers. The Conservatives think it shouldn't.

(tbc)

(continued)
>Surely there's a compromise with the Conservative ideal that elected legislators make laws
>– not judges;

The obvious compromise is for the elected legislators make more laws to avoid having to put the judges in the position of having to decide. But then the conservatives complain the country's overgoverned!

>that political violence and other lawless mayhem is never justified in a liberal, inclusive democracy;

There shouldn't be any need to compromise on that, as it's something there should be universal agreement on!

Perhaps a better question is: how should law and order be achieved? Conservatives see the answer as more force and stiffer penalties; Progressives prefer to create conditions where people don't feel the need to resort to crime.

>that justice should be impartial to identity;

That's what BLM have been protesting for!

>and that the Constitution can only be
>changed through the method prescribed by the Constitution? Such a fantasy!

Not a fantasy at all - it's the status quo.

>There is no middle ground between right and wrong.

Some would say that attitude is a luxury - every decision will result in wrong being done, so the best they can go with is the lesser of two evils. What would you suggest they opt for instead?

>There is no centre point between Truth and lies.

Correct. However we don't always have sufficient evidence to determine what the truth is, and when we do, some won't accept it.

>There is no sensible balance between wisdom and folly.

True, but the difference often only becomes apparent in hindsight.

Aidan,
Can't you see that it's the people of the Left who are a major hurdle to real Justice ?

Individual,

So you can read all these posts, and reflect on what is going on around the world, and learn nothing ?

Joe

individual,
There are many people who act as a hurdle to real justice, but they don't seem to have much in common on the left-right spectrum. What most of them do have in common is their opposition to accountability.

their opposition to accountability.
Aidan,
Yes, I have witnessed that a lot particularly with Federal, State & Local Govt bureaucrats.