Excellent I'd like to add a few things Tim wrote
"What does it say about the Australian mass media that that it unanimously linked this bit of theatre to “democracy”? "

Well what it says is none of them are interested in journalism only opinion why because it is cheaper and gets better ratings.

But don’t worry the net is going to save us. There still won’t be much journalism but at least the number of opinion that can be heard will increase. Take this site as example there is a wide range of views expressed and the author of any article in some cases does little more then set the topic. Now I grant you we are not all scholars and most times our spelling and grammar leave much to be desired (mmm maybe Kev has a point :) ) everyone is able to have their say.

"The right of a people to self-determination" is a lovely phrase, but how do we define who is "a people"? Are Iraqis "a people" simply because they live within borders that someone drew some time ago? Are Australians "a people"? If so, how did we become one?

In the 1890s, there were Queenslanders, New Zealanders, Victorians, and so on, but there were no citizens of Australia, so, presumably, no "Australian people". Then in 1901, suddenly there were still Queenslanders, New Zealanders, Victorians, and so on, but some of them were Australians and some were not. Is that how "a people" comes into being? If New Zealanders were now to decide to join our federation, would we all suddenly become "one people" as if we had never been anything else? Does the fact that we can move freely between the two countries mean that we already are one people and just haven't noticed yet?

Until the 1970s all of us - all Australians and all New Zealanders, as well as all Canadians - were British subjects. That must mean that we were all one people, doesn't it? Then, in the course of a few years, we were all stripped of that status, without ever being asked if we would miss it. Does that mean we suddenly stopped being one people, just because our various governments of the day decided they didn't want us to be? Or does it mean that we are still one people, divided between a number of different countries but capable of one day asserting our right to self-determination?

Personally, I prefer the latter option, and I look forward to the time when the vast multi-ethnic, multi-religious people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom can reassert the identity that was taken from us in the 1970s by short-sighted and parochial governments that couldn't see beyond the narrow limits of geography.

Pretty typical fare from the left. Shrieks of the “illegal” war. Who says? The French? The Germans? Both refusing to go to war to protect lucrative oil contracts yet this is seen as much more noble than going to war to remove an evil mass murderer and a major sponsor of world terrorism. “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!” Exactly right.

No matter that our system of democracy in this country produced and maintains a peaceful society where people are free to live as they like and say what they like, they are free to get ahead enjoy the fruits of their labours, where most things get done and no one is starving. According to Tim this country is ……umm…..ahh…..well I don’t know exactly what Tim thinks but one is left with the distinct impression it is BAD!!

I don’t know what Tim has in mind. Probably a model along the lines of NZ or some of the European loons where you have coalitions of parties and nothing can ever get done. Or perhaps he favours something more along the lines of that beacon of the left – Cuba.

Tim also has to drop in the current new trend in left-thinking – anti-semitism. Note the increase of anti-semitic acts in Europe and around the world rising on the back of virulent and hateful attacks by the left on the state of Israel and their actions in the middle east. Both sides in that conflict have a lot to answer for, not just Israel. But in the typical fashion of the left, there is only one side to the story. I think we all know what the left would be saying if there was an increase in anti-Palestinian hate acts in Europe.

At the end of the day we are the “haves” and the Iraqi people are the “have-nots”. Typical of the left to want to keep it that way, no matter how much they bleat otherwise.

Kenny makes the point how wonderful and marvelous the internet and OLO is for people having their say. A bit rich when I notice him directing everyone to ignore comments from others on another post. Once again it’s typical of the left, “free speech for me and none for thee”.

Long live the democrazy.

ps. that isn't a spelling mistake.

Bozzie,

l think your post reflects the nature of our democrazy. Its divisive, each side attacks the other, we roll out the political slogans, cast aspertions... all in all we live in perpetual disquiet.

l tend to think we have it pretty good here, notwithstanding some of the practical limitations, like you can 'keep' the fruits of your labour as long as you cough up your 'fair share' which in this country is now approaching between 50-70% of the fruit grown and picked. Sure we have it good, but lm not sure how that sits against the fact that we spend nearly half the year to pay for the system. l think we have it good because this sort of discourse is a mark of people well fed.

Those countries where you say 'nothing gets done' are full of people getting things done, like living their lives. Without reference to political brandings like 'haves and have nots' (which l believe is a leftist slogan). Those Europeans strike me as pretty happy and they just laugh at the $5000 suited and $5000 accesoried nitwits in Brussells. On a recent trip to Spain, l was quite impressed with just how contented the people are. They have a strong sense of self and dont let the politicians highjack their purpose and direction in life. On return to Australia, it strikes me just how much people are plugged into the politic matrix in this country. How our public consciousness and discourse is dictated by the political spin machine.

In my estimation, they actually get a lot more done than we do.

PS. Israel is a Marxist leftist state. Quasi communist l would suggest. So l guess the lefties who attack Israel like to eat themselves. A bit like Israelis who criticise Israeli foreign policy are anti-semitic semites, or as the Israel lobby like to say 'self hating.'

bozzie. You wrote:

>>that beacon of the left – Cuba<<

To quote Andrew Kenny from The Spectator:

"...Fidel Castro. He persecutes homosexuals, crushes trade unions, forbids democratic elections, executes opponents and criminals, is a billionaire in a country of very poor people, and has decreed that a member of his family shall succeed him in power.

Is Castro left-wing or right-wing. Explain your answer."

Isn't it long past time we ditched these meaningless little crutch-phrases, left- and right-wing? As labels they are well past their use-by date, and it won't be long before they simply indicate laziness and a shallowness of intellect on the part of the writer.

Trade, you mention that the problem with democracy is that it tends to put people against each other. It sure does. That’s the whole point. Any other system is a one party state and I hope none of us want that. Name calling etc. is a problem between human beings, not a problem of democracy.

I agree 100% with your second paragraph.

In relation to your 3rd I’d just like to say that Europeans are happy because they are also the “haves” (I’ve never associated this expression with politics at all). Why wouldn’t they be happy? I think everyone in the world gets on with their life in one way or another. They only time you don’t get on with your life is if you’re dead. Although never having been to Spain I have been to several European countries and my impression was that they’re mostly very politically aware. I would suggest that they are just as much, if not more so, influenced by political spin than we are.

Your last note is ridiculous. I suppose because the discrimination and oppression shown towards the Palestinian people is indicative of a Marxist state this proves your point. Israel has elections, everyone, including the Palestinians has a vote. Even though their lands are occupied this does not mean Israel is not democratic. It’s a bit unfair to construct a perfect model of democracy and then hold countries up against it. Every democracy on Earth would fall short.

Pericles, point taken with your reference to Castro. Your description can be applied to both extremes of politics hence the description of left and right is irrelevant. However we are not living in any political extremity and the terms left and right are understood by everyone.

Pericles,

'Isn't it long past time we ditched these meaningless little crutch-phrases, left- and right-wing? As labels they are well past their use-by date, and it won't be long before they simply indicate laziness and a shallowness of intellect on the part of the writer.'

Well said.

In the world of power and politics it is much easier to advance behind the smoke of lies, distortions, dishonesties and emotional manipulations. Emotion is a much stronger motivator than logic and the power hungry know this. It is much easier to do as it scarcely requires thinking. Fear and greed before facts and figures... every time. It

For most, Thinking Hurts and laziness doesn't.

Bozzie,

l dont regard the point of democrazy as being about being against each other. That doesn't sit well with the idea of general unity. l think democrazy is just a popularity contest by mob rule. As Churchill said... 'its the best of a bad bunch.' But it is not without flaw. As it is, it does well enough in this country. But l think we've learned to live with the way the process has been subverted and just gety on with the things we can influence in our own lives.

The idea of 'have' and have not' is a Marxist concept. Its all about comparison to what your neighbour has. . Whether l am happy with my plate depends on what my neighbour has on his. It is a relativistic concept. It implies a redistribution of wealth or at the very least that the wealth of a nation is unfairly distributed. That term has become so ingrained in our thinking that its implications and origins seem to have been lost. This is the beauty of politcally touted Newspeak, where a word becomes redefined to denote the opposite of its true meaning. That in my opinion, is an example of how our consciousness has ben hijacked by political peddlers of spin.

Re my last note, lm not sure what point ridicule serves in contemplating a contention. The point of that note was not in any way intended to reflected upon the details of Middle Eastern politics. It was offered as an example of a) the manner in which language is twisted by politicians to serve their own ends and b)to illustrate that Marxism can hide behind democracy.

The whole model of delivering a promised land to an (allegedly historically) entitled people is pure Marxism. Recognising continuing entitlement to a diaspora of bretheren under the 'law of return' is the same thing. Deposing a group in order that another may reclaim their entitlement is Marxist.

There was no democtratic vote back in the late 1940s amongst all concerned parties regarding running the occupants out of their homes and off their land (the ones who were actually there, as opposed to the co-opted claims of those that selectively read the first testament).

Trade, thanks, point taken.

>>the terms left and right are understood by everyone. <<

Are you absolutely sure about this bozzie?

A current country leader has massively increased public spending since he was elected; has introduced trade-protection schemes for his country's industry and agriculture; has increased his country's trade deficit to the point where the currency is under enormous pressure.

Sounds like a classic "left-wing" tax-and-spend scenario, doesn't it?

But "everyone understands" that George W Bush is on the right of the political spectrum.

Pericles, left and right are broad general terms that most people understand. I agree that when you get into the miniature of anything, things aren't always so clear cut and the labelling of things in terms of left or right isn't helpful.

This article is about democracy and democratic principles etc. and I'm sure that most people understand the basic difference between left and right in this context. Let's not get too bogged down in pedantics.

Sorry bozzie, I can't let it go, because this is not pedantry or nitpicking, but an observation that this left/right wing stuff is a glaring example of lazy thinking, aided and abetted by lazy listening.

I have now given you two glaring, high-profile examples where the labels patently don't fit, and you still insist that "most people understand".

As trade215 pointed out, the reality is that people use terms like these as weapons, to divide and to intimidate. By tolerating this continuing abuse of the language, we are aiding and abetting tyrants.

OK, so maybe that tyrant bit was over the top, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Pericles,

Forgive my ignorance (and sorry to butt in), but how would you classify Castro and Bush on a political spectrum. Are you saying that it is no longer a two-dimensional measuring stick, and that we need to think in other dimensions? Is there a political modelling tool that neatly identifies all known persuasions?

A cross shaped graph, called a multi-axis model is much more acurate but harder for the average person to articlate. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)

Using the Bush example of right wing politics and left wing economics, or Communist China with comumist politics and capitalist economics, it seems that politics and economics don't have to come from the same area of the political spectrum anyway.

I think most people who understand the concepts of left and right wing also understand their limitations, so it still comunicates the point well enough.

Maybe a simpler system could be to look at politics as a circle, with the stating point at the bottom.

You can go to the left or right. You can go to the far left, or the far right. You can go to the far, far left, or the far, far right. But eventually if you go too far to the left, or too far to the right, then you go in a circle, and end up where you started from.

This is why the extreme left can appear very similar at times to the extreme right, because they are about to cross over.

They wear different colours but play the same game.
A spectrum, a matrix, a circle all seem to narrow or place a political ideology. l like the circle as the least limiting because you can bounce around in measured or chaotic shifts, whatever strikes your fancy. However they all constrain or maybe navigate political conciousness, making it easy to be lazy. The less you do, the less your want to do.

Seeker, you wrote "Forgive my ignorance (and sorry to butt in), but how would you classify Castro and Bush on a political spectrum."

Sorry, I thought I had been clear on this point. I find the classifications meaningless, so I don't use them. But out of interest, where would you place them?

jcl, thanks for the wikipedia reference, I hadn't come across it before. It illustrates my point quite well, by describing the complexities that we try to cram into the words right and left.

In daily use right and left are handy words to use as slogans on a banner, ("because most people understand the concepts") but that is the limit of meaning that they can convey. If we carry them into more intelligent discussions - as I assume we are trying to have here - they simply indicate an unwillingness to think any more deeply than in morning-TV sound bites.

Pericles,

In terms of government, the left desires a vast majority of public ownership, as opposed to private ownership. Curiously, the right is not diametrically opposite to this (anarchy is), and the libertarians are also further towards zero public ownership than what is commonly referred to as the 'right'.

So, by clear definition, Castro is left wing. And, as history has shown with communist and socialist governments, these governments always head towards the cruel actions you describe to Castro.

Of course, if we just ditch labels completely, then how is discussion possible? Are we only allowed to use labels you like? Please.

If you need to understand what a particular label, just ask. Your attempt to remove these labels is just another attempt and controlling to terminology of the discussion, which is par for the course for the left. That's why they are apparently now a 'reality based community' (Alternate reality of course)...

Grey, I think it is clear that I am going to have to agree to differ with the majority here, who seem to enjoy the use of labels-as-slogans. But I have to take issue with a couple of points you make.

"Of course, if we just ditch labels completely, then how is discussion possible?"

"Of course" discussion is possible without labels. Is a tin of beans less nutritious because you have removed the label? By examining the contents you can determine whether they are edible, tasty, poisonous etc. It just takes a little more care and attention, that is all.

"Your attempt to remove these labels is just another attempt and controlling to terminology of the discussion, which is par for the course for the left."

Surely, it is the use, rather than avoidance, of labels that is the more powerful in "controlling to [sic] terminology" - as you demonstrated perfectly in the next sentence. Having introduced the term "left", you veer off into some obscure reference to reality based communities. That is a clear illustration of how the word can be pressed into service to control the argument from a position in which you feel comfortable.

Which is my point, again. "Left" and "Right" belong on placards being waved by a mob. Absolutely perfect for the purpose, but totally meaningless in any sane discussion on real issues.

Actually Grey the one’s calling for that on this site are mainly right winger not lefties. Also there is not any modern countries were a true communist government has again power. All notional Communist states in the world all totalitarian in nature not communistic . The revolution in Cuba for example may have started with socialist ideas but they have subsequently been dropped. What history has really shown us is whenever power is concentrated in a same group of people they are corrupted by it no matter what their politic. The most important act in a democracy is not gaining power but relinquishing it.

Bozzie as usual you missed my point about the net because you are unable to tell the difference between the ability to say your views as opposed to your right to say them.

Pericles
""Of course" discussion is possible without labels.Is a tin of beans less nutritious because you have removed the label? "
I'm sorry, but you have used the label of 'beans' and 'nutritious'.
Thank you for proving my point that you need to use labels to have a discussion.

"Surely, it is the use, rather than avoidance, of labels that is the more powerful in "controlling to [sic] terminology" "

As you have already shown, It is impossible to have a discussion without labels. As such, you cannot have 'avoidance of labels'. So really, it is your attempt to repress the use of labels that you do not like, that is trying to control the terminology.

"Having introduced the term "left", you veer off into some obscure reference to reality based communities."
I'm sorry if you had not heard of the reference before. I had assumed you would be a little wider read, as you portray yourself as learned and knowledgeable.

"Which is my point, again. "Left" and "Right" belong on placards being waved by a mob. Absolutely perfect for the purpose, but totally meaningless in any sane discussion on real issues."
There you go, labelling again....I guess you can't avoid it.

Pericles, Sorry mate but it IS pedantry and nitpicking. I'm talking broadly and basically in a particular context. You're talking in specific characteristics in many different contexts. I've aknowledged your two examples and yes, I still claim that most know exactly what I'm talking about.

Are you seriously suggesting that people don't? Are you saying that when people talk of left and right politics everyone stands around with a dumb look on their faces? I don't think so.

How are the terms left and right used as weapons? Do you think most people are insulted by being described as such? Once again I don't think so.

I'll say again that I agree the terms have blurred over the years. In fact the two terms have become almost exact opposites of their original positions. I agree that when speaking on some particular issues the use of the words are meaningless. That doesn't mean that they have lost all relevance, they haven't. People still identify with one or the other and it'll be a fair while before sterile argument kills the terms off.

Kenny, by ignoring other peoples views, opinions, and concerns, especially when you urge others to do the same, is tanamount to supression of free speech.

Yes, So, Some views are dangerous and should be suppressed.

Kenny
"Actually Grey the one’s calling for that on this site are mainly right winger not lefties."
I am not sure what the 'that' you are referring to is. Can you please explain?

"Also there is not any modern countries were a true communist government has again power. All notional Communist states in the world all totalitarian in nature not communistic"
I'm not sure, but this sounds like the no true scotsman fallacy.
You realise that communism is totalitarian by nature right?
For example webster defines Communism as
"a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"

Not using labels

Collins: Communism :Doctrine that all means of production etc should be the property of the community. Mmm what a difference a word makes. Communism is just that people living in a commune Which the Collins dictionary defines as “group living together and sharing the property, responsibility etc.
The general def for communism is “A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. “ The government is shared by all the governments of the USSR and China have made no attempt to broadened political power to the populace.
Your getting the theory mixed up with what has been practiced.

Kenny,
If you want to define communism as some ideal form of both government and economy and ethics that is impossible to attain by all means go ahead. The problem is the theory is fatally flawed as it does not properly take into account human nature.
This is why every attempt at a communist country has failed to benefit the 'workers'. This is why their economies go bad. This is why they are all totalitarian.

I notice also that 'political power to the populace' is not in the general definition. So why do you act as if this is a core requirement of communism?

Feel free to speak of something that cannot exist. I'd prefer to deal with reality.

Grey gives us his "clear definition" in the following terms, "In terms of government, the left desires a vast majority of public ownership, as opposed to private ownership..."

That must mean that Paul Keating, for example, is from the right, given that he began by selling off the Commonwealth Bank, and ended up buying into a privately owned piggery.

But then the left has always said that he was on the right of the left. The problem for the right is where does the left of the right belong these days?

Grey that is my point democracy in it's ideal form would have everybody having input into every decision. In practice that is not practical (This may be come possible in the near future) is it can also said that there is no true democracy.

Tim

"Collaboration in the illegal invasion of a country"
Please show a court case which has decided it was illegal or show how every possible reason for the military action was not valid. Otherwise you are just ignoring contrary opinions without discussion.

"which posed no threat to this country"
So you feel that the people of iraq have been brutally repressed for 25 years is not a good enough reason to remove Saddam and his regime?

"This country has been incapable of exercising strategic independence."
And yet the call is always for 'mutlilateral' action. So your saying we should act independently with a group of other nations?
Or do you merely want to imply that because our government agrees with another countries decisions and supports those decisions we are not acting independently?

"What public discussion there is of our role in global affairs bears on the efficacy of integration into imperial plans, rather than the question of independence from them."
I'm a little confused here Tim. Are you saying that America and Australia have made an empire by conquering and controlling those nations it has conquered? Please be specific about where you feel that America and Australia have stayed in decisional control of any nation they have attacked? are you suggesting perhaps Germany? Japan? Kosovo?
Please, enlighten us as to where this vast empire is? Or are you merely using inappropriate words in some poor attempt at propoganda?

"The proposition that the Empire, or anyone else, might be able to “export democracy” hardly bears much serious discussion. "
Of course. Dismissing serious discussion seems to be how you feel you will get people to believe you.

"the mass murder in military interventions in Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq, the backing of “dirty wars” in Indonesia, East Timor, El Salvador and Nicaragua,"
I'm glad you can decide that all this 'mass murder' has taken place with a quick wave of you hand. Are you saying all these wars were illegal or unjust? (Seeing as how murder is an intentional unjust killing) Or perhaps it is merely that you would have preferred the Taliban was still repressing women, that Saddam was still brutalizing and starving his own people?

Let me make it very clear. I am proud of the fact that Australia had a hand in the removal of Saddam. He needed to go, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

"the consistent support for ethnic cleansing in Palestine,"
Yeah. I hear over and over again how our leaders encourage and support ethnic cleansing (In palestine or anywhere else)? Oh, thats right, I have heard no such thing.Please, the propaganda is a little thick.

Note that I am saying that America or Australia is perfect, or that they have not done the wrong thing in the past. But so what? Clearly America has not taken any land from any other nation. They are not 'empire building' and to accuse them of such is rhetorical drivel that is not worth the bandwith.

"Rather than preaching democracy to other countries, as a self-styled “Deputy Sheriff”'"
Your right. We should avoid helping any nations people escape from brutal dictatorship. That would be immoral. Is this really what you are saying?

"The Australian media lauded recent elections in Iraq. Yet those elections were held under military occupation,"
Of course they 'lauded' it. The iraqi people got out and voted. Showing they care for their country. Under threats of death from terrorists and those who used to repress the iraqi people.
Are you suggesting that the military should just pull out straight away? That they should leave Iraq to chaos and civil strife?

"with widespread torture by the occupying army;"
Wow. 'Widespread' torture. Please stick to facts Tim. Your exaggerations are so transparent that it only makes you look like a wingnut, rather than a person with a reasoned opinion.

"the assassination of journalists"
I certainly hope you aren't referring to the rubbish mr Jordan was spouting that has been shown to be without factual support...

"What does it say about the Australian mass media that that it unanimously linked this bit of theatre to “democracy”? "
I would call it accurate reporting, as this is an important step in establishing a democracy. Letting the people decide who gets a say in writing their constitution before full elections.
You seem to be implying that we should just be able to snap our fingers and 'hey presto' a democracy appears.

"But our public debates are shallow and compromised, through our lack of independence"
or perhaps they are shallow because wingnuts keep spouting factless propaganda rather than dealing with reality and facts.

"First is the corporate grip on public debate,"
Wow. A corporate grip? In a capitalistic country, a group of individuals (i.e. a corporation) has a say in public debate. I'm shocked. Now, if you want to do anything but assert they control the debate I would be more sympathetic to your comments, but as it is, you don't. No suprise there really.

"second the poor structure of political representation"
If you think the politicians ignore the will of the majority of the people, then I think you must be badly misinformed. You need to realise that just because the government does something that you personally disagree with, does not imply that the structure of political representation is poor.

'At the same time this mass media labels as “terrorists”, to be exterminated, those poor and desperate Palestinian and Iraqi youth fighting to protect their families and homes"
Those poor and desperate palestinian and iraqi people who strap explosives to disabled people and young children you mean? Those poor and desperate iraqi's (lets not forget the large chunk of foreign terrorists) who want to return to the good old days of repressing the rest of the population. Those poor and desperate palestinians whose stated goal is the destruction of the state of israel?

And yet, we find in the media there is almost no labelling these 'poor and desperate' as terrorists. They are most commonly referred to as 'Militants' or 'Insurgents'. So once again, Tim, your exaggerations are transparent.

Please Tim. Next time, avoid the propaganda, avoid the exaggerations. Stick to the facts and your arguments will seem less like the rhetorical drivel of a wingnut and more like a reasoned discussion. There were definitely points in your article that should be discussed (e.g. America's mistakes in the past like in Chile, or even discussing what it means to be a citizen and the rights and responsibilities that entails), but these points are lost in the ranting.

Grey, now you are being facetious.

"beans" and "nutritious" are not labels, they have perfectly acceptable dictionary definitions. There is a significant difference between "bean", a simple noun whose first usage was over a millenium ago, and a composite term that is rarely used consistently.

But I think you know this, and are simply trying to obfuscate a lost cause.

And please, nowhere have I claimed to be "learned and knowledgeable".

The question of legality and justice in war is irrelevant.

Legality and justice are intellectual contructs. Cracking someone's skull open is not.

War is not reason. It is force. Competing interests seek to force their interests upon one another. Each believes themselves to be right and rationalises the decision as they see fit. Both cant be right or wrong at the same time.

No reason, no logic, no justice, no right, no wrong. Just force.

In any event the reasons are what they are. They deeds stand. In the end, it is the deeds that define not the words.

Sorry Grey, but if you will lead with your chin:

>>And yet, we find in the media there is almost no labelling these 'poor and desperate' as terrorists. They are most commonly referred to as 'Militants' or 'Insurgents'<<

It appears that you do in fact know the difference between a noun and a label. And clearly, you understand also the way in which they are used to demonize, without needing the intellectual rigour of an explanation.

Why did you protest so much before?

Pericles
"There is a significant difference between "bean", a simple noun whose first usage was over a millenium ago, and a composite term that is rarely used consistently."
There you go labelling again. Just because something can have multiple meanings, and so is not necessarily used consistently, does not mean it should not be used. Any number of words have multiple meanings and can still be used in conversation. It merely means that you may have to seek clarification on a meaning.

"It appears that you do in fact know the difference between a noun and a label. And clearly, you understand also the way in which they are used to demonize, without needing the intellectual rigour of an explanation."
I think you miss the point completely. I understand quite definitely the difference between a noun and a label. A noun generally tells you about something. For instance we known that a bean has certain attributes. So to call something a bean, is to say it has those attributes. It is a label. Now either the object you labelled a bean has those attributes or it doesn't. And before you can claim to be demonizing the object by calling it a bean, you first need to ascertain whether that object indeed has the attributes of a bean.

Now I do quite clearly understand how people can choose words that are inaccurate in order to demonize or spread propaganda. Tim's diatribe is a good example of this. But this decision is based on the accuracy of the "label's" he has used. As the obvious example, his use of the word Empire is clearly inaccurate for the reasons mentioned in my last post. As the whole of Tim's rant is anti-american, it is clear, when combined with this inaccuracy that he may indeed be attempting to demonize.

Note that I do tell Tim to not use the word 'Empire' simple because it is used in different ways, but because it is inaccurate, especially in the context it is used.

Of course, this leads in nicely to my next point. That is, that you complain about left/right, but why not Empire as Tim has used it?
Certainly it is a major theme in his entire article.

"And please, nowhere have I claimed to be "learned and knowledgeable"."
Of course. My mistake.

Trade
"No reason, no logic, no justice, no right, no wrong. Just force.

In any event the reasons are what they are. They deeds stand. In the end, it is the deeds that define not the words. "

Then why act? Why complain. If there is no right or wrong (i.e. no way something 'ought' to be) then why act at all?

if you are saying that might makes right, then surely the US is always right?

Grey,

The why-fors and where-hows are necessary for our brains to stay sane. That is to say, so that we can live with ourselves and our actions. l tend to agree with the school of thought that says... first we decide, then we work out why. Sometimes we act before we work out why. But the reasons are, in my mind, incidental to the deed.

'Then why act? Why complain. If there is no right or wrong (i.e. no way something 'ought' to be) then why act at all?'

By all means, act, complain, think, rationalise, laugh, cry. We need not be rendered mute, nor dictated, by the abscence of the absolute. Notwithstanding that doing nothing is in itself an act.

My position is that the motivation to act is a function of existence. We live. We do.

And we compete with each other for every breath of air. We are symbiotic and parasytic in nature. We feed off each other and on each other. To my mind, that is where absolutes like right and wrong break down.

Might is neither right nor wrong [you prolly saw that coming ;)].
It just is. l may not like it when words and reasons aren't enough to stop my competitor cracking my back. But crying for justice won't straighten me out. Nor will transcendental meditation or prayers. Either l raise my fist or someone else does it for me. Or l live under the whip.

Grey, with logic like yours - "all nouns have attributes. All labels have attributes. Therefore all nouns are labels" this quickly becomes pointless.

I can only assume you are writing in order to see your name in print. That's sad.

BLINDNESS ABOUNDS.....
When someone like the author speaks of 'SELF DETERMINATION' of a country like IRAQ (full of Kurds, Shia and Sunni, not to mention Assyrians and others), as in "without the benefit of occupying troops".. I really wonder what planet he is from !!!!

The ONLY kind of self determination will be that of the best armed ethnic/religous group. (which of course will in reality be a proxy for some external power that has made trade arrangements pivotal on the aid/arms they supply) Up to this time, it has been the minority Sunni's under Sadaam.

What drugs is Tim Martyn ON ??????????? that he can now bemoan the lack of self determination just after they have had an ELECTION !!!!
I think Tim actually dwells in some dark corridor of a leftist monastry where he has taken a vow of blindness and 'never watch TV or listen to news or surf the interenet'.

IAN... well said mate. 'claps and cheers' as IF.. societies are anything BUT a conglomeration of various competing interests.

Does anyone really give this guy (the author) an ounce of credibility after such a stupid statement about international law and blah blah ??????

Its either abject stupidity or willful blindness or hapless naivity in the extreme ad absurdum or all of the above.

Bozzie.. u get a clap and a cheer also "Shrieks of illegal..says who"..exACTLY !!!!

PERICLES.. bozzie was being sarcastic about "Cuba- that beacon of the left'. I'm surprised u did not tweak to that.

GREY.. u almost rule :) ! Your analysis is commendable in my opinion.

I want to add one more label to Left, Right. "Christian Social Democratic". Which would be a centrist, principled approach avoiding the extremes of both Left AND Right, based on 'stewardship' of the planet and the social order.

Boaz wants to know what drugs Tim Martyn is on???? Tim Anderson, the author of this essay, would probably like to know what drugs you are on Boaz.

Boaz also demands to know how Tim can bemoan the lack of self-determination in Iraq just after they have had an election. Don't be so naive Boaz. Here is a posting of mine from another forum that addresses the question directly:

With the "oversight" of the american occupying forces, the interim governing council in Iraq signed a law providing that everything in Iraq is to be privatised and open to full foreign ownership or leasehold for the next 40 years. That includes the oil resources, and all amenities and public services, including health and education. Any new "democratic" government in Iraq that attempts to repudiate this "law" will undoubtedly meet with forceful retaliation by the american occupying forces and the "coalition of the willing", including Australia..

This is a US right wing web site that is often a source for the Australian newpaper this is a recent art about the Iraqi elections.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021505C.html

Great link and a good laugh, thanks Kenny

Ever get the feeling there is sometimes just too much democracy?

Seeker,

>>>>>Ever get the feeling there is sometimes just too much democracy?

Insightful question.

Reading these comments reminds me of an observation made many years ago by a psychologist: "The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship". Which of course Singapore proves all too well.

If ever there was clear indication of the idiocy of mindless mob rule---aka democracy---then the seemingly endless litany of pseudo-intellectual politicobabble on this page provides it. The outcome---zero, zilch, nada, nothing---of all the energy invested into these comments proves the reality.

We'd all be far better off investing energy in developing---with certain safeguards---a social system that is akin to a ship's crew having just one captain. One of the jobs of an intelligent captain is to tell a crewmember when to shut up. One of the responsibilities of the crew member is to shut up when told to do so.

It's been long proven that's the best way to keep the ship off the rocks.

Instead, like a mob of sheep, we foolishly fiddle around in bleating circles while the Rome of our society burns.

Anyone who prefers to stop talking and actually do something constructive might want to go to http://www.decency.org.au

And you would be the cabin boy Ozaware eh.

Ozaware

"We'd all be far better off investing energy in developing---with certain safeguards---a social system that is akin to a ship's crew having just one captain. One of the jobs of an intelligent captain is to tell a crewmember when to shut up. One of the responsibilities of the crew member is to shut up when told to do so."

What happens if the captain is the wrong guy for the job as in Robert Mugabe/Zimbabwe or Saddam Hussein/Iraq

Furthermore tell us:

1 Who will select the captain?
2 Who will prescribe the safeguards you refer to?
3 Who will decide if the captain is doing well or should be replaced?

Kenny, well, actually.....I am a 'cabin boy'.

That is I see myself as a mere messenger..

Graham and Sandgroper:

My response is longer than (I think) would be appropriate for here. So I will post it at http://ww.oz-aware.com/oloreply.htm Please feel free to read or copy it to this forum if you want---or I'll do that if you authorise me to.

In this article the author states “Only in some Australian parliaments (mostly the less powerful upper houses) is there a little wider representation, and these few struggle to find a voice through the same strangled corporate media, and the stupefying consensus.”

I would fully agree with that, but how easy is it to vote for the upper house? At the ABC site the “Poll Vault”, Mat Liddy gives some suggestions on how to vote below the line for the senate at…http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/weblog/200410/s1214736.htm

“For voters planning to vote below the line in the Senate on Saturday, Antony Green has discussed how "you can usually order the top 10 or 15 candidates you want to vote for with ease, and probably the dozen or so you want to put at the bottom of your list". He suggested a couple of ways of randomly numbering the rest of the parties. But now Jeremy from Nosemugger has emailed The Poll Vault to share his online tool designed to help voters decide how to number those parties they mightn't know too much about.”

So all someone has to do when voting, is to take their laptop along with them, connect to the internet and use an online tool. This might help them work out where their preferences are actually going, and who they are actually voting for. It all seems very straightforward, particularly for the house that is supposed to be the most representative of the people.

Phillip Adams gives some musing about our democracy in an article titled “Political realities of the one-party state” at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12177494%255E12272,00.html

“While the situation is wildly applauded by Howard's followers (among whom must be numbered a clear majority of my fellow pundits, the US administration and the big end of town) there are a few recalcitrants, some odd ingrates, who think one-party politics is inherently unhealthy. So what is to be done?

Phillip Adams seems to think that the press has to try harder.

“Arthur Miller defined a good newspaper as "a nation talking to itself". Given that Howard is now as firmly in control as Berlusconi, Putin, Bush or Blair, we'll have to talk quite loudly. And hope that the public is listening.”

Yeah, sure Phillip. All the public has to do is keep buying his newspaper and keep reading his column, and all will be well. Like the press has been really, really helpful in answering the many questions still remaining concerning 9/11, or the WMD, or the last US election, or why Osama Bin Laden is still in hiding, and hasn’t been found because he is in hiding.

Time for big re-thinks about our political systems, and how to make the country into an actual democracy, and not just a pseudo democracy at best. There appears to be another six years to do this at least.

Timkins,

>>>>Time for big re-thinks about our political systems

Yep, well said. Why do I have the feeling it will always be too little, too late?

>>>> re Phillip Adams. The guy must be in a lot of pain fromm all the self-inflicted bullets in his feet (BIF). I notice he has 'blocked' my e-mails, presumably because he doesn't like people pointing out yet another BIF. Blocking e-mails is just typical leftist ineffective thinking. I could of course send him e-mails using another address, but it's not worth the bother....

Sandgroper, and Kenny, why so quiet? Is it because you read my response, hmmm?

Not it is because i forgot to tick the little box. I read your web site and will post a reply tonight after work.

Ozaware

Don't think that I'm enraptured by your proposal for a new political system

I tried to look at the link you provided but I was unable to access it

The address was missing a "w" - an inadvertent check on your analytical problem-solving powers. Unfortunately you didn't get to pass...

Well done Kenny, you got it!

Here's that address--corrected: http://www.oz-aware.com/oloreply.htm

Ozaware

I didn't really feel morivated to look at your post as your proposal to this point hasn't been impressive. I decided however to extend you the courtesy of viewing your post. When I found that it wouldn't work by cutting and pasting the link provided I decided I had far better things to do.

I simply wasn't motivated enough by your argument to do anything more. I suggest if you want to persuade people to follow you in your crusade you might be sufficiently courteous to facilitate their path.

In answer to my question of who would sack the poor performing captain, you suggest that;

"a group of well informed provably wise people" selected by "a much larger group of well informed, educated, proved-to-be 'responsible' people"

will be responsible for doing that.

Please tell the forum who will select the larger group ( i.e. the " much larger group of well informed, educated, proved-to-be 'responsible' people"

Sandgroper,

I can’t speak for Ozaware, but I think that it is evident that our political processes are often quite archaic and in need of reform, particularly if we seek to export them (or inflict them) onto another country.

I threw in a number of suggestions on how to reform our political systems (particularly reform of the senate) and make such systems more democratic and more people focussed at … http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3053#2859

Ozaware has also made suggestions regards reform of our political processes.

So what are your suggestions?

Timkins I've waited 4 days now for Ozaware’s answer to my question.

I'm not happy with most modern democracies. Our Australian version falls far short of what most people want. However I don't believe there is a superior system. A proper democracy which isn’t abused is about as good as it’s possible to have.

The trouble is that human beings are inherently greedy (at least the ones that aspire to politics are). In a politics they soon become corrupt, ready to lie, cheat, deceive, manipulate. Any system subject to that will be poor.

Ozaware has described his proposed system which so far as his explanation goes is what we have here in Australia; John Howard is the captain selected by "a much larger group of well informed, educated, proved-to-be 'responsible' people" i.e. the Liberal MHRs.

Many people would accept they are wise.

The thing we don't know about Ozaware’s system is who will select the "much larger group" or the MHRs themselves.

Conflict arises in many countries over the appointment of the captain. If its not done in a way that people will accept, then there will be insurrection.

You mentioned that the senators should not belong to a political party. That was the intention of the founding fathers when devising the Australian constitution.

I’m supportive of your view but it’s almost impossible to prevent senators from forming political parties.

Just imagine a group of wealthy senators ignoring the plight of the poor people. You did not have the funds to gain the publicity you need to become elected to counter them in the senate. You’d become aligned with others and a political party would be formed which had the funds needed. In a short while arguments would arise as to the course of action to be taken on issues and compromises and power factions would arise.

Space is too short to enlarge on this. My view is that whenever you try to replace the democracy you create as many problems as you solve.

Ozaware’s suggestion for a power group, not selected by the majority, is a recipe for conflict.

Sandgroper,

I would agree that there are advantages and also disadvantages with any system. However democracy is not a given, or something that is stagnant, but it has to be continuously worked on to maintain it or to improve on it.

There were some other suggestions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3053#2859 to improve the current situation as well as having independents only in the senate.

- Introduce secrete ballot in both the Senate and the House of Representatives
- Have more public referendums, and more public enquiries.
- Government to actually carry out the results of the referendums, or the recommendations of enquiries.
- Put “none of the above” on the bottom of each ballot paper, and if the majority of people tick “none of the above”, then the election has to be held again (and this time with different candidates or different policies)

These were just some thoughts, but the general principles are for the populace to have more say, and to be able to get corrupt or ineffective politicians or political parties out of government before they become too ingrained or too difficult to remove.

Sandgroper and Timkins,

Sorry, I've been offline for a week.

I confess I do not deal in the minutae, my focus is the fundamental principles. That's because life has taught me that if the foundations are strong a good structure will stand firm. I will leave it to better-informed individuals (Timkins, I suspect being one) to devise the nuts and bolts of a good system.

They just need to remember that the key is a strong and inflexible moral code. That's what made the USA so great from the time of the Dec. of Indep. until about the 1950's.

As their morality has slowly unravelled, so have all their 'good' and 'successful' social management structures slowly started to unravel.

I have previously given 'simple' examples of how a loss of morality destroys our freedoms and opens the door to social disasters. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/morality1.htm and also oloreply.htm on the same website.

The discussions on the OLO forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3042 end up with the same reality that morality is the key.

Which is no coincidence, gentlemen.

And we are an increasingly immoral nation. Which is how I can 'predict' our now-not-distant-future if we don't have a fast and drastic change of thinking....

Sandgroper,

sorry, here's my response re your "who would select the much larger group"?

That's (I suggest) done by a process called 'education' and 'merit'. That is to say, only people who have earned the right to have a say in our nation's future by having (a) achieved certain specified standards of education and (b) met/surpassed some other set standards---such as (perhaps) written knowledge tests to ensure they know what they are voting for.

The point is that no rational society would have a 'mindless mob' pulling its strings. Besides, a mindless mob of voters opens the door to pollies being tempted to offer all kinds of 'mindless' promises.

Hmmm...vaguely familiar innit?

The other way will result in each politician knowing he/she can't fool any of the people any of the time. Do you think that will perhaps make them more 'responsible'?

Ozaware

While I agree with you on the need to educate the voters that's the limit of my support for your proposal to develop a "much larger group" that will vote to select the group that then selects and monitors the performance of the captain.

Your proposal to educate this larger group who will be given the privelege of being involved in the selection process will create a privileged class.

The non voting section of our society that you advocate will be outraged. What group of people is going to accept being deprived of the vote except through force. The people you intend to prohibit from voting may not value their vote at this time but if you deny them the vote they will react violently and the state will have to put down an uprising. Its not as if we haven't seen this reaction before.

Your misguided proposal will inevitably lead to conflict along the lines seen throughout history e.g. French/Russian revolutions.

How are you going to enforce the voting prohibition on every polling day? With the Police and the Army?

I'm amazed that you would suggest such a division of society that has proven to be the cause of conflict.