Wonderful thoughts James - if only. Indeed; the world IS a cynical place. Rather than actually DO something people would rather blame and label. Very tired of the labelling that goes on in this forum such as, rabid right and luny left. These labels are often used when a poster is being dismissive rather the making a contribution to debate.

Neither one holds the ultimate truth.

We need a balance.

We need capitalism - in the form of smaller competitive business rather than controlling monopolies which exhibit all the malaise of too large government.

We also need to be responsible for more vulnerable people - they can contribute too if given a fair chance.

Problem is - soon as we provide support networks to assist vulnerable/low income, someone claims government is nanny.

Well at the present time multinationals is the world's nanny but unlike grandma doesn't have the interests of human wellbeing at heart.

How can we have positive politics when politics are beholden to big business?

speaking of "puffery",
have you been smoking something wacky?? !

('Left' & 'Right' remain simply because they have been useful terms of description in Western [so-called] liberal-democratic societies. The issue is surely with the way the terminology has been abused. To remove them altogether not only neglects facts of ideology which underlie our political philosophies and history, but ignores the true motives of the parties/movements/interests in question. It is not the terms themselves that have become problematic but the TIMES: it is a negative feature of our current 'real-politik' that these terms can be both skewed and also called upon inconsistently at the convenience of the -mostly- low principled politicians/commentators of this overwhelmingly Rationalist "new world order" period.)

James, Are you suggesting we all be inducted into group therapy sesssions where an evangelical motivational speaker tells us all to be more positive? Will this be deductable through my medicare card?

I agree that we need to break the deadlock of cynicism (of both left and right, but I also agree with PABRU's timely pocket book analysis of your use of L/R) but life is much more complex and requires us to think much more deeply.

Simply adopting a pan psycho-social pathology of all things for all people might feel good and allow you purge yourself and turn that deep and meaningful chat you had over a few beers with Mirko Bagaric at the last Law society conference into a piece of prose - but your colleagues over in the social sciences know that anxieties (and beery chats) are one thing, social and political analysis is another animal altogether.

Dr Michael Hogan (School of social sciences)is someone I would highly recommend.

Remember, even Karl Marx proclaimed that we wasn't a Marxist.

But perhaps I'm being too cynical and anti-positivistic? Bar Humbug!

This *life with meaning* thing is, I think, more important than fretting over the (always) artificial labels people use to categorise things.

We need a political discourse and practice that aims to help us all live lives of meaning.

How to do that? It starts with us just doing it - and finding others who do as well. And helping others along the way.

Political movements are, after all, /just/ like-minded people doing things together.

I agree there’s not much difference between the main political parties in Australia these days. Although I’d say its largely due to the Labor Party shifting towards the right more than the Liberals playing with ‘left’ ideas.
However, after reading about how the world’s financial system functions, how the Reserve Banks are run for private gain ,how inflation is purposely built-in and how money that doesn’t exist yet is loaned, there’s no wonder that economies are forced grow at the expense of ‘leftist’ ideas which naturally puts a big-business spin on everything.
I wonder how much control governments really have. I doubt they have many ‘big’ levers they can pull. I feel like countries are forced to play ‘The Game’ according to certain rules forcing a certain flavour of socio-politics.
I want to be positive about politics, but its difficult when so little is being done to address unsustainable growth and our long-term future goals by either major Party. Luckily in Australia we have lots of resources so we should fare ‘relatively’ well in the future although by ‘we’ I mean the corporate ‘we’ not the actual people.

Well done James you've writen this with out actually talking about your subject. Maybe is comes from your "reasonable doubt" POV. What is positive politics? What would we do, don't say what we wouldn't do.

James Wrote “Positive Politics is about emphasising and fostering the positive strengths and virtues”

Seems an excellent idea to me.

James parents had the “one life, live it” attitude, the self-reliance and resolve associated with but one side of the "left-right" divide.

Mirroring James parents example, I would here insert a quotation

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. “

It does not get more “positive” than that.

The second part of the quotation addresses the political environment in which such ideals can flourish –

“This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

James’ parents took the risk and were rewarded appropriately, instead fo expecting “the state” to feather bed and underwrite every aspect of their lives.

Doubtless James parents held for their children the following aspiration -

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

So let us all walk our own path.

Assured, that path is one previously trod by people who shared such ideals and produced such inspirational “quotes” as I have used, courtesy of Margaret Thatcher.

James, there is a strong theme of positivity and happiness in the 14 articles you have posted on OLO in the last 12 months. That’s good. But dare I say it…. of course this is what we should be striving for. As far as a desire for positive politics goes, well, …..it goes without saying.

But just exactly what ‘positive politics’ means or how we would achieve it is not elucidated in your article. The closest you come is; “Positive Politics is about emphasising and fostering the positive strengths and virtues inherent in all Australians”, which is enormously vague. I don’t want to be too critical, because it is all a lovely concept, but it lacks substance.

I agree that the concepts of left and right are highly confused. They lost any meaning for me a long time ago. You write; “Both Right and Left are loyal to the status quo.” But it is not at all clear how ‘positive politics’ would replace these concepts or steer us away from the status quo and onto the “most effective path to progress”.

How would you envisage us developing positive politics in such a cynical world, full of lies, half-truths, non-core promises, and hardcore pre-election promises that just get ignored post-election…where the real power is vested in big business, not government…and where we collectively seem hell-bent on never-ending continuous growth despite glaringly obvious massive fractures appearing in our resource base - the essential support mechanism for this growth??

You know what is vastly more important:- tough pragmatic politics with a very strong emphasis on the enormous looming threats to the very coherence of our economy, political system and society. The government needs to immediately engage an entirely different gear in order to minimise the forthcoming peak oil upheaval. This is what I would call positive politics.

Well, I suppose those supporting this sort of semantic waffle, will be reveling in its confused say nothing content. There will be no change, we live in a political duopoly dictatorship, supported and controlled by the legal fraternity. You can see that in the way legislation is formed and enacted, how justice is determined and by the groveling support for economic stupidity.

Positive politics, would be the removal of donations and public financial support for political parties. It would also mean making politicians responsible for whatever they say in the form of statuary declarations, policy intent and promise, as well as public statements.

Positive politics would be the removal of financial support for any company not owned by citizens of this country.

Positive politics would also mean making senior beaurucrats fully responsible for the implementation and actions of their departments.

It would also mean bringing the political system into this age and establishing referendum voting on most issues relating to trade, health, defence, social, immigration and religious issues, using electronic methods. We are a well informed society capable of making decisions for ourselves regarding direction and polices. The problem is that the ruling elite have no desire to give the people power over their lives, as it would expose them what they really are, programmed semantic nothings.

None of this will happen as anyone with any reasonable policies that would enhance the social system and put control of policy direction in the hands of the people, are destroyed before they even start.

Until we have a totally new political system different from those presently in use throughout the world, we can only look forward to more social and environmental grief.

Change will only come after a total society collapse, as can be seen throughout history. When the bureaucracy, religion and the elite have ultimate power, everything collapses.

Unfortunately positive politics either doesn't exist or is never practised.

Those that identify themselves with the various labels would be well advised to think about what those labels mean to them as they sure as hell don't mean much to the rest of us.

Our governments have been marching to the right for years now and it seems the only interest is in how many Howard Government policies that Labor give a tick to. In recent times I'm sure I've only heard a quiet "Agree" from Labor. So why would they change? People still vote for one or the other.

James - as a person who has become heavily interested in local politics - from the ratepayer's side - I can appreciate your article. Australians are the most heavily 'personally' rule-governed nation in the world and we are fast developing a working mentality that sees us give more and more of our time and energy to our jobs, and less to our personal lives and aspirations.

This leaves us at the mercy of governments with manipulative agendas that discriminate against the community at large. How many of us have suddenly realized that we can no longer do 'this' or 'that', without submitting an application and having it passed in triplicate. That we can't go 'here' or 'there' without the necessary permit, pass or authority.

I say bring on a form of government that actually listens and acts on our behalf first - after all, we pay their wages, don't we?

Maybe the citizens of this fine country should look more closely at this Wage Restructuring Bill and work out how we can use it to our advantage in refining our government bodies and making them more efficient!!

Interesting article. Until recently (until I started using this forum) I had personally never identified myself, nor anyone else, on the scales of left and right - although most people would identify me as the former. I suppose it is something very easy to fall into - the labelling that reduces a human to a mere word. I draw on my professional approach:

I am a 28 year old male early childhood teacher in regional Queensland. I believe wholeheartedly in the benefits of education. While I hold my own opinions (and take action upon them outside of work) I give children a variety of means to express themselves and develop their own sets of values and beliefs. I don't think it is too productive to identify the students I teach as right or left, particularly at a young age where they are highly impressionable – I identify them as human beings who have the ability to contribute greatly to our country and world.

Education is the answer.

Believe it or not this site cheers me up when I'm down, when I read the meanderings of an old man with obvious paronoia, living in the late 70's quoting Thacherism, talking of compassion, as if he knew what it was, and espousing theories like "This is what "we" mean by a moral society" using the royal "we" as if he were someone, instead of doing a job classified as distrusted second only to second hand car salespeople.

Politics James is supposed to mirror the aspirations of the majority, instead we have "Worhchoices" [no choice] forcing the employee's wage down, which would be fair enough if it forced the average C.E.O's million dollar salary down to a respectable level.

Paul Keating showed us how easily statistics could be manipulated to say whatever the current Government wanted them to say, a decade on nothing has changed, every Australian is supposed to be worth $310,000 so says the latest stats, if this is the case the Packer or Stokes family must have our families share of that amount.

We are in a greed is more important than need timeframe, the rich refuse to pay their fair share of tax, so there is only one avenue left to Government, the resources companies, who cannot dig up coal, uranium, iron ore etc anywhere else, so are a captive taxpayer, especially when the public provide infastructure at our expense to accomodate them, surely they should be made to pay their share of tax. Sadly our Government seems to sell "the jobs" they provide as some sort of justification for all the taxation discounts they enjoy.

Don't get me wrong, if people elect a "big business" Government they deserve all that they get, or don't get, as the case may be. Positive politics in the end is a pipedream, from one living in Fantasyland, those of us who do not reside there deal with reality, as hash and as cruel as it is, and see James and Khemer as storytellers much in the same vien as Hans Christian Anderson.

I have always believed that Right and Left referred to a way of thinking and processing information.

The Right are more visual spacial, they tend to be more creative and intelligent and need to see a big picture before they can fill in the blanks - they learn by experience and learn by trial and error.

The Left are Audio Sequential, they tend to do things by the book. The left believe that they need Policies and rules - they learn by hearing and memorising. Many left thinkers believe that just having a Policy on something is going to make a difference. They dont learn by trial and error. They dont actually appear to learn at all. They just have more enquiries and write more Policies.

Alchemist, good post. I agree with most of it.

“Until we have a totally new political system different from those presently in use throughout the world, we can only look forward to more social and environmental grief.”

No I don’t think so. Things are pretty well under control in Switzerland and Scandinavia, with similar political systems. The huge factor that makes them so different is that they don’t have massive growth (in population or economy) and have no expectation of getting it. They HAVE to deal with more or less steady state regimes.

With the various things that you mention that would greatly reduce the ties between big business and government and increase power to the people, we could vastly improve the existing system.

The really big problem is weaning ourselves off the absolute absurdity of rapid continuous growth, and growth that feeds itself in a spiral, which is rampantly promoted by the business sector and unscrupulous politicians (the rampant push for greater population growth in order to spur economic growth, which is then necessary to maintain the same standard of living for the ever-larger population, with no average per-capita gain, but big profits for a few already rich and powerful people). If we can’t address this, then forget the rest.

The trouble is, the enormous powers that rule our society are vested-interest and profit-driven and will vehemently resist implementing political measures that break down the ties between big business and government or move power more towards the populace.

Overall, I don’t think we can do it. Unfortunately, I agree; “Change will only come after a total society collapse”

Alchemist, Ludwig

It is beginning to look as though unregulated capitalism will eat itself.

Despite there being potential profits in sustainable industry, as market values continue to replace moral values there is little incentive for government/big business to aim for steady, sustainable and responsible growth.

The IR reforms were just another step towards global corporatisation and at present it looks like the only way it halt is with societal and environmental collapse.

Sorry to be so negative, but I think you may well be right.
:-(

Jolanda

With all due respect, I think you may have confused left and right brain function with political inclination. While some people's intellectual abilities may be dominated by either right or left hemisphere this plays no part in whether a person is conservative or radical in their political beliefs.

For example, many artists tend to be "right brained", yet hold left-wing views politically.

Thanks Ludwig, it is good to see that some can see past the illusions our world is dominated by.

However regarding, “Things are pretty well under control in Switzerland and Scandinavia, with similar political systems.” I hate to disappoint you, but that's not the case. In the last few years rape by non born Swedish residents (read muslim), has tripled. Rape involving children under the age of 15 have increased six fold, all by muslims. 9 out of the 10 most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden are Muslims . Street violence of all kinds is soaring on a national level.

9 out of the 10 most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden are Muslims.

A trend known from other European countries such as France, where Muslims make up 10% of the general population, but 70% of the prison population.

This is a fast growing problem in all European countries. My friends keep me informed, reading the various English newspapers, Aftenposten The Local Copenhagen Post Watch Stockholm Spectator Enough! Tundra Tabloids shows you that there no place left that's not faced with religious cultural chaos.

Sadly those who follow monotheistic religions, are hell bend on destroying everything, in their ambition to have their despotic beliefs take control. Those that control PC politics can only see their growing power and wealth, yet they fail to see that they are being used by the very thing things they support, that will destroy them as well, monotheistic religions.

You are so right Scout, it will be survival of those that choose to prepare, mentally, not physically.

Jolanda, I admire your attempt, but if right wing people are thinkers, how come they are leading us down the same path as the left. Could it be that both sides are just inadequate mental concepts, with no real relevance, except the despair they both cause.

One of the particularly disgusting aspects of our current system, which has got to be viewed in the most negative manner possible, is the federal ‘compulsory preferential’ voting system. It means that for a significant proportion of voters, their vote ends up counting where they had no intention of it counting! It is unbelievable, and yet over the years it has remained unrecognised by most voters and practically unpublicised.

For example, if you really didn’t want to vote for either Labor or Liberal, and you put them last and second last on your ballot paper, in the vast majority of cases preferences would filter down until they counted for whichever party you put second last.

This is a million miles away from democracy. What it amounts to is massive vote-rigging. There should be no way in the world that your vote can end up counting for a party/candidate that you specifically did not vote for!!

There is no reason why the optional preferential system that we have at state government level can’t apply in federal elections.

Woops - of course, there is a very good reason; to keep the two-party system entrenched and keep the minor parties, well, minor. How on earth the populace can allow this sort of thing to exist is beyond me! No, it’s not cynical, just the straightforward truth.

This is a very significant factor in keeping the entrenched pro-growth anti-sustainability major parties, well, entrenched.

We have a left wing for the rich and a right wing for the rich. We are a rich country. We have immigrants come for $$$ and to work hard, not for labour laws. We have poorer people left to chose which is better for them ,of course none of them are, but at least the right are not so judgemental, get enough of that from the religous nutters already.

Scout. You see the thing is that you can be a right brain thinker and not vote Liberal. Just like you can be a left brain thinker and not vote Labor.

Who you vote for doesn’t always depend on your learning style and way of thinking. The most defining factor that determines which party people vote for is what party is going to be more financially worthwhile for their needs.

I believe that a creative artist that is earning mega bucks will probably vote Liberal. But a creative artist who has not been able to make it in the Artist world and is broke, they will most likely vote Labor because they need access to financial assistance and welfare.

The alchemist.... right brain people might be thinkers – but, your right, it doesn’t mean they are all good

Is admitting failure to understand the first thing we all need to get positive politics?

One thing, that James admits failing to appreciate, and not understanding, is the artificial distinction between politics of the “Left” and “Right”. Also 'Scout' asks: "How can we have positive politics when politics are beholden to big business?"

'Tubley' concludes "Education is the answer." But surely after a century of "universal" education, Australians should be seeing the answer to such questions!

'Alchemist' wrote that "the particularly disgusting aspects of our current system ... is the federal ‘compulsory preferential’ voting system ... It is unbelievable, and yet over the years it has remained unrecognised by most voters and practically unpublicised." Is that so "unbelievable"? How can something "particularly disgusting" remain "practically" unpublicised? What debate has been publicised - however little?

Well, for those who do not remember, Albert Langer opened such a debate. Most voters would have not eard of it except that Albert was so disgusted that he defied the judge who tried to stop him from showing how our votes will not end up where we had no intention. His jailing was widely publicised but how many knows what has happened since? Its is considerable, but it is not publicised even though plenty of reporters and editors have been informed. If its practically unpublicised, why?

Piers Akerman once told me he thinks reporters and editors are often intimidated. If intimidated, how? Here's my theory.

Like many of us, reporters and editors are intimidated because they are loathe to admit their own failure to understand. That's likely if they have been "educated" to think they do understand! Its doubly likely if they see themselves as elite commentators rather than humble reporters.

Any reporters and editors reading this are encouraged to comment, particularly if they have facts that contradict my theory.

Bloody Garden Gnomes, My Granny had one she called Red Herring.

Positive Thinking in Today’s World.

The above title brings many things to mind. Get Big or Get Out in economics is still in vogue from the early eighties, as we see big companies like BHP and Billeton absorbing each other. We see Big W in our Hall’s Head Mandurah taking over a smallish liquor store before Christmas extending the joint and stacking it with a million bucks worth of mixed beers and liquors, the place soon stacked with lines of customers coming in from God Knows Where. “Economies of scale, me lud,” says a wise Brit migrant to a dumb bush Aussie, “And don’t you know that Woolies has got shares in the big grog companies where they can buy wholesale at special rates. You gotta wake up, me lud and buy their shares.”

How different the concept of Positive Thinking is these days than when Dr Vincent Peale insisted that the power of positive thinking was all about morality - meaning your positive thinking was really only about doing good for others, sort of Sermon on the Mount and Good Samaritan kind of stuff.

But, hell, James, here we are now making bosom friends with our old sworn enemy - communist China, with the promise of buying our pitstock proceeds for years to come. No worries about the Tibetans right now - it’s all forgotten. Already we have our consumers contented with low-priced Chinese imports, especially as such saving keeps inflation down, our government gaining popularity by taking the credit for it.

Here with so much needed patriotism owing to the fear of terrorism which even the CIA says is mostly just blowback caused by trying to get rid of communism in the first place, and gaining a bit of stratagem and contraband on the side as is surely going to happen in Iraq.

But does James mean to let our thoughts become positive as we appreciate such encouraging words from our PM because we are backed to the full by the US of A, the greatest power the world has ever seen.

Part Two

It seems that to be personally positive these days is not the way of Vincent Peale, but by having faith in our PM’s favourite religous group, Hillside Pentecostal, knowing that like similar groups in America they have faith in the Rapture and a Second Coming, possibly even comfortable about the ever increasing terrorism, part of a sign of the Endtimes as predicted by St John the Divine.

Does the new positive thinking mean like the message from our government to be wary of philosophers, who are warning that much of out thinking has not only gone back into the 19th century, but much further back into those BC years when a Greek philosopher said the world was not flat but round and possibly speculated on a single solar system with earth as its centre, thus the leaders of our Christian Church in the early AD years were able to abuse this theory by making it part of a Revelation, that our good earth was surely the centre of the universe.

The same sort of people could be those who have so much faith in our government policies, and will not believe the news that the focus in the Middle East is now turned to Iran, because Iraq according to a Google report, is turning into an ever deepening terror-ridden quicksand.

Also the Israelis could be ahead of the Americans in their planning, already said to be setting up sites in Kurdish northern Iraq, right close to the Iranian border. The Google report says there is a danger that if the Iranian nuclear works have become secretly active, a bombing might set off a reaction far worse than Chernobyl. It also seems that China is backing Iran, because Iran’s high-grade petroleum is so much needed

...and there you have it Brushy.... the continual weighing up of incompatable interests and alliances..

"Should we whack Iran ? hmmm China backs them"... this could get ugly. So, perhaps pandering to China, is like continually feeding the baby monkey that jumped onto our neck, and at first was cute, but it would not get off, and continually demanded food..but it got heavier and heavier.. until it grew so big we were struggling to carry it.. and finally it broke our back with its weight.

The main lesson in that, is that China will always act in its OWN interests, and we only fit into those as consumers.

If I was Chinese, and not a Christian, I'd be thinking "Yes.. those humiliating Opium wars.. almost destroyed the fabric of our society, and the Sasoons from Bagdad and English together cared about us only as far as the next opium shipment and the dollars it would put into their coffers.. and then.. the 'treaty' of Nanjing.. forcing us to accept Opium, and also pay HUGE reparations and punitive payments to the Sasoons and the British for 'economic losses'

As the Sassoons spread their ethnic tentacles all over China, with family members in every key position of their trading companies, and the British backed them with the gunboats...destroying our youth, debilitating our culture, wrecking a generation... yes.. we have not forgotten.. and now.. its OUR TURN......

yes.. as the prophet Habakkuk said..

"Look at the nations and watch—
and be utterly amazed.
For I am going to do something in your days
that you would not believe,
even if you were told.

I am raising up the Babylonians, [a]
that ruthless and impetuous people,
who sweep across the whole earth
to seize dwelling places not their own

Differnt place...different time... but principle the same.

Education is the key however there are different types of education and outcomes. What is having the most significant impact on society is the way people are being treated, the Education being received in the playground and the streets and the way that our children are being groomed and educated whilst in that environment. For most people, all their life they have been told, if they ever complained about any harassment, unfair treatment or injustices, that life is tough so get used to it!

Well, now people are used to it and many have learnt that “if you cant beat them, its best to join them as the bullies are the ones that are protected. Just like the criminals!

Victims who happen to complain are seen as whingers and trouble makers and accused of having a victim mentality. You are supposed to accept being treated like a piece of dirt as that is the life the Government is supporting. We are being desensitized to violence and unfair treatment so that we get used to it and see it as normal and don’t complain.

As a result of the process used to deal with these issues so many people feel hard done by and are aggressive and hostile. The system has succeeded in destabilizing the community and making it live in a fearful and hostile environment where bullies rule and where the trend is to ignore the victims.. Most people now care about others as much as others care about them.

It has even gone one step further and bullying has progressed to a form of terrorism and since bullying is not against the Law we have to wait until they drop a bomb. We are still advised not to let it get to us and to go on with life as normal whilst the system appears to do nothing to stop these terrorists. The question has to be asked, who is the system protecting and why?

WE are a product of our environment. If there isn't an overhaul and change in attitude in society, things will only get worse.

Hello Jolanda

"What we have here is a failure to communicate" Paul Newman - Cool Hand Luke

OK, I will try again re your post "Scout. You see the thing is that you can be a right brain thinker and not vote Liberal. Just like you can be a left brain thinker and not vote Labor"

I know that, that is what I thought I was trying to convey to you when I stated "While some people's intellectual abilities may be dominated by either right or left hemisphere this plays no part in whether a person is conservative or radical in their political beliefs."

The reason I started this is because you originally posted "The Right are more visual spacial, they tend to be more creative and intelligent and need to see a big picture before they can fill in the blanks - they learn by experience and learn by trial and error.

The Left are Audio Sequential, they tend to do things by the book. The left believe that they need Policies and rules - they learn by hearing and memorising. Many left thinkers believe that just having a Policy on something is going to make a difference. They dont learn by trial and error. They dont actually appear to learn at all. They just have more enquiries and write more Policies. "

Apart from the above being a gross generalisation it is also inaccurate, suggest you check out:

http://www.intelligenceltd.com/rightleftbrain.asp

I hope you find the site interesting and fun.

How our brains are wired has no bearing on whether we are out and out commos or rabid right wing nazis.

When I first started voting I voted Liberal, then Labor now I vote according to how just and fair a politician's platform is.

You really can't generalise about whether we are creative intuitive thinkers or objective style thinkers and whether that affects our abilities to learn.

Both brain types can have high IQ's.

Cheers

Scout, I was interested in your comment "is conservative or radical" as descriptions of right and left political views.

That is a different perspective than the one I hold on the difference between left and right political orientation.

I've tended to see myself as being on the "right" of politics because of the view that the right has a stronger bias towards individual freedom, responsibility and opportunity whereas I see the left as promoting the type of state where those who refuse to act responsibly should have no consequences to those actions.

Clearly that is a very generalised view which does not closely match the realities of the mainstream parties, an idea of orientation rather than specific policy. I'm conservative on some issues but don't see being conservative as core to my world view, I do see personal responsibility and freedom as core.

Any other thoughts on the core difference's between "Left and Right" from other posters? Do others see this as an issue of conservative vs radical or personal responsibility vs lack of personal responsibility?

Cheers
R0bert

To "The alchemist" I think you need to seek professional help soon to help you deal with your delusions. Irrational hate on the level your at can only led to trouble.

The trouble with people like "The alchemist" and other poster is they believe they have thought through the issues when in fact they haven’t. There is a good reason why almost people who actually study these sort of issues become moderates. No matter what their leanings left or right this happens to them because they eventually learn that there are so many paths, each equally valid for different people that it is counter productive to impose one narrow path. It is human nature to hold your opinions in a higher regard then one different to yours. To over look the short comings of your own opinions and concentrate on the short comings of others. The only enemy of our future is radicalism of any flavour. All the world problems are caused by people believing that their ideas are worth killing for. Our political and legal systems are the culmination of 100,000 years of the human existence and will continue to evolve as our society does. It’s easy to point out the flaws in our system (try living somewhere else) but much harder to come up with realist alternatives. So "The alchemist" go into that great Aussie place the room of mirrors and have a good hard look at yourself

Selling cigarettes for three years in a milk bar in country victoria does not give you any special powers of revolution or soothsaying...and although it got your house paid off and got you through a private school, it is not proven that these outcomes are in fact the epitome of, or even the major currents of, a 'succesfull' life or desired 'dream'.

In fact it is more suggestive that you are either a fantasist, a massive rip off merchant (which has broader implications for the transactional abilities of the good folk of Corinella), or that your parents sold cannabis on the side! Many people can not afford to buy a run down milk bar, nor obtain a mortgage on a family home, nor put their children through private school. And some people do not want to.

I am suspicious of people who promote things like how to avoid the terms left and right. I suspect they are cultish. I suspect they are from the right. I suspect it is called hegemony.

Kenny, from your post, you appear to be another religious blank drowning in reality. I never express hate, just disgust at religious lies and despotic applications. Hate is the realm of those who are inadequate and rely on force to enforce their beleifs, eg religion.

Your statement, “All the world problems are caused by people believing that their ideas are worth killing for.” Is very apt, considering it is the religious that are doing the killing, not people of my beliefs. I just feel sorrow for all the millions killed in the name of god over the centuries. But you''ll find an excuse for that.

You are more than welcome to bring forward the short comings of my opinions. It is mostly the religious that hold their opinions above others, I just point out fact in a semantically forceful way.

I can only learn from other opinions and hold them in high regard, as long as they are evolutionary and non destructive. When it comes to religion, people are only moderate when they are trying to convert, when faced with reality, they react like you, confused and vengeful.

Robert, thats a very interesting question you pose. I used to believe that right wing, were those that wanted power and control via whatever means. Left wing were those that had only every been to school (tertiary and academics) and had no real understanding of living life, so approached life from a PC approach full of feely good illusions.

But in all facets of life, you can find both sides. Like you I would be interested on other posters views on this, as throughout history we have had both left and right rulers and bureaucracies. I swing according to the effect it may have on others, sometimes conservative, sometimes left wing. When it comes to politics, I see only right wing power brokers and the bureaucracy as the left wing of government.

Well said Cribbo

Alchemist, things in Switzerland and Scandinavia are not perfect. They have their fair share of problems. But the issues that you talk about are not a product of their political systems; they are a product of unfortunate decisions. As you say, the same trend is occurring across Europe, and elsewhere. This is happening regardless of steady state or continuous growth factors.

My point is; we don’t have to have continuous growth (expansion) in population and/or economy. Similar societies with similar standards of living and similar political systems have proven this over long periods. And yet Australia continues to be profoundly based on unending continuous growth.

Surely the essence of positive politics should be all about preparation for the most immediate large-scale threat to our society and the somewhat longer-term threat generated by the ever-increasing demand on our resource base along with a dwindling supply capability. The immediate threat is peak oil and the slightly longer term but intimately connected threat is our insane continuous growth mentality.

Putting it more broadly; negative politics should be seen simply as politics that directs us against sustainability and longer-term protection of a high quality of life. Obviously then, positive politics is fundamentally based on real sustainability and long-term protection of a decent quality of life. Simple indeed

Humble Hack, regarding my very strong complaint over ‘compulsory preferential’ voting (which you inadvertently attributed to Alchemist):

Yes, Albert Langer brought it to our attention, but despite that publicity very few people really understood what he was on about. He was made out to be a total looper, and a criminal, for simply saying it. That episode has got to go down as one of the most extraordinary things in the history of Australian ‘democracy’.

I agree with Piers Ackerman; reporters and editors are often intimidated, or feel that they cannot report stuff that is clearly against the interests of their employers. It is immediately obvious that this is such a case.

However, that does not explain why the Democrats, Greens, One Nation and every independent candidate have been so incredibly quiet about this extraordinary part of our political system.

For a long time I questioned whether I was interpreting it correctly; whether it was indeed true that your vote could end up counting where you specifically did not want it to. I thought that I must surely be missing or completely misinterpreting something. But it was all confirmed after correspondence with the electoral office (I was a candidate for the Qld Greens in 1995).

Clearly, one very significant aspect of positive politics would be to reform this absurdity, and simply implement at federal level the same optional preferential system that we have had in Queensland (and ?every other state) for some years now.

Humble, you wrote; “His (Albert Langer’s) jailing was widely publicised but how many know what has happened since? It is considerable…..”
What has happened since?

lucid article. wd

Hello to you too Scout

You see here is my problem. I am a right brain thinker and I struggle to memorize other peoples thoughts and ideas, and I just can’t bring myself to read another article on intelligence. I also tend to go off track a bit, as you may have noticed. I have always struggled to stay exactly on topic and do as I am told, much to the despair of some. I mean, how can one be so sure that the person who wrote the article is right! One week the experts say one thing, the next week it is another.

My views and opinions at this point in my life are based on my own research and experiences and I have had first hand experience in dealing with the extremes of intelligence in members of my family and dealing with different styles of learning and thinking. I am also the type who seems to have a knack of finding patterns and even inconsistencies in things.

Maybe it is a generalization, maybe it is not. But my experience tells me that we have different learning styles and ways of thinking and whilst it might not necessarily be the major influence to determine who you vote for, money holding that title, our way of thinking certainly influences how our Country acts and the manner and style that education is presented to our children.

I think the use of Left and Right to describe parties in politics is just a distraction. It’s the focus used to confuse and whitewash what is really a distinction between the richer and poorer.

After reviewing some statements in the article, I believe it is erroneous to some extent...

"All through history, progress has come from individuals looking at the world a little bit differently, and using that vision to make a difference. My parents could tell you that without ever having stepped into a university lecture theatre. The Left and Right are concepts that do not come into the mix when building a business and working towards a better life."

This is flat out wrong. The Left has a generally more progressive attitude toward change. Women's rights and slavery would have been opposed by the Right. So this is simply untrue. Conservatism holds back progress, such as stem cell research and cloning. Economic rationalism of the Right imposes restrictions on science research that is not profiting (eg, tectonic plate theory and Einstein's theories never had the promise of a tangible economic benefit, yet would be opposed by economic rationalists...again, they take change brought by leftward thinking for granted). The spirit of the article in that the flags of Left/Right is a fine point, however.

Steel, some thoughts/comments on your last post.

Concepts such as economic rationalism cover a pretty broad spectrum of interpretations and implementation. In one perspective it is about making sure that we can afford to do what we do, at the extreme end of the scale it requires that everything be quantifiable and paid for as close to the end user as possible. Likewise it is used to varying degrees by left and right.

Some on the right are opposed to scientific research that does not have an identifiable payoff just as many on the left are opposed because it diverts money from social programs. The US moon shots being a classic example of something that consumed a lot of money with no identifiable short term monetary benefits but which has according to some reports paid for itself about 30 times over in spin off technologies. Supported and opposed by left and right of politics.

My recollection is that Einstein was still doing the patent office thing when he wrote those famous papers - no research grants or public funding.

Conservatism does hold back progress but so to does change which just shifts the deck chairs. Often the left seems to want to run with the same or similar power structures, just change who holds the power. Again I don't see the left/right thing as a radical vs conservatism difference although it sometimes seems to play out that way. For me the core issue is about the personal freedom, responsibility and opportunity approach vs the state taking responsibility for those things.

R0bert

Hey Jolanda

Thanks for your response - I hope you didn't take offense.

I have reached the conclusion that 'right' and 'left' wing politics are terms that have become so distorted that they are irrelevant.

For example, left wing used to be considered 'radical' for promoting gay rights, women's equality. These days 'radical' can be used to describe the workplace reforms the Fed Gov have forced through.

Right wing used to be about tradition and a cautious approach to change. It has all become so convoluted. That is why labeling people 'rabid right' and 'luny left' is a lazy and pointless exercise.

I believe in a humane and fair approach to government and business. I believe in genuine capitalism - that is real competition - which is something that can't be achieved between monopolies. I believe that there are services which are essential to people's wellbeing and, therefore, should be controlled by government. All this means is that I find the Howard Gov morally repugnant and the Labor opposition inept.

So, I guess I am agreeing with the premise of James' article and that 'right' and 'left' are irrelevant and what is important is the wellbeing of all people and the best way to achieve this goal.

Ludwig, I apologise for my error and thank you for your feedback. I do not suppose you are a reporter [or better still an editor] for a more widely read publication? Perhaps one will read this and follow up, but I suspect we are right about intimidation. I hope I am wrong!

In answer to your "What has happened since?" [Albert Langer's release from jail], there's much more than I can type now but here's a link that may help. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

Go to submission 151, which concerns illegal actions in and by the High Court to conceal the fact that Gary Hardgrave was illegally elected. Its one thing that the MPs on the committee suppressed the proven facts, but these submissions have parliamentry privilege, so there's no excuse for editors or media baron [like David Fagan & Rupert Murdoch] not following up and widely publicising the truth.

What about the publishers of 'On Line Opinion'? I see its Editorial Advisory Board is chaired by former ABC managing Director Brian Johns. Why not start asking Gary or his mate Senator George Brandis for their reactions to Darryl Wheeley's allegations?

Also I agree with James & Scout, that 'right' and 'left' are irrelevant and what is important is the wellbeing of all people and the best way to achieve this goal. Any dispute? Maybe its time to take a vote. Can we do that?

Hi Scout. Don’t worry, I don’t take offence. I appreciate that we all have different writing styles and ways of expressing our ideas.

Just with the Left and Right thing. My family came over from Spain over 35 years ago. I have mixed with a lot of nationalities, even married a Lebanese and my experience amongst immigrants is that the majority of them see it like this, and I know it off by heart as I have heard it all my life – “Liberal is for the Rich; Labor is for the Poor”. It is as simple as that. That is the main interpretation of Left and Right by the majority as I have seen it.

Labor has to keep people poor otherwise they will loose votes. Liberal doesn’t want too many to be rich otherwise there is more competition and, who will then do all the mundane jobs?

That’s why Labor does nothing whilst Liberal looks after their own so well.

Ludwig, I agree with you regarding growth and Scandinavian countries. Growth should be about sustainability, how that can be achieved here under a brain dead duopoly is beyond me, except for a total collapse of the system.

I believe that many of the politicians of the last 20 years should be charged with treason, corruption and false pretensions. The insanity of supporting privatisation that has stripped the populance of its assets and resources for a pittance is criminal, as is the growing financial support for multinationals and political vested interests, using our money to support their greed.

Anyone bringing forth policies that benefit the people and require politicians to be responsible for their actions, would see those people destroyed, as we have seen with Ms Hanson. Not being a supporter of hers, I still felt that she had some good ideas. So they trumped up charges and got rid of her, just like langer.

I would also be interested to hear what has happened since. As is pointed out be other posters, we have no choice, as our votes go to those we don't want to vote for and they will never change that.

Positive politics may come after collapse, when the current despots are removed. I think a positive step, would be for more people to run for parliament. With a lot of candidates, votes at the bottom would have a lesser effect and that may slowly change things.

We must remember that no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly. Very few have the actual courage to place the major parties at the bottom and choose their own preferences. Their excuse, well they are going to be elected anyway. Or, if I vote for someone else my vote won't count. Just shows you the sheep like complacency of the enslaved in fear, mob.

Now with their new anti terror laws, they can silence anyone the want, a real fascist dictatorship. Sadly most will deny this, but time will reveal truth, as it always does.

Scout, a great post. The labels don't work well, as you correctly point out some of the current governments actions don't look like the Coalition is cautious about change (or from my perspective supporting freedom, responsibility, opportunity etc) and Labor appears to be useless.

Qld Labor is not exactly running a radical reform agenda either, rather stumbling from one self created crisis to another.

R0bert

James is simply describing a form of political action politicians from the traditional poles "left/right" would say they ascribe to any way - each party contends with their own unique ( well,,, sort of unique ) policy positions they aim to realise the dreams of the people etc etc etc. The terms are irrelvat only in so far as in Australian there is no real left or right.

You would need to go a long way back in Australian politics to find a genuine Left wing political party; the truth about Australian politics, more evident today than ever before, is that political thought oscillates between two very close poles - free uni education and universal health insurance and to a lesser extent the changes to the Family Law act represents the most "leftist" things we have been subjected to.

And as for archetypical "right " wing stuff the only things that come to mind are the IR reforms, diminished funding to universities and greater emphasis on usewr pays ( after most of the sitting members were educated on the back of the old federal funding ) and the VSU kerfuffle.

Its a small sample only but given the endless policy positions put about life remains fairly stable. To that extent in the Australian context left and right is some what irrelevant - but they save a lot of explanation

All elements of society retreat to socialism form time to time - our history and economy was based on agrarian socialist policies of protection/subsidies - industry was protected with tarriffs and still is with endless restructuring sweetners - sugar, dairy and most recently fisheries - kind of a wind fall one off dole payment versus the drip feed for the average punter.

Jimmys cry for positive politics is laudable but of little significance

Ludwig, & any who share his concerns about the ‘compulsory preferential’ voting system, have you read the submission 151 in my last post? When you do I hope you'll agree that it supports my theory of timid/intimidated reporters and editors since Albert Langer’s widely publicised jailing. If not please explain . . .

You also wrote: "There is no reason why the optional preferential system that we have at state government level can’t apply in federal elections." but how does that change the 'left' vs 'right' sham? Surely the evidence says it is just the same in NSW & Queensland as in Canberra & everywhere else. How do we explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional preferential system?

Also the Alchemist reminds us that "no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly. Very few have the actual courage to place the major parties at the bottom and choose their own preferences. Their excuse, well they are going to be elected anyway." How many of them/us do so because they/we are, in the legal terms used in the above submission, "unduly influenced" to number all candidates, including those they do not intend to vote for?

I think you'll find, like I did, that the answer to all such concerns is still hidden from the public by timid [& corrupt] editors. Can this forum change that? If not, what can?

Alchemist, again I agree with you, on all but one thing;

“We must remember that no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly.”

To a fair extent yes. But my experience in 1995 was that a large portion of voters didn’t vote for the duopoly, at least not with their primary vote, and a good portion not at all. The vote for the minor parties and independents was high, and that was with one of the most progressive Queensland state governments in power, following the very long-awaited shift away from the Nationals.

I reckon that if people understand that they can meaningfully vote for alternatives other than the Laborials (the duopoly), then a reasonable percentage will, and progressively a larger portion of elected members will ensue

Thanks Humble for the link. It would indeed be a very good thing for the publishers of OLO to follow up. Yes I agree with you regarding timidity/intimidation of reporters.

Pertaining to the federal compulsory preferential and state optional preferential systems, you write; “Surely the evidence says it is just the same in NSW & Queensland as in Canberra & everywhere else.” Essentially it is. Although, all else being equal, the Goss government would have won a third term in 1995 if they hadn’t introduced optional preferential voting three years earlier.

Compulsory preferential voting is just one horrible tool used to keep the ‘Laborials’ entrenched. Reform of it in isolation wouldn’t achieve much. However, it is so blatantly antidemocratic and offensive that it should be reformed with urgency.

“How do we explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional preferential system?”.

I’ll have to do a Hanson on that one – please explain

Ludwig, I don't know if anyone else is reading this thread but I hope at least you & Alchemist will read & respond to this. Three years on, its well known to many reporters & editors, particularly in the Murdoch press.

Apart from a simple reservation, I agree with your reply to his “We must remember that no matter what people say, when it comes to polling day, like slaves they just vote for the duopoly.”. You will not guess that reservation, or believe it when you read it! It is this simple question: What do you mean by "vote for"? Think about it before you go to this published but unreported High Court transcript. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/other/hca/transcripts/1998/S126/2.html?query=title+%28+%22+%20+s126+1998+%20and+%20on+%20%22+%29

If you scroll down a few screens you'll read this - where GLEESON CJ is the Chief Justice of Australia:
MR O'HAIR: That is certainly correct, your Honour. There is no limitation period or any other issue that has expired. Whether that would be a provident use of the Court's time having regard to authorities such as Clough v Frog and given that I am instructed to offer to pay costs, which obviously under the Rules that would have to be paid is the costs resulting from the amendment. Your Honour, I would submit that the full issue that arises as between the plaintiff and the defendant essentially does turn on issues of whether the plaintiff can be compelled to vote for persons that he does not wish to vote for and that it essentially rests on two - - -

GLEESON CJ: It depends on what you mean by "vote for".

MR O'HAIR: Certainly, your Honour. ...

Some reservation hey!

What a load of legal twaddle! How could the meaning of ‘vote for’ be in any way unclear? Under the current system we CAN be compelled to vote for persons that we do not wish to vote for, end of story. For the high court to fail to uphold this challenge and not declare compulsory preferential voting antidemocratic and illegal, has got to be THE single most blatant failure of our legal system ever.

It does NOT depend on the meaning of ‘vote for’, it depends on whether your vote counts where you want it to count. It is a crystal-clear concept that sits right at the very core of democracy.

Thanks for this very interesting insight Humble.

Thanks Humble, I wasn't aware of this case, but reading it just reinforces my thoughts on all this.

We have to remember that the courts don't deal in reality, but semantics. So they never really get to the heart of matters. Plus those on the high court, are very close to current politicians, who are mostly lawyers and won't make judgments that will rock the political boat and diminish the legal professions power over us. Even if those judgments would support the law. They have no interest in truth, or legality, just power. You can see that by the transcript, all they want is an excuse to waffle on and get bigger pay packets, lots of their comments were about getting costs. Love to see what their cut is of court case costs.

If you really looked at it, you would not find a party politician that has a legal right to be in office. Most could easily be charged with treason, corruption, misrepresentation and false pretenses. They promote themselves as representing the people, but once elected they represent themselves and their political and corporate masters. Core, non core promises, just lies.

Thats why whenever there is some form of revolution, they end up hanging the politicians and bureaucrats. Our current leaders should be in jail as war criminals and pathological liars. I expect that the next society of this country will make sure that those that represent us, are experienced in the portfolio and not just lawyers and accountants with no knowledge of life.

Just note how many lawyers and accountants are in parliament throughout the country, that will give you some idea of why we are where we are. These people are ignorant and lacking in understanding. Most have only ever been to school and never lived in the real world, so don't have a clue.

So don't hold your breath waiting for changes, this article is just another empty waffle by a lawyer. Just be ready for the big crunch and go on holiday until it is over.

Thanks Ludwig & Alchemist. At least 3 of us agree that it's nonsense for the Chief Justice of Australia to interject from the bench on the issue of "whether the plaintiff can be compelled to vote for persons that he does not wish to vote for" to imply that the meaning of "vote for" is uncertain. The meaning is certain, and I've no doubt that anyone who has ever "voted" in even the simplest of family polls knew what they meant. But what if they numbered ALL the options, be they which movie will we watch?

To choose [vote for] & to rank [number in order of 'preference'] are not different actions. Albert Langer's contribution was to discover and publicise the fact that by ranking UNchosen candidates equal last, polling officers could understand and give effect to such voters' "true" intentions. Do not ask me how, but that's what Murray Wilcox said [on 30 September 1998] in an "interlocutory" Federal Court hearing of Joe Bryant's above case.

My 1st point in my original post was that "admitting failure to understand the first thing we all need to get positive politics". I concluded that "reporters and editors are intimidated because they are loathe to admit their own failure to understand." Ludwig agreed with me & Piers Akerman regarding intimidation of reporters. So where do we go from here. Even if there are others reading this thread, the facts will remain hidden from millions of voters unless a major publisher breaks and follows the story of Joe Bryant's case & Daryll Wheeley's petition and submission 151 at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm

Will OLO get the courage to ask Gary Hardgrave or his mate Senator George Brandis for their reactions to Darryl Wheeley's allegations? What if we each ask them. Also I have contacted Darryl Wheeley and anyone wanting to know more or to help him fight the AEC's illegal claim for $24,000 costs can email him at mailto:CAST@mailhousesolutions.com.au

Joe Bryant's address is mailto:succeed@tsn.cc and his High Court case is still adjourned.

OOPS! Did you see my error above?
I wrote: To choose & to rank are NOT different actions where I should have had To choose & to rank ARE different actions. SORRY!

Also I have not tried to answer Ludwig's 'please explain' on “How do we
explain the persistence of the 'left' vs 'right' sham in the optional
preferential system?”. Let me just say it also needs wider publication, but not the dishonest & deceptive reporting seen in the Courier Mail after the 2003 Police Crime Report into the Maryborough by-election!

Many posts have asked you to define “positive politics”, yet what it takes to define such an enormous topic is far greater than any one person can do.

It takes a large collective of resonant people to define what the dreamers and the innovators put forth. Hopefully this is what we can achieve, rather than pointing out holes in people’s dreams, we can help fill them.

One part of me is convinced that we can make a positive change in this world given the current global crisis we are in morally, environmentally and economically. This takes courage to step out into the world with different views and proactive intention. This also means taking responsibility for your actions and impact on the world like the great David Suzuki. It takes time to gather the strength in numbers so that your goals can be visualized and achieved. It also means copping the flack from people who are satisfied with the status quo, people lacking in a vision for their future generations one hundred, one thousand and one hundred thousand years from now.

The other part of me believes that we (human beings) are either too stupid to change our ways, too apathetic (ie: comfortable, particularly us westerners) or too scared to rock the boat. The earth cannot sustain our current unconscious trajectory, it will take (and they will happen) monumental disasters to rock people into action. Most people will not give another the time of day unless they are collectively in some sort of disaster, then, most people will lend a helping hand to those in need.

So for my children’s sake I still have to act on behalf of my optimistic self, futile, naïve and brave, believing in miracles and David (out of David and Goliath). And call upon that quiet voice within each of you, (that’s the one beneath the cynical academic) to sing to your heart. Positive politics starts with positive people working together. We collectively have the answers to our problems already, are enough of us ready to listen to them?

Eshua concludes "We collectively have the answers to our problems already, are enough of us ready to listen to them?". He's right, but the more difficult questions are how many is enough and who will tell them, particularly if reporters and editors suppress facts & public debate?

Such questions led me to post some important facts kept concealed from public debate. We individually & collectively have the answer to CJ Gleeson's interjection. The meaning of "vote for" is such an answer. So where's the problem? Is it as Eshua fears, not enough of us ready to listen, or that most of us are too concerned with who tells us, rather than what we are told? If my logon was 'Rupert Murduch' [or Osama bin Laden] would the posted facts get more attention?

The fact that 3 years ago CJ Gleeson interjected from the High Court bench: It depends on what you mean by "vote for" & has never been answered, is proven. I wonder have any readers even tried to contact Joe Bryant or Darryl Wheeley, as I suggested 5 days ago?

Eshua

Yes we have collectively got the answers and there are enough people willing to listen. But two more huge things are required:

A massive change in our collective psyche about how we operate our whole society, before we are forced to change. This IS possible. We saw it during WWII when we were under the threat of invasion,

And to somehow wrest the power from the almighty vested-interest sector that has got a stranglehold on government and media, to the extent that both government and media have pretty well just become part of them... or convince this sector that it is in their interest to steer away from continuous growth and towards sustainability with an absolute urgency.

We see such extraordinary examples of this undemocratic vested-interest power base, such as:

The compulsory preferential voting system that works strongly towards maintaining the two major parties as the only real contenders for government, both of which are vehemently pro continuous economic growth,

And abject and utter misinformation coming from the topmost echelons, such as Costello telling us that “our fertility rate is less than replacement level” and “only immigration is making our country grow”.

The question is, how do we get anything like a level playing field with these grossly irresponsible people?

Unfortunately I think they have got it pretty well sown up, and all our efforts to prevent the collapse of our society will be too little too late

Humble Hack. Great post.However! I am surprised that you have only just concluded that the press is intimidated by their failure to understand.

The New York Times Chief of Staff John Swinton's candid confession about the absence of a free press in 1953 at the New York Press Club said (and I will not qoute the whole piece)"There is no such thing,at this date in history,as an independent press.You know it and I know it.There is not one of you who dares write your honest opinions,and you know before hand that it would never appear in print.I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper, I am connected with.
The business of a journalist is to destroy the truth;to lie outright;to pervert;to vilify;to fawn at the feet of mammon,and to sell the country for his daily bread.We are the tools and vassels for the rich men behind the scenes.We are intellectual prostitutes.

Yes 1953 is a long time ago.1967 for those that remember, is the year they hung Ronald Ryan.Now whether you believe in capital punishment or not is immaterial.Sir Frank Packer at the time recalled and pulped the next issue of the Bulletin because of a cartoon by Les Tanner and a favourable editorial for Ryan (fact)He also intefered at GTV9 by a last minute withdrawal of a widely publicised B.B.C documentary on capital punishment.Packer was a mate of Bolte who was going to hang Ryan come what may.

During the Viet Nam conflict ( in a paper which I can't remember it is in Tom Urens Bio))ran a cartoon depicticting an Ozzy soldier pulling a rickshaw with a nice Anglo Saxon girl in it with an Asian soldier.

Jim K yes you are right,a red herring.The press in this country decides what is left and right, dreams?ha ha.

Humble Hack and Ludwig,

Yes one of the major problems is dissemination of information, the other is Unity of like minded beings.

The economic paradigm is completely unified in its single cause to make as much money as possible, and to hell with the consequences. They are the ones who control the flow of information and policy.

Progressive thinkers are often thinking alone or in small circles, there is not enough media coverage available to affect the main stream. Nor it seems, is there enough resources available to independently release information on a mass scale. And if one did have such resources there are also risks in doing so.

Ludwig “The question is, how do we get anything like a level playing field with these grossly irresponsible people?

Unfortunately I think they have got it pretty well sown up, and all our efforts to prevent the collapse of our society will be too little too late”

I am afraid I would have to agree with you. However I also believe that by unifying like minded beings there could be very solid strategies and alternatives on offer when it all goes to hell… maybe too little to late, but the human spirit has a will to survive and I for one want to be prepared.

Ludwig, why do you still say the "The compulsory preferential voting system"? Last month you wrote "For the high court to fail to uphold this challenge and not declare compulsory preferential voting antidemocratic and illegal, has got to be THE single most blatant failure of our legal system ever." Yes! it is ILLEGAL. As a matter of law we have an illegal system. This was PROVEN in the Court of Disputed Returns at the hearings of Darryl Wheeley's petition.

Did you read [& understand?] the submission 151: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm, about illegal actions in and by the High Court to conceal the fact that Gary Hardgrave was illegally elected? The 'OUTLINE OF ARGUMENT' may sound legalistic, and you need to grasp that in Gary's case his 'election' was illegal in two ways. Both were proven!

Perhaps you & and other now understand why I opened my 1st post with "Is admitting failure to understand the first thing we all need to get positive politics?" It was certainly true for me [but I was able to admit it]!

Humble, I’m not sure what you are asking of me here. You may have misunderstood my last post. As previously indicated, I totally agree with you.

Sorry for any confusion Ludwig, I objected to your repetition of the term "compulsory preferential voting system", particularly as we know for a fact, & its been proven without dispute in the courts, that it is an ILLEGAL preferential MARKING system. What can a few of us do?