l used to be heavily into politics.

In my teens l was an idealist.
In my 20s a table thumping socialist.
In my 30s a mortgage paying capitalist.

Now, pushing 40 l reckon its all a bunch of trollop. Have given politic ideoology MUCH thought and concluded, it matters not what colour guernsey l wear, its all the same thing... SELF INTEREST.

Politics is a very useful way to disguise and project the personal discontent that drives political adherence. It sounds much better to say "x,y and z of this, that and the other must be addressed, in the wider interest, blah, blah, blah" than the truth which is "l want, l want l want and lm gonna align with like minded indivuduals so we can all push our shared self interests." Sounds better, but its just a charade.

Politics is the art by which we divest ourselves of personal responsibility, by talking about it... talk is cheap. Its a way to detach from actually doing the things that we say need to be done. Why actually do anything, when l can just tick and number a few boxes every few years and now say "its your job, you fix it, its your fault if it doesnt pan out.

Why actually do anything, when l can yell at and reproach the tv, the newspaper, family, friends, neighbours and random strangers in the street and on the internet about "wot neds changing but l aint doing anything about (except make noise)".

When my kids ask me wot l did about everything thats now buggered my simple answer will be... "same is you young one, nothing... except talk about it and blame previous generations. Stand in line, youngster, l am where you will be."

Listen to a persons actions... saves much wasted time wading thru the self serving waffling rationale. In the mean time LIVE life. Enjoy and appreciate the good things that are tangible (the sun on my face, whilst l dig a post hole) and meaningful (like family and friends on a lazy Sunday arvo).

Change starts at home.

Hoping this might fit in with Peter's philosophy.

According to Dr Denis Kenny an Australian political scientist, formerly teaching in the US at Harvard University, who now contributes to Dissent, which edits mostly a mixture of the works of politicians, professors and Phd’s airing their views possibly more in a philosophical way.

In his conclusion of Part One of a two-part article explains how certain elements of ancient Greek reasoning which had liberalised both Christianity and our politics to advantage have been supplanted by philosophies more autocratic and less egalitarian.

Presented here is his conclusion to his first article covering seven A4 size pages.

“Today’s Western world, and much of the rest of the world, rather than gaining more enlightenment, has tended to operate politically, economically, culturally and religously more on the basis of a set of assumptions which among liberal thinkers have long been scientifically discredited.

A continued adherence to these assumptions, and the dangerous certitudes which they give rise to in places like the US White House, and even the Vatican among many other institutions sacred and secular on the planet, is at the best of neo-imperial arrogance, bringing on international and inter-cultural conflict, blind economic expansion, social injustice as well as eco-destruction.

The scientific developments of the 20th century, which do also include social scientific reasoning, do tend to indicate that in this new 21st century, that we begin to inhabit a new-found cosmology of a creative universe and learn to embrace the assumptions on which it is based.”

Anyone who has studied the philosophy of history, knows that Dr Kenny is only reminding us that one of the strongest lessons of Western history is that religous faith by itself only mostly produces leaders who want to act like a God on earth, bringing on statements as from Socrates, “out with the Gods and in with the Good” - whereas the added study of scientific reasoning, which the liberal Christian knows is also part of some sort of grand design, might help us to be more understanding even regarding the problems of our so-called enemies.

.

The left wanted to improve the the lot of the poor starving masses in India and China.The Multi-nationals also saw the potential of cheap, labour and new enormous markets to exploit.Now that one third of the world's poor are pushing up the cost of energy and resources,everyone is crying foul because India and China are lowering our living standards and destroying the environment via global warming.

Well,we can't have it both ways.Either the third world economies will have to suffer the same environmental restraints as the rest of us or we will all suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.

Too many people cheapens human endeavour,since scarce energy and resources only makes us all work harder & longer with little time for
family and introspection.

Currently in China I'm reliably informed,the masses will work for a dollar per hour in a sweat shop situation and have 100 workers waiting at the gates to take their job if they falter.Now these Chinese ex-rural workers are three times better off working in the cities than growing rice in a paddy field.Why are we negotiating another free trade deal with China knowing full well that they will shaft us?

We in the West are very slow on the uptake.Our decades of affluence has made us weak and feeble minded.Our own bleeding heart good nature has brought us unstuck.The enemy nearly always comes from within and we in the fantacy land of OZ have lost the plot.

In agreement pretty well with you, Arjay, except for the one about the bleeding hearts being the cause of the problem.

The point is, that our right wing marketeers are flirting with rising economies such as China and India so much, even to the point of establishing businesses their with our own established brand names.

For example, here in Mandurah WA, we have Mitre 10 Hardware, a huge joint with not an item you can buy Australian made, with many tool lines having American brands, also some Australian, with made in China hidden somewhere in conveniently tiny insignia.

Further, in clothing stores us oldies can totally dress ouselves in Chinese brands and front up well, for not much more than sixty bucks.

Costello would never let a dumb public know, but for years now, cheap overseas ware has produced an unobserved supply side economy, greatly helping to keep inflation at bay.

Many more points can be brought up, Arjay, by university taught bleeding hearts, but guess that's enough for the time.

Back to the orginal point. Is the internet a spin free zone? ie is the net less susceptable to public figures BSing their way through the issues?

I am not so sure. TV and radio with its short sound bytes are clearly suitable for spin.

The internet as a written media has the look of the "trusty old media", ie newspqapers and academic journals. But the reality is that you just don't know if it is true either. Sure it democracises the media to the extent that everyone can be heard. But how do you know who to listen to, who has the real facts etc.

eg in the nuclear debate there is plenty of misinformation but who can you believe? I think the net still has to mature in this sense.

The other issue, the changing face of australian politics is interesting too. With the triumph of social democracy and the welfare state labor is losing its natural constituancy.

Globalisation has created new interdependencies between the west and the third world. In a way it has reversed the colonial situation in that the west is now the market for the manufacturing based in the third world but run by western cash. I don't think it is clear just who the winner is.

Global warming is the one issue threatening us all. It was also an issue in the 70s and we ignored it then without any short term illeffects. Sadly I suspect it will be ignored again until something significant happens.

Dr. McMahon's article is excellent.

Not new, but more timely than ever.

It is now some 30 years since 5 emminent scientists published The Limits to Growth. For their pains they were rubished by all and sundry who didn't like to hear the news the messengers dished up.

Maybe 30 years was far too long to respond, since we, as a society, have made things much worse than they were back then. Turning around the juggernaut is much harder now, but when pressed into a corner it is possible that human engenuity can pull off a Dunkirk. Maybe.

It can only work if we retreat, rather than try to bash our way through, piling on more and more brutal technology, each adding another layer of problems to resolve.

Retreating is not going back to the caves, as many like to picture it. It is creating a much nicer, healthier, more convivial society using small-scale smart technology and human solutions to our cities, transport, food production...

Thank you Dr. McMahon. We need more thinkers like you.