Thursday, December 30, 2010

My hope for 2011

My hope for 2011 is that attitudes will begin to move towards the concept of Direct Democracy.

Whenever the subject is breached, those with any semblance of power will laugh and hint at the "fact" Australian's are to stupid to have any say in policy decisions. Then they move the argument towards the "indisputable", referendums never get a result and it's way too expensive anyway. 

Well, unless we are prepared to admit we will never be as clever as the Swiss, the media should stop dumbing down the public and start gearing them up towards Citizen Initiated Policy. Because with a Nation Broadband Network comes the tools for voting on issues, rather than politicians who are bought and paid for by self interest groups. 

Crazy RAN's closing down sale

Another Aussie arms deal NAILED

Thursday, November 25, 2010

New Uniforms

New Uniforms 
Multi-national, Multi-cam, Ameri-cam or Ausmeri-cam...??

Saturday, November 13, 2010


Australia becomes the next star
                                                Australia becomes the next star

BO is on the nose

                   BO is on the nose

Isn't it funny how fickle the voting public are, or how easy they can be manipulated by the media. One minute Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama are lifted up to to take the blame for the stimulus packages that had to be brought in (because of the greedy monetary policies of the Howard / Bush years), next they are kicked around by the very media that raised them.
If the Democrat's power is knobled by the mid term election, then no one should be happier than the irresponsible neo-cons who collapsed the world's economy and got bailed out by the Rudd / Obama temporary governments. Before you, the gullible public, can say BO is on the nose, things should get back to normal where the banks can start the cycle all over again.
Good on ya Murdock, Packer and public news casting services, where would we be with out you.


                 STOP BUYING IT!

Groups or organizations such as Churches, Governments, Military, Police and Corporations demand obedience at various levels and if one is highly disciplined at obeying their orders, then personal responsibility can be negated.
For example:
A soldier can use the defence "I was only obeying orders"
A Jehovah's Witness "my religion doesn't allow for blood transfusions"
A good citizen " the government allows me to sell cancer causing products"
If one is to remain highly disciplined and loyal to their organization yet be involved in activities such as human rights abuse, obvious stupidities and state sponsored murder, then the institutions they subscribe to must be held responsible not the individuals. When soldiers are brought up on charges of human rights abuse, quite often, they are tried by the very organizations that initiated the behaviour. When someone dies from lack of an available medical procedure a Church deemed inappropriate, then it's the individual who suffers and the institutions get away Scott free. When someone dies of cancer directly attributable to government taxed and approved products, then we as witnesses should be duty bound to hold the government to account and not point the finger at the victim. When a teenager gets drunk on socially approved liquor, jumps in a legally registered hot rod and raps himself and his girlfriend around a telegraph pole, we should be marching in the streets demanding accountability from the ones who have continually ignored the obvious remedy; tighter government restrictions regardless of the loss of revenue.
We the people have allowed our elected representatives, clergy and Captains of industry to get away with murder, while they continually point the finger at the victims. They spend tax payers money on advertizing campaigns that take the emphasis off their lack of responsibility and place it on the disempowered individual. STOP BUYING IT!

Never wrong

                     Never wrong

The decision points to bad intelligence traumatizing a generation and redefining human rights abuse, to please oneself, regardless of the consequences.

Lazarus comes forth

          Lazarus comes forth

Lazarus was dead in his electorate, but arose on comman

Friday, November 5, 2010

Bring it on

Bring it on

Text: Bring it on

Even if you are the Prime Minister of a great country and take on the Mining companies, you are going to get your butt kicked. If you want to rid the country of the evils of Alcohol, Tobacco and Gambling, the might of those industries will assure your demise. So to disagree with the need to be involved in war, on an ongoing basis, is suicide because the veracious military dynasties will not tolerate a reduction in the funding for their activities. War must go on, just as cigarettes and grog must continue to be sold, poker machines fed, coal mined and the collateral damage sustained.

Spend up BIG on war

Spend up BIG on war

Text: Spend up BIG on war

Is it only me or does anybody else find it absurd that the combined, most expensive and ridiculously equipped armies, navies and air forces of the western world cannot seem to be able to win a single war against various groups whom have no warships, tanks or supersonic aircraft?
Taxpayers of America, Europe and Australia watch year after year as their hard earned funds are channelled into mega battles, until the well paid Generals get around to admitting that the only way to get out of their predicaments is to train the “locals” in the finer arts of war.
Now call me naive, if you will, but I think a cost/benefit analysis of this situation would significantly prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it would be better to get the “locals” to train our Generals in the art of how to effectively run a war without all the expensive tanks, battleships and jet fighters.
Hands up those who think the real reasons behind these farcical incursions are more about keeping all the Generals, Admirals, Majors, Lieutenants and Captains in paid employment and really cool toys, rather than protecting the taxpayers that pay their wages.

Governments plans to purchase 100 F-35's to fight global warming

Governments plans to purchase 100 F-35's to fight global warming

Text: Governments plans to purchase 100 F-35's to fight global warming

The RAAF's plans to acquire up to 100 F-35 joint strike fighters faces a further delay until next year as budget pressures continue to bear down on the government. In a long-awaited decision, cabinet's national security committee was due to sign off on the $16 billion purchase before Christmas and despite the outrageously price solution, conspiricy theorists insist that the money would be well spent, instead of providing more toys for the boy's to fight an imaginary war against an opposition that doesn't even have a figure head that can be found. An American spokesperson say's that they don't care what they are for, as long as they get the money.

Text: Fast Planes V's Fast Broadband

When do we get around to having a media/citizen discussion on a cost/benefit analysis of a National Broadband Network verses having a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program or maybe a Very Fast Train?
TONY JONES: We will come to the cost/benefit question; Malcolm Turnbull, let's start with you. You've demanded a cost/benefit analysis, so let's start with the cost side of this equation. You claim the Government is proposing to spend $43 billion of taxpayers' money on the NBN. Is this literally true or are you fudging the figures?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: But can I just say, the reality is the taxpayer is the one that is on the hook, and just because he's putting $26 billion of taxpayers' equity in, putting it - ranking behind $16 or $17 billion of debt doesn't make it any less reckless.
STEPHEN CONROY: Well, notwithstanding Malcolm avoiding answering your question directly, Tony, both McKinsey's and now Mike Quigley have indicated that the figure is between $26 and 27 billion, not 43, as Malcolm just tried to claim incorrectly yet again. And we spent $25 million on a McKinsey's report into the business case which went through all of this information. It provided a business case that said the NBN is financially viable and affordable for Australia
GREGG COMBET: The aim of this conference is to help bring Australian technology and innovation together to the benefit of the JSF Program, because it is through our partnership in the JSF Program, the world‚s largest collaborative defence program, that we will meet our strategic and economic goals.
ERIC PALMER: There is no sound proof to state that the JSF F-35 program will meet “our strategic and economic goals”. If anything the aircraft will be sub-par as a weapon system and the definition of “economic goals” needs to be defined in significant detail by the Minister. I doubt that he has a grasp on this beyond some casual PowerPoint briefs that are based on Lockheed Martin talking points. In other words: “The fox telling the farmer, the definition of a chicken”. Unless the program shows proof of life with more orders of aircraft, Australia’s participation in this program will be a taxpayer-funded loss-leader. The hook was the seller of the aircraft (along with government support) stating that up to $5B in home industry work-share was possible with the program. (Note: This was promised to most JSF partner nations in briefings not just Australia.) This included the hype of up to $9B of home industry participation if the program did really well. What does Australian industry have so far? Not much but a few hundred million in contracts for a very troubled program. (1)(2)(3)
Long range estimates suddenly look bad when 3 different U.S. government agencies show that costs will increase dramatically. (4)
End notes-
(1) Carlo Kopp, Is the Joint Strike Fighter Right For Australia? Part 1—JSF V F-22, Australian Aviation, P1, April 2004, Adobe Acrobat Reader file, accessed 4 May 2010, (Note: set your Adobe Reader program to view in single page mode if needed as there is one graphic in this document that can blow-out the right and left viewing margins)
(2) Carlo Kopp, Is the Joint Strike Fighter Right For Australia? Part 2—JSF V Risk Factors, Australian Aviation, P34, May 2004, Adobe Acrobat Reader file, accessed 4 May 2010,
The author states the strategic risks in many ways but this quote at the end sums up what a layperson should first consider. “The stark reality is that whatever aircraft is chosen, Australia will have to live with it into the 2040 timescale. Choices which might look just good enough against the region today will not be competitive two to three decades hence, as a wealthier Asia invests increasingly in modern airpower.”
Newer analysis shows that it may be sooner than two decades for the risk to appear. This new analysis shows that if Australia purchases the F-35 JSF, that it will arrive for service in an obsolete condition.
(3) Peter Goon, Affordability and the new air combat capability, ADA Defender, Q4 2005, accessed 4 May 2010. Adobe Acrobat Reader file-
We were warned about economic viability of the F-35 JSF program as far back as 2005- “According to the April issue of Defence, some 18 Australian companies have won contracts to a value of over $A60m in the SDD phase. Even assuming a healthy EBIT (‘profit’) from these contracts of 15 per cent, and considering the level of investment being made by Government and Industry to win this work, such a ‘loss leader’ business model is certainly a courageous move on the part of all involved.”
(4) Bill Sweetman, JSF in the Dock, Aviation Week-ARES, 11 March 2010, accessed 4 March 2010.
Anyone claiming at this time that the F-35 JSF is somehow affordable can’t be taken seriously as there has been no proof except long range estimates. Note; In the world of Lockheed Martin and F-35 cheerleaders, long range estimates are great if they show a mythical low price for the aircraft. Long range estimates suddenly look bad when 3 different U.S. government agencies show that costs will increase dramatically.

Rev it up, Richard Cranium..!

Rev it up, Richard Cranium..!

Text: Rev it up, Richard Cranium..!

Isn't it amazing how we, as a civilized bunch of evolved beings, can deplore road fatalities yet cheer for and acclaim racing drivers on any weekend in the year of living dangerously? Somehow or other we don't associate our lust for speed related recreational activities with the road toll, but common sense would assure us that promotion of speed demon activities, will inevitably raise the cost of human sacrifice on our roads.
We, the educated public , conveniently ignore the obvious and allow governments to promote the very thing that comes home to haunt us; in the horror of hospital casualties. Don't fret yourself on this Bathurst weekend, you can be assured most of your loyal Aussie compatriots will be cheering for Holden or Ford and will not consider, for one moment, the effect it will have on the next generation. Death on our roads is inevitable until the government starts to take seriously the consequences of their inaction.

Text: How much can a polar bear?

How much can a polar bear?

Text: How much can a polar bear?

It never ceases to amaze me how the process of convincing sceptics, follows such a predictable path.
When the first signs of great and important truths are uncovered, the visionary is labelled a loony. Then when a few brave souls begin to come out of the closest and support the work, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists. If then they are going to have any chance of progressing the "theory" they have to band together and become a radical faction of the left. The conventional left then, reluctantly, begins to take it on as policy as the right consolidates it's forces in opposition because the right NEVER agrees with the left. Eventually, as scientific evidence accumulates to a point where it can't be denied any longer, the whole process moves into a go slow phase, to give the ones who made fools of themselves time to find a new issue to deny; so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Et tu Tony!

Text: Et tu Tony!

Act 1
Scene 1
The opposition to stable government begins it's destructive behaviour with an act of betrayal.
The lead actor denies the treachery and points to a woman, making fresh allegations of a similar act
"You backstabber!" he cries
"Down with your illegitimate rule."

Text: Et tu Tony! Act 2

Scene 1
Saint Kevin, the old dragon slayer, is ever so nicely stabbed in the back by our heroine.
She goes on to be loved by nearly fifty percent of all the people in the land.
"Sorry" she said as Brutus Tonias, the usurper in waiting, lurks maliciously in the background.
Et tu Tony! Act 3

Text: Et tu Tony! Act 3

Saint Kevin and Malus Turnbullius return as Ghost Ministers for the final battle.

Text: Sink the NBN?

Sink the NBN?

Text: Sink the NBN?

"Sink the NBN Admiral Turn-bull!" came the call
"Aye, aye your Majesty" the dutiful reply echoed
Before you could keel haul a land lubber, the brave Admiral climbed the nearest mast and began rattling his sabre towards the enemy.
This could be a scene from a Monty Python script if it wasn't so absurd. No sooner than the sounds of Tony's promises, of establishing a responcible opposition, are fading from ones ears, the man who was deposed by a nice knifing in the back is commissioned to destroy one of the newly elected governments main infrastructure building programs. We, the gullible public, had just finished listening to a disgruntled coalition on how ridiculous it was that Kevin Rudd could be reinstated with an important role in the Gillard Ministries, because of way he was deposed, when Malcomb is elevated by Tony who had done the same thing to him.
When we have all had to endure months of electioneering to decide which elected representatives are going to be allowed to form a government, so that they can get on with the business of ensuring the trains run on time, what is there in the grand scheme of things that makes Tony think that this is the way we expect him to behave? IMO there must be some mechanism put in place to bring to heel an opposition that refuses to accept the umpires decision and gets on with the task of positively building alternative policies, without resorting to the negative destructive behaviours we are now witnessing.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Heir Apparent or Presumptive?

Some are born to rule and others have leadership thrust upon them.
In Australia we are privileged, in the sense that, the divine right to rule was never a part of our history except in the remote, via Britons paternalism. We like to think of ourselves as an independent lot ,even though England was responsible for our transplantation to the southern hemisphere. Therefore if a group can lay claim to privilege, it is because of their long term association with the growth and development of our nation. Take for instance the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, they have had a long and influential history exerting authority here in our Antipodean abode, but no one would dare to seriously suggest either should have the right to civic governance nor unchallenged policy proclamations for the country. If the laws concerning the separation of powers between church and state weren't established then it wouldn't be inconceivably that at some point, in the past, the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope could have been our God given head of state. But this, of course, never eventuated.
In reality, we have the Labour Party and the Liberal / National coalition and to some factional devotees, the progression to leadership in either of these powerful organizations is no less in importance than when the puff of white smoke appears over the Vatican. Without the approval of the majority of citizens a party faithful can rise with in the ranks and go on to ultimate rule, if the divinations of the party room are accurate.
Now I think, if most Australians would be horrified of fifty one percent of voters becoming Muslim and installing an Ayatollah as PM, or even fifty one percent becoming born again Christians and installing Benny Hinn as President, then we should be just as outraged when fanatical party faithfuls behave in a manor that suggests, if they get fifty one percent of the vote then their particular Guru has a mandate to dictate to the country as a whole as if we all voted for them.
With the advent of the New Paradigm staring us in the face, there are those who are happy to see the diffusion of power beginning to emerge and there are those who can't wait to get back to the old system of Divine Right to Rule. While your particular needs maybe presented to you as best being served by one party or the other, don't make the mistake of thinking all can be represented by one perspective and no matter how much you like the current incumbent, the next Heir Apparent may not be your cup of tea.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Bob's New Paradigm

A new era dawns over Canberra with the instillation of a Gillard Labour Minority Government and many Australians are happy with the result. This unusual situation signals a victory for those who have been less than contented with the two party domination of our system. The only one's who seem to be distraught with it are the hard core Liberal / National Party coalition types, who are crying "we was robbed". You don't have to be an expert in kinesics to read the body language of the disgruntled and despite Tony Abbott's unconvincing promises of co-operation, one can be reasonably assured the 43.7% opposition will be doing everything in there power to destabilize the legitimate government (formed by the representatives of 56.3% of the population).
The problem here is a failure to recognise that the old paradigm was past it's used by date. We have been conditioned to assume the domination of one party over the rest is the best result and the logical conclusion of an election. But when that situation occurs 50%+ voters are represented by their MPs and 50%- voters have to eat worms for three years.
The new paradigm is an opportunity for all to be represented and if Tony (and the boy's and girls of the coalition) can rise above their desire to be an obstructionist force, then they are in no worse position than anybody else and can put forward their plans for going forward. They can set policy if their ideas are any good because the independents have made clear they will not support party politics on matters of policy. But some how or other I perceive their disenchantment is, they don't get to lord it over the defeated and Tony doesn't get to live in the lodge.
When Parliament resumes it will be an experiment in whether our politicians can rise above their petty individual beliefs on how Australia should be governed, prove themselves to be good people and join in the new paradigm of group co-operation to obtain the best results for the whole country. If they exhibit recalcitrant behaviour and sink to behaving like adolescent schoolies then we, the empowering public, should make it crystal clear they will not receive our endorsement on our next visit to the ballot box.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

The Way Forward

We are now witnessing a monumental display, of the primitive nature, of the old fashioned paper based voting system.
Imagine the stock market or the banking industry following the example set by our electoral commission. You would buy stocks or bank money and they would say to you, wait a couple of weeks and we will eventually get around to looking at the piece of paper you scribbled your request on and then get back to you.
It’s a joke that the authorities can’t get around to upgrading the most important aspect of our governmental system, to a modern system which can count votes as quickly as Australian Idol. Ask yourself why we have to waste paper, money and fuel to upgrade our details on the government database, get out of bed on Saturday to drive to a polling station and tick boxes with an un-environmentally sustainable scribbling device on pieces of paper after being molested by polar unbearables handing out insults to your intelligence. Get a grip here, we all have state of the art polling devices in our reach that could remedy this insanity, yet we put up with this shit.
Do yourself, and everyone else, a favor and don't complain about what an idiot Abbott is or what a backstabber is Julia but demand a remake of the system that is letting you down as we speak.
My personal opinion is that they have no intention of upgrading the way we voice our democratic rights because once the electronic system is in place to vote for a person to represent you, the next logical step is we can vote on issues and that is unacceptable to those who make their living propagating the existing farce.

Monday, August 23, 2010

The Green Lodge

The Green Lodge

There is one sure fact to emerge from the 2010 election in Australia and it is that the people of our nation are fed up with the way the two big parties go about their business.
There is one sure winner and it is those who have chosen not to support the rhetoric of hate; which has become the dialogue of Government and Opposition, and the hallmark of the House of Representatives.
If we are to glean lessons from this unusual situation and not just hope that there'll be a "better" result next time, then careful analysis of what brought us to this point must be a priority and how to move the country forward for the benifit of all, not just the smug satisfaction of the next majority, a goal.
The media interests have consistently paraded those with political aspirations as the Alpha dominant types to be looked up to and emulated. Growing up and becoming successful is personified by our heads of state, so it's safe to assume there are tribes of little John Howard's and Paul Keating's coveting The Lodge. Soon there will be little Tony's and Julia's moving forward and what can we expect of them but cynicism, one-upmanship and excellence in tearing down one's opposition in a ruthless desire to win at all costs. Is that what we want? Is that what we will continue to support after all this "nonsense" about a hung parliament is over?
My hope is that Julia, Tony and all those concerned are re-evaluating their negativity and looking forward to learning how to confide with the minority groups, sharing their responsibilities with those whom they may disagree and stop shouting down the ones who sit opposite. I hope they will put in place measures to care for the planet, as well as the attitudes of those who aspire to be like them and that soon we will see a Green Lodge with a more compassionate, caring and thoughtful occupant.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Turn your lights on

Can you clearly see were the nation of Australia, is heading? I see a very definite, fork in the road ahead.
The decision we will have to make is not so much whether we will be governed by a liberal or labour party but whether we will steer to the left or the right of the elephant in the middle of the road? On one side is the dusty old road of protectionism, racism and the elitism of belonging to an Empire that had the delusion of being the God given, rightful rulers of the world. The other side is the highway to responsible global citizenship, where we take on the mantle of a progressive nation intent on sustainable, global practises and embracing the high profile position of becoming the worlds newest Republic.
Yes, the elephant I speak of is the great age of our existing monarch. One way or another we are going to have to address the problem of a change of circumstance, whether it be having a new King as our head of state or becoming a Democracy of a more modern kind. Mr Abbott leaves no doubt about which way he would go, being the number one replacement candidate for our countries most senior positioned confirmed monarchist. Julia Gillard, on the other hand, see's the way forward as embracing the aforementioned moment to become something better than we have ever been before.
The monarchists would argue doing nothing and excepting Charles as our King, is the best path to take, because they like the benefits of being associated with that system; as well as all the nasty, unspeakable acts done in it's name. Moving forward to a new style of government is an apostasy to them just as if the monarch was the head of their religion, instead of just the Church of England. In a day and age where religion and affairs of state are becoming dangerously incompatible, the very reasons they give for carrying on with a stiff upper lip, may very well be the best argument for distancing the British Royals from our Multicultural Democracy.
Isn't it about time we switched on the headlights and begin to see things clearly? We didn't vote for a change from the present system last time we were given a chance because the time wasn't right and we weren't given enough information on the types of republic's we could choose from. But if Julia is re-elected on the twenty first of August, we should take her for her word, as well as her stance on taking things to the public and demand a Citizens Forum for preparing ourselves for the time when we, as a nation, have to take the next BIG step in the view we present to a Multi-cultural world.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Give a man a fish ...

With all the talk lately about Australia limiting it's population so we can continue to export food to a starving world, wouldn't it be better if we developed our ability to live sustainably and export that?
I can understand a man like Dick Smith wanting to sure up our nation into a profitable business, selling food to starving billions, after all he is in the business and is happy to declare his Capitalistic nature. But just because supply and demand works in the cut and thrust world of markets and pork-belly production, doesn't mean it is in our best interests, as a nation, to profiteer on the misfortunes of the rest of the people we have to share the planet with.
In line with the irrefutable wisdom, "give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach him to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime", we could do with converting all that land and water devoted to producing unsustainable monoculture, into biospheres of diversity capable of feeding the millions more who could find homes and jobs bringing new solutions to old problems.
Unfortunately, we are stuck with the closed mindset of a over indulged population, intent on only looking at the solutions which allow for the continuation of a privileged few in a lifestyle billions can only aspire to; at the risk of a final depletion of natural resources. Instead of that bleak scenario, wouldn't it be nice to be looked up to as the smart nation, who found the solution to the population problems in new technology, rather than the old greedy reductionism views of population control.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Caution liars ahead..!

Caution liars ahead..!

If we are to believe fifty percent of our elected representatives, then the other fifty percent are a bunch of crazy liars and deluded fraudsters, who are intent on ruining this country and selling you a load of bad policies. But if we believe the other fifty percent of our elected representatives, then their counterparts are a bunch of crazy liars and deluded fraudsters, who are intent on ruining this country and selling you a load of bad policies.
What a great basis for a democracy! For your vote you can be sure you are going to get just under fifty percent of paid politicians working hard to undermine your elected government.
Who would want to change such a perfect system? If you are to believe all of the people benifiting from the current system, then only a bunch of crazies..!

Sunday, August 8, 2010

A New View on Democracy

A New View on Democracy [The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "the power to the people]
Democracy has been called the last form of government, a yet to be achieved “nirvana” that hinges on equitable education, freedom of speech and the means to manifest the will of the people. We the people have been sold a watered down version so manipulated by self interested power brokers that it’s almost impossible to distinguish it from liberal totalitarianism or conservative dictatorship. The bi-polar nature of our current liberal democracy denies middle ground sensibilities, as it rubber bands between two extreme views. It fosters an environment suitable for manipulation by those that would play one side off against the other to achieve an elite monopoly of unelected power brokers who preside regardless of ballots.
Now, while there is an argument for the continuation of the system we have done so well under, it behoves us to consider future generations and the concept of true democracy. Our children can be educated to a level were they can self govern and as the mechanisms come on line, all our future citizens can have their say on a secure, democratically governed, national internet. We have it within our grasp to put in the foundation stones for the first real democracy in the world.
Monarchists, republicans and democrats alike, should surly agree, technological advances have put us in the unique position of envisioning a better system, by anybodies standards. If we can seize this moment to rise above personal prejudices and begin a debate on what type of system we want to hand over to our offspring, it could be the “magnum opus” of a generation that took their planet to the edge of destruction.
Don’t let it be said, we fiddled while democracy burned.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

From Socrates to the World Wide Web


Whatever you think of the classic philosophers and their views on politics or virtue, as far as shaping our world, the moderns eventually over shadowed them because of one over riding principle. The ancients had no way of accurately envisaging the modern world and the changes in thinking that would be required keep up to date with factors of necessity, as time progressed. The moderns therefore, "progressed" philosophy into a redefinition of virtue, that would allow modern politicians to "virtuously" proceed with shaping the world as we know it.
Similarly the modern philosophy of last centuries poster boys of thought, may not have factored in certain changes beyond their frames of reference. The big two developments missing from their plans for advancing the mindset of those yet to come, in their crucial philosophy, was the advent and deployment of the World Wide Web, and the possibility of Planetary Destruction in our life time.
Therefore if Planetary Destruction becomes a reality, the Late Great Moderns of Philosophy will have failed to prove their worth. If the redefinition of virtue is a precursor for necessary change, then surely the measure of ones ecological footprint will be the main doctrine of New Philosophical Thinkers, who will be noted as the ones who save the human race and ultimately prove the worth of philosophy.
Now to the Internet, if this amazing tool is employed by those New Philosophical Thinkers for superseding the Moderns, then it also has the potential to bring about the supposed goal of true democracy. Purposely used for Democracy, the Internet has the potential to educate everyone interested in becoming an active part in the day to day running of their planet, as well as being the virtual civic centre where true democracy can be played out.
Summarily political philosophy has driven us to the point of extinction by placing the virtue of personal success and minority rule, ahead of true democracy and overall well being. If we are to reverse that trend, then the World Wide Web must be factored in and used to it's full potential for achieving the best results for as many as possible. A new line of philosophical thought should be fought for, no matter how opposed by the ones who have benefited from the old ways of thinking and failure is NOT an option.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Trust the X-spurts?

According to the Oxford dictionary, "a spurt is a short period of unsustained effort" and as we move towards Australia's 2010 Federal election on August the twenty first, there will be a short period of unsustained effort by a stream of X-spurts trying their darnedest to influence the voting public. It is their big chance to galvanize the nation and leave us with the notion our democratic system is working for us.

We will be bombarded with targeted concepts like "moving forward" and "we're ready" designed to get our vote for Julia or Tony even though they won't be on the ballot paper most people mark. Most people vote for someone they don't know, or have a limited knowledge of, whose head only appears in the area once every three or four years. Our compulsory participation in this process is reduced to handing over power to someone who doesn't think we are capable of making any decisions other than picking one or two, pre-selected people, to make our decisions for us. 

If you don't believe me, find an X-spurt, pull it aside and ask it for an off the record comment on whether the masses should be allowed to make policy decisions for themselves, even if only on the simplest of issues. Caution, you could be shocked by the reply!    

Friday, July 9, 2010

The honeymoon is over

It’s really quite bazaar the way Australia’s general public is manipulated by the media when it comes to giving the ever changing array of Prime ministers (or opposition leaders) their support or not.
One minute we are all quite chuffed with Mr 70% popularity and laughing at the images of the Emperor of the Republican Party, sorry Liberal Party, being knifed in the back. Then we are looking lovingly at Tony the Iron Man and considering him for the number one job, even though his only qualification seems to be disagreeing with anything anybody says.
We are then encouraged to be appalled at Julia (see-saw) usurping Kevin's reign, even though it was a liberal dose of media that did the hatchet job on him. But because she is a woman, she is soon forgiven and then after a short honeymoon the knives are being sharpened again on the old grind stone of evil boat people.
What a pathetic bunch we must look like to any sane observer! It’s not bad enough the ridiculous behavior of our elected parliamentarians is broadcast live to the world on the ABC, but now we appear to be seriously considering changing another perfectly adequate leader for a budgie smuggling mad monk, all because the story hungry, meddling media, can’t help themselves.