Suburban Scrawl

The privatisation rhetoric of the last twenty years has focused on the assertion that privatised industries are a lot more efficient than those run by government. This has been used to justify the privatisation of previous government services including electricity, gas, the Commonwealth Bank and many more. Whereas it is undebatable that there are short term benefits and advantages to be had from privatisation, particularly in regards to efficiency, I am deeply cynical and the long term ramifications of privatisation.

My concern is that the cycle of industry privatisation works something like the following:

1. Privatisation takes place and many companies jump into the fray.
2. High levels of competition lead to initially lower prices.
3. Some companies go bust, some companies buy other companies and some companies merge while competition remains strong. While competition remains strong, it is difficult to justify infrastructure investment.
4. A small number of companies end up in control of the industry.
5. A level of collusion forms between the major industry players. New entrants are blocked or bought out.
6. The comfortable position for the small number of companies means that they can increase profits, decrease the quality of the product to the bare minimum and generally not improve efficiency unless there is a commanding force within the company.

Once the inevitable final phases of the privatisation sequence of events occurs, we are in no better place than we were initially with an 'inefficient' government run organisation. Furthermore, infrastructure is likely to be a 'only when necessary' and of the 'minimum standard allowable' with privatisation, which actually costs more when viewed from a long term perspective. By the final stages, efficiency is completely thwarted and we are even worse off, because the profits go to owners and shareholders rather than back to the government.

Early in the 20th century, the Australian government started the Commonwealth Bank to provide competition to private banks. I believe that when industries hit the later privatisation phases, we will once again have situations where government intervention is needed to provide competition. Then we have turned full cycle and are back where we started. The problem is that with globalisation and the modern view of governments having a minimal role in markets, it would take a dramatic change of popular view for the government to intervene on the scale that will, inevitably, be necessary.

In Australia we have a government based organisation called the ACCC which attempts to control phase three (where companies bust, merge, buy out others) so that the later phases do not occur. However, I believe that the influence of business on government will lead to the ACCC being largely ineffective in preventing the later phases in the long term. Under the reign of Alan Fels, the ACCC was a vocal and troublesome beast for business and therefore highly effective in preventing the later phases. The current leadership so far seems to have a comparative lack of determination. Whether now or later down the track, business will get what it wants from the ACCC. However, the pure profit motive of business is not necessarily in tune with desires for efficiency or simply even a decent service, when the privatisation cycle approaches the later phases.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:20  0 comments

Humanity is an interesting if rather unwise beast that manages to fumble, generation after generation, repeating somewhat the same mistakes. The lack of learning from the past is tragic but in western culture is now almost assured by the way we are raised and the way we conduct our lives. From an early age we emphasise the rights and freedoms of children at a time when they should be learning from those who have been around a little longer. However, worst of all is the way society now regards the elderly. There are various ways in which the elderly are not treated well and with the respect they once which are discussed here.

The elderly deserve to feel safe in their homes. A small number of people exist who rob houses, occasionally violently, that send shivers through those adult members of our society who are least able to defend themselves. Many elderly go to extreme lengths to protect themselves in their own homes, from security systems to bars on the windows. For many used to a kinder day, the need to lock oneself inside from the horrors that lurk outside is extremely sad and disappointing. The legitimate feelings of fear of many elderly are not helped by the way society focuses more on the rights of the perpetrator than the victim, lenient sentencing for crimes and the lack of catching criminals to sentence them anyway.

Telephone sales people are extremely annoying to anyone, but are particularly dirty and cunning when it comes to the elderly. In fact, many telephone sales people deliberately target the elderly. The elderly make great sales targets because they are from an era where you can trust people a lot more than you can now and they are often quite trusting of the voice on the other end of the telephone. Not only that, but the elderly often have more trouble telling telephone pests where to go. I have my suspicions as to why my Grandma gets a lot more telephone harassment than we do here. The point is that telephone sales people often try to exploit the fact that people are elderly to get sales, and that is extremely low and pathetic. The elderly deserve a lot better than to be targets for these scum.

The attitude to the elderly has also gradually changed, to a point where they appear as more of an annoyance than a pleasure. Rather than people who have a wealth of experience and knowledge, the elderly are often viewed as nothing more than an inconvenience. This attitude is often shared through the children and grandchildren of people who happen to be elderly. Helping out an elderly relative is often an annoying inconvenience rather than a great chance to catch up. Attitudes to the elderly sadden me immensely, for I feel that in a lot of cases there is much to be gained on both sides from good relationships.

The elderly are also generally not respected by anyone anywhere near as much as they should be. Those who are older have had a lot more experience in life and are likely to have a lot more life experience. They have seen a lot of change and are likely to have endured a lot more hard times than most of us. We should listen and learn from what they have to say, for the sake of learning from their experiences if nothing else. There is a wealth of wisdom out there and available to us, but most of us choose to ignore it.

All of these aspects of the treatment of the elderly that I mention here are closely related to the modern selfishness. Whether it is the son or daughter complaining about having to deal with their parents, telephone salespeople or home invasions, it is all about "me". The value of "we" is forgotten in the blind pursuit of "me". Even sadder is the reality that most of the elderly were raised in a time when "we" was a lot more important and valued. The elderly deserve better treatment, more respect and for friends and families to realise the powerful mutual benefit available from quality relationships with them.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:19  0 comments

A rather entertaining and commonly discussed matter in western society in recent times is gay marriage. That is, whether we allow women to marry women and men to marry men. It is a little difficult not too laugh at the thought to two women or two men getting married, but this is a serious issue. Serious for those who happen to be homosexual and serious for those bent on imposing their small minded views on those people who are homosexual. Being the wonderful person that I am, I am going to propose an opinion that must be level headed because it will irritate both sides of this petty debate.

This is a pointless debate and the answer is that homosexual marriage should be allowed because sexuality is a private matter that is not anyone else's right to judge. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is absolutely none of my or anyone else's business. As long as it is between consenting adults then none of us have any right to question. Both sides of this debate are responsible for making a far bigger deal out of homosexuality than it is. I have read material from both sides full of logical flaws, particularly applying characteristics of the few to the entire group.

Those who oppose homosexual marriage need to accept a few hard truths. Firstly, homosexuality will always exist but will never be 'normal', or we would not be grossly overpopulating the planet. Secondly, just because homosexual marriage is allowed does not mean you have to go to a homosexual marriage or agree with it at all. Lastly, homosexuality is a complex phenomena that does not usually involve choice. We are not all about to become strappingly homosexual and involved in all sorts of "filthy" activity. Allowing homosexual marriage will not fast track our road to hell but allow acceptance of a behaviour that no amount of condemnation has managed to kill off in our long history of homosexual persecution.

To those who happen to be homosexual and push for the allowance of homosexual marriage, there are a few things you need to appreciate too. Most people are happy for you to run your life the way you want and do not care for the fuss. We do not really understand why some people who are gay make such a big thing of their sexuality by putting it on obvious display by the way they dress, talk and generally behave. If you want acceptance, then keeping your sexuality private like most of the rest of society would be a great place to start. Let's all keep sexuality a matter of choice, but a private matter, because it simply is none of anyone's business.

Mutual understanding would go a long way to putting this petty conflict to rest. Irrespective of this, it is time that we were more accepting of our differences, but also appreciate the essentially private nature of sexuality. Overall, it has to be said that this is a fairly pointless debate where two extremes battle it out over something most people are indifferent towards. Rather than even waste any more time and effort on this topic, I am going to leave this topic at this point.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 20:58  0 comments

According to today's Courier Mail poll result, 88% of us believe that discipline in schools is too soft. For every person who views discipline in schools as alright, there are at least seven people who believe otherwise. Schools are not something that people are detached from, they are entities with which everyone has dealings. It is common knowledge and generally accepted that the standard of discipline in schools is poor, and definitely not what it used to be 50 years ago.

When we removed corporal punishment, we removed the main force that led to children behaving. Children do not function and behave like adults, yet we continue to think that they do. I am lucky enough to clearly remember being a child and the things I did in the name of boredom, out of interest or simply because I could. It was about doing anything, fulfilling intense curiosity, and all accomplished with a lack of decent judgement. That is fine and part of being a child, but sometimes that behaviour needs to be pulled in line. I was also the type of child that would have been completely uncontrollable without force somewhere along the line.

Now, with children knowing they can do anything and the worst they can get is sent to a corner, children can and do cause a lot more problems. There is absolutely nothing stopping a child that wants to be extremely difficult from doing whatever they want. We talk up children's rights to the point where it is the parents and teachers that need rights. Children need to understand that with rights comes responsibilities, yet we give them extensive rights and no responsibilities. An important part of growing up and becoming an adult is being compromised. These trouble children may never learn that about responsibility and go through their entire lives that way without a firm lesson or three.

Slack discipline goes beyond leading to more problem children and stress on parents and teachers. It also lowers the quality of education for good students as more time is spent in dealing with problem students. In turn, bullying thrives at schools because teachers have their hands tied with problems they see without dealing with what happens behind the scenes. Pathetic discipline in schools adversely affects everyone - the trouble kids, the good kids, the parents, the teachers and society as a whole.

Two options prevail for dealing with the problem of discipline in schools. The first is to develop a system that is both socially acceptable and works in the discipline of children. So far, nothing that has been proposed to replace the role of the cane or the strap has been successful. The second option is to take a hard line and use suspensions and expulsions to remove problem students. This second solution only pushes the problem of troubled students elsewhere, but is currently the only viable solution for schools wishing to provide a quality education. Schools that command respect currently tend to have high levels of suspensions and expulsions as they throw out children that behave unacceptably. Low levels of suspensions and expulsions are often taken to mean that a discipline system is effect, but it is often simply a reflection on there being a lot of students who should be thrown out.

We need to face up to the fact that the touchy feely solutions for discipline problems fail in the real world. There is not a single solution that will work for every child, and we need ranges of options for reigning in our children. We need to return to the system of people being rewarded rights along with responsibilities. Some of our traditional and successful methods of rearing children have been naively set aside, and it's time to seriously consider whether we have had positive changes, or simply changes.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:22  0 comments

Privatisation is a great catchcry for many who believe that removing as much as possible from government hands will lead to a better, more efficient society. Privatisation is pushed as a solution to most of societies ills by those who perceive inefficient public services and lack of competition as the root of all evil. I personally do not accept this doctrine and believe that there are industries where privatisation can even be harmful. The business process, where the side effects of competition often lead to the betterment of society, is not created for these societal goals and does not necessarily work towards these goals.

This document reviews why privatisation is not a good idea in certain industries. The goods and services mentioned can have private involvement, but a high quality basic service must be provided by the government. Private involvement is to be for those who believe they are getting a noticeably better service and are prepared to pay for this perk.

Aged Care
Health Care
Child Care
Primary and Secondary Education
Tertiary Education
Public Transport

Privatisation is at it's most dangerous in area's where those provided with a service do not have a voice. The nature of business is to provide the lowest level of service acceptable in the cheapest means possible to make the maximum profit. This should, by it's nature, ring alarm bells in regard to the above industries. When we look at an area like aged care, the people who are provided with the service do not have a strong voice and are also not taken seriously. Bad things can happen at child care, primary school, secondary school and aged care facilities and those people affected can be easily silenced. This can and does happen and will continue to happen. If a bad service can be provided and people will still buy it, then that is what will happen. Why should a school protect bullied children if no one will believe the children anyway? Many aged care facilities provide very little staff at minimal pay possible because who exactly is going to do anything about it? Privatisation works on greed and often that greed is so vicious that it will consume all that come in it's way. Greed is dangerous and when a service is provided to people without power, bad things will happen.

With essential services, it is not valid to claim that privatisation will improve both efficiency and quality of service. In particular, the later stages of "efficiency" involve maximising profit by employing the minimum number of staff possible, paying as little as possible and providing the bare minimum service possible. Consider the ramifications of an "efficient" child care centre where the minimum number of staff allowable is employed, the workers are of the minimum standard allowable and the pay to the workers is the minimum possible. This is how most child care centres in Australia operate, but do you seriously believe that is providing a good service? Even though the mediocre service decrees child care as "efficient", parents are still playing huge amounts to fill the massive profits. Health care in the US is another good example, where mass privatisation has led to costs of US$4,887 a year per capita in 2001 compared to US$2,350 in predominantly government operated Australia. These are two examples of where the need for profit maximisation means that the tangible benefit to consumers is negligible. The service degrades, the costs change insignificantly, the profits increase, and the owners make millions.

Essential services, by definition, are services that people must use. Usage does not vary depending on income, this fundamental inelasticity differentiating them from most other markets. People can be given a worse service and charged a lot more than otherwise would be acceptable. If people can not leave a service and use another service, then there is no need to do the right thing at all. In area's like public transport, the implicit lack of competition combined with corporate self interest can mean particularly messy high profit low service situations. The public service in essential services may be pretty average due to lack of competition but consider what happens when lack of competition and hard headed desire to maximise profit are combined.

Finally, privatisation in these industries can compromise equality of opportunity. The results of free markets in industries like health care and university education can be viewed in the US. The US health care system is typified by a horrid public system that functions as a 'safety net', while all other health services are carefully tailored to ability to pay. Because there always has to be a push for people to pay for better service, the base government health services and a good lot of the basic health funds provide a horrid service. Millions of people also slip between the government safety net and being able to afford health insurance, meaning they are in big trouble if they or their family gets sick. The value of life in the US has been indexed according to how much you or your parents earn. Universities function similarly to health care in that unless you get a scholarship, your entitlement to university education is valued by the dollar. Your parents income determines whether you go to university or not, which university you go to and therefore your job prospects. These types of situations are the ultimate result of privatisation and free markets in essential services like education and health care. These scenarios are the enemy of equality of opportunity and should be regarded as despicable in any advanced society.

This is merely an introduction to the flaws of privatisation in the industries mentioned. Whereas the theory of a nice, efficient private enterprise in these areas may sound like a good idea, in reality such businesses are usually heavily flawed. For those making a lot of money out of the privatisation or with naive impractical beliefs in the infallibility of markets, this is not a problem. For the majority of people who live with the decisions and practical consequences, the results are bad for our society. There are services that should be provided for the people, on behalf of the people, by a government employed by the people. It is essential for these services to always operate in this manner to protect our civilisation from inhumane greed and reverting back to the class based society of old.

Health Statistics, OECD.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:18  0 comments

On Saturday I spent most of the day browsing through the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, Australia's national capital. The overall concept, I believe, is an ode to the many thousands of Australian's who have fought, many losing their lives, in the conflicts which Australia has been involved. I have immeasurable respect for the brave actions of the many who have fought in wars Australia in which Australia has been involved. There has been incredible guts, determination, loyalty and personal strength by those who were sent off to war. The men (and women) who served this country did what they had to do, but also did so with great honour.

This is not the first feeling I get from the Australian War Memorial. I feel immeasurable sadness for the incredible destruction of human life that has been involved in war. There is a central count where every person who lost their life has an entry on a wall. The names are so numerous that it is difficult to describe. For each and every small name imprinted on a wall was a person, usually a man, there was a person. A person who may have had parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins and children. A person who probably did not know anything about their war except where they were and who they were to kill.

The names on the wall are not even the full picture. They do not tell the stories of those maimed, and the many emotionally destroyed by war. My grandmother was once engaged to a man, but he was a destroyed man after returning from World War 2. Many men committed suicide, many more are haunted by the images and memories of the atrocities they suffered for their countries. I have no doubt that some men who returned would view those who died as the lucky ones. The ugly side of living on after a war for many is something that is conveniently glossed over a lot of the time in our parading of our proud past. They may have saved our country but the full story is utterly devastating. It is only in recent years that I have gathered a decent collection of reflection of those who have been in our wars and it is the great but destroyed men that stick in my mind.

When most talk about war it is this theoretical, distanced event that lacks personal connection. We are taught that World War 1 went from 1914 to 1918, that World War 2 went from 1939 to 1945, that Vietnam was controversial and other fact based information. We are told that there are horrors in war, but it is just as real as the Hollywood action movie garbage that dominates our television. There is no real human connection, deep thought or consideration for the true horror of having to kill other human beings who only differ from you in the country they are born.

So what is to become of this talk? We know that war is bad, but we have also been killing each other since we worked out that we could kill each other. I hold very little hope for humanity and am convinced that we will continue to kill each other for eternity. That given, the first step towards a better comprehension of war is to consider "how" rather than "what". For the future on humanity, there is a lot more to learn from "how did it happen" rather than the purely historical context of "what happened". We can learn so much more from the patterns of behaviour that led to war than reflecting on dates, times and battles.

I am going to review the basic characteristics that cause wars and how they are flawed. It is fine and well to sprout theoretical dogma, you could say, but how can anything to do with flawed humanity actually help? The answer to this is that an understanding of our nature can let us know what the outcome of events is to be before they occur. They can also assist us in creating the conditions whereby human characteristics are less likely to lead to war. It is important to note that the actions of other countries can and will lead to wars that we can not avoid. The best example of this is the incredible German aggression by Hitler and friends in the lead up to World War 2.

Media

The media in a country has a huge and often unrealised influence on a population. What people see and read forms their world view. If they only see a certain side of the coin, a certain view or a certain perspective then that will shape their world view. The founding fathers of America recognised the pivotal importance of the free media and included in the American constitution. These great men would be disgraced by the business and government run big media which dominates the American landscape in 2004. We also have 'infotainment', which is where 'information' is presented in the most entertaining method possible because that is what has found to be popular. Although usually drivel, the diet fad and other trash show "A Current Affair", is the most watched program in Australia. We have a fight on our hands to maintain quality journalism while 'infotainment' is popular and business and governments have undue media influence. The media must not simply be an outlet for what business or governments want us to believe. In creating wars, the media has always had a crucial role in manipulating the public - we call is "propaganda". We need to promote independent media, reward independent media, punish bias and generally work hard to maintain the integrity of the media.

Revenge

How can revenge lead to anything but war? Revenge is a characteristic that most of us have that is an absolute disgrace. If I punch you what happens next? You can usually get short term satisfaction from revenge but what happens next? If you get revenge on someone, are they not going to get revenge on you? Revenge is a circle of stupidity. If one country attacks another country, it is automatically assumed that it is a legitimate action to attack that country back. In fact, it is seen as legitimate to attack that country back with a lot more force than was originally used. Does this actually resolve anything? Do the people being attacked think 'oh, well, we kill innocent people, we've got to expect this' or do they think 'you killed my mother and my brother, you shall die now'. Your country kills innocent people, you've got to expect innocent people are going to die in your country as well. Violence and war is an infinite cycle fuelled by revenge that can only be stopped by real courage and long term thinking. It takes big people and big minds to not jump the gun and exact revenge.

Our Differences

No two people are the same yet where our differences could be used to add some interest to our lives ('variety is the spice of life'), they are often used for segregation, exploitation and excuses for conflict. For all of our advancement, there are still a lot of naive, small minded attitudes in relation to people who happen to be a little bit different in one way or another. A common logical fallacy used by individuals is to determine the nature of large groups of people from experience with one or two people from that group. It is like determining what women or men are like from talking to one, once, a few years ago. That sort of level of extrapolation is seriously dangerous because it is frightfully judgemental and inaccurate. We need to respect and appreciate that every human being is fundamentally the same, and not fall prey to exploitation of minor differences for political gain.

Money and Power

Those in power are influenced by self interest as much as any other people. There is an old saying that says that asks "what does any man in power want?", where the answer is "more power". It could be claimed that those drawn towards positions of power are particularly bent on the maximisation of power, irrespective of damage caused in the mean time. People have been used throughout history to obtain more money and power for those who want it. Thos who want money and power at the expense of anything that gets in the way can include governments, businesses and religious extremists. We need to make sure our leaders are leaders because they want to improve things rather than further their own personal objectives.

Poverty

Poverty and the associated frustration can also lead to war, particularly civil war. If you live in poverty while your neighbours have immeasurable wealth, the chances are you are going to want a bit of that pie. Leaders of countries need to ensure a certain level of equality of wealth or eventually the less fortunate are going to get very angry and civil war will be the result. A line has to be drawn between individual greed and the betterment of society. Poverty can also lead to wars between countries where one poor country wants what the better off country has, as was an influence on the Serbian/Albanian conflict a few years ago. If we want to stop problems with impoverish countries, attacking poverty is a great place to start.

Avoidance

War is often a great mechanism to divert attention from bigger problems. Around the start of World War 1, Russia was either going to have a war abroad or face a long time coming revolution at home. What did the existing leaders of Russia decide to do? War is a great diversion from local social problems as it makes a society bind together against a greater problem and gains support for the existing leaders. George Walker Bush was not very popular before the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks but reached previously unthinkable levels of popularity during the early phases of the "war on terror". Massive economic and social problems in the USA were also able to be avoided by the "war on terror". People must remain astute and aware as to all of the issues, not just the ones that a government wants to show.

Fear

Many politicians have an interest in fear as a fearful population keeps the existing leaders and fear allows faulty reasoning that would otherwise be rejected to be accepted. In Australia in the last 50 years we have had fears of Mediterranean immigrants, Asians immigrants, Indonesia, communism and terrorism. All of these fears have been milked for political gain, particularly by conservative politicians. During the cold war, the American's feared the Russians the Russians feared the Americans. Fear is the enemy of rational thought and judgements and many politicians have gleefully used this tool. Every person must be vigilant and not succumb to simplistic views that appeal to fear.

Patriotism

Patriotism is a ally of fear, often used together to form a potent form of war induced stupor. The particular power of patriotism lies in strengthening a leaders position, often to the point where those who question the agenda of the government are "unpatriotic" and "traitors". There are Internet sites were American's who opposed the war on Iraq are pictured and declared traitors who should be hung, drawn and quartered. Extreme patriotism restricts freedom to question a government and this freedom is essential to ensuring responsible governance. Do not let your freedom of thought and speech be compromised by those who stand to gain by it's loss.

It has always been my firm belief that if there is one thing that decisively determines humanity to be stupid, it is war. We destroy human life for a variety of reasons which are completely invalid because the end simply does not justify the means. War is perpetual, a system of human conflict resolution which will only be defeated by humanity reaching a higher plane of understanding and intelligence. Whereas the likelihood of this be extremely low, there can be few more noble goals than genuine, practical efforts towards lasting peace. We will not achieve this peace by war in itself, but by understanding of ourselves and others, along with combating the nature of our human frailties. This is what we owe to the millions of brave men and women who have died in the name of war.

A quote:

A conversation between Herman Goering, a high ranking Nazi, with Gustave Gilbert, at the time of the Nuremberg trials (1946).

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 20:53  0 comments

Liberal Federal government treasurer Peter Costello has today made some fine comments to us plebs about the housing market 'cooling off'. This is very nice of Peter to tell us, given how many young people are consigned to lotto tickets as the only feasible way of owning a house after the ridiculous boom of the last three years. It is not in the least bit funny that after three years of sitting on the sidelines grinning about housing that Peter is now assuring us that everything will be alright.

The Liberal government did nothing as housing prices continued to boom under the influence of low interest rates. The low interest rates were to stimulate investment and in regards to housing that sure happened. But the interest rates always were historically low and inevitably going to rise at some point down the track. That did not stop the Liberal's from sitting by as house prices rose and rose, hype took over all forms of media and the population was suckered into a mad scramble into the get rich quick scheme of housing.

In late August 2003 Peter Costello told senior business figures in Sydney that the Government was not going to touch housing because it was keeping the economy going. Rather than be concerned about an inflated market or the fact that housing was becoming the impossible Australian dream, the Howard government was not going to touch the market. Howard, Costello and friends were too busy taking credit for the state of the Australian economy to care about the losers from the housing situation.

Personal (non-housing) debt is also through the roof, with a an increase of 72% from $7079 per household in June 1996 to $12,194 per household in July 2003. Once again, while the levels of debt and consumer spending are keeping the economy afloat, nothing will be said or done by the Liberals. There are potentially devastating long term consequences to the insane levels of personal debt in this country, but as long as the economic figures look alright then there is no problem.

When interest rates began to rise from their unusually low levels in late 2003, Howard and friends were not pleased with the Reserve Bank (which controls interest rates). All of a sudden, the inflated levels of consumer and housing debt were threatening to cause mass bankruptcy and loan defaulting. Everyone in this country should have known that interest rates would inevitably rise but the hype, encouraged by a government that knew spending was keeping the country afloat, did not do anything. The Reserve Bank lowered interest rates, and the Howard government was happy to take credit for the low interest rates and their flow on effects on spending and investment. When the interest rates inevitably rose the Liberal's shifted the blame to the Reserve Bank. The Liberal's believe in markets yet take credit when the markets make them look good, and blame others when the flip side eventually occurs.

The final kick in this particular scene is Peter Costello now trying to take credit for the fact the housing market is 'cooling off', so soon after not being happy with the reserve bank rising interest rates. The 'cooling off' is to a large extent a consequence of the rise in interest rates that had the Liberal's pointing a finger at the Reserve Bank. Credit is taken for improving the wealth of Australians with housing investments and credit is taken for cooling off the market. Finger pointing and avoidance is the rule for making housing a lot less affordable and the inevitable interest rate rises.

In keeping pure markets and economic figures the Liberal Party is allowing a substantial problem to develop. Huge household debt means significant financial strain in the future for many Australian families. Overextended house mortgages and ridiculous property prices may change the entire dynamic of housing from the Australian dream to merely the rich persons investment. The Liberal's sit pretty and take credit for the positive attributes of markets, but will never take responsibility or care for those adversely effected. The Liberal's are credited for every positive effect of markets, yet the negative consequences and down swing that accompanies the upswing is either everyone else's fault or simply irrelevant. If housing becomes the domain of the rich then the Liberal Party, representing individual wealth above the society, are hardly likely to care.

The Australian Liberal Party, by their blind faith in market dogma and unwillingness to intervene in their beloved markets, are walking us into an uncertain future. There will be winners and losers, and the winners will be the wealthy and the losers will be the poor. That is the nature of markets and capitalism, which by design encourages efficiency, not equality. Consider carefully what exactly the long term consequences are of the Liberal government being observers rather than directors. The preservation of the market and the status quo is more important than the well being of Australian society. These elected representatives of the people shout comments from the side but do little to change the outcomes. The Liberal's lack responsibility, accountability, vision or ground level perspective on how their ignorant dogma effects the real world.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:22  0 comments

If there was just one single feature of Australian Liberal Prime Minister John Howard's politics that I could despise, it would be his willingness to use fear for political advantage. To my mind, there are few things more immoral and disgusting than using potentially irrational fear for political gain. Yet over the years John Howard has been 'leading' this country, he has never been afraid to play with a good dose of fear. Two particular examples stand out when it comes to John Howard's fear politics.

The first was the style of advertising in Howard's 2001 election campaign. The election was conveniently pulled two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA. We had already embarked on a "war on terror" as part of all the way with George Walker Bush. We got this constant barrage of advertisements that asked "in these troubled times... who can you trust?". John Howard was portrayed as a trustworthy, comfortable leader in an uncertain age. This was exactly what was needed for a population paralysed in fear and basically guaranteed his election success. This is not something new, of course, as scum who happen to be political leaders during wartime have always known how to utilise fear. That does not make make it acceptable.

The fear factor was also beautifully used in regard to refugees and still remains a chew toy of Howard's on this subject. Terrorists, you see, rather than travel to Australia and skip their VISA, like to travel for months on leaky boats after paying people smugglers a lot of money. As you do, if you play to blow yourself up at a particular day and time at some point down the track. Howard managed to portray refugees as dangerous, bad people who were going to rape and pillage our towns. A lot of people believed it and Howard actually made political gain from these garbage insinuations. Irrational fear ruled the day and refugees were entities to be feared.

Fear of terrorists was pulled to 'justify' the unjustifiable war in Iraq. Fear allows the 'Pacific Solution' to illegal immigrants to continue without significant question. All John Howard has to do is press the old buttons of fear and the Australian public, rather than thinking, is consumed with irrational fear. John Howard's fear politics are dirty and the enemy of good public debate and rational decisions. Howard's politics of preserving himself and his rotten political friends extends beyond any sense of social decency. Do not be a part in Howard's politics of fear. Make sure, before you believe Howard's claims, that you carefully consider the realities of the situation.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 20:59  0 comments

To the more observant ear bashed associates of mine, it would be clear by now that I resent the Liberal Party a lot more than the National Party. This initially may seem strange, given the the Liberal and National Party Coalition is the only other major political force in Australia besides the Labor Party. With the Liberal and National parties so clearly chummy with each other, it does seem to make sense to resent one a lot more than the other. Recently I have been thinking about this situation and have came to a great realisation. The Liberal and National parties should really hate each other.

The Liberals and Nationals are tied together by conservative ideologies relating to society. The political bent where things should not be changed and the old ways of being are good ways and need not be improved. Fair enough for some people to believe, since all changes are immersed in shades of grey and subject to opinion. It is not the way I think but I can respect those who have been adversely effected by change or who associate the loss of kinship and other valuable parts of our culture with politically induced change.

My interest in why the Coalition works comes from the economic beliefs of the two parties involved. The National Party was once called the Country Party, and this is what the National Party represents. The National Party is meant to be a political force to represent the particular interests of our large primary industries and vast country areas of Australia. At all levels, the electorates held by the National Party tend to be in rural areas. Preserving the interests among country areas often means protection and other market distortions, which are completely against the ideal of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party believes in free markets and what happens, well, happens. If free markets happen to destroy particular industries and livelihoods then that happens and is alright because the overall system is more efficient. It is a heartless way of being, but one with firm economics in mind.

The Liberal Party does not believe in intervention for any reason, while the National Party must use intervention and similar market distortions to maintain the livelihood and interests of their constituency. With these fundamental differences, why does the Coalition continue to work? It is about time the National and Liberal parties have a huge spat and go on their own merry ways.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:23  0 comments

Owning your own home has been long considered the 'great Australian dream'. You work hard, get into a lot of debt with a mortgage and pay off your house as fast as possible. For this outlay and hard work, you get your own personal nest to love and to hold. Unfortunately the dream of home ownership is being taken away from many young Australians.

Home and land ownership in Australia is now viewed almost entirely on monetary terms. A report from the Commonwealth bank published in November 2003 showed the median house price in Australia at $320,700 in September 2003, a full 61.5% higher than the $197,100 in September 2001. The report concluded that housing affordability was at a record low. Other reports have shown that the proportion of first home buyers is at a record low. Many who have bought are destined for horror when our low interest rates rise back to more 'normal' levels. First home buyers are simply being priced out of the great Australian dream.

While first home owners cringe, it has been a party for the top end of society. Those already with houses and particularly those people who have housing investments can not stop the joy of how much money they are making. Housing is so cool that you can get big housing guides in the newspapers, non stop home renovation and selling television and radio shows dedicated to the fun. The hype is everywhere and good times are to be had by all of those in the market.

The term 'market' summarises well the problem with property. For many, it is nothing more than making money, rather than the fulfilment of the great Australian dream. It is not about having your own home but about how much money you can make out of it. Dreams have no place in the self interest game that housing firmly has become. The effect of all of the self interest is that many normal young people can no longer look towards owning their own home.

Young people in this country are in deep financial trouble if they want to own a house. You need a university degree to get a decent job, so many have expensive government HECS debts from their education. On top of that, job security is not the best and there are no guarantees that a job one day will be there the next. A $300,000 debt is not going to disappear unless you are a very well paid professional or both you and your partner are decently paid professionals. Between HECS, job insecurity and huge debt levels, home ownership for many can be nothing but a dream.

One way or another, if we want people to be able to live the Australian dream, something has to change. The way I see it, there are at least four ways this can happen:

1. The housing market crashes. The market is currently inflated and could, by the nature of being a market, collapse by itself. This would create such a stigma to housing that reasonable prices could be guaranteed for a while, even if this would only work in the short term.
2. Remove negative gearing. A tax perk used by those with a lot of money in housing, this should seriously be considered for removal. It would put more money in the governments hands and lessen demand on investment housing.
3. Capital gains tax on housing. The ultimate way to stifle demand for investment housing is to charge a tax on the financial gains make through home ownership. So when someone goes to sell their house, they are charged a tax on the money they have made on owning it.
4. Add supply. Government constructs a lot of low cost housing on a not for profit basis to help out those who can not afford modern house prices.

Having your own home is so much more than making a few quid. Please consider the plight of the next generation, which will be lucky to own a house. There needs to be change, either market or regulation induced, before housing becomes purely the domain of the wealthy.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 20:59  0 comments

Have you ever wondered where they find those people who sit around election polling booths and harass you with those 'how to vote' cards? Well, they come in the form of volunteers who happen to be politically aligned, friends and family. Having joined the Australian Labor Party (ALP) last year, I put some of my time into the election campaign for Margaret Keech, in the seat of Albert. The high point of this was spending the day on Saturday politically harassing people at an election booth at Windaroo, a small town between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The booth was at my excellent old high school, Windaroo Valley State High School.

The result for the ALP in the seat of Albert could not have been much better. In 2001, Margaret won the seat with a margin of 12.6% to a One Nation candidate. As at the time of writing, Margaret now holds the seat by a margin of 17.5% to a Liberal Party candidate. Margaret polled 60.4% of the primary vote, meaning that 60% of people voted for Margaret as their first preference. This is a combination of Margaret's hard work for the local area, premier Peter Beattie's continued popularity, the oppositions extremely poor presence and campaign and the fact that Margaret was on the top of the voting form.

It is a credit to the Albert area that there in no longer a One Nation candidate in strong standing in the area. One Nation is a right wing political party originally formed by former fish and chip shop owner Pauline Hanson that earns votes from those disaffected with the major political parties and those who like to blame immigrants, homosexuals and other minorities for the state of modern society. One Nation came from the state of Queensland and did unspeakable damage to our reputation as a kind and tolerant society.

Things were rather chummy between the different political parties hanging around Windaroo. There was an older man there for One Nation, who I spent about half of the day talking to and, I suspect, mutually amusing each other. One Nation is on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum to the Labor Party, so you expect a lot of differences in opinion. This was most clear when references were made to immigration and homosexuality. I was informed that our government was letting in "all these Muslim people", which was just too much. My reply was something like "all these Muslim people? Hang on, five years ago One Nation was beating up that Asians were going to take us over... what are we going to be terrified of next? New Zealanders?".

The head ego of the Liberal Party poll workers was a middle aged local businessman. He sat precariously on that boundary between liberal voter and stinking liberal voter, but was a very entertaining man. There was a small amount of mutual stirring taking place that was no skin off my nose. I get the impression that he enjoys stirring the 'young fellas' that turn up around the place. The remainder of the Liberal Party workers were more laid back and generally friendly, but not as amusing.

Given the nature of shoving paper in people's faces, I was expecting a lot more insults than I actually received. There were numerous people who looked at me with disdain when mentioning Peter Beattie, but that is to be expected. A large number of people vote the same no matter what at elections. The only insult came when a couple were avoiding us and I called out something along the lines of "good idea, just go straight for the polling booth and you can avoid all of us". Obviously mishearing, the man replied back swearing a bit and generally being obnoxious. I called back "thankyou" and I think he replied again, but I did not hear him.

Early in the day a man turned up with a large dog, proceeded to place a sign saying "vote me" around it's neck and hung around for about half an hour. We would have talked to him, but he was rather aggressive and more in a mood for a fight than a discussion. He commanded the dog to sit and gave it a good kick before it even got a chance to comprehend the instruction.

Through the day I met all of the candidates for the local area - Margaret (of course), Chris Koyle (One Nation), Corey Kolar (Liberal) and Bill Livermore (Green). Chris Koyle was interesting, given that he turned up after being directed to leave the Eagleby South booth after an incident which involved police attending the booth to make him behave. Corey Kolar was a conservative but friendly enough Liberal candidate and I only briefly crossed Bill Livermore. We also had the pleasure of a visit from Kay Elson, the Federal Liberal member for the local area. I spoke to her briefly, and told her that I did not think much of the Coalitions "medicare plus" scheme. Kay commented back something along the lines of "well, you are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is great, especially for the workers". I am curious if Kay Elson even knows what a worker is, let alone how much they are paid and how much $500 is for a "worker". I sincerely hope, from the bottom of my heart, that Kay Elson loses her seat of Forde at the upcoming federal election.

For the main day I was wearing a hideous yellow shirt with red writing promoting Margaret Keech. I was a little unsure about wearing a shirt and heavily promoting someone that, really, I did not know very well and who is a friend of a very bad man from a former school. The course of the day and the opportunity to speak with Margaret's daughter and particularly her sister eased my mind a lot. By the end of the day I was sure that not only was I supporting the right team, but I was supporting the right person. I have been raised with a healthy but extreme cynicism towards politics and do not make that statement lightly. Although I do not wish to discuss it, and I am not at all happy about it, something extremely unholy happened to that shirt during after election partying (which had nothing to do with the ALP). Suffice to say, it is no longer a fully functioning shirt suitable for use as clothing. Thankfully, I still have my (much classier) Team Beattie cap.

The best perk of working on the booth was running into a large number of people I had not seen in a long time. I ran into a parent of a friend from primary school, my year five primary school teacher (who I would like to catch up with, but am scared to walk into the old school), an old teacher and a stack of friends and their families from high school. The social aspect is the best part of the entire process and it was what made the day a lot of fun.

I was also a 'scrutineer', observing the process of counting the votes after voting had closed. The scrutineers really did not do much, though I watched closely and found a massive one error for my trouble. For all the technology we have, counting votes is an incredibly primitive process involving separating the votes into piles, making piles of a certain number of papers and writing the results down on pieces of paper. I knew more than half of the staff that were working at the booth, as they were mostly people who have been administrative staff at the school at one point or another. I am slightly concerned I may have broken a slight amount of protocol at one point by mentioning that I was in attendance due to being in the ALP (that could have been derived from the scrutineer sticker anyway). For the record, the most cute things written on vote forms were "you suck cock" and "you blow goats".

Overall in Queensland, Peter Beattie's Labor government has comfortably been elected for a third term in office. The longer that Beattie stays in office, the harder it is going to be to retain popularity. For the time being, though, Beattie remains very popular with voters, excepting those that clearly have been adversely affected by a change at some point in time. With a strong Labor government in Queensland, we can now look forward to the federal election where it is time for the Liberal prime minister John Howard to be removed. Community sentiment seems to be that there is a change needed and with Latham as leader, the Labor Party is a worthwhile opposition. There are interesting times ahead in Australian politics.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:23  0 comments

There are few issues that I feel more passionate about than my utter disgust of violent computer games. After growing up in a generation where we played lots of violent video games as some sort of twisted entry into the adult world, I have grown to view such games as disgraceful. I no longer enjoy playing these types of games, talking about these games, or being anywhere in the vicinity of someone playing them.

My inspiration for writing today comes from finally being completely fed up with being in the same room while my brother plays the latest incarnation of Wolfenstein. I sit here, in my leisure time, trying to take it easy and relax and find that the noises coming from the other computer in the room utterly repulsive. They include:

• Gun shots and associated agony as the person in question dies.
• Repeated hideous screams. I think this has something to do with setting people on fire.
• Crying and whimpering of people begging not to be killed. The brother kills them, too, when he feels like it.

I can not think of something more fun on an idle Sunday morning than to spend leisure time listening to the simulated destruction of human life. It irks me that violent computer games have become so frightfully realistic in what they simulate. This is not like the 1980's era games where two dimensional low resolution images shot aliens. This is full on, in your face, simulated killing.

The murder and destruction simulated by these games happens a lot in real life. You only need to turn on your television to see all the gore and hideous actions humans commit against each other around the world. War and similar events are not fun, they are horrid events where people kill each other over issues that no one really remembers in the thick of the battle. This is not entertainment, this is real life where people with brothers, sisters, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and children die.

So humans create games and make killing a form of entertainment. We become so apathetic and accepting of the gratuitous destruction of human life that we find pleasure in simulated violence. The standard argument that it is about the challenge and not the killing is to avoid the implicit absence of human emotion. Violent games are a abominable reflection on humanity.

I am not concerned about whether or not violent video games actually encourage violent behaviour. I think that they foster apathy and indifference to horrid events and this is a great loss, irrespective of the age old violent behaviour argument. We are too tolerant of violence and war as methods of "solving" conflict, and violent video games are a part of this scene of humanity.

We need to foster a community attitude that violence is not a normal, acceptable and entirely unremarkable behaviour. Violent video games is just one part of a broad apathy to violence created by our media, our movies, our television, our radio and other cultural norms. The intimacy of committing the violence personally makes video games a couple of steps more rotten than the other similarly insidious cultural influences. Violence and death are not entertainment, they are a tragedy.

The right of reply granted to the brother mocked early in the piece:

As to the views of my brother, people recently (in the last year) have raised many issues to do with violence and insanity within the games. One of the games commonly complained about is GTA3. This game was complained about due to it's story line where you could loose health, steal a car, pick up a prostitute, go to a secluded spot in the city, have 'sex' (you do not see anything but the car rocking), then if you feel like it kill the girl and take your money back. The production of this game in Australia was stopped until the developers got rid of the process. This is an example of how the story line is watched more then the actual gore. In Wolfenstein the story line is so far from reality that it is very hard to connect it to real life.

One story I read in America a while back said that there was a case where the police had a look at GTA3 to see if some sniping murders were related to the game. This was found to be false and that there was no connection. In my mind anyone who is blatantly stupid enough to follow the examples in a game and act them out in real life is a complete psychopath and should not be exposed to the public in the first place.

Australia is far from tolerant of violence and storylines in games than America where the prostitution step in GTA3 is allowed. When a murder occurs in real life there are REAL people involved and in a game the 'people' are just binary. This is the most important factor in my mind for a person to understand.

People should be informed and not restricted as to what people buy. If you buy it, it is your responsibility to do the right thing and take into account the rating of the game, which is always clearly labelled on the game packaging. You can find out about the game online and that can give you a good idea if you want to see the activities that occur in the game. Overall there is no law saying you have to view or play the game and it is up to the individual and there should not be any such freedom restricting restrictions.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 20:54  0 comments

Turn on the television to “A Current Affair” or “Today Tonight” in Australia and you can be sure to see at least one dodgy piece of journalism devoted to blame shifting. Whether it is kids behaving badly because of preservatives, weight gain because of bad food labelling, violence because of video games or any other cause, people love a scapegoat. Then again, on a commercial program that is purely created to get the most people watching possible, you can expect self satisfying blame everything but yourself sort of material.

The running of the country is another matter entirely. We should expect that our rulers tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Furthermore, if they make decisions based on faulty information from their subordinates then they still need to take responsibility. The Liberal Prime Minister John Howard is either a pathological liar or completely irresponsible. There have now been two major issues where Howard has been ‘caught with his pants down’ in regards to honesty, and the response has been the same both times.

The first was a claim by Howard that people aboard the Tampa, a ship filled with people attempting to illegally enter the country, were throwing their children overboard. This claim turned out to be incorrect, but Howard had already made massive political gain from questions like “are these the sort of people we want in our country?” The second was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to us all, which history is showing to be incorrect. Again, Howard has already made significant political gain from the whole business, getting lots of headlines from seeing off soldiers and shouting “support our troops” as loud as possible.

When the reality of both of these situations came to light, the response from Howard was the same. Blame the people who provided him with the information. In the case of Iraq, Howard has blamed our intelligence sources and those of the UK and USA. Every time, Howard simply comes out and says “not my fault” and finds someone else to blame.

The interesting thing about the Tampa and Iraq issues is that there were many sources contradicting Howard at the time of the initial claims. At the time Iraq was being promoted in the media, the American Central Intelligence Organisation (CIA) did not believe Iraq posed a threat, the UN wanted to continue weapons inspections and many did not believe that sanction starved Iraq had the funds for a weapons of mass destruction programme.

There are therefore only two options that explain Howard’s behaviour. The first is that Howard is simply a liar, and lied to the Australian public for political gain. The second is that Howard made bad judgements without seriously listening to and considering the full situation. Howard had access to information and people who could have provided accurate information, but instead went with the most politically beneficial option.

If Howard did indeed lie to the Australian public, then that is definitely his responsibility and he should be held fully accountable for his actions. If Howard made an ill informed decision based on limited information, then that is also his responsibility and he should take full responsibility for it. I have news for Howard, and it is this: when you make decisions, you are responsible for making an informed and legitimate decision and if you do not, that is your fault. Howard’s behaviour in regards to make uninformed, incorrect decisions is entirely his responsibility. It is not good enough for anyone in Australia to accept an argument that Howard’s decisions are everyone else’s fault.

Howard likes to talk about ‘values’, or lack of them, in our public schools and general society. Well Howard needs to learn about some very important values that a lot of us in Australia hold. It is the value of responsibility for our own actions. It is time for Howard to show what values really are and make fully informed decisions, and to take responsibility if he makes a poor decision.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:21  0 comments

The record industry has been facing a massive threat from modern technology for a few years now. Rather than embrace new technology and move with the times, the record industry has fought advancement every inch of the way. CD sales, particularly of singles, have dropped because it is easy to download music on the Internet for free and even easier to copy CD’s using a $50 CD burner.

Through 2003 average Australians started to feel the pinch of some new technology called CD copy protection. This works by corrupting the outer index on a CD so that certain CD players will not read the disc, hence preventing copying. A basic, naïve and badly thought out practice, CD copy protection has already and will continue to cost the record industry sales. The first company to bring out copy protection on most new releases was EMI and more recently Warner Music have followed suit.

The first problem with CD copy protection is that it stops CD’s being played in many normal and computer CD players. When people buy a CD, they expect to be able to listen to it in CD players. However, copy protected CD’s do not work in some car and home CD players and do not work in many computer CD drives. This is simply unacceptable and no CD purchaser deserves such a faulty product.

The second problem is that copy protection does not stop CD’s from being copied. In terms of the main purpose of stopping CD copying, copy protection is a joke. There are multiple ways that you can copy a copy protected CD with a standard computer and CD burner. There are programs like Alcohol 120% that will do all the copying for you, removing the protection in the process. Failing that, in many CD drives, a standard WAV ripper will grab the CD quality audio directly from the CD for you. If is not hard to copy these corrupted discs at home, the professionals must be laughing.

The sad reality is that any loss is sales due to copy protection will be blames on ‘piracy’, when it is entirely the record companies own doing. There are many music lovers on the Internet, such as myself, who now buy a lot less CD’s because of the product flaws in copy protection.

I suggest to all people out there to be careful and consider your purchase hard before buying a copy protected CD. You may not be able to play it in your CD players and could also have difficulty returning it. You can tell if CD’s are copy protected by stickers or markers, particularly on the rear tray of the CD case. Of course, the best option would be for us all too simply not buy any copy protected CD, but then we do not have our beloved music. It is a pity that, when purchasing music, you can not support the artist and the retailer without supporting the record company.

As a final note, please encourage and support those record companies that are not using CD copy protection. There are some record companies that are not taking up copy protection, often for records similar to that mentioned in this writing. Support those few companies that actually value their customers and the quality of their products.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:19  0 comments

There is an often quoted but little considered line from the Christian bible that states ‘if you live by, you’ll die by the sword’. The world’s current superpower, the United States of America, is under the control of the Republican Party and President George Walker Bush, and claims to be very interested in Christian values. In fact, the Republicans love God so much that they would like to change the American constitution to ensure that those filthy homosexuals never get married. Given the Republicans love of the good book, their foreign policy actions of recent times are quite confusing.

We now have a war that justifies invasion of countries that we have absolutely nothing to do with. A war that justifies putting our people and those from countries we do not know the first thing about in danger. A war that can last as long as the rulers say it will last. A war that targets who we are told it will target. A war that can infringe on our personal liberties, regardless of if they make us any safer. A war where our constant fear can be used to justify any government decision. A war that our mass media feeds to us in nice little chunks of pro-war propaganda. Welcome to the war on terrorism.

Rather than get bogged down in the issues, the focus here is on why the Bush foreign policy is flawed on a fundamental level and why the world is most definitely not a safer place as we get into 2004.

Firstly, if you live by, you will die by the sword. Any attempt to rule the world by force will eventually fail. This is because people react negatively to force. Consider if a person came into your house with a gun and ordered you to get on the floor. You might do it, but that does not mean you respect and are going to follow the person’s orders forever. All violence and force does it put people’s backs up and aggravate them. At some point down the track, those people who’ve been agitated will come back with a vengeance. This is quite simply the nature of humanity and there is not a thing anyone can do to change that. By invading countries like Iraq, the USA and friends has annoyed so incredibly many people in so many countries that they should be worried. With guns aimed at these countries, their leaders and the people in them may do what the USA wants, but it is absolutely naïve to think that this will continue. If the USA wants to rule the world, it is going to have to do it by leadership, which people can actually respond to, and not by force. The pure use of force demonstrates a complete failure to understand human nature on the part of the USA.

Secondly, and relating to the first point, is that aggressive and unsubstantiated attacks against countries like Iraq will increase terrorism. By annoying a phenomenal number of people, the USA is implicitly creating more people so angry and disjointed that they were willing to do pretty horrid actions to hurt the USA and its allies. Rather than tackle the causes of terrorism, like poverty, organisations that recruit and brainwash kids, and America’s blind support of Israel, the USA is creating more terrorism. It is inevitable that there will be more terrorism, and more of both “us” and “them” are going to die before something more constructive is done about the problem.

Thirdly, pre-emptive strikes are a phenomenally stupid move. The argument of pre-emptive war was last used by the German’s to start World War 2 and those involved in that decision were punished dearly at the Nuremburg trials. Is only the US allowed to pre-emptively strike? Given the US has attacked two countries in the last two years, is it valid for other countries to start pre-emptively striking the US? Who can and who can not use pre-emptive strikes? Pre-emptive strikes are a horrid and dangerous concept that destabilises the world, not stabilises it.

If we actually want to end terrorism, we need to be smart and face the facts that this is not a conventional war. The world needs more responsible leadership from the USA. If we want to deal with problems in the world, we need to do it together and not in a manner than annoys half of the world. The USA under Bush is being the bully in the school yard when it could be a true leader.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:21  0 comments

There is a Queensland state election on the 7th of February 2004, although the outcome has always been fairly certain. The current Labor state government currently has 66 of the 89 state seats available, and is likely to retain most of these seats. Peter Beattie, our Labor premier since 1998, remains a very popular leader while the opposition led by National Lawrence Springborg is virtually unknown.

As expected, I support the Queensland state Labor government in this election. My vote clearly belongs to the hard working and tireless Albert seat Labor candidate, Margaret Keech. Those matters under state jurisdiction in the local area have been dealt with appropriately. A lot of effort has gone into the urban renewal work in Eagleby, which seems to be fairly effective in building a community. We got a new state college, some major road upgrades and stand to receive a new TAFE and three new police beats in the area in the next four years. The local area still has its problems, but the government is working on them and anticipating well the needs of an area which is experiencing dramatic growth.

The Labor state government has done the best job it can with health care and education, given the actions of the Federal government. The Liberal/National Federal government caused decline in bulk billing has sent a huge number of people to hospital waiting rooms for free medical care, when they should be seeing a GP. Along with a naturally aging population, this means that hospitals have been under a lot of strain in recent times. If re-elected, the Labor government will inevitably push more funding into the hospital system. There is talk of placing bulk billing GP’s in hospitals to relieve the before mentioned problem with people going to hospitals to get free medical treatment.

The election campaign has been interesting on a few levels in the way it has operated. Three of the main areas that the Liberal and National parties have attempted to damage Labor on have been traditional areas that Labor deals with best. These three areas are health, child protection and the financial problems of sugar cane farmers. To put it simply, there is just no way that the Liberal/National Coalition is going to win a state election on issues like health when the Federal Liberal/National Coalition is causing the health situation in the first place. The Liberals, in particular, are based on a belief system that interference in markets is bad and that governments should have a minimalist role in society. Claims by the Liberal/National Coalition to be willing to provide large amounts of money to keep the sugar cane industry alive are purely to buy votes. As is it, the Labor government is going to provide more industry assistance anyway (sugar cane growers already get tax perks).

The dangers to Peter Beattie and Labor’s success in this election come from those who have been put out by actions of the government over the last four years. The more contentious issues include:

• The ambulance levy is now charged on a ‘per property’ basis. Previously, ambulance cover was optional and people got stung if they needed an ambulance and did not have cover. This ran at quite a loss because the ambulance cover was priced low and a number of people never paid. People with lots of properties particularly did not like this change.
• A lot of publicity appeared from reports of child abuse in foster care. The Department of Family Services blamed lack of government funding. To ‘fix’ the problem, Labor is going to throw a lot of money at it. Whether money will fix the inherent stupidity of the Department of Family Services is unknown.
• One Nation founder Pauline Hanson and associate David Ettridge were jailed for eleven weeks for fraud and then cleared of all charges. Some of Pauline’s mud has stuck that Beattie and friends were ‘out to get her’. The fact that the legal action against Pauline had more to do with Federal Liberal Minister Tony Abbott and his ‘slush fund’ than the state Labor government seems to have temporarily been forgotten.
• There was a level of contention over personal use of ministerial vehicles. This was cleared up by the Beattie government, but some mileage was made in damaging the government’s reputation.
• Merri Rose, a Labor minister, resigned after claims of ‘bullying’ her staff. This still beats being removed for having old Nazi connections, as happened to a National Party candidate two weeks before the election.
• Occasional statements said by certain ministers have left a sour taste with some people.

Despite these issues, the Queensland Labor government has done a lot more right than it has done wrong over the last six years. Business in thriving, the state is growing at a fast rate and dealing with it, unemployment is fairly low, and generally we are doing pretty well. We can all look forward to another four years of loyal service from the Beattie Labor government in Queensland.

# posted by Stuart Anthony Fenech : 21:20  0 comments