Monday morning and there's finally the chill of Winter in the air. The humidity of Summer has been swept away with the rain and I'm feeling like I'm getting on top of things. Who knew a two-storey house could hold so much crap? (Family, don't answer that!)
And while I'm gleeful at the slow slide towards cold nights and fresh days, I seem to have misplaced my Winter woollies; I put them away before the shifting of stuff and can't quite recall where I put them...
Seems like a good opportunity to buy new.
Speaking of new, we have a new State Government. Australians are notorious for voting out governments they feel have been in for too long - I don't think it has anything to do with political leanings, just that it's time to give the other side a go. Sixteen years is a long time to have one party ruling.
The tragedy is that former Premier Kristina Keneally was sacrificed by the Labor powerbrokers - the third time a woman has been handed the poisoned chalice of power. Carmen Lawrence of Western Australia and Joan Kirner of Victoria were both given the leadership when there was no hope of their party winning another term. During Keneally's fifteen-month tenure, at least twenty state members decided to retire or not contest this election; a clear signal they thought the seats unwinnable - or rats leaving a sinking ship (the cowards).
NSW Labor politics has become known for using the halls of power for their own purposes rather than for the people and has tainted even the Federal Government. The backlash against the Left became apparent very early on but not even the pundits could have predicted just what a landslide win the Coalition would achieve.
Will it make a difference? I hope so. I'm tired of Sydney-centric politics, of the country being abandoned and infrastructure left to run down. Hopefully, the new conservative government will be different and be proactive in solving the mess that is New South Wales. If not, then we'll have to wait for the Left to get it's house in order and have another change of government.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Hung out to dry
For the first time in 70 years, we have a hung parliament.
Was it a result of Labor voters dissatisfaction? The so-called 'mining tax' and other disasters over the last three years? The brutal dumping of K. Rudd in June? Was it a change in direction for the Liberals? That the leader reflected a time under Howard when everything was just dandy and we were protected from international banking events?
Or was it that neither side projected strong enough image and policy to sway the voter?
I've always thought Labor made a mistake in giving the leadership to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gilliard as deputy PM. She had the credentials to move the country forward; K. Rudd was a diplomat who lacked diplomacy with his staff; who had some nifty ideas but executed them poorly and in haste; who gave his new ministers more than a year to adjust to their new portfolios before anything was done to actually govern the country. Julia would have kicked butt straight up.
So now we have the Greens Party, under the leadership of Bob Brown, who hold the balance of power in the Senate and has a member in the House of Representatives - he's also calling for proportional representation in the House to give his candidates a better chance at succeeding.
Personally, I loathe and despise a politician who will prostitute his ideals for power. A vote for the Greens meant a vote - once preferences are distributed - for Labor. It's reprehensible that a candidate can win most of the votes in an electorate, but still lose the set due to preferences. A party who hands over votes to one party, but says it will 'work with whoever is in government' isn't one that stands on it's principles.
A minority party does not express the will of the people, yet will use the balance of power to push through legislation reflecting it's own radical agenda. The Greens have held the balance of power before, much to the detriment of running the country by holding up legislation. Governing slowed down to such an extent that when they lost the balance of power, both sides - left and right - expressed their relief and they could now get on with it.
In the days of Senator Harridine from Tasmania, he held the parliament to ransom on a number of issues. Like... he would only vote in favour of legislation if Australia stopped providing contraceptives to certain third world countries, that promoting women's health included anti-abortion material. He was a man who didn't vote according to his constituency, but his own religious bigotry.
Now this. What will the Greens demand? More social justice? More money thrown at pie-in-the-sky energy boondoggles? Higher taxes on the wealthy to subsidise the poor?
I tell you, politics makes me crazy!
Was it a result of Labor voters dissatisfaction? The so-called 'mining tax' and other disasters over the last three years? The brutal dumping of K. Rudd in June? Was it a change in direction for the Liberals? That the leader reflected a time under Howard when everything was just dandy and we were protected from international banking events?
Or was it that neither side projected strong enough image and policy to sway the voter?
I've always thought Labor made a mistake in giving the leadership to Kevin Rudd and Julia Gilliard as deputy PM. She had the credentials to move the country forward; K. Rudd was a diplomat who lacked diplomacy with his staff; who had some nifty ideas but executed them poorly and in haste; who gave his new ministers more than a year to adjust to their new portfolios before anything was done to actually govern the country. Julia would have kicked butt straight up.
So now we have the Greens Party, under the leadership of Bob Brown, who hold the balance of power in the Senate and has a member in the House of Representatives - he's also calling for proportional representation in the House to give his candidates a better chance at succeeding.
Personally, I loathe and despise a politician who will prostitute his ideals for power. A vote for the Greens meant a vote - once preferences are distributed - for Labor. It's reprehensible that a candidate can win most of the votes in an electorate, but still lose the set due to preferences. A party who hands over votes to one party, but says it will 'work with whoever is in government' isn't one that stands on it's principles.
A minority party does not express the will of the people, yet will use the balance of power to push through legislation reflecting it's own radical agenda. The Greens have held the balance of power before, much to the detriment of running the country by holding up legislation. Governing slowed down to such an extent that when they lost the balance of power, both sides - left and right - expressed their relief and they could now get on with it.
In the days of Senator Harridine from Tasmania, he held the parliament to ransom on a number of issues. Like... he would only vote in favour of legislation if Australia stopped providing contraceptives to certain third world countries, that promoting women's health included anti-abortion material. He was a man who didn't vote according to his constituency, but his own religious bigotry.
Now this. What will the Greens demand? More social justice? More money thrown at pie-in-the-sky energy boondoggles? Higher taxes on the wealthy to subsidise the poor?
I tell you, politics makes me crazy!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
We choose...
Today is election day. Or, I suppose, Election Day! Yep, we go to the polls to decide who will be the next Prime Minister of this great nation.
Do we go for the first woman Prime Minister (not elected, but giving the leadership of the Labor Party after a caucus room spill - since they held government, she became P.M.) Or do we vote for a former Minister of the Howard Government - a near-priest and exercise fiend?
The current polls indicate a 50-50 split with many voters still undecided. There's no... enthusiasm like last time. The pith and vinegar flew in 2007, with spiteful remarks across internet sites. This time, not so much.
The worst example of mocking our system is former Federal Labor leader, Mark Latham, suggesting donkey votes - that is, screw up your vote so no-one gets it - because neither side is worth it. Sanctimonious, petulant idiot. (He, too, was dumped by his own party as leader).
Australia has compulsory voting - one, I think of only two countries in the world. Everyone votes, no-one 'misses out'. Postal, absentee or polling booth, we have the facilities for all to have their say. And it's not about leadership. It's about your candidate in your electorate. Whichever party wins the most electorates, has the right to form government. The party elects the leader, and the party room decides the issues to stand on, through our elected representatives.
Democracy in action. While compulsory voting seems like an oxymoron, it works. No-one can complain about the result because everyone had a say. Your side might lose, but you were involved in the process. Okay, except for those who vote for the Greens; a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor under a deal done for preferences before the election - a deal I think should be made illegal. If I want Labor in, I'll vote for them, none of this back room dealing to gain votes by proxy.
So. Who am I going to vote for? Well, we also have secret ballots. It's no-one's business who you vote for, so I ain't tellin', but the results should be interesting.
Do we go for the first woman Prime Minister (not elected, but giving the leadership of the Labor Party after a caucus room spill - since they held government, she became P.M.) Or do we vote for a former Minister of the Howard Government - a near-priest and exercise fiend?
The current polls indicate a 50-50 split with many voters still undecided. There's no... enthusiasm like last time. The pith and vinegar flew in 2007, with spiteful remarks across internet sites. This time, not so much.
The worst example of mocking our system is former Federal Labor leader, Mark Latham, suggesting donkey votes - that is, screw up your vote so no-one gets it - because neither side is worth it. Sanctimonious, petulant idiot. (He, too, was dumped by his own party as leader).
Australia has compulsory voting - one, I think of only two countries in the world. Everyone votes, no-one 'misses out'. Postal, absentee or polling booth, we have the facilities for all to have their say. And it's not about leadership. It's about your candidate in your electorate. Whichever party wins the most electorates, has the right to form government. The party elects the leader, and the party room decides the issues to stand on, through our elected representatives.
Democracy in action. While compulsory voting seems like an oxymoron, it works. No-one can complain about the result because everyone had a say. Your side might lose, but you were involved in the process. Okay, except for those who vote for the Greens; a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor under a deal done for preferences before the election - a deal I think should be made illegal. If I want Labor in, I'll vote for them, none of this back room dealing to gain votes by proxy.
So. Who am I going to vote for? Well, we also have secret ballots. It's no-one's business who you vote for, so I ain't tellin', but the results should be interesting.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Off and on the 'net
Took myself off to the movies yesterday to see Iron Man 2; sadly, I bumped up against the reality of living in a coastal village on a gorgeous day. Since I was the only one to turn up, the proprietor decided not to screen it. (Insert sad face.) However, he did give me a complimentary ticket for a future movie. (Insert happy face.) I think I'll reserve the ticket for a later film - and try for Iron Man 2 tomorrow.
My home area is filled with retirees and loud, action flicks aren't the most popular here. Maybe tomorrow, a more younger crowd will show up.
The short story marathon continues and I'm keeping up. Only 26 to go...
The Magic District has an interesting post on a writer's vices and Writer's Digest has 7 Reasons Agents Stop Reading Your First Chapter and this, 8 Basic Writing Blunders. All are useful reads.
Now, I have to got thrash out another story.
My home area is filled with retirees and loud, action flicks aren't the most popular here. Maybe tomorrow, a more younger crowd will show up.
The short story marathon continues and I'm keeping up. Only 26 to go...
The Magic District has an interesting post on a writer's vices and Writer's Digest has 7 Reasons Agents Stop Reading Your First Chapter and this, 8 Basic Writing Blunders. All are useful reads.
Now, I have to got thrash out another story.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Pristine History
I really hate political correctness. I dislike being required to treat people with 'cultural' sensitivity when they refuse to treat me with the same respect.
I believe political correctness has gone beyond the realms of common sense and into the dungeon of divisiveness where ethnicity is singled out for special treatment because of modern day interpretation of historic events.
To name names in the current environment, tempts people who don't agree with me, to call me a 'racist' rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.
Let's take an example. (Any example will be a hot button topic, so be warned.)
When writing historical fiction, is it acceptable to use the word 'nigger' or 'wog' or 'mick'? How about a 'Yank' or a 'Kraut' or 'Frog', a 'Lobster', a 'Ruskie' or a 'Skip'?
When you look at the list, why is the latter list more acceptable than the former? Is it because yanks, etc. represent Caucasian skin colour and the others don't? (Hell, pressed one of my own buttons there.)
To write a book set during the American Civil War - from the South's perspective - will necessitate the use of the word 'nigger'; it was the accepted term for the slaves. To write a book set during the Second World War - from a front-line soldier's perspective - necessitates using the words 'kraut', 'Nazi' or 'Ruskie'. New York in the 1880s-1900s, Irish immigrants were 'micks'.
Just because we have a veneer of sophistication and civilisation now, doesn't mean we can white-wash history of all its glory and dirt by creating taboos. History, the good and the bad, happened. It can't be changed. The words were used - even as the attempts to have them expunged from history continues.
The Australian outlaw, Ned Kelly, was long ago turned into a folk hero for standing up to authority. Yet, this is a man who, with his gang, gunned down three police officers and had a history of assault and theft. He was eventually hanged for the shootout at Glenrowan. It is a matter of history that, in some aspects of his life, he was treated poorly by the police. Yet as little as thirty years after his death, his actions were justified by the social discord surrounding squatter-land selection rights. He is still regarded as a folk hero.
There was a time when having convict ancestors was vaguely uncomfortable for a family; now it is a source of pride. And yes, we do have a convict in the tree - probably more if I can connect them. A sheep-stealer, in fact. Acquitted the first time 'on compassionate grounds' (his father died while awaiting trial for the same offence), but convicted when he did it again! I'm not sympathetic to his plight because he was a recidivist, he'd been in trouble for most of his life. But he did manage to create a new life for himself here, in Australia, following the commutation of the execution order to life in the penal colony.
When bad men do bad things, it's not acceptable to ascribe moral motives to their actions centuries later and call those actions justified. Just as it is not acceptable to re-write words already spoken and recorded because we find them distasteful now. Nor do I believe in teaching sanitised history to reflect the modern political correctness of apologising for the actions of the population generations ago.
Captain James Cook should be accorded the respect of his name, his title and his achievements in navigation, astronomy and exploration, not reduced to a sneering descriptor as 'Jimmy Cook'.
I've had this argument before and the end result was an agreement to disagree. But should I write historical pieces as fiction, I'll use the words spoken at the time. If I'm vilified for it, so be it; at least I won't be a history denier.
I believe political correctness has gone beyond the realms of common sense and into the dungeon of divisiveness where ethnicity is singled out for special treatment because of modern day interpretation of historic events.
To name names in the current environment, tempts people who don't agree with me, to call me a 'racist' rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.
Let's take an example. (Any example will be a hot button topic, so be warned.)
When writing historical fiction, is it acceptable to use the word 'nigger' or 'wog' or 'mick'? How about a 'Yank' or a 'Kraut' or 'Frog', a 'Lobster', a 'Ruskie' or a 'Skip'?
When you look at the list, why is the latter list more acceptable than the former? Is it because yanks, etc. represent Caucasian skin colour and the others don't? (Hell, pressed one of my own buttons there.)
To write a book set during the American Civil War - from the South's perspective - will necessitate the use of the word 'nigger'; it was the accepted term for the slaves. To write a book set during the Second World War - from a front-line soldier's perspective - necessitates using the words 'kraut', 'Nazi' or 'Ruskie'. New York in the 1880s-1900s, Irish immigrants were 'micks'.
Just because we have a veneer of sophistication and civilisation now, doesn't mean we can white-wash history of all its glory and dirt by creating taboos. History, the good and the bad, happened. It can't be changed. The words were used - even as the attempts to have them expunged from history continues.
The Australian outlaw, Ned Kelly, was long ago turned into a folk hero for standing up to authority. Yet, this is a man who, with his gang, gunned down three police officers and had a history of assault and theft. He was eventually hanged for the shootout at Glenrowan. It is a matter of history that, in some aspects of his life, he was treated poorly by the police. Yet as little as thirty years after his death, his actions were justified by the social discord surrounding squatter-land selection rights. He is still regarded as a folk hero.
There was a time when having convict ancestors was vaguely uncomfortable for a family; now it is a source of pride. And yes, we do have a convict in the tree - probably more if I can connect them. A sheep-stealer, in fact. Acquitted the first time 'on compassionate grounds' (his father died while awaiting trial for the same offence), but convicted when he did it again! I'm not sympathetic to his plight because he was a recidivist, he'd been in trouble for most of his life. But he did manage to create a new life for himself here, in Australia, following the commutation of the execution order to life in the penal colony.
When bad men do bad things, it's not acceptable to ascribe moral motives to their actions centuries later and call those actions justified. Just as it is not acceptable to re-write words already spoken and recorded because we find them distasteful now. Nor do I believe in teaching sanitised history to reflect the modern political correctness of apologising for the actions of the population generations ago.
Captain James Cook should be accorded the respect of his name, his title and his achievements in navigation, astronomy and exploration, not reduced to a sneering descriptor as 'Jimmy Cook'.
I've had this argument before and the end result was an agreement to disagree. But should I write historical pieces as fiction, I'll use the words spoken at the time. If I'm vilified for it, so be it; at least I won't be a history denier.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Mooch
I'm having a mooch day. No writing (except for this, of course), no editing, just mooching.
It's raining, again. For the eighth day in a row. Yesterday, following work, I got down on my hands and knees and cleaned out the frelling street drain. Chockers, it was, of leaves, sticks, gravel and earthworms. Pulled a gor'amed muscle, too.
So, today, it's mooch day. My TBR pile is getting out of control. Time to cut it down by one or two.
* * *
Oh, a little rant:
Okay, under what criteria does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Where are the long-term examples of peace-making?
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" Nobel cites, and yet, he's done nothing to stop North Korea or Iran from their aims at gaining nuclear technology. Empty rhetoric and lecturing the rest of the world as if we're naughty children doesn't count in my book. Let's not forget the inaction on Afghanistan, the failure to support Iranian protesters, the ill-informed judgement on Honduras, the arm-twisting on 'global stimulus initiatives', lecturing Israel, the naive flitting off to Copenhagen, the acting like a popstar in foreign countries and apologising for America's past indiscretions.
Was there no-one with more visible impact? Morgan Tsvangerai for trying to rebuild his country with peaceful reconciliation in Zimbabwe for example? Doctors sans Frontiers?
Is this a popularist vote? He's been President for eight months and I've seen nothing to warrant this kind of award. If anything, he's reduced America's global influence. You don't get a peace prize for continuing conflicts, you get it for ending them.
It's raining, again. For the eighth day in a row. Yesterday, following work, I got down on my hands and knees and cleaned out the frelling street drain. Chockers, it was, of leaves, sticks, gravel and earthworms. Pulled a gor'amed muscle, too.
So, today, it's mooch day. My TBR pile is getting out of control. Time to cut it down by one or two.
* * *
Oh, a little rant:
Okay, under what criteria does President Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? Where are the long-term examples of peace-making?
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" Nobel cites, and yet, he's done nothing to stop North Korea or Iran from their aims at gaining nuclear technology. Empty rhetoric and lecturing the rest of the world as if we're naughty children doesn't count in my book. Let's not forget the inaction on Afghanistan, the failure to support Iranian protesters, the ill-informed judgement on Honduras, the arm-twisting on 'global stimulus initiatives', lecturing Israel, the naive flitting off to Copenhagen, the acting like a popstar in foreign countries and apologising for America's past indiscretions.
Was there no-one with more visible impact? Morgan Tsvangerai for trying to rebuild his country with peaceful reconciliation in Zimbabwe for example? Doctors sans Frontiers?
Is this a popularist vote? He's been President for eight months and I've seen nothing to warrant this kind of award. If anything, he's reduced America's global influence. You don't get a peace prize for continuing conflicts, you get it for ending them.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Half-assed democracy
And so I have done my civic duty.
I put my mother in the car and drove to the local primary school, had my name checked off and voted. I looked around for the ballot box and a helpful... helper directed me to a brown, non-descript cardboard box; with blue pen written on it. Here I could dump my oh, so valuable democratic vote.
A cardboard box that looked like it had been scavanged from the local supermarket. And blue pen. Stuffed to the gunnels with other people's democratic votes.
I didn't see any other boxes - cardboard or otherwise - and I have to wonder whether it was to be recycled. The only 'officials' I saw were marking off the names and when I looked at the lists, there were precious few signed off for the Ward.
In other government elections, both State and Federal, there are more people with badges proclaiming officialdom, tall white ballot boxes with someone standing guard.
Not so today. That box was disappointing to see. The lack of officialdom disappointing too, even as the people handing out their candidates 'how to' forms were as enthusiastic as ever.
Voting is compulsory here, but the ballot box presented to us today would, in no way, take all the votes. I can only hope that honesty and fair play are adhered to. From what I saw, there's too much opportunity for the incumbent to... influence the count - and it is his ward.
I guess we'll have to wait and see...
I put my mother in the car and drove to the local primary school, had my name checked off and voted. I looked around for the ballot box and a helpful... helper directed me to a brown, non-descript cardboard box; with blue pen written on it. Here I could dump my oh, so valuable democratic vote.
A cardboard box that looked like it had been scavanged from the local supermarket. And blue pen. Stuffed to the gunnels with other people's democratic votes.
I didn't see any other boxes - cardboard or otherwise - and I have to wonder whether it was to be recycled. The only 'officials' I saw were marking off the names and when I looked at the lists, there were precious few signed off for the Ward.
In other government elections, both State and Federal, there are more people with badges proclaiming officialdom, tall white ballot boxes with someone standing guard.
Not so today. That box was disappointing to see. The lack of officialdom disappointing too, even as the people handing out their candidates 'how to' forms were as enthusiastic as ever.
Voting is compulsory here, but the ballot box presented to us today would, in no way, take all the votes. I can only hope that honesty and fair play are adhered to. From what I saw, there's too much opportunity for the incumbent to... influence the count - and it is his ward.
I guess we'll have to wait and see...
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Me-ow
And here I thought the local council elections were going to be deadly dull and boring.
Nope. The mayor's wife has had a few things to say that do not cast her in a good light. Abusing the volunteers of your rivals, in public, does not win you friends and makes you - yet again - a laughing stock. Nor has the mayor, for that matter, pressed his cause:
"However Shoalhaven Mayor Greg Watson said he “didn’t see anything”.
“I wasn’t aware of what happened, if anything happened at all,” Cr Watson said.
He said allegations of abuse “sounds like a political stunt”.
“It’s of no interest to me personally.” (South Coast Register, 10.9.08)
His wife verbally abuses people and it's of no interest to him? It's witnessed by a number of people and yet he describes it as a political stunt? His political group is also in trouble with the Department of Local Government for distributing false advertising information - which his wife approved. He's also accused of threatening legal action against a community newspaper, accused the local paper South Coast Register of bias against his political party and used an emergency siren as a precursor to a patently false advertisement. And that's just in the last week.
It might be a small area, but I also noted the nastiness creeping into the American presidential campaign. You'd have to be brain dead not to get the inference when Mr Obama spoke about "put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig". Anyone who heard Ms Palin's joke the previous week would see Mr Obama's comment as insulting and sexist. Is this a mis-step? And why is slamming the critics of the comment when he repeated it? He could have used a number of other metaphors. I think he should fire his speech writer. It was neither witty nor clever.
It's like a Miss World competition; Mr Obama wants world peace by talking people to death, and Mr McLain's going for Miss Congeniality with his charming affability. I had no idea a Presidential campaign was about popularity.
Where are the policies? The solutions? The progressive ideas? Where are the genuine efforts to solve problems without taking a swipe at the other side? A true candidate would have these, and not worry about the small, inconsequential and, eventually, irrelevant stuff like who looks prettier together.
After this weekend, I'm over politics. It's too much like cats fight in a sack.
Nope. The mayor's wife has had a few things to say that do not cast her in a good light. Abusing the volunteers of your rivals, in public, does not win you friends and makes you - yet again - a laughing stock. Nor has the mayor, for that matter, pressed his cause:
"However Shoalhaven Mayor Greg Watson said he “didn’t see anything”.
“I wasn’t aware of what happened, if anything happened at all,” Cr Watson said.
He said allegations of abuse “sounds like a political stunt”.
“It’s of no interest to me personally.” (South Coast Register, 10.9.08)
His wife verbally abuses people and it's of no interest to him? It's witnessed by a number of people and yet he describes it as a political stunt? His political group is also in trouble with the Department of Local Government for distributing false advertising information - which his wife approved. He's also accused of threatening legal action against a community newspaper, accused the local paper South Coast Register of bias against his political party and used an emergency siren as a precursor to a patently false advertisement. And that's just in the last week.
It might be a small area, but I also noted the nastiness creeping into the American presidential campaign. You'd have to be brain dead not to get the inference when Mr Obama spoke about "put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig". Anyone who heard Ms Palin's joke the previous week would see Mr Obama's comment as insulting and sexist. Is this a mis-step? And why is slamming the critics of the comment when he repeated it? He could have used a number of other metaphors. I think he should fire his speech writer. It was neither witty nor clever.
It's like a Miss World competition; Mr Obama wants world peace by talking people to death, and Mr McLain's going for Miss Congeniality with his charming affability. I had no idea a Presidential campaign was about popularity.
Where are the policies? The solutions? The progressive ideas? Where are the genuine efforts to solve problems without taking a swipe at the other side? A true candidate would have these, and not worry about the small, inconsequential and, eventually, irrelevant stuff like who looks prettier together.
After this weekend, I'm over politics. It's too much like cats fight in a sack.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Caution: spleen venting
What is it about politicians that they have to spout lies and half-truths to get elected? What is it about them that they have to whinge and gripe and groan about the unfairness of media exposure?
Our current mayor is a perfect example. The last time I saw such tripe was... hmm, last election.
None of the bad stuff that's happened over the last four years is his fault; but every damn good thing, he'll take credit for. The guy only got in via preferences from his nasty little cronies.
And cronies they are given I spent a couple of months going through the council voting trends; there's a lot of block voting going on. The mayor, of course, denies caucusing - that's deciding how to vote before the meeting.
That kind of voting becomes apparent in the ease with which his lordship voted. On some issues, he could lodge an opposing vote, assured that his cadre would see the issue through.
The worst of it is he could wiggle through again with preferences. I sincerely hope not, otherwise, the waterfront will be blocked with six and seven storey buildings - a result of his group voting on a particular building against staff recommendations and against legal advice that's going up in the neighbourhood.
I'm not against development here; but I am against no consultation with the residents. This is a quiet, family orientated tourist area. Come summer, the place is packed with caravaners, campers and families. But in the winter, only those of us who live here wander the empty streets - and that suits us fine.
Erecting multi-story buildings not only reserves the view for those who can afford it, but ruins the laidback, relaxed atmosphere which is why people come here; a fact the Mayor denies.
I genuinely hope he loses the election; both as mayor and as a councillor. The man has dubious connections to developers, ignorance of what the people want, and is just plainly an asshat. He's a liar and a cheat, but a brilliant details man. We don't need the likes of him, we are fed up with the likes of him, and I hope defeat is a truly bitter pill for him.
Maybe then the Shire can get back to being run properly: the council made up of the people's representatives, not the developers yes men.
Our current mayor is a perfect example. The last time I saw such tripe was... hmm, last election.
None of the bad stuff that's happened over the last four years is his fault; but every damn good thing, he'll take credit for. The guy only got in via preferences from his nasty little cronies.
And cronies they are given I spent a couple of months going through the council voting trends; there's a lot of block voting going on. The mayor, of course, denies caucusing - that's deciding how to vote before the meeting.
That kind of voting becomes apparent in the ease with which his lordship voted. On some issues, he could lodge an opposing vote, assured that his cadre would see the issue through.
The worst of it is he could wiggle through again with preferences. I sincerely hope not, otherwise, the waterfront will be blocked with six and seven storey buildings - a result of his group voting on a particular building against staff recommendations and against legal advice that's going up in the neighbourhood.
I'm not against development here; but I am against no consultation with the residents. This is a quiet, family orientated tourist area. Come summer, the place is packed with caravaners, campers and families. But in the winter, only those of us who live here wander the empty streets - and that suits us fine.
Erecting multi-story buildings not only reserves the view for those who can afford it, but ruins the laidback, relaxed atmosphere which is why people come here; a fact the Mayor denies.
I genuinely hope he loses the election; both as mayor and as a councillor. The man has dubious connections to developers, ignorance of what the people want, and is just plainly an asshat. He's a liar and a cheat, but a brilliant details man. We don't need the likes of him, we are fed up with the likes of him, and I hope defeat is a truly bitter pill for him.
Maybe then the Shire can get back to being run properly: the council made up of the people's representatives, not the developers yes men.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Politics... pitooie
Well, it's a busy week - politically speaking - here in Oz.
Last week, the deputy grand poobah of NSW, John Watkins, resigned. Then grand poobah of NSW, Morris Iemma, resigned yesterday and there's a cabinet shake-up which will be announced on Sunday; West Australians go to the polls to elected their grand poobah with the current Labor Government there in trouble and there are two separate elections for former ministerial seats in NSW and South Australia. Next weekend is the local council elections - and I'll be voting for someone other than the current manipulative, arrogant Mayor (much as I'd like to vent my spleen with harsh language, this is a public forum).
In a week, the whole face of local and State politics will undergo a radical shift. It will also indicate how the people of those States involved view the Federal Government - and current polls suggest not very kindly. Two State governments, the Northern Territory and West Australia have gone to the polls early, something Australians see as cynical and opportunistic. NT Labor came exceptionally close to losing; WA may well be lost for Labor.
With one political disaster after another, Iemma and his treasurer Michael Costa, are gone now, but the problems remain. Worse, these are the same problems that Iemma took over from previous NSW Premier Bob Carr, who jumped ship early amid congratulations and severe back patting. Iemma was left holding a poison chalice.
But... he did little or nothing to fix the rail system, hospital waiting lists, education, roads, traffic, presided over cross-city tunnel that is sucking taxpayers dry because too few people use it and many other failed-to-solve issues. The now former treasure said this morning that NSW is basically 'insolvent' with revenues collapsing, budget blowouts and money squandered as if the people of NSW have bottomless pockets.
In two years, New South Wales Labor will go to the next election with two newbies: Nathan Rees and his deputy, Carmel Tebbutt. The tough decisions he's going to make will not enarmour him to the people. Times are tough already.
Mr Rees has already sacked Iemma's 'strategic' team and has said he won't be influenced by factions. So not true. Any Labor leader in this country is leader only at the behest of the factions who support them. Withdraw that support and you're gone, as Morris found out yesterday.
It gets worse. Mr Rees was was chief of staff to the convicted paedophile and drug offender, former Member of Parliament, Milton Orkopoulos. What does Rees know about that and what else is he hiding?
The only bright spot in this whole political mess is that Quentin Bryce, former Queensland governor, lawyer, academic, sex discrimination commissioner and child-care campaigner, became Australia's first female and 25th Governor General - the direct representative of the Queen in Australia.
Let's hear it for Grrl Power!
Last week, the deputy grand poobah of NSW, John Watkins, resigned. Then grand poobah of NSW, Morris Iemma, resigned yesterday and there's a cabinet shake-up which will be announced on Sunday; West Australians go to the polls to elected their grand poobah with the current Labor Government there in trouble and there are two separate elections for former ministerial seats in NSW and South Australia. Next weekend is the local council elections - and I'll be voting for someone other than the current manipulative, arrogant Mayor (much as I'd like to vent my spleen with harsh language, this is a public forum).
In a week, the whole face of local and State politics will undergo a radical shift. It will also indicate how the people of those States involved view the Federal Government - and current polls suggest not very kindly. Two State governments, the Northern Territory and West Australia have gone to the polls early, something Australians see as cynical and opportunistic. NT Labor came exceptionally close to losing; WA may well be lost for Labor.
With one political disaster after another, Iemma and his treasurer Michael Costa, are gone now, but the problems remain. Worse, these are the same problems that Iemma took over from previous NSW Premier Bob Carr, who jumped ship early amid congratulations and severe back patting. Iemma was left holding a poison chalice.
But... he did little or nothing to fix the rail system, hospital waiting lists, education, roads, traffic, presided over cross-city tunnel that is sucking taxpayers dry because too few people use it and many other failed-to-solve issues. The now former treasure said this morning that NSW is basically 'insolvent' with revenues collapsing, budget blowouts and money squandered as if the people of NSW have bottomless pockets.
In two years, New South Wales Labor will go to the next election with two newbies: Nathan Rees and his deputy, Carmel Tebbutt. The tough decisions he's going to make will not enarmour him to the people. Times are tough already.
Mr Rees has already sacked Iemma's 'strategic' team and has said he won't be influenced by factions. So not true. Any Labor leader in this country is leader only at the behest of the factions who support them. Withdraw that support and you're gone, as Morris found out yesterday.
It gets worse. Mr Rees was was chief of staff to the convicted paedophile and drug offender, former Member of Parliament, Milton Orkopoulos. What does Rees know about that and what else is he hiding?
The only bright spot in this whole political mess is that Quentin Bryce, former Queensland governor, lawyer, academic, sex discrimination commissioner and child-care campaigner, became Australia's first female and 25th Governor General - the direct representative of the Queen in Australia.
Let's hear it for Grrl Power!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
New things
I learned a new word today: polydactyl.
Isn't it cool? Poly... dactyl...
Sounds prehistoric; a new type of dinosaur maybe? Nup. It means having more than the usual digits, like people being born with six fingers or six toes.
I like to learn a new thing every day. Yesterday, it was my first three chapters... um... prologue plus two chapters, aren't as nifty as I thought. What I learned is that just about all my first three chapters aren't as readable as the rest. And I've been torturing myself over it. I can delete the prologue and the rest is 'okay', but once I get into the fourth chapter and beyond, it reads well.
I'll have to find some literature on how to write the first three chapters effectively.
Last week, I realised why I had such a problem with the 'annoyance and inconvenience' law passed for the Catholic World Youth Day: we weren't asked.
Australians, as a whole, will bend over backwards to help out... if asked. If we're not, and assumptions are made, then we get all pissy about it. If the Government had asked us to welcome the pilgrims, we would have done so, like we did for the Olympics. But we weren't; we were told and laws put in place to ensure compliance.
This country was founded by convicts. People who had a natural resistance to authority... that hasn't changed. Not one jot. We made a hero out of the criminal Ned Kelly, after all.
I guess it just shows how blind our current government is to the Aussie way. Too bad the election is still a couple of years away.
I wonder what I'll learn tomorrow? And how can I use my new word? Polydactyl. What new things have you learned today?
Isn't it cool? Poly... dactyl...
Sounds prehistoric; a new type of dinosaur maybe? Nup. It means having more than the usual digits, like people being born with six fingers or six toes.
I like to learn a new thing every day. Yesterday, it was my first three chapters... um... prologue plus two chapters, aren't as nifty as I thought. What I learned is that just about all my first three chapters aren't as readable as the rest. And I've been torturing myself over it. I can delete the prologue and the rest is 'okay', but once I get into the fourth chapter and beyond, it reads well.
I'll have to find some literature on how to write the first three chapters effectively.
Last week, I realised why I had such a problem with the 'annoyance and inconvenience' law passed for the Catholic World Youth Day: we weren't asked.
Australians, as a whole, will bend over backwards to help out... if asked. If we're not, and assumptions are made, then we get all pissy about it. If the Government had asked us to welcome the pilgrims, we would have done so, like we did for the Olympics. But we weren't; we were told and laws put in place to ensure compliance.
This country was founded by convicts. People who had a natural resistance to authority... that hasn't changed. Not one jot. We made a hero out of the criminal Ned Kelly, after all.
I guess it just shows how blind our current government is to the Aussie way. Too bad the election is still a couple of years away.
I wonder what I'll learn tomorrow? And how can I use my new word? Polydactyl. What new things have you learned today?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Zimbabwe
Like a lot of the world's population, I've been watching Zimbabwe with some interest. Why? Well, I like to keep up to date with world politics. How populations react to their governments or candidates, is a good way to start developing your own socio-political world.
World building isn't just about land, weather and how many suns in the sky. But I digress.
Mugabe was once a hero to his nation, 'free-ing' the land of 'oppressive' British rule. Ha! He has taken a country known as the 'bread-basket of Africa' and bankrupted it in under thirty years.
Inflation is at 100,000 percent; unemployment at 80 percent; the life expectancy for men is 37 years and for women, 34. The central bank has just introduced a $ZIM 50 million note - worth about 50p in pounds, 80 cents US, and about 82 cents Australian. Fifty million!
And who does Mugabe and his 'liberation' war veterans blame for this catastrophe? Why, Britain of course. You'll remember that Mugabe handed over profitable white-owned farms to the veterans. These veterans had no concept, no idea of how to run a farm and those farms are now in disrepair and nothing is produced. Loyal farm workers were either run off or killed, as were the original owners. This group were also used for intimidation and violence against opposition supporters.
In a recent statement, veteran Jabulani Sibanda, said: "It now looks like these elections were a way to open for the re-invasion of this country (by the British)."
I doubt Britain has any plan whatsoever of invading Zimbabwe, but it's a useful scare tactic - or was. Now, the veterans are used as thugs so an 84-year-old can hang on to power of nation with no money, no infrastructure and a declining population.
If it continues, he'll be president of an empty land. Then again, he and his cronies have stripped the wealth, secreted the money in offshore accounts. You can bet they don't want to be arrested and charged with human rights violations, fraud, vote-rigging and any number of charges they deserve.
We all know this, but what startled me was the naive and ineffectual comment from South Africa's President, Thabo Imbeki, who suggested people 'wait for the official results' before taking any action.
Official results? Mugabe stole the last election by rigging the votes and intimidating the voters. In this election, an extra three million ballots were produced. How easy would it be for opposition votes to be replaced should the outside world demand to see them as proof Mugabe won as many as he says? After all the Electoral Commission is headed by his appointees.
In the meantime, he'll delay the 'results' while working behind the scenes to ensure his re-election; either that, or he's working on an escape plan.
His people are starving, they have no jobs and currently no prospects of one, they have no money and nothing to spend it on. And yet, he wears his hand-tailored suits, drinks and eats the best foods while his lackeys join in.
If ever a man needed to be... disposed of, Mugabe is he, if only to save his nation from his own excesses.
Why do I care about a country so far away? I worked with a rather gor-jus young white Zimbabwean some years ago while in England. His parents were farmers and I find myself wondering what happened to them. Did they safely get to South Africa? Or did the worst happen to them? I like to think they made it, but my creative mind can think up some stories revolving around their escape; or not.
Zimbabwe is the perfect lesson on how to take a profitable, viable nation and destroy it. And all we can do is... wait.
World building isn't just about land, weather and how many suns in the sky. But I digress.
Mugabe was once a hero to his nation, 'free-ing' the land of 'oppressive' British rule. Ha! He has taken a country known as the 'bread-basket of Africa' and bankrupted it in under thirty years.
Inflation is at 100,000 percent; unemployment at 80 percent; the life expectancy for men is 37 years and for women, 34. The central bank has just introduced a $ZIM 50 million note - worth about 50p in pounds, 80 cents US, and about 82 cents Australian. Fifty million!
And who does Mugabe and his 'liberation' war veterans blame for this catastrophe? Why, Britain of course. You'll remember that Mugabe handed over profitable white-owned farms to the veterans. These veterans had no concept, no idea of how to run a farm and those farms are now in disrepair and nothing is produced. Loyal farm workers were either run off or killed, as were the original owners. This group were also used for intimidation and violence against opposition supporters.
In a recent statement, veteran Jabulani Sibanda, said: "It now looks like these elections were a way to open for the re-invasion of this country (by the British)."
I doubt Britain has any plan whatsoever of invading Zimbabwe, but it's a useful scare tactic - or was. Now, the veterans are used as thugs so an 84-year-old can hang on to power of nation with no money, no infrastructure and a declining population.
If it continues, he'll be president of an empty land. Then again, he and his cronies have stripped the wealth, secreted the money in offshore accounts. You can bet they don't want to be arrested and charged with human rights violations, fraud, vote-rigging and any number of charges they deserve.
We all know this, but what startled me was the naive and ineffectual comment from South Africa's President, Thabo Imbeki, who suggested people 'wait for the official results' before taking any action.
Official results? Mugabe stole the last election by rigging the votes and intimidating the voters. In this election, an extra three million ballots were produced. How easy would it be for opposition votes to be replaced should the outside world demand to see them as proof Mugabe won as many as he says? After all the Electoral Commission is headed by his appointees.
In the meantime, he'll delay the 'results' while working behind the scenes to ensure his re-election; either that, or he's working on an escape plan.
His people are starving, they have no jobs and currently no prospects of one, they have no money and nothing to spend it on. And yet, he wears his hand-tailored suits, drinks and eats the best foods while his lackeys join in.
If ever a man needed to be... disposed of, Mugabe is he, if only to save his nation from his own excesses.
Why do I care about a country so far away? I worked with a rather gor-jus young white Zimbabwean some years ago while in England. His parents were farmers and I find myself wondering what happened to them. Did they safely get to South Africa? Or did the worst happen to them? I like to think they made it, but my creative mind can think up some stories revolving around their escape; or not.
Zimbabwe is the perfect lesson on how to take a profitable, viable nation and destroy it. And all we can do is... wait.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Our Rudd-er
Big bad Kev has just finished his tour of the U.S. Our Prime Minister made a number of announcements, all of which should have been made on home soil.
Like… going for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. No mention of the $AUS30-40 million dollars it will cost, nor the greater cost of compromising our stand on certain issues: Japanese whaling, South Pacific government corruption, Chinese human rights violations, and so on.
It’s not as if the U.N. has proven itself worthwhile in recent years. In fact, I’m wondering if it’s a lame duck. It sucks up enormous resources and money, for little visible return. Remember Bosnia? Within a week the U.S. had done what the U.N. failed to do in years of talks. Afghanistan? It did nothing to stop the Taliban execute women for showing ankles or begging on the street or any number of bullshit crimes. Iraq? For ten years Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions – of course he had help from U.N. members France, Russia and China. For ten years he rattled his sabre and threatened biological and chemical attacks; did, in fact, kill thousands of Kurds.
Rule by committee does not work and the larger the committee, the less work is done.
Nope. We don’t need to be on the Security Council, we can continue to work behind the scenes. But our PM wants us to be more involved in world affairs – but do we have the international clout for that?
Mr Rudd also had a chat to Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain, though Barack Obama was only available for a phone call, coz he was so far away in Pennsylvania.
* * *
It being Wednesday, there’s another instalment of Bounty Hunter up on the Takeaway.
And now, since we have ferocious winds coming up the coast, I’d better go and batten down the hatches (Melbourne and Tasmania have copped a beating today, and I have no doubt… we’re next).
Like… going for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. No mention of the $AUS30-40 million dollars it will cost, nor the greater cost of compromising our stand on certain issues: Japanese whaling, South Pacific government corruption, Chinese human rights violations, and so on.
It’s not as if the U.N. has proven itself worthwhile in recent years. In fact, I’m wondering if it’s a lame duck. It sucks up enormous resources and money, for little visible return. Remember Bosnia? Within a week the U.S. had done what the U.N. failed to do in years of talks. Afghanistan? It did nothing to stop the Taliban execute women for showing ankles or begging on the street or any number of bullshit crimes. Iraq? For ten years Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions – of course he had help from U.N. members France, Russia and China. For ten years he rattled his sabre and threatened biological and chemical attacks; did, in fact, kill thousands of Kurds.
Rule by committee does not work and the larger the committee, the less work is done.
Nope. We don’t need to be on the Security Council, we can continue to work behind the scenes. But our PM wants us to be more involved in world affairs – but do we have the international clout for that?
Mr Rudd also had a chat to Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain, though Barack Obama was only available for a phone call, coz he was so far away in Pennsylvania.
* * *
It being Wednesday, there’s another instalment of Bounty Hunter up on the Takeaway.
And now, since we have ferocious winds coming up the coast, I’d better go and batten down the hatches (Melbourne and Tasmania have copped a beating today, and I have no doubt… we’re next).
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Spiteful hypocrits
I was going to do a post on character names, but I was so incensed at the news that I had to vent. Here goes:
Like a lot of people, I was looking forward to what General David Petraeus had to say about Iraq. And, like a lot of people, I was appalled, nay, disgusted at the mealy-mouthed criticism levelled before Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker had a chance to speak.
And that was nothing compared to what came after, with Hillary Clinton euphamistically calling Petraeus a 'liar', with her 'suspension of disbelief' comment.
It's bad enough that the Democrats used a decorated soldier for target practice, it's worse when a man who has only ever done his duty is used for political mileage and as a photo opportunity for certain candidates to further their ambitions.
It matters not what Petraeus' politics are; it matters that he's done what was asked of him, as have 160,000 plus other troops on the ground in Iraq, and to snarkily snipe at the General, snipes at them all.
There's no 'good job, we'll try and get you home soon', no 'you fight for the freedom of all', no 'we're gonna send you help', nor are there many news item on the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, security, good relationships with the locals. It's all about alleged and false atrocities, accidental killings, ineptitude, bad planning, needless casualties, poor decision-making and the fundamental wrongness of being there in the first place.
But what were these politicians thinking in the days immediately after 9/11? Did any of them say 'oh, well, that hurt, but we'll let it pass', or 'gee, I really think we need to reconsider our foreign policy'? Nope. It was 'who has done this?' and 'we need to kill the muthahs' and 'no one kicks our butt on home soil, we're gonna sort you out!'
What morally corrupt, self-aggrandizing, disrespectful and arrogant people they are! It is politicians who start wars, but it is the soldier who fights and maybe will die for the mistakes politicians make. To insult and demean a professional soldier when they demanded the report in the first place smacks of hypocrisy and spitefulness. Worse, I'm sure Petraeus knew what would happen when he presented his report, but he did his duty anyway; he took his responsibility to his troops and his area of command seriously, when Congress was determined to find fault with anything he had to say.
Any war that goes on longer than the public expect will be unpopular; but anyone who thinks an immediate withdrawal of troops will solve the problem will find they've lost the war and given victory to people who will see America's defeat as a mandate to wreak more murderous havoc on the West. Iran will invade and begin snatching up the satellite countries to create a nice big Islamic state.
The Democrats should think about that before they slap at the messenger and decide isolationism and xenophobia is better than being a good global citizen. To break trust with your own military, is to break trust with your allies.
Like a lot of people, I was looking forward to what General David Petraeus had to say about Iraq. And, like a lot of people, I was appalled, nay, disgusted at the mealy-mouthed criticism levelled before Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker had a chance to speak.
And that was nothing compared to what came after, with Hillary Clinton euphamistically calling Petraeus a 'liar', with her 'suspension of disbelief' comment.
It's bad enough that the Democrats used a decorated soldier for target practice, it's worse when a man who has only ever done his duty is used for political mileage and as a photo opportunity for certain candidates to further their ambitions.
It matters not what Petraeus' politics are; it matters that he's done what was asked of him, as have 160,000 plus other troops on the ground in Iraq, and to snarkily snipe at the General, snipes at them all.
There's no 'good job, we'll try and get you home soon', no 'you fight for the freedom of all', no 'we're gonna send you help', nor are there many news item on the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure, security, good relationships with the locals. It's all about alleged and false atrocities, accidental killings, ineptitude, bad planning, needless casualties, poor decision-making and the fundamental wrongness of being there in the first place.
But what were these politicians thinking in the days immediately after 9/11? Did any of them say 'oh, well, that hurt, but we'll let it pass', or 'gee, I really think we need to reconsider our foreign policy'? Nope. It was 'who has done this?' and 'we need to kill the muthahs' and 'no one kicks our butt on home soil, we're gonna sort you out!'
What morally corrupt, self-aggrandizing, disrespectful and arrogant people they are! It is politicians who start wars, but it is the soldier who fights and maybe will die for the mistakes politicians make. To insult and demean a professional soldier when they demanded the report in the first place smacks of hypocrisy and spitefulness. Worse, I'm sure Petraeus knew what would happen when he presented his report, but he did his duty anyway; he took his responsibility to his troops and his area of command seriously, when Congress was determined to find fault with anything he had to say.
Any war that goes on longer than the public expect will be unpopular; but anyone who thinks an immediate withdrawal of troops will solve the problem will find they've lost the war and given victory to people who will see America's defeat as a mandate to wreak more murderous havoc on the West. Iran will invade and begin snatching up the satellite countries to create a nice big Islamic state.
The Democrats should think about that before they slap at the messenger and decide isolationism and xenophobia is better than being a good global citizen. To break trust with your own military, is to break trust with your allies.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Time vacuum
The problem with being so busy is that I've not time to do any reading... and three more books turned up in the mail this week.
No time for reading also means no time for writing, either. Well... no fiction writing. Political stuff, yeah, but none for the sheer pleasure of putting words down from my imagination.
Next week, I'm hoping that will change. This submission I'm doing must be done by next week and I'm determined to meet that deadline - good practice, d'ya see.
On the downside, it's all a bit complicated with legislations, planning policies, LEPs, REPs and SEPPs, Council briefing papers, staff briefing papers, development applications, community consultation submissions... well, you get the picha. Gathering all the information into one document is, to be frank, daunting.
Ah, but next week... next week this will be done and I can relax and watch the footy, or read or write or, damnit, all three! (I'm such a crazy, wild person!)
It's all a matter of time management and in the future, I'll not be volunteering to do anything more than the media stuff. Someone else more familiar with the information stuff can do it; or our objective will be achieved. No sense in nagging the Ministers.
Rachel Morgan, Joanne Baldwin and Alicia DeVries will just have to wait a few days, I guess...
No time for reading also means no time for writing, either. Well... no fiction writing. Political stuff, yeah, but none for the sheer pleasure of putting words down from my imagination.
Next week, I'm hoping that will change. This submission I'm doing must be done by next week and I'm determined to meet that deadline - good practice, d'ya see.
On the downside, it's all a bit complicated with legislations, planning policies, LEPs, REPs and SEPPs, Council briefing papers, staff briefing papers, development applications, community consultation submissions... well, you get the picha. Gathering all the information into one document is, to be frank, daunting.
Ah, but next week... next week this will be done and I can relax and watch the footy, or read or write or, damnit, all three! (I'm such a crazy, wild person!)
It's all a matter of time management and in the future, I'll not be volunteering to do anything more than the media stuff. Someone else more familiar with the information stuff can do it; or our objective will be achieved. No sense in nagging the Ministers.
Rachel Morgan, Joanne Baldwin and Alicia DeVries will just have to wait a few days, I guess...
Friday, August 31, 2007
Grrr…
I’ve spent today doing journalist work for this political organisation I’m involved with. So far, it’s been an exercise in frustration.
The ‘force’ behind this organisation, G, constantly second-guesses himself and allows for interference from a former member of Parliament.
Sure, J has a lot to offer the organisation, but so far, he’s succeeded in delaying important work until G agrees to do it his way. An important document to be sent to Parliament was put back to Monday, now, it’s unlikely to get to the Minister until later on in the week, regardless of the fact it was announced on television news that the Minister already had it! Worse, J keeps expressing his desire to keep himself at a distance.
For my part, this means everything I write has to be checked, double-checked, discussed, extra suggestions made, veted by all and 'improvements' made and then deleted, before it’s issued to the media. I really want to slap G and tell him to move on. Can’t though. But I can say nope, I’m no longer willing to help because you keep metaphorically hand-washing and won't let me do what I do on a professional level.
A four paragraph media story should not be turned into a bloody circus, nor take a good five hours to produce!
Now the submission I’m preparing is in jeopardy because G wants me to consult with someone else.
I don’t need this kind of stress, and I will not take a more active role when my advice is unilaterally discounted or open to discussion.
I’ll give them another month and if they haven’t got their act together by then, I’m out. O.U.T. out. I’ve got other things to do.
The ‘force’ behind this organisation, G, constantly second-guesses himself and allows for interference from a former member of Parliament.
Sure, J has a lot to offer the organisation, but so far, he’s succeeded in delaying important work until G agrees to do it his way. An important document to be sent to Parliament was put back to Monday, now, it’s unlikely to get to the Minister until later on in the week, regardless of the fact it was announced on television news that the Minister already had it! Worse, J keeps expressing his desire to keep himself at a distance.
For my part, this means everything I write has to be checked, double-checked, discussed, extra suggestions made, veted by all and 'improvements' made and then deleted, before it’s issued to the media. I really want to slap G and tell him to move on. Can’t though. But I can say nope, I’m no longer willing to help because you keep metaphorically hand-washing and won't let me do what I do on a professional level.
A four paragraph media story should not be turned into a bloody circus, nor take a good five hours to produce!
Now the submission I’m preparing is in jeopardy because G wants me to consult with someone else.
I don’t need this kind of stress, and I will not take a more active role when my advice is unilaterally discounted or open to discussion.
I’ll give them another month and if they haven’t got their act together by then, I’m out. O.U.T. out. I’ve got other things to do.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Pressures
I've been busily working on this political stuff - admin work, media releases, letters, petition page counting, signature checking - and it's not left me a lot of time for my work. I haven't read a book for over a week! And how pissy am I about that?
I haven't been at this very long and I can already see a time when I'll have to say enough is enough. I want to help these people, but there is a limit and that limit is when it affects the other stuff I do.
The problem, of course, is that we're all a bunch of part-timers trying to do full time work. And that means, I'll have to create a strategy for recruitment so the work can be spread around. Isn't that a paradox! To have more time for what I want to do, I have to give up time to work on the strategy. Then again, I can always say 'nuh, don' wanna do this anymore' and that leaves it to others.
I won't do that; not yet.
Still, I'm determined to have a story done for Wednesday, regardless of the time pressures; and I know just the one. Now all I have to do is carve that twenty-fifth hour from somewhere...
I haven't been at this very long and I can already see a time when I'll have to say enough is enough. I want to help these people, but there is a limit and that limit is when it affects the other stuff I do.
The problem, of course, is that we're all a bunch of part-timers trying to do full time work. And that means, I'll have to create a strategy for recruitment so the work can be spread around. Isn't that a paradox! To have more time for what I want to do, I have to give up time to work on the strategy. Then again, I can always say 'nuh, don' wanna do this anymore' and that leaves it to others.
I won't do that; not yet.
Still, I'm determined to have a story done for Wednesday, regardless of the time pressures; and I know just the one. Now all I have to do is carve that twenty-fifth hour from somewhere...
Monday, June 25, 2007
Good or Evil?
I’m not a political animal, yet I’ve become involved in trying to protect the local area from developers who would like to see the coast overburdened with tourist facilities.
This fight has been going on for more than ten years and I’ve been happy to let others do the hard yards.
Not anymore. When the local community consultative group asked for some input, I considered it carefully.
For me, I have the qualifications and experience to help the local group; and that experience goes from high-brow, well-researched debate, to down-in-the-mud dirty tricks. I learned from the best: the Canberra political scene, and the local council revels in such methods. And the lies that have been told…
The problem, from what I’ve seen and researched, is that the local consultative group expect to deal with reasonable people. And, sad to say, they are wrong. They are dealing with people who are protecting their own agendas, interests and power bases – it is, after all, politics.
I don’t want this area to be over-run by towering, half-empty apartments, or the associated social problems that comes with rapid development that will ruin such a beautiful place. Nor do I want the local village to die off because of a lack of development.
So, the trick is to undermine the rhetoric with hard facts, policies and legislation; getting hidden information into the hands of the public.
Do I use my skills for good or evil? Ah, that’s a question every writer must ask themselves.
As writers, we are, by nature, solitary beings; we have to be. Constant interruptions raise the blood pressure, distract from the story, demolish our thought processes and generally piss us off. Well, it does to me.
How long, though, can we ignore the outside world? In short, we can’t. The outside world provides our inspiration; without interaction, there is no integrity in our work, no matter what genre you work in.
Local politics is an excellent way to study diverse personalities and interactions on a personal and group level; to understand motivations, agendas, goals, behaviour and body language. Who is lying and who is telling the truth, better yet, who is telling the truth, as they know it, at a particular time? And how do they react when the lie is exposed?
There is also – I say with a smirk – a certain satisfaction in returning to the public arena to kick the people who had me fired as an editor for a so-called independent newspaper.
I’ll stay in the background though; someone else can be the public persona. I'll let you know how it goes...
This fight has been going on for more than ten years and I’ve been happy to let others do the hard yards.
Not anymore. When the local community consultative group asked for some input, I considered it carefully.
For me, I have the qualifications and experience to help the local group; and that experience goes from high-brow, well-researched debate, to down-in-the-mud dirty tricks. I learned from the best: the Canberra political scene, and the local council revels in such methods. And the lies that have been told…
The problem, from what I’ve seen and researched, is that the local consultative group expect to deal with reasonable people. And, sad to say, they are wrong. They are dealing with people who are protecting their own agendas, interests and power bases – it is, after all, politics.
I don’t want this area to be over-run by towering, half-empty apartments, or the associated social problems that comes with rapid development that will ruin such a beautiful place. Nor do I want the local village to die off because of a lack of development.
So, the trick is to undermine the rhetoric with hard facts, policies and legislation; getting hidden information into the hands of the public.
Do I use my skills for good or evil? Ah, that’s a question every writer must ask themselves.
As writers, we are, by nature, solitary beings; we have to be. Constant interruptions raise the blood pressure, distract from the story, demolish our thought processes and generally piss us off. Well, it does to me.
How long, though, can we ignore the outside world? In short, we can’t. The outside world provides our inspiration; without interaction, there is no integrity in our work, no matter what genre you work in.
Local politics is an excellent way to study diverse personalities and interactions on a personal and group level; to understand motivations, agendas, goals, behaviour and body language. Who is lying and who is telling the truth, better yet, who is telling the truth, as they know it, at a particular time? And how do they react when the lie is exposed?
There is also – I say with a smirk – a certain satisfaction in returning to the public arena to kick the people who had me fired as an editor for a so-called independent newspaper.
I’ll stay in the background though; someone else can be the public persona. I'll let you know how it goes...
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Guilty
The first Gitmo detainee has faced the military commission on 'terrorism' charges. Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to 'providing material support for terrorism'. A charge that is retrospective; that is, the commission thought it up after Hicks was captured in Afghanistan.
Hicks has spent five years in detention without charge.
This whole issue has been... well, fraudulent is the most polite term I can come up with. No other Western nation would hold a prisoner for so long without charge and the Americans would be first in line to condemn such an action. (You'll recall that America is not a signatory to the International Court because it would mean its' citizens were subject to international law - particularly, soldiers. Can't have that can we.)
On one side of the argument is the declaration of war; under that, any 'enemy combatants' are actually prisoners of war and not subject to 'charges' unless they involve crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, if you take up that argument, any detainees would be prisoners until the War on Terror is over; who knows when that will be?
On the other side is the determination to wipe out terrorism - an admirable objective, yet doomed to failure because at any time, anywhere in the world, someone is perpetrating terror on someone else.
Worse, these detainees have no rights under the American Constitution and that has led to an abuse of human rights - the length of detainment, the issue of solitary confinement (in which Hicks spent most of his five years). No rights under the U.S. constitution does not mean these people have no rights at all. Charge them, or set them free.
It seems to me the delays in the 'trials' has been due to lawyers and the government trying to come up with a process acceptable to everyone and vaguely legal. Not going to happen.
What's happened to Hicks is that he's pleaded guilty because he's had enough of the bullshit. He would take any chance to come home to Australia. In my view, he's probably guilty: wrong place, wrong time, wrong side; and should be punished. Then again, he's been punished enough, and the deal he made could be a form of balance.
He's spent five years behind bars; the American military don't know what to do with him, so a plan might have been formulated to redress the imbalance: you accept the five years plus a little extra and we'll let you go home. No admission of wrong-doing by the Americans and Hicks comes home.
I shudder to think what would have happened if Hicks was proven not guilty. That's now a moot point.
America is taking a beating on this issue and it's time to come up with a United Nations sanctioned commission, rather than a poorly organised, poorly executed military kangaroo court.
I wonder what the odds are on all the detainees being 'proven' guilty?
Hicks has spent five years in detention without charge.
This whole issue has been... well, fraudulent is the most polite term I can come up with. No other Western nation would hold a prisoner for so long without charge and the Americans would be first in line to condemn such an action. (You'll recall that America is not a signatory to the International Court because it would mean its' citizens were subject to international law - particularly, soldiers. Can't have that can we.)
On one side of the argument is the declaration of war; under that, any 'enemy combatants' are actually prisoners of war and not subject to 'charges' unless they involve crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, if you take up that argument, any detainees would be prisoners until the War on Terror is over; who knows when that will be?
On the other side is the determination to wipe out terrorism - an admirable objective, yet doomed to failure because at any time, anywhere in the world, someone is perpetrating terror on someone else.
Worse, these detainees have no rights under the American Constitution and that has led to an abuse of human rights - the length of detainment, the issue of solitary confinement (in which Hicks spent most of his five years). No rights under the U.S. constitution does not mean these people have no rights at all. Charge them, or set them free.
It seems to me the delays in the 'trials' has been due to lawyers and the government trying to come up with a process acceptable to everyone and vaguely legal. Not going to happen.
What's happened to Hicks is that he's pleaded guilty because he's had enough of the bullshit. He would take any chance to come home to Australia. In my view, he's probably guilty: wrong place, wrong time, wrong side; and should be punished. Then again, he's been punished enough, and the deal he made could be a form of balance.
He's spent five years behind bars; the American military don't know what to do with him, so a plan might have been formulated to redress the imbalance: you accept the five years plus a little extra and we'll let you go home. No admission of wrong-doing by the Americans and Hicks comes home.
I shudder to think what would have happened if Hicks was proven not guilty. That's now a moot point.
America is taking a beating on this issue and it's time to come up with a United Nations sanctioned commission, rather than a poorly organised, poorly executed military kangaroo court.
I wonder what the odds are on all the detainees being 'proven' guilty?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Hicks
The only Australian to be held in detention at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks, is finally to face a 'special military commission'. The charge? Material Support for Terrorism. The second charge of attempted murder was dismissed through lack of probably cause. The first charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
Material support for terrorism. What is that?
I don't have a problem with Hicks being in detention. I do have a problem with the length of time he and his fellow inmates have been in Gitmo; Five years for Hicks - a sentence in itself.
This charge sounds like something to cover the fact he's been in prison for so long.
In fact, I would argue that these people aren't criminals, but prisoners of war given the American declaration of War. Never mind it's on Terror. Could it be any more amorphous than that? A war without end means the detainees stay in prison for as long as their natural lives.
The whole idea of sending the prisoners to Gitmo was ill-concieved and hasty in the extreme. Yes, something had to be done, but if you're going to prosecute a war, you'd better have all your ducks lined up and it's clear Bush had no idea. "A war? Sure, it'll be fun; I'll play!"
And if Hicks is proven to be innocent? (Fat chance - there's to much invested in his detention.) What then? Those five years are lost; no amount of money is going to get them back, nor is it going to help the psychological damage done.
Hicks' father, Terry, has been fighting for his son's release ever since David was detained. A good Dad, for all intents and purposes, and yet he's never come out and explained what David was doing in the fortress in Afghanistan when the CIA agent was killed and the Americans captured it. Mr Hicks is full of diversionary comments and half-hearted denials.
But that no longer makes a difference, for Terry is using his own son as a battering ram against the Prime Minister. It looks like Terry has forgotten where and when and why his son was detained and instead believes his son is a victim of American aggression and Australian indifference.
I think that to save face all round, the Americans will have to pass a 'guilty' verdict to affirm the five years in prison, but release him soon after the trial to appease the growing unrest here and as a trade for Australia's continued good will. Mr Hicks won't see it that way; he'll see it as an injustice (the old 'my boy, he good boy' denial, even with obvious proof); he already sees his son's continued detention as a betrayal by our government and, no doubt, he's filled with hate for the Americans.
Well, Mr Hicks? What was your son doing in an Al-Quaida fortress? And why do you think David is innocent?
Material support for terrorism. What is that?
I don't have a problem with Hicks being in detention. I do have a problem with the length of time he and his fellow inmates have been in Gitmo; Five years for Hicks - a sentence in itself.
This charge sounds like something to cover the fact he's been in prison for so long.
In fact, I would argue that these people aren't criminals, but prisoners of war given the American declaration of War. Never mind it's on Terror. Could it be any more amorphous than that? A war without end means the detainees stay in prison for as long as their natural lives.
The whole idea of sending the prisoners to Gitmo was ill-concieved and hasty in the extreme. Yes, something had to be done, but if you're going to prosecute a war, you'd better have all your ducks lined up and it's clear Bush had no idea. "A war? Sure, it'll be fun; I'll play!"
And if Hicks is proven to be innocent? (Fat chance - there's to much invested in his detention.) What then? Those five years are lost; no amount of money is going to get them back, nor is it going to help the psychological damage done.
Hicks' father, Terry, has been fighting for his son's release ever since David was detained. A good Dad, for all intents and purposes, and yet he's never come out and explained what David was doing in the fortress in Afghanistan when the CIA agent was killed and the Americans captured it. Mr Hicks is full of diversionary comments and half-hearted denials.
But that no longer makes a difference, for Terry is using his own son as a battering ram against the Prime Minister. It looks like Terry has forgotten where and when and why his son was detained and instead believes his son is a victim of American aggression and Australian indifference.
I think that to save face all round, the Americans will have to pass a 'guilty' verdict to affirm the five years in prison, but release him soon after the trial to appease the growing unrest here and as a trade for Australia's continued good will. Mr Hicks won't see it that way; he'll see it as an injustice (the old 'my boy, he good boy' denial, even with obvious proof); he already sees his son's continued detention as a betrayal by our government and, no doubt, he's filled with hate for the Americans.
Well, Mr Hicks? What was your son doing in an Al-Quaida fortress? And why do you think David is innocent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)