Friends,
Seeing government, here and around the world, is in such a horrendous state, I think we should examine some of the current options to improve it.
The US state of Arizona, apparently has a constitutional provision that, after the government has passed a law, there is a period in which the population can object by petition. If the required number of signatures is reached, the matter must be resolved by referendum, possibly at the next election.
There are other American states, perhaps twenty or so out of the forty nine, which have adopted similar provisions, possibly with variations. It is not unusual to see car stickers – e.g. ‘Vote NO for number 5’, referring to a referendum to be held based on CIR
The notion of CIR springs from the Swiss ‘Initiative’ which has been in vogue there for many years. Considering that they have three major ethnic groups, German, French and Italian and have managed to stay calm and clear while two world wars raged around them, their government has worked very well with this very real involvement of the people.
New Zealand has also recently adopted CIR. It is usual that a matter passed by a CIR becomes law automatically - only alterable by referendum, but in this case enactment is not mandatory! Nevertheless, a government taking no notice of such a widely expressed popular viewpoint would be foolish to ignore it. Thus the power of the people through CIR can usefully constrain rash government even if it is but rarely used. CIR requires a degree of responsibility on the part of the people not to misuse its power – e.g. to cut taxes. It is recently reported that California has financial problems, with its law, (passed by CIR), preventing any increase in tax without a two thirds majority in the legislature.
One problem with CIR is that it makes no provision for discussion in local forums to deepen the peoples understanding of the issue, leaving the media to be too influential. But it does give some involvement of the people.
What do you think?
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
President Netanyahu’s visit to President Obama
The reports of this visit indicate that President Obama is not inclined to give Israel just what it happens to want. Good for him! This is plainly upsetting to Israel, and some of its friends in the West. Israel has become accustomed to getting whatever it wants.
At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.
What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?
Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?
At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.
What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?
Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Unproductive conflict
Friends,
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.
Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.
Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.
Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.
This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.
The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.
Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.
Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.
Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.
This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.
The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Israel hardens stance against US demands
There are two fallacies in the above heading (The Age 18/3).
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and
Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!
The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.
The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and
Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!
The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.
The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.
‘Power but no passion’
‘Power but no passion’ Shaun Carney writes (The Age 17/3), about our fearless leader, Kevin Rudd. But power and passion are the hallmarks of those in history responsible for the most mess—and carnage—Napoleon, Hitler etc. Lesser people have to pick up the pieces and start again.
Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate
Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.
In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.
Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.
Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate
Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.
In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.
Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.
Knives at School
With the government proposing random search for knives etc, the opposition cries foul, for stealing its policy. How ridiculous, and childish! Moreover, it makes plain that the parties‘competition for political success and power takes preference over the serious need for good governance. Will the politicians ever pull together, short of the country being invaded?
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)
Taxation + Climate change
Taxation
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.
Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.
This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.
To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.
Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?
Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.
Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.
This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.
To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.
Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?
Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?
Our future problems – population etc.
Our future problems – population etc.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
A Moral Issue
Saturday 20/2/10
Friends
The media today are having a ball with the shambles in our democracy. The prospect of a real democracy reminds me of the challenge that Hercules (Heracles) faced in cleaning out thirty years of dung in the Augean stables, in one day.
Strange as it may seem, the mess in our democracy can also all be swept away in one day - were we to eliminate the present system of open voting in our parliaments, which produces and supports every objectionable feature of our governmental system.
For example, ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister only. So Conroy can arrogantly refuse to disclose details of conversation with Murdoch. How come he is even talking to him. And Garrett is too busy to heed letters warning about the dangers of the rushed insulation program.
The point is that all communication should be through parliament with minsters serving and satisfying the parliament (of freely voting independents) or be sacked by vote of parliament. None of the present news furore would then occur, with all problems long settled by ministers' diligent attention to their responsibilities. And media turning from sensational stuff to in-depth analysis of the real problems. Do I really need to say more?
The rottenness at the top leaves the rest of society demoralised, and every evil unchecked.
Why do we, the people, not act to 'clean out the 'stables'? Good men are corrupted by the immorality of party politics. Where is the strong moral leadership - to put an end to it? We can't be bothered? After all, it is only necessary to agree that change must happen, and take the tiny step of membership for the New Democracy - a moral challenge if ever there was one.
Friends
The media today are having a ball with the shambles in our democracy. The prospect of a real democracy reminds me of the challenge that Hercules (Heracles) faced in cleaning out thirty years of dung in the Augean stables, in one day.
Strange as it may seem, the mess in our democracy can also all be swept away in one day - were we to eliminate the present system of open voting in our parliaments, which produces and supports every objectionable feature of our governmental system.
For example, ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister only. So Conroy can arrogantly refuse to disclose details of conversation with Murdoch. How come he is even talking to him. And Garrett is too busy to heed letters warning about the dangers of the rushed insulation program.
The point is that all communication should be through parliament with minsters serving and satisfying the parliament (of freely voting independents) or be sacked by vote of parliament. None of the present news furore would then occur, with all problems long settled by ministers' diligent attention to their responsibilities. And media turning from sensational stuff to in-depth analysis of the real problems. Do I really need to say more?
The rottenness at the top leaves the rest of society demoralised, and every evil unchecked.
Why do we, the people, not act to 'clean out the 'stables'? Good men are corrupted by the immorality of party politics. Where is the strong moral leadership - to put an end to it? We can't be bothered? After all, it is only necessary to agree that change must happen, and take the tiny step of membership for the New Democracy - a moral challenge if ever there was one.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Cockfighting in parliaments
Friends,
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.
Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)
Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?
We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?
William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'
Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.
Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)
Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?
We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?
William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'
Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
What sort of people are we?
Do we courageously accept, or supinely avoid, the serious challenge of our time?
Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.
While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?
Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.
The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.
Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.
Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.
While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?
Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.
The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.
Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Another Approach!
The Melbourne Age, 8/1, is adamant that “Military ‘shock and awe’ won’t overcome terrorism”, which clearly requires a ‘smarter approach’. The US response to terrorism in the eight years since 9/11 has proved singularly ineffective, with its destruction and carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.
It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.
Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!
Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.
Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.
Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.
It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.
Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!
Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.
Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.
God in control ?
God in Control ! ?
Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.
And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?
I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow
But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’
There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!
Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.
And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?
I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow
But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’
There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!
A New Slant on NO States
{My friend Charles Mollison, of the Foundation for National Revival has a somewhat different take on how to get rid of party politics. His proposal reduces electorates to five thousand with representatives all meeting in local regional assemblies. Reading between his lines, they would become the obvious choice of the people in local meetings, not personally seek office.
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Ballots in Parliament.
This subject must never be off the agenda, because party politics is a corruption of democracy and creates more problems than it can ever solve. Democracy, as it stands, endangers the world and all its countries with its corruption and injustice, leading inevitably to the wars which constantly afflict the world.
Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.
The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.
Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.
The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.
Interest Rates - the 'Cure all'!
The cosseted big-four banks rarely have a bad year – while farmers have suffered many drought years!
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.
The Putdown
From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.
The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.
That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.
Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.
The Putdown
From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.
The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.
That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.
Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
That which divides (or unites) us.
The Age (3rd Dec.) quotes Family first Senator, Steve Fielding, speaking in the Senate yesterday. He brilliantly summarised our country’s (and the world’s) problem, saying “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is very difficult … because it polarises people”! Can we name an issue that does not?
The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!
We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!
Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.
Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.
But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.
The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!
We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!
Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.
Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.
But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Privacy Laws
A hospital visit to a neighbour proved interesting. When we got to the ward we found and an empty bed. Enquiring of the nursing staff where the patient might be we were informed that disclosure of the patient’s whereabouts was forbidden by the privacy laws. What could we do?
We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.
The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!
A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!
Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.
With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !
We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.
The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!
A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!
Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.
With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !
A Republic? Once more!
Someone has pressed the button again. Fair enough, it had to come. But are we simply seeing a rerun of the blame game and empty clichés?
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.
The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.
Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.
The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.
John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'
I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Palestine - fond hopes dashed.
Any fond hopes, we might have had, that Barack Obama’s America could set to rights the ‘peace process’ in Palestine, have been swiftly dashed today by Jason Katsoukis’ Analysis. (The Age 5/10, p11).
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.
Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.
Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.
Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.
We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)