Oz Election Thread #5 - Rudd's Labor (redux)

Sorry, I picked on it at the start of the very long message and didn't see you got it until after I posted.

Also sorry if you think I'm being abusive to you - I'm not, I just disagree with some of your shadings of things. And that may well be my extrapolations and not your intentions.

Not at all. So far you haven't shown me any blind spots, nor any 'wrong' thoughts. What we have it seems, is a difference of opinion about life in general, and where and when people should take responsibility for themselves. My view is that adults always should.

That quote by itself could be the topic of a whole thread.


In life, there are contributing circumstances, and there is self responsibility.

In terms of self responsibility :

The answer to 'do I think I could take responsibility' is :
-As an adult, yes : you are the sole person who is responsible for your life - no one else is. Absolutely no one else can think for you, and it's impossible for anyone else to choose your actions (restrict yes, choose no), so in the end, not matter how tough your life has been, whether you like it or not, only you & I retain responsibility for what we think, and for our actions. People who fight against this have an uphill battle to fight against themselves.

Once you take responsibility for yourself, you start thinking 'all right I have this problem, how do I fix it' and 'I want this, so how do I go about developing the skills to get it'. You start thinking 'I've been in a bit of conflict recently - how can I handle them better'. You recognise a fear that no longer serves you and you go 'how do I go about overcoming this fear and acquiring habits that help me be better' etc...you do this because you realise that you are entirely responsible for your own life.

As a child, in terms of taking responsibility for yourself, the lines are greyer, for outside influences are greater, and independence hasn't yet truly been achieved.

In terms of contributing cirumstances, and self responsibility :
The answer to 'do I think it would be difficult' re the examples you provided - yes, many incredibly so.

In terms of our aboriginal population, they battle uphill, much more so than white Australia.

You mentioned :
- disconnected parents (addressed by what I suggested as a solution)
- joblessness (eventually addressed by what I suggested as a solution).

In terms of :
I'd like to answer this, but the solution reasoning is long winded.

Jumping to conclusions again - I was talking govt, and as a generalisation.
- from the legislative branch it's not necessarily true - individual politicians aren't always bound by govt policy
- from the executive branch it's true as a generalisation, for govt policy follows the Acts. As a specific incident scenario - people work in govt - so there will be cases where it is not true
- from the Judicial Branch, there's actually been examples where judges have gone lighter on them


I did mention 'boarding scholarships' did I not? Sending then, voluntarily, to boarding schools - that obviously does not occur in the remote communities (there is already a limited amount of this going on)

Did I not say that govt was short sighted?

Again - one of the great frustrations of people criticising govt's response to the problem is that they do not themselves, offer a workable solution.

Criticise my idea all you like, but it's meaningless until you come up with a workable solution yourself.

There's a difference between intellectual understanding, and accepting it as true. Accepting it as true changes your attitudes about so many things in life. No longer is there 'he/she made me mad/angry etc', nor is there blame, nor is there envy, and you start seeing others as responsible for their actions - while recognising the contributing circumstances. You start understanding strengths and weaknesses (both in yourself and in others). And as you start understanding how strengths and weaknesses work (and the contributing circumstances that went into developing them), condescension starts lessening, and empathy starts increasing (empathy doesn't mean you can't be firm by the way). And accepting this in no way makes you perfect. In fact - if you started believing that, you will have moved away from understanding self responsibility.

I do notice that you are continuing to jump to many conclusions about what I think, and continue to attack. You could ask yourself why you do both. You could ask yourself why, when faced with not enough information, you don't go 'so when you say ### do you mean XXXX and are you aware of YYY ?'

Sad that you think disagreeing is attacking.

Also sad that you think the adult is disconnected to the child.

The child is father to the man.

Very sad that you think to criticise without offering an alternative is useless/bad.

Sorry I can't be bothered addressing all your points, but you didn't address all mine. I don't think either of us are going to change the other's mind.

This all by the way, doesn't change a poor example of yours re govt supposedly treating aboriginals badly. As I said, I don't agree with the ID thing - for practical reasons. But it's certainly not an example of govt treating aboriginals badly.

It is also difficult, in the face of govt expenditure, to say that the govt is not trying, and is treating aborigines badly :

article

ABC Article

As I previously mentioned - come up with a workable solution, and you then have the right to criticise.

It is not the disagreement Hingehead, but the tone of your replies that is attacking.

Nor is the adult disconnected to their own childhood - the adult takes responsibility for the 'child' (in this instance, not the offences committed against it, but for the suffering, the hurt, the anguish, the fears etc), and who the child became (them, the adult), and then takes responsibility for his/her furture, who he/she is, and who he/she is becoming . Again - you jump to numerous conclusions about what I believe.

I've not actually seen you post anything for me to change my mind on. You stated many things I am already aware of, assuming that I hadn't considered them.

We disagreed on Govt requiring ID. You think it is bad behaviour & disadvantaging aboriginals, I do not think it bad behaviour, the the 'disadvantage' is ficticious - they can obtain ID should they try. I stated that the govt shouldn't hold their hands through everything and they do need to take some responsibility (this was in relation to the ID scenario)

Apparently that meant I lacked empathy. I offered my thoughts on the overall problem, which without empathy, I would never have thought.

Apparently I lack any understanding of the problem. But of course, in criticising, you aren't prepared to offer your own solution (that's why it's bad - because you throw stones at other solutions with no solution of your own)

Despite your opinion - the govt having tried just about everything else, I do think my solution is the only workable one I've heard.

I don't see much govt discrimination (that doesn't mean none exists) - you appear to think it's common. To my thinking, the govt, spending double on our aboriginal population, can hardly be accused of wanton bad behaviour towards them (as a generalisation). And certainly not for requiring blanket ID of everyone.

Have you noticed yet that I've had to correct a rather large number of assumptions that you jumped to regarding what I believe/know/think, while you haven't corrected any of mine regarding what you believe?

Why do you think that is?

When, and only when, your wife who has worked with remote indigenous communities for 20 years, works for 7 days a week for four months 2000km from home a government mandated tender evaluation process, after establishing relationships with indigenous councils in the consultation process, then gets back to find out that the government has excised several communities from that process and awarded it to a 'politically' favoured provider, without an evaluation, and then you wife goes to one of those community and has a proud indigenous mayor who has been building services for his constituency in partnership with other councils only to find that process dashed by the appointment of that provider (who has a long history of not meeting contractual obligations) and has to break the news to him - and that mayor breaks down in frustration, then I will pay any attention at all to your thoughts on how governments work with remote indigenous communities.

Enjoy your certainty and leave me alone.

That certainly sounds bad (I say sounds because I couldn't quite fully follow what happened there). I have a friend who is 2IC in charge of a training company - he says that govt awards favoured contractors without consultation a lot in what should be a tendering process...so it's likely something across the board.

It's somewhat bemusing that you wait until now to bring this up.

As previously mentioned. It is not me jumping to conclusions about the other beliefs, nor attacking (sarcasm is attacking, and there are other examples), nor making references to anothers 'sad' beliefs (which was in relation to more conclusions you jumped to, rather than a belief I actually held).

Again - why are you jumping to so many conclusions?

I read what you write. Let's start with example one this time - you said you told Set you likened followers of Islam to sharks.

I would be stunned to hear a shock jock say that.

You say I'm being politically correct - I say you are guilty of a gross generalisation - I will ask my muslim Albanian friends to adjudicate.

You pick the next assumption I have made and I will tell you why I made it.

Your 2IC friend's story is an irrelevance in my eye. The govt has done nothing illegal, it has just perverted a process that it is within their right to pervert - they just don't understand the damage they are doing to relationships that could 'close the gap'.

What's more if your 2IC's grievance was real s/he has channels to address it. This mayor got one interview with a cadet radio journalist, his English isn't great and you'd have to know the area to understand what he was saying. He kept saying apartheid agreement when he meant tripartite agreement. That straight meant listeners just thought he was angry black guy drawing a long bow.

Err, no I did not. You need to reread if that's what you got out of it.

Absolutely I generalise. It's impossible to have a focused conversation if you must break down a general truth into all it's components. The message gets lost in the divergences.

I've never actually come across a person who doesn't generalise.

It could be irrelevant. As I said, I did not quite follow your story - it appeared to be that a project was handed to a favoured company? Hence the 2IC story.

Yep, that's a tough one. Thanks for the story.

I think we both agree that life in remote communities is incredibly tough, has many disadvantages, and those disadvantages in themselves lead to numerous other problems.

Yep that reads like you are saying Islam is like a shark.

It is a gross generalisation. If you want an intelligent discussion you can't generalise without qualifiers. Especially not in this area. On that same discussion you said christianity 'used' to be violent. From an Arab standpoint the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely 'religious' - i.e. we are the 'Crusaders'. I could get picky and talk about sectarian violence in Ireland. But it's not my argument.

If you don't want people to assume you are adopting a whole bunch of other beliefs normally associated with the position you are taking you might want to state it. Or is the reason you are asking me that you don't get it? If so nominate the next assumption I made and I will illuminate why I made it.

Your 2IC story had no real background, the PS has panel contracts and all sorts of perfectly legal reasons why companies are favoured. It could have easily been your friend griping about not qualifying. If it was bribery he had channels to expose it. I doubt that your friends case had much political weight. Again, it's not your fault for not understanding - I can't give detail without betraying a friend's confidence.

You picked an area where I have been exposed to greater on the ground realities than you (no blame) so I find it condescending to be argued against or agreed with. Call it a personality flaw. I collect them.

Einstein "For every complex problem there is a simple solution, that's wrong."

Let's remove Islam from the equation for a second :

- is a great white shark dangerous? Yes (I doubt that's debatable)
- does recognising this shark as dangerous mean you hate it? No (I doubt that's debatable as many people like sharks, even while recognising many of them as dangerous)

I also recognise a great white as dangerous. I chose a shark because many people like them (I do). The same can be said for swords, guns, blue ringed octopii etcIt is therefore entirely irrational to believe that a person must hate a thing to find it dangerous. This really isn't a debatable principle - it is blindingly obvious.

...and yet even you fall for this irrationality (see the red) when you apply what I said to religion, for you find the comparison to be calling it's followers sharks. The comparison was very specific in relation to what it was to, and the logic of it is flawless...so there is no logic linkage that the followers of Islam must therefore be sharks...you therefore make it as through the filter of an emotional invested belief...which is a PC belief regarding religions.

So it's quite irrational to say that to find a religion dangerous means you must be a hater. I can't recall anything I've hated in my life. What then is the cause of this irrationality on Set's part?

When you make nasty links that aren't there, or when you can't see past the irrationality - there is a reason for it. This deeply ingrained belief system that leads to such is what I refer to as PC brainwashing.

If a person can find flaws with the grounds for a belief that a thing is dangerous - then that is the way things should be dealt with.

As I mentioned

So I've already acknowledged this, essentially saying that you should refer to that thread if you wish to know about it (I thought I had said that specifically but can't find it).

That you point out what I've already acknowledged as if I should know better - shows that what you don't remember me making those remarks - and this is likely due to your reading (or remembering) being clouded by dearly held belief filters about religions (and so you did not process my post accurately) - so again, a PC belief.

The point of that post (in this thread) was about about the negative aspect of PC - the belief systems that result in people jumping to conclusions, and attempting to shut down debate with negative labels, name calling etc...all the while believing they are being virtuous.

I've done so many times throughout our conversation.

Condescension has intent. I don't take responsibility for your reading into such into my posts when I haven't been so. Apparently from your perspective it's just from disagreeing with you, because you have more on the ground knowledge? I find that, odd.

I stopped reading as soon as I saw this.

My first thought was 'I think you are a ****, but lets take **** out of the equation for a second'

Get a life and stay out of mine.

Consider yourself ignored. Go be an apologist for yourself to someone who can be bothered.

Err, how on earth is that being a c**t?

The reference to Islam wasn't necessary to the logic of 'you don't have to hate something to find it dangerous'.

The word 'Islam' seemed to trigger all sorts of emotional distress in yourself. Hence, to get the actual logic into 'clear air', we needed to remove Islam from the equation...and even without it, see if the principle still remains the same. It of course does stay the same.

You can see the emotional distress your beliefs cause you in the weird response to such a simple exercise.

You've also made the mistake of jumping from 'religion' to 'followers of religion' in your assumption. There's a difference between religion (the organised system of beliefs) and the followers (the people) - this logic should go without saying....

....but you insist on saying I am talking about the followers, when I've very specifically always named the religion. They are two different things.

So you've made two jumps that are not there to make.

In any event, while this thread proves my point about PC people trying to stifle debate (have a look at what I said was the negative side of PC and how they try to stifle debate - you did those) while feeling virtuous (you've certainly taken the high road in calling me a c**t), this is tiring. Let it get back to your original thread.

I would also point out that your responses demonstrate the difference between a PC system (in terms of responses), and a respect based system (in terms of repsonses) - hence why I prefer the use of a respect based system.

Ah, it was in the post you replied to, how, ironic.

Well the Rudd sugar hit hasn't died yet, much commentary suggesting the election may be very close. Rudd is outpointing Abbott massively in preferred PM, and the gap in two party preferential voting is shrinking.
Rudd's pulling power puts poll on knife edge
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/rudds-pulling-power-puts-poll-on-knife-edge-20130714-2pyea.html

This piece by Bob Ellis "Murdoch’s brainwashing fails is pretty interesting - it's not so much about Murdoch but about how much people's petty biases and perceptions of politicians personality influence their votes (as opposed to policy differences). I kind of like his broad brush approach to were the votes have swung from - not sure I completely agree but even if he's partially right it's not reassuring me about the inherent 'brains' of the general populace that George Megalogenis waxed lyrical about in 'The Australian Moment'

MSM slowly picking up the Ashbygate and Battlerort stories and Abbott is getting a reputation for sending his cabinet in his place to onto media outlets to push his message, and that message is starting to sound thin.

Bishop, Morrison, Hockey and Pyne looking particularly robotic as they read their lines. A new tactic (Abbott and Bishop have done in the last week) is to completely ignore a question and read from your sheet of paper your prepared message. Abbott was ridiculed for, in response in a question about the LNP's plans for education talking about Ashton Agar's cricket debut (a 19 year old who did something pretty amazing if you're into cricket, irrelevant if not).

Bishop on #Qanda last night did it too - asked a direct question answered a different one, and when compere said 'but what I asked you was..' got a two second glare from Bishop, who then picked up from where she left off on the answer she was already given. Bad look.

The position from LNP on education is just bizarre. The govt's Gonski report inspired funding changes have been continuously attacked with the line 'Throwing money at the problem won't fix it, they've tried that and it's broken' - but when asked what they'll do to fix it they say they'll keep the existing 'failed' system.

Morrison had a great outburst about Rudd talking to Indonesian SBY's about people smugglers "all he does is talk talk talk, no action" - unfortunately the entire shadow cabinet when pressed for policy detail use the 'we will be reviewing that and talking to the stakeholders when we get into power'.

Interesting piece from economic wonk Stephen Koukoulas
Why Abbott is scared to debate the economy

When I read the headline I thought "For the same reason I don't want to debate period pain - I don't know **** about it and I'll look a fool at best"

The two biggest unknowns are if the Ruddslide will maintain, build or lose momentum - and when the election date will be. Pundits are suggesting Aug 24 or Sep 21.

It's pretty funny to hear leadership speculation on the right for a change. This has been doing the rounds as well (I understand that it's been around for a while in Canada/USA but I believe it's the first time Australia has borrowed it:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/07/16/06/38/rudd-to-plug-climate-budget-hole

Tony Abbott caught dog-whistling to climate change denialists
Abbott's latest remarks on carbon pricing betray the fact that his views on climate change are inspired from the depths of the climate denier blogosphere

Giles Parkinson
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 July 2013 11.01 AEST

Tony Abbott gained not one, but two Oxford Blue in boxing, his online biography tells us. But on Monday, he fell for the simplest of sucker punches as he reacted to Kevin Rudd’s move to “axe the tax”.

Rudd’s decision to fast-track the transition of Australia’s fixed price on carbon to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) prompted Abbott to contemplate the nature of carbon pricing policy. "This is not a true market," he told reporters during a campaign visit in Sydney. "It's a market, a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one."

The phrase may well have been sourced by Abbott's quip-writing team from a comment piece penned by Jeremy Warner, assistant editor of the arch conservative British daily The Daily Telegraph. Warner wrote three years ago that “the carbon market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one”. That the Daily Telegraph could have been an inspiration to Abbott should not surprise us: another of its columnist, James Delingpole, provides fertile ground for some of the more imaginative complaints made about wind farms by Abbott's team.

Abbott’s comments, parroted or not, suggests firstly that this Rhodes scholar who studied for an economics degree does not understand financial markets. They are full of commodities traded in their trillions but never actually delivered, be they invisible substances such as natural gas, or very visible products such as cattle and pigs.

What it is that Abbott thinks takes place inside a commodities or a futures exchange? When cattle and pig futures are traded, the animals are not herded through Wall Street. That would require heroic efforts by cowboys of a different kind to those that populate the trading firms. And a lot more cleaners.

Leaving aside Abbott’s own Direct Action policy – which his spokesman on climate change issues, Greg Hunt, explained yesterday would include a “reverse auction” of this very same invisible substance that can’t be delivered – the issue goes beyond Abbott’s understanding of financial markets. It tells us about where he and his advisors source their information to frame their climate change policies. And as his “climate science is crap” comment revealed in 2009, it’s usually from the depths of the climate denier blogosphere.

The depiction of Co2 as colourless and odourless, and by association also harmless, is a favourite of such blogs. Surely, the argument goes, if a substance cannot be touched, smelled or seen, then it could not possibly have any greater impact than being succor for plant life.

In Australia, the Galileo Movement pushes numerous references to Co2 as colourless and invisible. The notorious blogger Jo Nova, a Galileo advisor, writes about the “scammability of permits for invisible unverifiable goods”. Another prominent climate denier, Brian Sussman from the blog Climategate, complained about California’s newly installed carbon price and the decision to allow “government bureaucrats to institute the trading of a “commodity” that no one is able to see, touch, taste or smell.”

You can spot the trend. This may explain why one of the centre-pieces of Abbott’s Direct Action policy has long been his 15,000 strong “green army”, which won’t be wasting time chasing invisible and odorless gases, but will be doing practical and sensible things like cleaning up litter and planting trees – things that can be touched, smelled, seen and delivered, but won’t do much about Co2.

Abbott's ascension – courtesy of an influential group of conservative ideologues – mirrors the recent trend in the US where the Tea Party and climate denier influence in the US republican party (90% of its leadership rejects climate science) forces its candidates to row far to the right in pre-selection. So far right, in fact, that it’s impossible to regain the middle ground.

The Liberal party gladly sacrificed two leaders on climate change policies before settling on Abbott. Presumably, it wouldn’t hesitate to do so again if it feels that the opportunity for power was now slipping from its grasp.

Given Rudd’s success in the polls, the Australian political narrative is now in rapid reverse. Labor is now no longer trailing. How quickly before the Coalition panics and takes action? How far are we away from returning to 2009 and what some people have described as the “dream team” of climate change policy – a competition of ideas and ambition between the country’s two most popular politicians, Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull?

What this episode tells us is that Rudd is succeeding where Julia Gillard failed: the prime minister is peeling back the veneer of Abbott’s leadership. No issue is so revealing as Abbott’s real position on climate change, and Abbott has been caught dog-whistling to the climate skeptics and denialists that put him into power.

Rudd senses this, and intends to retake the territory that Gillard couldn’t hold. Abbott has lost the first round. He’d better start paddling.

WHAT does the public find so appealing about Rudd?

I'm at a loss too wabbit.

Jack The Insider in this piece http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/coalition_plays_the_man_at_their_peril/

admits to not understanding it either - but acknowledges it's real, and not unlike the public's affection for Howard (which also always escaped me) thrives when the object of it is attacked.

I'm on record as saying I think most of the electorate treats it like reality TV - who do we want to vote off the island - and Jack alludes to this by suggesting that the public view it as a 5 act play - the rise, fall, wilderness and coming resurrection of the 'transformed' protaganist being the first 4 acts.