- luv-talk - example.com

Fw: Fwd: You're invited: big ideas, big events, big fun (6:30pm Tues 15 April)
by David E Payne 15 Apr '14

15 Apr '14

Gold-dang it! I had to change all my passwords thanks to those tree-hugging, Obama loving, bleeding hearts! Dav* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Colleen Hartland MP" <colleen.hartland(a)vic.greens.org.au> Date: Apr 8, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: You're invited: big ideas, big events, big fun (6:30pm Tues 15 April) To: "David Payne" <spyder.king(a)gmail.com> Cc: David -- Want to be part of our exciting events or have an idea for an event of your own? Next week on Tuesday we're having our first Events Action Group get together and are looking for passionate individuals to contribute ideas and energy (and eat some pizza and have a drink while you're at it!). So come on down to meet the crew - RSVP here. In the West this year, we will be running events such as 'Politics in the Pub' involving some of the best performers in the West, and we'll be teaming up with Sea Shepherd and fingers crossed, Bob Brown. There'll be games nights, dinners, an Art Auction, and so much more. Events are fun! But do require a team of volunteers to make them happen, and well. You can be part of it. WHEN: Tuesday April 15 6:30pm - 8:30pm WHERE: Hartland HQ. 75 Victoria St, Seddon. 100m to Middle Footscray station. RVSP here. This will be an opportunity for you to have a look behind the scenes and share your ideas over pizza and a beer. Any skills and all-walks welcome. I hope to see you there. www.colleenhartland.org www.facebook.com/colleenhartland www.twitter.com/colleenhartland www.instagram.com/colleenhartland Colleen Hartland MP http://victoria.greens.org.au/ -=-=- Australian Greens Victoria · 362 Little Collins St, Level 1, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia This email was sent to spyder.king(a)gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Colleen Hartland MP on Twitter. -=-=- Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders.

1 0

Eye Witness Account from North Korea
by Lev Lafayette 14 Apr '14

14 Apr '14

As an example of the occasional non-LUV meeting I arrange which may interest some people... "North Korea : Human Rights and International Relations" North Korea has been described by former Australian justice Michael Kirby, in a report to the United Nations Human Rights Councils, as committing crimes against humanity. The report accused the regime of mass killings and torture and said responsible officials should face the International Criminal Court. Covering its formation in Cold War politics, the contemporary ideology of Juche self-reliance, and rescinding of the Korean War armistice, the Isocracy Network presents a fascinating eyewitness account by Nick Langdon on the possibilities of human rights, the likely trajectory of the regime, and the practical tasks that we can carry out. Saturday April 19th at 7pm, New International Bookshop, Trades Hall (54 Victoria Street, Carlton). Contact Lev Lafayette (0432 255 208) or public(a)isocracy.org for more information -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Patriarchy and Matriarchy put to the test
by Rick Moen 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

Quoting Lev Lafayette (lev(a)levlafayette.com) > (snip) > > Wow, that Roosh character certainly has a few issues. I think he must have the entire print run. ;->

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Petition on refugees (was Re: luv-talk
by Tim Josling 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

> > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:00:29 +1000 > From: "Peter Ross" > Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Petition on refugees (was Re: luv-talk > Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1) > > The couple I mentioned are Chinese. They just do what they are told to do > in this society. Wealth is what counts. That's what they learn over in > China. China is a cartoon version of capitalism. > I have visited China, and many other countries with low levels of capital, where most of the people are still poor. Shopgirls in Shanghai at the time of my first visit (1997) earned about $20/month. There is no safety net. If you do not have children who will support you in old age, and fail to accumulate wealth, you face poverty and a miserable old age. In such circumstances it is very understandable that people are very focussed on money. Per Maslow, once people feel secure at one level their attention tends to shift to "higher" concerns. Often this transition takes a couple of generations. Similarly it is easy to judge the concerns of working class people who face poor transport and other facilities, high unemployment and a multitude of other problems, from a comfortable middle-class suburb.

1 0

Petition on refugees (was Re: luv-talk Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1)
by Tim Josling 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Russell Coker <russell(a)coker.com.au> wrote: > > Actually many petitions achieve a result. A petition may well precede a change in policy but this does not show a causal relationship. Politicians take notice of a) Polls b) Focus groups c) People who control large donations (eg trade union heavies in the ALP, large corporates, wealthy individuals). d) People who can stir up trouble and impact voting behaviour (eg the mining tax campaign). e) Cogent demonstrations of better policy options in terms of achieving the politicians' objectives. In my days in politics I heard politicians regularly refer to these but not on a single occasion to petitions. In earlier days petitions were a crude kind of opinion poll but serve little purpose now (but see below). I remember being told by a state secretary of the right faction of the ALP (in those days at least the factions had official office bearers) that a lot of the activities that politicians encourage people to undertake are there specifically to consume time and energy that might otherwise being deployed causing "trouble" and getting in the way of the real decision making process. He had had quite a few beers thus his frankness. He cited party conferences (since they became non-binding), branch meetings, fund raising, and policy assemblies as examples. He did not mention petitions but they would fit. > > > Alternatively, if you are serious: donate a significant percentage of your > > income to good causes, > > If you have as much money as Clive Palmer then you can try to create a personal political party to achieve your goals. If not then your best option is to convince other people. A person earning a good living such as someone working in IT, like many of the subscribers to luv-talk, could potentially donate $50k/year to a good cause. Charitable donations are tax deductible so this would be pre-tax dollars. This money can go more or less directly to support your cause. Such a sum could make a significant different to a large number of poor people. I suggest that your argument sounds more like a poor rationalization than a good reason. Trying to convince other people just adds your voice to the crowd of people shouting. The chance of making any difference at all is slight. > > or do the hard thinking to actually come up with a > > better immigration policy > > We have discussed this with you before. <insults follow> I have been following this issue around the world for a long time. It is contentious and difficult everywhere. Take as just one example the scandal over the involuntary sterilization of asylum seekers in Israel, and their forced repatriation to Uganda - http://www.vice.com/read/uganda-is-the-first-country-to-swap-african-refuge… . The rise of the far right in Europe is linked to immigration as well as to the poor economy. No-one has responded to my challenge to demonstrate their sincerity and commitment to the cause they are claiming to be so passionate about by a) Demonstrating they are directing substantial amounts of their personal resources to such good causes, and b) Filling in the answers to the policy questions so show they have actually thought through the issues. Several people directed me to the collection of generalities and platitudes which is the Greens web page on immigration. This is not even close to a serious attempt. Given the Greens' poor record of predicting the consequences of refugee policy, an analysis is clearly needed. Eg they contemptuously dismissed suggestions that a softer policy would result in an increase in boat people. They could not have been more wrong. The best effort was Lev's attempt to fill in the blanks in the Greens' document. The problem is that this is neither Lev's policy or the Greens. And there was little or no analysis. > study what's been done before You will need to be more specific. I have done this as best I can. I don't see any wonderful solutions out there. * Claiming that solutions are out there is not the same as demonstrating this, as we found with the Greens. * Repeatedly claiming that you have provided answers is not the same as actually doing so. > There was nothing below, just text quoted from another message. Did you forget to write something? The text below was a list of questions that an honest attempt at an alternate policy needs to address. I reinstate it below. In my proposal, posted to this list earlier I suggested a large increase in our refugee intake, combined with a hard line on boat people. Strangely, this was followed by insinuations that I am a racist who wants to keep refugees out of the country! Apparently anyone who disagrees with the Greens' stance on immigration must be a racist. And I have actually studied the issues and articulated a policy. Yet somehow I lack the courage to take on these issues, or something. I would really welcome an honest attempt to grapple with this issues. Questions an honest attempt at a refugee policy should answer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Policy ******* 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. 8. Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? Impact ******** 1. What do you think would be the effect of your policy on the number of unsolicited refugees arriving by aircraft, boat ie refugees arriving without a visa, if any? 2. What do you think the impact of your policy on the total level of immigration to Australia, if any? 3, What would be the effect of your policy on Australia's economy, unemployment levels, wages, crime and welfare dependency, if any. 4. What do you think would be the effect of your policy in any other respect on the people who currently inhabit Australia, if any?

4 4

Patriarchy and Matriarchy put to the test inadvertently
by Tim Josling 13 Apr '14

13 Apr '14

For your amusement http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-sup… An earlier attempt at leveraging all those talented, but underpaid women http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-…

2 2

Invitation: Melbourne Virtual Reality Meetup #5 tonight
by David E Payne 10 Apr '14

10 Apr '14

Previously met on Wednesdays at Electron workshop so don't make any assumptions about future meetings ... (This isn't a top posted REPLY since it's new to LUV-talk! So I think a bottom post would be LESS apt for this text.) -Dav* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Melbourne Virtual Reality" <info(a)meetup.com> Date: Apr 7, 2014 9:22 PM Subject: Invitation: Melbourne Virtual Reality Meetup #5 To: <spyder.king(a)gmail.com> Cc: Added by Jake Tracey Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:30 PM General Store & Co. 213 Franklin Street, Melbourne, Australia Melbourne Join us for the Fifth Melbourne VR Meetup hosted by General Store & Co! General Information Come along at 6:30pm for networking, drinks and a whole lot of VR entertainment. This is going to be a more relaxed and social event than previous meetups...

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Petition on refugees (was Re: luv-talk Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1)
by Peter Ross 10 Apr '14

10 Apr '14

From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev(a)levlafayette.com> > On Mon, April 7, 2014 5:58 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote: >> Russell Coker wrote: >>> Often a petition gets a result after other measures have failed. >> >> Citation needed. > > The 2007 UK road pricing and car tracking petition is a good example of > success after normal lobbying failed. > > Perhaps some of Avaaz's successes can be considered as well. I am involved in Amnesty International campaigns and some actions can report success afterwards. It is hard to say how much of it can be contributed to the online petitions. BTW: I am putting time and money in for these causes, Tim. I am pretty sure others do too. You are invited to come along on Sunday and speak to people, there is a Palm Sunday Refugee Rally at 2pm starting at the State Library: http://www.chilout.org/palm-sunday-refugee-rallies-walk-for-jus Looking at this site: "UN denied access to Australia's detention facilities on Nauru http://t.co/BarOv33654 180 children locked up here" It is obvious that we are even too ashamed to show the world how we treat refugees. This explains Julie Bishop's claims in London. They were not made for our ears. I, personally, find this country is settling for a "new rich" attitude. The Australian spirit I have felt in 1997, an open, optimistic country: it seems to be a thing of a past. I was at a house warming party last weekend. Two people, no kids, four bedrooms, two lounges to play football in, three toilets.. well, that's the spirit of today. And the camps, set up in paranoid fear because someone may come and take something away. The couple I mentioned are Chinese. They just do what they are told to do in this society. Wealth is what counts. That's what they learn over in China. China is a cartoon version of capitalism. Our political discussions are mirroring this spirit and confirm their views. Our voices are needed to keep a democratic country where people care for each other. The "refugee issue" is not just about refugees. It is about the way we want to live. Not every campaign will be a success. I am aware of it. I do not know where we are heading. But I was around when one country changed. And it was much harder and needed much more courage to speak out then. Regards Peter

1 0

First climate change refugees
by Russell Coker 07 Apr '14

07 Apr '14

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/first-official-climate-c… -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 with K-9 Mail.

3 5

Re: [luv-talk] luv-talk Digest, Vol 31, Issue 1
by Tim Josling 05 Apr '14

05 Apr '14

> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:54:45 +1100 > From: "Peter Ross" > Subject: [luv-talk] Same day news - make a difference > At least I believe it is as much about as about refugees. It is about the society we want to live in. Signing a petition is the atheist equivalent of prayer: doing nothing but pretending you have done something - so you look good at no cost to yourself. Firing off moralistic emails is equally efficacious, in both respects. Alternatively, if you are serious: donate a significant percentage of your income to good causes, or do the hard thinking to actually come up with a better immigration policy - in detail, with analysis of the consequences (see below). Tim Policy > 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? > 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? > 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? > 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process? > 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? > 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? > 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer. > 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? > 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? Impact > 1. What do you think would be the effect of your policy on the number of unsolicited refugees arriving by aircraft, boat ie refugees arriving without a visa, if any? > 2. What do you think the impact of your policy on the total level of immigration to Australia, if any? > 3, What would be the effect of your policy on Australia's economy, unemployment levels, wages, crime and welfare dependency, if any. > 4. What do you think would be the effect of your policy in any other respect on the people who currently inhabit Australia, if any?

4 5