5 Apr
2018
5 Apr
'18
6:33 a.m.
"The fundamental operating model of Australian politics is breaking down"
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-fundamental-operating-model-of-…
It claims that things get harder - because we are more polarised.
Interesting is the graphic under "Australian voters are polarising", and
how it is interpreted.
According to that, the middle disappears, and we become more lefties or
right-wingers.
However, I see the right over 20 years being constant by ca.25 %.
Just the 'left" side is constantly growing, from 19.5% in 1996 to 31.4% in
2016.
Furthermore interesting, the numbers show a clear correlation to the Greens
which came from less than 2% primary votes to ca.10% over the last years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens
The question is: Why is doing Labor so badly while the 'left" side is
growing.
My short answer: The "lefties" do not feel represented by Labor.
Regards
Peter
5 Apr
5 Apr
7:35 a.m.
Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> writes:
According to that, the middle disappears, and we
become more lefties or
right-wingers.
Maybe this is a sign that people are getting more involved in politics?
If so, this is good.
Or is it a sign that the middle are lossing interest entirely? If so,
this is not good.
--
Brian May <brian(a)linuxpenguins.xyz>
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
8:02 a.m.
Hi Brian,
The funny thing: The numbers on the right side stays constant, the number
of the left is rising.
Was not mentioned in the article once, it only talks about the
disappearance of the middle.
However, the increasing number of left-leaning people seems to be quite
overlooked and also rarely represented in politics. The noise is coming
about Trump and Brexit and One Nation, and.. Our politics are made by
parties who hardly represent the will of its people, it seems.
Regards
Peter
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:36 PM Brian May via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au>
wrote:
Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au>
writes:
According to that, the middle disappears, and we
become more lefties or
right-wingers.
Maybe this is a sign that people are getting more involved in politics?
If so, this is good.
Or is it a sign that the middle are lossing interest entirely? If so,
this is not good.
--
Brian May <brian(a)linuxpenguins.xyz>
https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
6 Apr
6 Apr
12:57 a.m.
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
Our politics are made by parties who hardly represent
the will of
its people, it seems.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes…
5 Apr
5 Apr
12:58 p.m.
Hi,
On 05/04/18 16:33, Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
The question is: Why is doing Labor so badly while the
'left" side is
growing.
Of late, Labor is far too focused on Aboriginal Australia, ahead of
anything else -- other things are there, but the emphasis with every
major event is to go way over the top for Aborigine people; I think this
is a huge mistake.
Australia is much, much more than one group of people.
The other major problem with Labor, as I see it, they are too inclined
to support the far right's extreme agenda of total surveillance and
other machinations of war (against the people of Au and others).
A.
6 Apr
6 Apr
1:26 a.m.
Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
Of late, Labor is far too focused on Aboriginal
Australia, ahead of
anything else -- other things are there, but the emphasis with every
major event is to go way over the top for Aborigine people; I think
this is a huge mistake.
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2017/16-session/NHRIs/Austra…
e.g.
In 2014/2015, the hospitalization rates for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander women for family violence related assaults was 32
times the rate for non-Indigenous females.43
This issue remains a national crisis. Indigenous women, men and
children must be included in national discussions to appropriately
identify and address violence.
e.g.
Many indigenous human rights defenders still experience severe
disadvantages compared with non-indigenous defenders. They are
marginalised and unsupported by state and territory governments.
This situation is compounded by the tendency of the central
government to use the federal system as limitation on its ability
to exercise responsibility for supporting indigenous rights
defenders.
e.g.
The Commission notes that the rich discussion about constitutional
recognition have provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of a
conversation about a formal agreement between the Australian
Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
[Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Treaty (overturned by Bourke)]
Sounds to me like a legitimate thing to focus on.
2:37 a.m.
On 06/04/18 11:26, Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
I agree this needs to be fixed.
Of late, Labor is far too focused on Aboriginal
Australia, ahead of
anything else -- other things are there, but the emphasis with every
major event is to go way over the top for Aborigine people; I think
this is a huge mistake.
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/2017/16-session/NHRIs/Austra…
e.g.
In 2014/2015, the hospitalization rates for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander women for family violence related assaults was 32
times the rate for non-Indigenous females.43
This issue remains a national crisis. Indigenous women, men and
children must be included in national discussions to appropriately
identify and address violence. e.g.
Many indigenous human rights defenders still experience severe
disadvantages compared with non-indigenous defenders. They are
marginalised and unsupported by state and territory governments.
This situation is compounded by the tendency of the central
government to use the federal system as limitation on its ability
to exercise responsibility for supporting indigenous rights
defenders.
I agree this needs to be fixed.
Although today, any normal law abiding citizen whom wants to be involved
in a peaceful protest will likely think twice about being involved as
the militaristic actions of the police forces are overwhelming and over
the top; a peaceful protester whom has done nothing wrong can be pepper
sprayed for the enjoyment and entertainment of "law enforcement", you
can have your hearing permanently damaged with noise canons, you can be
blasted with "non lethal" but at times still actually lethal or
otherwise serious injuries with the use of rubber bullets and other
projectiles /that are safe????/ ... this is a problem of the government
against the people, not of any one group of people in Australia.
e.g.
The Commission notes that the rich discussion about constitutional
recognition have provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of a
conversation about a formal agreement between the Australian
Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
[Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Treaty (overturned by Bourke)]
I am totally not in favour of ANY kind of treaty; a treaty will, IMHO,
provide every opportunity for Aboriginal people to become the new elite,
the new richest of the very rich land owners in this country and all the
other bad that comes with improper enrichment of select groups of
individuals or races of people. It would turn the balance of power much
too far in favour of the relatively few and it a risk of, again, acting
in the best interests of the very few, rather than the many.
Do not screw with the Australian Constitution, it isn't worth the risk;
do not screw or entertain any ideas of a treaty -- the world has moved
on, help fix the real problems for sure, health, education and fair
opportunities, but when you hear of the abuse of privilege that actually
apparently exists whereby an Aboriginal person can burn their homes for
heating and dump good cars because of any issue and go get another one,
well it's just wrong. They need to live as close as is reasonably
possible just like any other Australian person, particularly any other
one that is born here regardless of any historical family origins.
A.
11 Apr
11 Apr
3:13 p.m.
On Friday, 6 April 2018 12:37:31 PM AEST Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
People said EXACTLY the same things before Kevin Rudd made his historic
apology. Of course there were no such changes, it was just propaganda by
people who wanted to avoid having white people ever apologise to black people.
The only examples I'm aware of where native peoples have received any
significant amounts of money due to their status are the tribes in the US that
run casinos. The only reason that happened is that wowsers prevent casinos
from being built wherever people want them.
The next possible way for native people to make some money is through mining
rights. I don't think that giving some claim to mining rights to Aboriginals
is any worse than giving the same claim to some random white person who flew a
plane over the area and filled in some paperwork.
The
Commission notes that the rich discussion about constitutional
recognition have provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of a
conversation about a formal agreement between the Australian
Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
[Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Treaty (overturned by
Bourke)]
I am totally not in favour of ANY kind of treaty; a treaty will, IMHO,
provide every opportunity for Aboriginal people to become the new elite,
the new richest of the very rich land owners in this country and all the
other bad that comes with improper enrichment of select groups of
individuals or races of people. It would turn the balance of power much
too far in favour of the relatively few and it a risk of, again, acting
in the best interests of the very few, rather than the many. Do not screw with the Australian Constitution, it
isn't worth the risk;
In the US to change the constitution there has to be a constitutional
convention which then has wide ranging powers to change things. In Australia
we have votes on specific changes. So this isn't the country where a
constitutional change is a risk.
do not screw or entertain any ideas of a treaty -- the
world has moved
Why would that be a problem? Please give examples of some of the treaties
that gave bad results and explain why we couldn't do better.
on, help fix the real problems for sure, health,
education and fair
opportunities, but when you hear of the abuse of privilege that actually
apparently exists whereby an Aboriginal person can burn their homes for
heating and dump good cars because of any issue and go get another one,
well it's just wrong.
Citation needed.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:34 a.m.
Quoting Russell Coker (russell(a)coker.com.au):
In the US to change the constitution there has to be a
constitutional
convention which then has wide ranging powers to change things.
That's one of _two_ means provided to change the US Constitution --
the one that's never been used in 229 years. ;->
1. Convention method: It should be stressed that such a convention
would get convened by Congress only if 2/3 of the state legislatures
request one, _and_ that any resulting proposed amendments would take
effect _only_ if ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures[1] (as a
safeguard against a runaway convention).
2. Regular method: The other method, passage of an amendment by a 2/3
supermajority of each house of Congress followed by required
ratification by the same 3/4 of state legislatures as a safeguard, has
been used 33 times since 1789 (27 times successfully, 6 times not).
Actually, in one of the 27 successful cases, for the 21st Amendment,
Congress chose an alternate ratification procedure, where state
ratifying conventions rather than legislatures approved it.[2]
Both methods, convention and regular, are covered by Article V, if you
care to see details.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
(It's quite short.) As an odd quirk, Article V imposed two invariance
(i.e., unamendable text) provisions, a la GFDL. The first has now
expired; the second purports to be permanent.
1. Until the year 1808, the amendment process was prohibited from
amending/removing the Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 legal protection of
the international slave (import) trade from legal impediment, and
likewise the Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 provision prohibiting taxes
against states other than proportional to population. (Obviously,
these prohibitions are now a dead letter, but were part of the difficult
negotiations that made the Constitution palatable under the political
strains then prevalent.)
2. Permanantly, no change may be made to every state's right to an
equal vote in the Senate (without that state's consent).
There is of course an undocumented _third_ way to amend the USA's
fundamental law, which is to walk away from it and declare that the
country is starting over -- this being the method used in 1776 to
disestablish the American colonies' former Constitution, that of Great
Britain. (One might say this was attempted by the Confederate States of
America, 1861-1865, which initiative was, um, opposed.)
[1] That's 38 of the current 50 states.
[2] This was an amendment to overturn the 18th Amendment prohibiting
the sale and transportation of most alcoholic beverages ('Prohibition').
Proponents of the new amendment alleged that irregularities in the
adoption of the 18th Amendment by legislatures, among other problems,
made it illegitimate. Addressing that argument, Supreme Justice
Brandeis raised the perceptive question: 'The Court would like to know,
in what way do counsel think that the new Article [Amendment could be
constitutionally made?' Thus the 21st Amendment's different
ratification procedure, chosen as a 'by the people' alternative in an
effort to answer Justice Brandeis's awkward question.
Here's a paper on this matter with numerous amusing highlights, like how
the 18th was passionately advocated in the House of Representatives by a
devout North Carolina Christian reading a story from the Quran.
http://foundthreads.com/PDF%20FILES/04-CITIZEN.pdf
13 Apr
13 Apr
2:54 a.m.
On Friday, 6 April 2018 12:37:31 PM AEST Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk
wrote:
Do not screw with the Australian Constitution, it
isn't worth the risk
Well, sometimes it is as useful as horse riding rules to regulate car
traffic. If you have a closer look, it is quite profane, not much you
really need to keep sacred.
Section 44 is a case in point. Here something I wrote last year, maybe some
food for thoughts. I found it bizarre that everybody was harping and
carping about their politicians' mistakes, nearly nobody considered the
rules. Reluctantly, months later, we heard voices recently asking for
reform, among them Michael Kirby and others.
The Australian Constitution is not a in expression of an independent
country, it is not much more than a description of basic procedures when a
bunch of British colonies united.
Our Commonwealth is a creation of the British Parliament, through the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. It took another 86 years
to pass the Australia Act 1986, in the British and the Australian
parliament, until the UK ceased all possibilities to legislate with effect
in Australia!
How did the world look like in 1900?
The human population was ca. 1.7 billion people. 420 million, or around
the quarter of all people lived under the rule of the British Empire. All
of Ireland, Canada, British-India including today’s Pakistan and
Bangladesh, several African colonies, and, of course Australia were British
then.
On our doorsteps we had the world’s second biggest Empire: 415 million were
ruled by the Chinese Emperor. Tensions between Chinese and Anglo-Saxons
were ripe during the Gold Rush, and stayed for the remainder of the 19th
century. Between 1875 and 1888 all colonies legislated against Chinese
migration.
At the time the Constitution was written the citizenship of the Australian
citizen was British, and all what they wanted is making sure that Australia
was ruled by the British and nobody else.
The section 44 of the constitution is written in this context.
Today’s Australia looks unrecognizable for the eyes of the Federation’s
founders. In 1948 we established Australian citizenship, and law made it
easy to acquire Australian citizenship while holding another.
Dual citizenship did not exist in 1900 under British law either, only the
British Nationality Act 1948 codified this and made it easy to be a dual
citizen.
Today I am surrounded by many many migrants, and many of them still have
connections to the land they came from, to their families there.
The dual citizenship is a godsend for them, e.g. giving them the ability to
look after their elders and siblings in need without being restricted by
visa.
I know a friend who actually gave up her German citizenship. Her father is
dying, and she could stay with him for three months only. Most likely she
will not see him again.
Most of them will scoff at the thought of “loyalty” to their old home. They
live here and are proud Australians. The links to their old home is of
practical nature, the passport means for quite profane reasons.
The current legislation feels bizarre when I am amongst colleagues, friends
and acquaintances, when I look around in the streets of Melbourne. They may
be born here or came here as toddlers, as children or young adults and live
here for the most of their lives. Still, they have grandmothers and
grandfathers or are married to a partner from every country in the world I
can think of.
Imagine that a mess if the cute little girl I shot side by side at my
archery club last week wants to stand for parliament? Her mother, her
father and a grandfather. Japanese, French and Hungarian Jewish is mixed in
her genes.
There are a few sections of the Constitution that are out of date, feel
free to look through it.
It hampers and prevents a sizable part of the population from equal
representation.
Migrants live here, pay taxes, have the right to vote, get fined when they
do not – so just let them represent themselves and their people.
As a healthy side effect it solves a current crisis which makes Australian
politicians a laughing stock.
Regards
Peter
8:02 a.m.
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
How did the world look like in 1900? [...]
On our doorsteps we had the world’s second biggest Empire: 415 million were
ruled by the Chinese Emperor. Tensions between Chinese and Anglo-Saxons
were ripe during the Gold Rush, and stayed for the remainder of the 19th
century. Between 1875 and 1888 all colonies legislated against Chinese
migration.
For a bit more context there, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion 1899 — 1901
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa 1881 — 1914
Not a great year to be the Qing emperor.
The section 44 of the constitution is written in this
context.
If that's the anti-hyphenate clause, the best context is the contemporary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphenated_American
They live here and are proud Australians. The links to
their old
home is of practical nature, the passport means for quite profane
reasons.
ITYM "mundane" not "profane", unless they're emigrés from a
theocracy
like Vatican City, Iran, Tibet, or England :-)
It hampers and prevents a sizable part of the
population from equal
representation.
+1, the anti-hyphenate clause is obsolete & we should get rid of it.
Unfortunately Australian Constitutional reform is notoriously difficult:
* house & senate both agree to hold a referendum
* majority of people (nation-wide)
* majority of people (state-wide) in a majority of states
* queen of australia doesn't disagree enough to trigger a civil war
Australians have approved only 8 out of 44 referendums (18%) since federation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referenda_in_Australia#The_No_vote
To get this reform passed, we've basically got to convince most
Australians that racism is bad. What with neo-Nazism trending on
twitbook this decade, I don't fancy our chances.
14 Apr
14 Apr
2:34 p.m.
New subject: Looking for reliable SATA to USB 3.0 solution
Hi
I have 2 x 2TB 3.5'' SATA HDD, and I want reliably connect them to my laptop via
USB 3.0, I am now looking for a solution for this.
Could you please give me some suggestions?
15 Apr
15 Apr
7:38 a.m.
New subject: Looking for reliable SATA to USB 3.0 solution
On Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34:31 AM AEST David Zhan via luv-talk wrote:
I have 2 x 2TB 3.5'' SATA HDD, and I want
reliably connect them to my laptop
via USB 3.0, I am now looking for a solution for this.
Could you please give me some suggestions?
http://www.msy.com.au/Parts/PARTS.pdf
MSY has a SATA-USB device for $22, see page 3 of the above price list. I've
bought a lot of stuff from MSY (probably $1000 for myself and well over
$10,000 for clients) and always found them decent.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
9:49 a.m.
New subject: Looking for reliable SATA to USB 3.0 solution
On 15/04/18 00:34, David Zhan via luv-talk wrote:
Hi
I have 2 x 2TB 3.5'' SATA HDD, and I want reliably connect them to my laptop via
USB 3.0, I am now looking for a solution for this.
Could you please give me some suggestions?
Centrecom has a dual bay 2.5&3.5 drive to usb output
https://www.centrecom.com.au/orico-6629us3-dual-bay-usb-30-sata-hard-drive-…
$55
bought lots of stuff from them
Steve
18 Apr
18 Apr
7:23 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:02 PM Trent W. Buck <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately Australian Constitutional reform is
notoriously difficult:
* house & senate both agree to hold a
referendum
* majority of people (nation-wide)
* majority of people (state-wide) in a majority of states
* queen of australia doesn't disagree enough to trigger a civil war
Australians have approved only 8 out of 44 referendums
(18%) since
federation.
On my Easter holidays I picked up a book about the constitution written in
1970, it bemoans the difficulties too.
But these days everything is difficult, if you ask the politicians,
business owners and managers here. Even raising wages. Got a splendid 1%
more this year. Allows me to give $5 more to the Salvos. Someone has to fix
the budget hole after the tax cuts.
For the constitution, maybe time for a serious rewrite.. well, this country
could do with a Tea Party to spice it up a bit. (The one in Boston, to
clarify. For the other, we got Jeff Martin already. The 3rd one, thank you
very much America, you can keep it for yourself. We already have enough
Flat-Earthers.)
To get this reform passed, we've basically got to
convince most
Australians that racism is bad. What with neo-Nazism trending on
twitbook this decade, I don't fancy our chances.
It does not match my Melbourne experience.
Maybe it is time for Vicxit. I can't say much good coming out of Canberra
out for us here anyway, it is run by Sydneysiders who kowtow to Alan Jones
and the Boys Daily, and Queenslanders from a country were it is perpetual
Joh time, run by cops and other rather fishy individuals, it seems.
The fence around the parliament was a step in the right direction. Somehow
we have to protect ourselves from them.
The list of sacred things is funny. We treasure highwaymen like Ned Kelly,
we have a Queen far far away, celebrate Queens Birthdays when the Queen
does not have one, have an Australia Day when some convicts started
unpacking and the Melbournians have a day to get drunk pretending to care
for horse and races. The last public holiday in the year is reserved for
shopaholics.
It is funny enough to overlook a few shortcomings.
Cheers
Peter
2 May
2 May
6 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:54 PM Peter Ross <petrosssit(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Section 44 is a case in point. Here something I wrote
last year, maybe
some food for thoughts.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-turnbull-to-receive-report-…
"The chair of an inquiry ordered by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull amid
the dual citizenship crisis says a constitutional provision banning
millions of Australians from being elected to Parliament is broken and
should be overturned at a referendum."
"Section 44 has unintentionally created two classes of Australian
citizenship," she said.
"Not only is this out of step with other areas of contemporary Australian
life, it's also out of step with most western democracies which allow dual
citizens to serve in Parliament, including the UK, US and Canada."
"UK, US and Canada". Aussie slang for the rest of the world, the countries
newsworthy if not Australia;-)
Regards
Peter
11:11 a.m.
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
"UK, US and Canada". Aussie slang for the
rest of the world, the countries
newsworthy if not Australia;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Anglophone_bias_in_the_world_media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world
4 May
4 May
6:55 a.m.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/11/australias-political…
The study finds 75.9% of the 2490 people occupying the most senior posts in
Australia are from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, while 19% have a European
background, 4.7% a non-European background and 0.4% an Indigenous
background.
“Although those who have non-European and Indigenous backgrounds make up an
estimated 24% of the Australian population, such backgrounds account for
only 5% of senior leaders."
In the news you find stories about migrants. Rarely written by migrants.
The same goes for Aboriginal people.
The country is not doing itself a favour by practically ignoring large
parts of the population who have experiences in other countries, systems
and environments.
It is also ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal people with ten thousands
of years experience to care for this country.
It is a political Apartheid system, actually.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:12 PM Trent W. Buck <trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
> "UK, US and Canada". Aussie slang for the rest of the world, the
countries
> newsworthy if not Australia;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Anglophone_bias_in_the_world_media
6:56 a.m.
P.S. You could not even start a Migrant Party because it has to swear of
its migrant roots before it is allowed to enter parliament..
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 4:54 PM Peter Ross <petrosssit(a)gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/11/australias-political…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias#Anglophone_bias_in_the_world_media
The study finds 75.9% of the 2490 people occupying the
most senior posts
in
Australia are from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, while 19%
have a European
background, 4.7% a non-European background and 0.4% an Indigenous
background.
“Although those who have non-European and Indigenous
backgrounds make up
an
estimated 24% of the Australian population, such
backgrounds account for
only 5% of senior leaders."
In the news you find stories about migrants. Rarely
written by migrants.
The same goes for Aboriginal people.
The country is not doing itself a favour by
practically ignoring large
parts of the population who have experiences in other countries, systems
and environments.
It is also ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal people
with ten thousands
of years experience to care for this country.
It is a political Apartheid system, actually.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:12 PM Trent W. Buck
<trentbuck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Peter Ross via
luv-talk wrote:
> "UK, US and Canada". Aussie slang for the rest of the world, the
countries
> > newsworthy if not Australia;-)
5 May
5 May
2:37 a.m.
On Friday, 4 May 2018 4:55:00 PM AEST Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
It is also ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal people
with ten thousands
of years experience to care for this country.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/thunderbird-and-the-orp…
If colonists had paid more attention to the history of native people they
might have taken more care when building on the west coast of the US.
Apparently it's regarded as too expensive to do anything to mitigate the
damage from such an earthquake now.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
8:07 a.m.
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
On Friday, 4 May 2018 4:55:00 PM AEST Peter Ross via
luv-talk wrote:
Mind you things haven't always been good on the east coast either :-)
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/10/the-most-destructive-wave-in-ea…
regards Rohan McLeod
It is also ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal
people with ten thousands
of years experience to care for this country.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/thunderbird-and-the-orp…
If colonists had paid more attention to the history of native people they
might have taken more care when building on the west coast of the US.
8 May
8 May
9:34 a.m.
On Saturday, 5 May 2018 6:07:27 PM AEST Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
True, but I am not aware of evidence suggesting that any oral history goes
back far enough to be helpful in that regard.
http://theconversation.com/ancient-aboriginal-stories-preserve-history-of-a…
There is evidence of stories dating back to the end of the last ice age with
reasonable accuracy. While the stories referenced in that article don't seem
useful to us, their accuracy indicates that other stories from the same people
might contain useful information. It shows that it's plausible for 73,000
year old stories to be accurate.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Friday, 4 May 2018 4:55:00 PM AEST Peter Ross
via luv-talk wrote:
Mind you things haven't always been good on the east coast either :-)
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/10/the-most-destructive-wave-in-ear
ths-known-history/412147/ It is also ignoring the knowledge of Aboriginal
people with ten thousands
of years experience to care for this country.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/thunderbird-and-the-or
phan-tsunami-cascadia-1700/
If colonists had paid more attention to the history of native people they
might have taken more care when building on the west coast of the US.
7 May
7 May
12:30 a.m.
Peter Ross wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/11/australias-political…
The study finds 75.9% of the 2490 people occupying the most senior posts in
Australia are from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, while 19% have a European
background, 4.7% a non-European background and 0.4% an Indigenous
background.
“Although those who have non-European and Indigenous backgrounds make up an
estimated 24% of the Australian population, such backgrounds account for
only 5% of senior leaders."
[…]
It is a political Apartheid system, actually.
Apartheid was an explicit ideology.
I think the current setup is better attributable to systemic bias(es).
Here's a little educational game about it:
http://ncase.me/polygons/
(This one is also super neat: http://ncase.me/trust)
6 Apr
6 Apr
2:40 a.m.
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk <
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
Of late, Labor is far too focused on Aboriginal
Australia, ahead of
anything else -- other things are there, but the emphasis with every
major event is to go way over the top for Aborigine people; I think this
is a huge mistake.
Australia is much, much more than one group of people.
The "Aboriginal problem" is a tricky one. Back to that in a moment.
I have a younger generation growing up now, and sometimes all that
"identity stuff" goes a bit over my head.
Yep, I do not condone violence against woman, or racial discrimination, or
against queer people (sorry, cannot remember the LBT.. AOL[abbreviation
overload]).
However, I sometimes think: While we are screaming at each other, at men or
"white people" or whatever (stereotyping "grumpy old white men" and I
guess
I am one of them;-)
We do not act together where we need us, e.g. to get our daily bread. Wages
stagnating? Who would have thought it would happen when everybody bargains
for him/herself only, and have actually next to no tools for support?
That happened while we are otherwise occupied. Who knows why we have a 888
monument in the CBD, and how it happened? Not because Australians were just
nice and were obsessed with their mortgages only.
Us&Them is a good way of dividing people. There is always somebody else you
can scream at, be mad at, feel they get more than you do, and you are
fighting the bikeriders and left-handed people, instead of coming together
and work for a better future.
To the "Aboriginal problem".. well, something needs to be done, I am not
happy with the state they are in. But there is a bit of hubris when I would
suggest white people are the ones solving it.
A national body with real influence is needed, I think. But there you have
to deal with the mining lobby, and as you can see with all the coal
nonsense, they are powerful. They have most of the money from the boom that
the Norwegian put into their future fund instead.. https://www.nbim.no/ ,
Without them, and a bit dreaming;-) I would suggest to have an Aboriginal
Electorate and a chamber of parliament, and the head of this chamber is our
representing president, custodian of the land and replacing the Queen who
shouldn't have a role here (besides of it is okay to pay an old lady some
hush money to stay out of politics, this way avoiding stupid presidents;-)
This land could do with some better looking after the country. We white men
make a bit of a hash of it.
That would be my preferred way for a republic.
The other major problem with Labor, as I see it, they
are too inclined to
support the far
right's extreme agenda of total surveillance an
other machinations of
war (against the people of Au and others).
+1.
Cheers
Peter
9 Apr
9 Apr
12:27 a.m.
Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
I have a younger generation growing up now, and
sometimes all that
"identity stuff" goes a bit over my head.
Gender identity issues aren't new, they're just being talked about openly in the
west.
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)
Yep, I do not condone violence against woman, or
racial
discrimination, or against queer people (sorry, cannot remember the
LBT.. AOL[abbreviation overload]).
"QUILTBAG" is at least easy to remember :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUILTBAG#cite_ref-76
(Inevitably selecting the "best" acronym gets bike-shedded into oblivion.)
1:54 a.m.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com):
Gender identity issues aren't new, they're
just being talked about
openly in the west.
I'm just going to put this out there:
https://www.care2.com/causes/the-forgotten-history-of-gay-marriage.html
Said interesting piece was one of the many I found while doing the
research that resulted in http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
back in 2008, when certain political forces here in California
(approximating politicking by primarily Mormon and Scientology religious
interests, and large out-of-state contributions to the California economy
-- thank you!) alleged an unchanged 2000-year history that turned out to
be ahistorical, even within official Church understandings of the concept.
5:58 a.m.
Rick Moen via luv-talk wrote:
https://www.care2.com/causes/the-forgotten-history-of-gay-marriage.html
… http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html …
Rick,
If you haven't seen it before, grab a $beverage and enjoy
https://web.archive.org/web/20100221005910/http://qntm.org:80/gay
(The non-archive.org version is temporarily down for a rewrite.)
6:49 a.m.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck(a)gmail.com):
If you haven't seen it before, grab a $beverage
and enjoy
https://web.archive.org/web/20100221005910/http://qntm.org:80/gay
I hadn't, so thank you.
That is definitely one kick-ass article.
11 Apr
11 Apr
2:57 p.m.
On Thursday, 5 April 2018 4:33:05 PM AEST Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-fundamental-operating-model-of-a
ustralian-politics-is-breaking-down-20180322-p4z5o9.html
It claims that things get harder - because we are more polarised.
I recently read an article (I can't remember where) claiming that nations are
becoming less powerful and the increased polarisation in national politics (of
many countries) is partly due to corporations and super-rich people escaping
governance. Both Labor and Liberal (and similar parties in many other
countries) seem happy to allow corporations to dodge tax and to tax us more
instead. So they start a bitter war about who exactly among the non-rich
Australians pays tax and use refugees as a distraction from the main issue of
why big corporations don't pay tax.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
8:04 p.m.
Sorry for the layout of this post. I am new to fastmail and have yet to play with the this
mail user agent's config
.
A couple of points about the discusion.
People have been complainng the powers to be are going to the dogs since at least ancient
Greece (480BC or there abouts).
Second point a study of history of most of the human race shows the people with money and
land have always called the shots. For most of the time the governing body was a so called
all powerfull king, but in the end he/(very rarely a she) only kept office becasue he/she
did not do anything to upset the nobiluty, plenty of royality were killed becuase he/she
upset the nobility.
Its largely still business as usual although now at least in countries like Australia the
population at large can be heard with out to much fear of retribution.
Lindsay
----- Original message -----
From: "Russell Coker via luv-talk" <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au>
To: luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au, Peter Ross <petrosssit(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [luv-talk] An interesting article - and an interesting oversight
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 00:57:48 +1000
On Thursday, 5 April 2018 4:33:05 PM AEST Peter Ross via luv-talk wrote:
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-fundamental-operating-model-of-a
ustralian-politics-is-breaking-down-20180322-p4z5o9.html
It claims that things get harder - because we are more polarised.
I recently read an article (I can't remember where) claiming that nations are
becoming less powerful and the increased polarisation in national politics (of
many countries) is partly due to corporations and super-rich people escaping
governance. Both Labor and Liberal (and similar parties in many other
countries) seem happy to allow corporations to dodge tax and to tax us more
instead. So they start a bitter war about who exactly among the non-rich
Australians pays tax and use refugees as a distraction from the main issue of
why big corporations don't pay tax.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
_______________________________________________
luv-talk mailing list
luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au
https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
1517
days inactive
1550
days old
29 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian May -
David Zhan -
Lindsay W -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Steve Roylance -
Trent W. Buck