"The fundamental operating model of Australian politics is breaking down" https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-fundamental-operating-model-of-a... 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
Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk@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@linuxpenguins.xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/
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@luv.asn.au> wrote:
Peter Ross via luv-talk <luv-talk@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@linuxpenguins.xyz> https://linuxpenguins.xyz/brian/ _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
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-...
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.
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/Austral... 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.
On 06/04/18 11:26, Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
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/Austral...
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.
I agree this needs to be fixed.
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.
On Friday, 6 April 2018 12:37:31 PM AEST Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
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.
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.
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/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@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
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
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.
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?
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/
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-d... $55 bought lots of stuff from them Steve
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:02 PM Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@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.)
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.
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
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:54 PM Peter Ross <petrosssit@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-o... "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
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
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@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
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@gmail.com> 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."
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@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
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-orph... 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/
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
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-orph...
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.
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... regards Rohan McLeod
On Saturday, 5 May 2018 6:07:27 PM AEST Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
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-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.
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/
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/
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)
Hi Andrew, On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:58 PM Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk < luv-talk@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
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.)
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@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.
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.)
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@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.
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/
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@luv.asn.au> To: luv-talk@luv.asn.au, Peter Ross <petrosssit@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@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
participants (10)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian May -
David Zhan -
Lindsay W -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Steve Roylance -
Trent W. Buck