I don’t get it. When three or more countries are in accord, we’ll quite happily walk into someone else’s country, killing innocent people and stealing valuable resources, but when the whole world is in accord with only one notable exception, we can’t stop a goddamned whale hunt. Odd…
The solution as I see it is simple. The world gets together and agrees on the sea as it has in various meeting rooms, someone provides a couple of ice breakers, we gather just a small portion of the world’s sea going fire power, stock it with food, fuel and marines, find the whaling vessels, board them, take the pirates prisoner, sink the ships, hoist the “jolly roger” and head back to port happy in the knowledge of a job well done.
Then, when they cry foul, as they most assuredly will, tell them to shove it or we won’t give the prisoners back. Someone could make faces and say “ner, nerny ner ner!” too. They deserve it…
But seriously, I’d like to know why it is we allow those we elect to serve in the corridors of power to be so damnably stupid. Or is it that we allow ourselves to be duped into electing such stupid people? I can’t work it out, they seem reasonable enough on the hustings after all. Yet we allow international terrorism on a grand and almost global scale, but only where valuable recourses and commodities are at stake.
Lets face it, we all know that if we really wanted to do some good we could do something like help Africa into the 21st century. Perhaps the U.S. could take on Mugabe as they did Saddam. Now there’s a bloke that could use a lead enema, if ever there was one. But the way I see it, if the killing of a couple of hundred thousand innocent people is the trigger, then Mugabe and Zimbabwe should probably have been first.
But what’s in Zimbabwe that the U.S. could possibly want? Well it has some of the best farmland in the world, no doubt. But if they help to develop that, they’d create themselves a competitor in the world food market, not good for the average U.S. farmer, so strike that one from the list.
Or even at a diplomatic level, perish the thought, simply allowing African nations to burn coal or gas to make electricity would help. Currently, the WHO does not allow this. Oh yes, it’s perfectly ok for “developed” nations to pollute the world’s atmosphere while we smugly trade carbon points, and we can have energy, development, progress and a first class, “first world” civilisation, but Africa is not allowed to I’m afraid.
I don’t know. Sometimes our leaders seem so clever and strong but when you take a closer look, a weaker more lily livered bunch of cowardly and hypocritical sycophants you will not find anywhere else on the face of the planet. That’s not to say that governments and organisations like NATO, The WHO, The United Nation, etc have a monopoly on stupidity, oh no, but it certainly seems to be where the cream of the crop congregates.
There’s so much that could be being done to stop the killing, but at every stage we fail to take the opportunity. It’s probably because we’re way to interested in keeping and protecting our way of life; the partner, the kids, the house, the lawn mower and the family bloody barbeque. We use fossil fuels and guzzle energy at insane rates and rape and raze whole nations at the drop of a hat to protect it all and get more, but do we care? Of course not, so long as the killing and abuse is happening beyond arms length in another country on the other side of the world, why would we?
Personally I’m of the opinion that we should wake up to ourselves and clean up our act, but the kids just bought me a new wiz bang four burner BBQ for chrissy, so that’ll have to wait until next year now…
Thanks to Dikkii for reminding me that sometimes a good “rant” is just the tonic…:)
Saturday, December 15, 2007
A whale of a time
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Holy Smoke
Humans like smoke, there’s no denying it. From the production of food to the performance of ceremony, smoke pervades nearly every aspect of our lives. Carbon is produced on a daily basis, that serves no other purpose than to smell good or taste good. In fact, I’m burning incense as I type. Not because it helps me type, but because I like the smell. It’s amazing that we still allow it, what with all the hue and cry about carbon emissions. But carbon based carcinogens are tasty, so don’t expect us to give them up anytime soon.
But given the relationship that humans have had with smoke over the millennia, especially when you consider the flavoursome aspects smoke can bring to a meal, I ask you, is it any wonder that Raleigh decided to roll up a leaf, stick it in his gob, light it and puff on it? I think not! And kudos to the man for doing so!
Yes, I smoke and I enjoy it. The funny thing about smoking though, is that although I enjoy a product that’s perfectly legal and sold in every milk bar and convenience store across this country, I’ve become a pariah in my own society, the modern day equivalent of a leper. I’m relegated to the back alley where I must join my fellow lepers to puff away in blissful denial of the dangers of our actions while we complain vociferously about new legislation that ostracises us even further.
Oh for the halcyon days. You know, there was a time that I could smoke inside a moving train, not just on the uncovered section of the station platform. We even had “smoking” and “non-smoking” carriages. On the old “W” class trams, the bit in the middle that was open to the weather was the smoking section, restaurants had ashtrays on the tables and every bar in every pub had a foot rail and ashtray that ran the full length of the bar and I could smoke with impunity. Bliss…
We had ads too. Who could forget “Join the Escort club” or “Marlborough Country” or “Anyhow, ‘ave a Winfield”, classics all of them. The cricket was sponsored by Benson and Hedges, the sailing by Rothmans while Marlborough took care of the cars. It was a smokers paradise that knew no bounds.
But no longer… Over time, the companies have been legislated out of advertising spaces, the smokers into the dark and uncomfortable places that society sees fit to provide, rather than just make the product itself illegal and be done with it. But that won’t happen because about 70% of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax. Consequently, the government (any government) wants for me to smoke and for you, dear non-smoker, to suffer mercilessly because of it.
So if you are a non-smoker and happen to be languishing in a “smoking” area (say the uncovered part of a station platform) when I light up, don’t complain. Instead, remember who’s idea it was that I should only be allowed to smoke where you’re waiting for your train and suck it up like a good little princess.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
The Science of Ology - Pt 1
“Space Opera as theology” or OT III, as they say in the business. It sounds a bit strange, but that’s what L. Ron Hubbard, one of the greatest pulp fiction writers of all time, called it.
At this point, some may take issue. I will extol you however, to put your thoughts of scientology aside for a moment (we’ll get back to that) and see the man for what he was in the early days. Let’s face it, “Battlefield Earth” was one of the greatest classic sci-fi novels of the 20th century and there’s very little denying it. If you’re a sci-fi fan like me though, you’ll also have read much of his contemporaries; John Wyndham, H. Beam Piper, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, E. E. Doc Smith, Phillip Jose Farmer, Larry Niven, Gerry Pournelle (together or separately), Patrick Tilley, Stanislaw Lem, Arthur C. Clarke, Michael Morecock and many more besides. You’ve probably also read some that have succeeded in matching that brilliance since; Ben Bova, Peter F. Hamilton, Gentry Lee, Timothy Zahn, etc, but ol’ Ron, he had it over all of them.
It all started - as the rumour goes - with a conversation with another author. Some say it was Phil, some say it was Bob, but most agree that it was one of that distinguished bunch above that forged the way for Science Fiction. The topic was the making of money and how much a “best seller” helps in that pursuit. As the rumour goes, Ron was of the opinion that although a best seller helped, if you wanted to make real money you needed to start a religion. Just look at the tax benefits! The rumour mill being what it is however, also says that the other party disagreed and money was laid on the table and a bet was made that he couldn’t start a religion and make more money than he could with a best seller.
Whether the rumour is true or not hardly matters. The evidence would suggest that Ron’s idea was sound enough and if the purported $5 bet actually took place, whoever it was lost their money, big time.
And so it was that “Dianetics” was born. A bigger load of clap trap you’ll never read, and I don’t care what you may think of the Bible or the Koran, Dianetics takes the biscuit, with icing. If there was an “Iced Vovo” award for stupidity that takes the biscuit, I’d vote for Dianetics. But as if that wasn’t enough, Dianetics grew and evolved. For those that have read Dawkins “The God Delusion” and can be bothered looking into the history of this, you’ll definitely find evidence of his “memetic evolution” here. Scientology is what Dianetics eventually became, and scientology is what it remains today.
Now it’s time to take a little look at OT III (pure Scientology that incorporates Dianetics) and to have a little poke at what it is these guys believe. The image below is authenticated by the church of Scientology to be in L. Ron Hubbards own hand. Believe it or not, this document is the underpinning of Scientology’s entire theology and is what the likes of Tom Cruise and John Travolta actually believe. So, meet Xenu:
Transcript:
Data (1) (1)
The head of the Galactic
Confederation (76 planets around
larger stars visible from here)
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
solved overpopulation (250 billion
or so per planet) -- 178 billion
average) by mass implanting.
He caused people to be brought to
Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H Bomb
on the principal volcanoes (Incident 2)
and then the Pacific area ones
were taken in boxes to Hawaii
and the Atlantic Area ones to
Las Palmas and there "packaged."
His name was Xenu. He used
renegades. Various misleading
data by means of circuits etc.
were placed in the implants.
When through with his crime Loyal Officers
(to the people) captured him
after 6 years of battle
and put him in an electronic
mountain trap where he still
is. "They" are gone. The place (Confed.)
has since been a desert.
Now you have to admit, that’s a pretty good start for a huge space opera. This is real “George Lucas eat your heart out” stuff if he ever gets rolling with it.
But this is no ordinary story. What he meant by “packaged” is that the soles of those unfortunates that Xenu slaughtered here on Earth, now inhabit us. Body Thetans (BT’s) is what they’re called and nasty is what they are. But not to worry because for a fee ($100,000 or more), that most charitable of organisations, The Church Of Scientology, will help you exorcise them, one at a time (yep, there’s a separate fee for each one and they tell you how many you’ve got).
Is it any wonder then that Tom Cruise jumps around on Oprah’s couch like a fool and giggles incessantly like a raving lunatic the rest of the time. But how does John Travolta manage to stay so calm, cool and collected with all that crap in his head? It’s a conundrum and no mistake.
Now it’s because of all this money and charging that’s involved that the poor buggers no longer enjoy the tax advantages of most religions. When you charge your members to join, then charge them separately at each “level” to be subjected to a peculiar brain washing process, then I guess you can probably expect your government to take a dim view if you don’t pay up on time. And so it was that a ship called “The Enchanter” was purchased (in 1967 I believe) and set sail with Ron on board so he could escape an investigation into his activities by the British authorities. It was also chased at various times by the CIA and the FBI, but they never caught it.
It still exists today though and houses a special group of scientologists called “Sea Org” where you can go to be a slave and learn about scientology all at the same time, but more about that next time…
Saturday, December 1, 2007
More nuts to Mohammed
Well, it’s happened. The decision has finally been handed down.
The Age didn’t carry anything on the day so I looked further abroad for a different perspective. This is from The Washington Post
LONDON, Nov. 29 -- A Sudanese court on Thursday convicted a British schoolteacher of inciting religious hatred by allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced her to 15 days in jail.
She’ll serve 10 more days because she’s already been in custody for 5 days. That’s big hearted of them isn’t it? But, so it is that a woman is being punished for letting a group of 7 year olds name a teddy bear, and an educator has been jailed on religious grounds, once again. I feel for the kids because it seems they’ve lost a good teacher, and a caring one at that. Teachers like that are not always easy to find so the travesty is all the greater.
What’s more disturbing about this story though is the crowds that gathered in Khartoum, calling for the death penalty. Well, I said in my original post that it was “twisted”, but to call for the death penalty for the naming of a teddy bear is way beyond “twisted”, it’s completely insane.
But the article continues:
"This is unbelievable, a travesty of justice, a disgrace -- what planet are they on?" said Asghar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a group that advocates greater Muslim involvement in the democratic process.
"Things like this make our differences seem like they are unbridgeable," Bukhari said. "If you don't really know another community, and all you ever hear is these outrageous, alien, unjust things they are doing, you are going to think, 'We've got nothing in common.' "
Mr. Bukhari makes an impassioned plea. It’s a plea for understanding and as amateurish attempt at an argument from ignorance and authority that I think I’ve ever seen. When you think how often you see and hear about travesties like this in the muslim world (or worse if the “criminal” happens to be an adulterer, a woman with a non-muslim love interest, an author or a cartoonist), you soon realise that in strict muslim communities, these are NOT outrageous, alien or unjust things, they are common occurrences and are simply the result of the law being applied.
I won’t be surprised to see an exodus of non-muslim teachers from the Sudan and other muslim countries that employ foreign teachers because of this too. I’d certainly be packing my bags. It will be a shame though and will only serve as a set back to education in those countries, but I doubt that anyone will take any notice. Ignorance takes precedence where religion reigns supreme…
Friday, November 30, 2007
Here's trouble...
Well, my last post seems to have gotten me into a bit of trouble. That's fair I suppose, it was a crap article and badly worded, so I think I should quantify...
Bigotry. There you go. That's it, there's really nothing more. The problem with that story is that the bigotry sits on both sides of the fence and that's where my article fell down and completely buried itself. Notice how I absolved myself of any responsibility there? It's a bit like the car accident you hear about on the news where "the car tragically left the road and killed the driver", as if it's the car's fault, but no-one ever says anything about the dick-head behind the wheel that was so drunk he had to get help to open the car door in the first place. Sheez...
Anyway, the problem, I think, was in this passage here: The man obviously takes a very short-sighted view and seems to be looking on the wrong side of the fence for the bigots.
"Wrong side of the fence" was a very bad choice of words. "Both sides of the fence" would have been a better choice, although I doubt it would get me out of trouble here.
But as you can see from the example above, I take a fairly harsh view but realistic is how I like to think of it. But to continue the above example, let's say that the pissed idiot left some family behind. Of course, I can't help but think about how very sad it is that they've had to suffer that loss, but my next thoughts are that it's a good thing none of them were in the car with him, that he didn't take out any innocents at the same time and yes, that the roads are now just a little bit safer for the rest of us. That last bit is extremely harsh, but I also like to think that most people think this way. He didn't get me or anyone else, sorry for the family but hey, at least he won't kill anyone else. Very harsh indeed, but that's me.
And so it is with religious bigotry, except that it's much worse. When you bring religion into any argument the stakes are immediately raised because religion has the unfortunate effect of stifling rationality and common sense, we know this and we also know it to be unavoidable. It stifles these things so much in fact, that some are quite prepared to use their own children as weapons in the fight to bring their particular religion more prominence, and whether that fight is violent or subversive, whether it be in a country, a city or a suburb, makes little difference.
The subject of my previous post concerned the building of an Islamic school in a predominantly white, christian area. This time I'll make the race distinction because it makes little enough difference, I think. The local residents however, have complained and protested that they don't want it there. Mostly, as far as I can tell, the objections have been "because it's Islamic" which in Australia, is not what we call a "valid" reason. We are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race or religion so the law says that the Islamic council can build their school in what passes for Christian heartland in Sydney, if that's what they want to do. As a consequence, a protest has gotten nasty and a criminal act has been perpetrated at the site of the proposed school. And please bear in mind that at this stage, it's still only proposed.
Now, I don't have a problem with the law putting in it's 2c worth, but I do have a problem with the narrow mindedness and complete lack of common sense that everyone seems to be exhibiting concerning this issue. If the locals are turning this nasty and distasteful before it's even built, what are they going to do to the kids walking, riding their bikes, being driven, catching the bus, to and from that school.
Think about it is all I can ask. In a democracy, the majority doesn't have to be right, it just has to be the majority and this this case, I think the majority makes a valid point, just not for the reasons it thinks it does. This majority is obviously so blinkered and bigoted that it makes sense - good common sense - to think seriously about whether or not a school should be built where the kids might suffer insult, and to also consider why any Islamic community would continue to want to build a school there where it's their own kids that might suffer the insult. Would you willingly do that to your kids? I wouldn't.
I also think the pigs heads make it pretty obvious what sort of bigoted idiots we're dealing with here too. I'm of the opinion that they are just the kind that will hurl hurtful insults at an innocent child. Not only that, but they'd do it for no reason other than race or religion and they wouldn't bat an eye at the damage they caused.
My quoting of the Koran was to lend a Christian perspective to the bigotry displayed in the protest. It doesn't really matter whether it's Mohammed or Jesus though, this sort of bigotry should, by now, almost be expected. They share the driving duties on the bus of religious rationalism and as it was for the driver in my earlier analogy, their bus appears to be giving them serious difficulty...
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Now who's telling porkies?
If it wasn't so serious it'd be laughable. More religious inspired madness due to islam from "The Age" but it's closer to home in Sydney this time. Actually, this one's probably more to do with kick backs and local government than it is to do with islam, but maybe I'm just being cynical, you decide.
Two pigs' heads have been rammed on to metal stakes and an Australian flag draped between them on the site of a proposed Islamic school in Sydney's south-west.
That doesn't sound to savoury, does it?
Officers quickly removed the offending items for forensic examination and established a crime scene.
But does it really warrant "forensics" and a "crime scene"? Last I looked, killing pigs wasn't an offence and if they try and make it one, I will protest most vociferously on the grounds that it would be a travesty for bacon and rib lovers everywhere.
But the reasons for this distasteful act become a little clearer as we move through the article:
Earlier this month, a thousand residents protested against it, with some saying the school would damage the area's social fabric.
And
The local council also received several thousand written objections during the planning approval process.
It seems that despite the protests of thousands of local residents, the council is keeping very quiet about its plans and the land is still “earmarked” for the school. The problem, I think, is that silence from the local council is so often seen as approval so the locals have finally gotten around to being a little more adamant in their protest. It‘s a bit harsh, I’ll admit, but if you ignore the letters and rallies, then you should probably expect trouble. There’s always a few that are willing.
But what really got me about this article was the comment from the Community Relations Commission’s Stepan Kerkyasharian:
The obsessive hatred of the mindless bigots who perpetrated this outrage is evidenced by their total disrespect of the ultimate symbol of our national pride, the Australian flag.
Every Australian Muslim would be offended by such a display, especially one involving the Australian flag.
The man obviously takes a very short-sighted view and seems to be looking on the wrong side of the fence for the bigots.
Of the unbelievers (which includes jews and christians) the Koran has many things to say, here are just few from Saura 2:
Verse 85: “God’s curse be upon the infidels!”
Verse 122: ”We shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the fire. Evil shall be their fate.
Verse 190-93: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you may dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you. God knows, but you do not.
And those are fairly mild by comparison to some, but there you go. God says “Kill ‘em ALL, I know what's best!” Pigs heads sort of pale into insignificance against that sort of rhetoric I think.
And for those that have been following my last couple of posts, you'll be extremely saddened to hear that Ms Gillian Gibbons was formally charged last night, with "inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious belief." Punishments include 6 months prison, 40 lashes or a substantial fine:
"Khartoum north prosecution unit has completed its investigation and has charged the Briton Gillian (Gibbons) under Article 125 of the criminal code," the Sudanese news agency SUNA said, quoting a senior Justice Ministry official.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Double nuts to Mohammed
I had another one up here for a minute or two, but I've recently read this, at "the Age" again. What is it with all the nutbag stories there at the moment? The other one was about a protest over an islamic school in Sydney. Sheez..
Anyway, to the story at hand. You know how I made the assumption in my last post that Ms Gillian Gibbons was probably a pretty good teacher because she obviously had happy, confident students? Well it seems I was right not just about that, but also the circumstances surrounding it. It seems that Ms Gibbons used the teddy as a teaching aid. She'd devised a writing exercise where the kids took the teddy home and then wrote about what they did with it.
But it was young Mohammed that had the idea that they call the teddy bear Mohammed and now the poor kid seems to be a bit bemused and upset by the whole ordeal:
"The teacher asked me what I wanted to call the teddy," the boy said shyly, his voice barely rising above a whisper. "I said Mohammad. I named it after my name," he added.
Just as I thought, kids being kids:
He said he was not thinking of Islam's Prophet when asked to suggest a name, adding most of the class agreed with his choice.
Well it's hardly surprising in an islamic environment that the rest of the kids would agree with his choice, they probably all have family members who are named Mohammed, if they aren't themselves, so where's the problem?
Mohammad said Gibbons was "very nice" and he would be upset if she never came back to teach. He added Gibbons had not discussed religion nor did she mention the Prophet.
"We studied maths and English and spelling," he said, rubbing his mop of short, curly hair.
So there you have it. A perfect lesson in how to remove a good teacher and traumatise the kids she teaches, all in one fell swoop. But kudos to Mohammed's parents for having the guts to come forward and protest.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Nuts to Mohammed!
Either I have to stop reading "The Age", or religion has to go...
Just to show I'm not biased in my reporting of religious ridiculousness, how could you be, it's all ridiculous, here's one fresh from the Sudan:
A British primary school teacher has been arrested in Sudan, accused of insulting Islam's Prophet by letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Mohammed, her school said yesterday.
Please note here that she did not name the teddy bear, yet she has ended up in jail.
What's happened here is that a teddy bear has turned up and being the caring teacher that she is she decided to let the kids have some fun and give it a name. Kids being kids, have all got together and decided that their favourite name is Mohammed, so that's what they'd like to name it. At this point, it's all good with lots of kids with big smiles which is just what any teacher worth her salt likes to see, the perfect result for the exercise at hand.
The next evening Ms. Gibbons was rudely interrupted by the police when she was arrested for having been accused of; "insulting the Prophet Mohammad". The media centre goes on to explain: It said charges were being prepared "under article 125 of the criminal law" which covers insults against faith and religion. You mean it hides the embarrassment you feel at believing in a ridiculously outdated, violent, bigoted, intolerant and lunatic concept such as islam, which is the only reason I can see for such laws existing.
Ms. Gibbons however, was only arrested because all of those kids went home happy and confident enough to tell their parents all about the fun they'd had that day. It was the parents that complained to the ministry and forced her to be arrested. Now think about that for a second and you'll see how twisted it really is.
Religion starts in the home. It was those same parents that took those same kids to the mosque and indoctrinated them with the name of Mohammed. It was those same parents that taught those same kids to revere the name of Mohammed. It was those same parents that taught those same kids that Mohammed is a hero and his life is the model on which you should build your own life. It is those same parents who will probably call their first born male child, Mohammed. Is it any wonder then that when a teacher says "what will we name this little teddy bear", that every kid in the class says "MOHAMMED!"
It's the parents that deserve the lashings here, not the teacher.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Nuts anyone?
From "The Age" 26/11/2007:
TONY Blair has sparked controversy by claiming that religious people who speak about their faith are viewed by society as "nutters".
Well, that's as it should be, so what's the problem?
The former prime minister's comments came as he admitted for the first time that his faith was "hugely important" in influencing his decisions...
Oh I see, he's embarrassed about it. Well, that's as it should be too. But it seems the poor boy doesn't want to be embarrassed about it...
Mr Blair complained that he had been unable to follow the example of US politicians, such as President George Bush...
Hang about! I thought he did a pretty good job of following Georgey boy around while he was ensconced at No. 10, at least he seemed to.
...in being open about his faith because people in Britain regard religion with suspicion.
Oh I see, he wants to be able to use his office to evangelise, or am I reading to much into this?
Peter Mandelson, one of Mr Blair's confidants, said the former premier "takes a Bible with him wherever he goes" and reads it last thing at night.
There you go. The man's a complete nutbag, so that pretty much explains it. He would like to evangelise, is using his current celebrity to do so, albeit in a circumspect manner and he would like to have been able to use his previous office to do the same thing, or so it would seem. Shame on you Mr. Blair and big well done to the British for having a general attitude toward religion that precluded him from doing so.
But the article continues:
His comments.....have been welcomed by leading church figures, who have warned of the rise of secularism pushing religion to the margins of society.
If that's true (I'm not a Brit, my mum is so I take an interest), another well done to the British people, please keep up the good work and set us colonials a good example. But I don't see any need for warning here, do you? A warning generally means there's some kind of danger, if lower crime rates, less teen pregnancy, less transmission of STD's, etc is the result (see here), then what's the problem? Well there's more:
The Most Reverend John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss that faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."
Give me a break. A greater need to highlight some completely sordid history of bigotry, state sanctioned violence, witch hunts, heretical crimes and the various torturous pass times of some of the "greatest" popes and kings? I don't think so. And I hate to have to remind the old boy but we don't so much regard it as a "private affair" as a complete lunacy.
Now I'm as reasonable as the next man and I'm quite happy to admit that when I became an apostate I felt just a little embarrassed at having been duped all those years, not mention a little annoyed at all the wasted time, effort and money, so I can understand Tony's dilemma. But let me reassure him, and any other bishops or clergymen that may read this, that the secularist community will welcome you without so much as a hint of scorn, there really is no need to be embarrassed at all. I can say from personal experience that there is only one group that will ridicule and insult you for your decision and it will include but will not be exclusive to, the congregation of the church you once attended.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Bennelong time...
Since the incumbent Prime Minister has lost his seat in an election (see what I did? Damn I'm funny...). Nearly 80 years they said, so I thought I'd do a little digging and see if I could find the history and lo and behold, I learned something new.
The last time it happened was in 1929. The Prime Minister was Bruce, Stanley Melbourne, Viscount of Melbourne and he lived from 1883 - 1967. He was Australia's eighth Prime Minister, a decorated war hero and came to be Prime Minister in 1923, our second youngest at the age of 40.
It happened because after the 1922 election, Hughes couldn't form a majority and the Country Party had refused, yet again, to form a coalition so Hughes recommended Bruce for the job. Bruce was a shrewd politician and managed to concede 5 of the 11 portfolios to Sir Eagle Page who was then quite happy to see the merit of a coalition between the National Party (currently called the "Liberal Party") and the Country Party (later to become the "National Party"). So it was that the first priority of Bruce's incumbency was maintaining the coalition.
His entire incumbency was plagued by industrial relations issues though. He wanted to build a federal system of arbitration and he didn't like unions at all, so much so that he applied to have a few of them decommissioned. He had so much trouble in this area that the Nationalist premiers (his own party) got together in 1928 and agreed to "insist on the Commonwealth vacating the field of arbitration." His solution was a complete back flip and a bill to abolish the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which upset quite a few within his party so he offered to stand aside for Latham. Latham insisted that the bill go forward but the damage was done and on October 22 the following year (1929), Bruce ceased to be Prime Minister because he lost his seat.
So there you go Johnny. You should have looked a little further back, past Menzies which is obviously where you got stuck, and learnt a little about your own party's history. It looks to me like there's almost a correlation between draconian industrial relations policies and the current incumbent losing his seat.
