Merry Christmas thoughts

Today as it is a funny type of Christmas Day - not your hot sunny Christmas day of the Travel & postcard type but somewhat soggy and wet. So as I sit playing with the new bluetooth keyboard on my iPad and muse how sometimes the tested things are the best my thoughts are floating about several ideas.

Having tried to type with my thumbs on my iPad Screen at any kind of speed I have now ditched the idea of doing any serious kind of typing on screen and returned to the imperfect world of the QWERTY keyboard which while also not a perfect device does provide the ability to use more than two fingers (or in my case just Mr Pointer). Amusing that the QWERTY was actually designed with the keys arranged the way they are in an effort to slow the would be speed demon female typists of the early 20th century so the would not gum the works of mechanical type-weiters. Amusing because the human spirit as it always does adapted and found it could touch type and thwart the QWERTY design. Now the why is lost and what we find is we can't do without the QWERTY design.

How does this relate to Christmas? Well its the same story in some ways it can be that religion does not alway live up to expectation but at least the spirit is right and it kind of gets us there in the end - so much so that one is left to thinking well I can't just keep typing with my thumbs?

Merry Christmas one and all... and a happy new year. Lets make it a good one.

Ashby Gate: Abbott says no need for " witch-hunt"!

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says there is no need for an inquiry into the collapsed case against former speaker Peter Slipper where the judge found outrageous behavior by many who had more than a passing connection with the LNP. Abbott claims such an inquiry "would only end up as a "witch-hunt"" and he might know having conducted a few in the last year or so? One is tempted to ask if the concern arises only because of the like subject(s) of the inquiry.

Abbott was speaking for the first time since a Federal Court judge Rares ruled that the sexual harassment case, brought against Mr Slipper by staffer James Ashby, was an abuse of process designed to cause "significant public, reputational and political damage".

It was interesting to note that many LNP ministers and members previously present and opinionated on the matter were today absent or if available not answering the real questions. No brandishing legalities from Senator Brandi's, no needling from there redoubtable Pyne - just that kind of feeling that if they just shut up it will be gone after Christmas.

Given that Justice Rares has made clear he Machievalian nature of this conspiracy saying he believed the case "was designed to further the political interests of the Liberal National Party (LNP) and Mal Brough, who has been preselected as the Coalition's candidate in Mr Slipper's Sunshine Coast electorate of Fisher". ... there is need for an inquiry, a proper inquiry and one not run, created and decide by the LNP and it's friendly press.

Judgement in Slipper Case Sees Ashby Claims held to be "Abuse of Process"

Yesterday (12 December 2012) Justice Rares of the Federal Court of Australia handed down his judgement in Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 4) [2012] FCA 1411. The judgement has thrown out Ashby's sexual harassment claims in an emphatic judgement which among other things found: “that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. "

Justice Rares found that the "originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper". The judge then questioned various claims saying they "contained the scandalous and irrelevant 2003 allegations and assertion about intended reporting of the Cabcharge allegations to the police."

Finally, Justice Rares concluded that to "allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper."

The key facts

The case was an application by Peter Slipper MP and former Speaker to have the proceedings brought against him by Ashby dismissed or stayed as an abuse of the process of the Court.

The key contention was that an abuse had arisen because the Court's process was employed for an “ulterior or improper purpose, or in an improper way, or in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right thinking people”.

It was further alleged by Slipper that Ashby had an “improper, predominant purpose for commencing and pursuing … proceedings that he commenced on 20 April 2012 by filing his originating application”.

Ashby accepted a position as an adviser on Slipper's official staff shortly after Slipper became Speaker of the House of Reps in controversial circumstance in 2011, Slippper also resigning his position as a member of the opposition Liberal National Party and sitting as an independent. As a result of this Slipper was then facing a possible challenge for pre-selection for his seat by Mal Brough a former Howard Government minister.

Ashby made serious allegations against Slipper as follows:

- that he had sexually harassed Ashby in the course of his employment verbally, in text messages, and on one occasion, by stroking his arm in his office;

- that in 2003 Slipper had relationship of a sexual nature with a younger male member of his staff and an encounter between them had been recorded on a video. A viewer of the video had concluded that the relationship depicted was consensual; and

- that Ashby had been forced on three occasions in late January to mid February 2012 to watch Mr Slipper sign multiple Cabcharge vouchers during his employment and hand them to the driver of a vehicle in which they both travelled and that Ashby intended to report these matters to the AFP.

In response Slipper alleged Ashby had “commenced and prosecuted the proceedings in a manner that was seriously and unfairly burdensome, prejudicial and damaging” to him.
Slipper further alleged that Ashby brought and continued the proceedings in combination with one or more co-workers on his staff and Mr Brough and a News Ltd journalist, a media consultant (Anthony McClellan), his solicitor (Michael Harmer and Harmers Workplace Lawyers), for an improper predominant purpose. Finally, Slipper alleged that Ashby had brought and continued the proceedings, for the predominant purpose of forming a political attack on Slipper to aid the Liberal National Party and or Mr Brough so that Ashby and Doane would be able to find new employment with the help of the LNP.

Justice Rares Conclusions

All Quotes below are from the summary of case.

Justice Rares concluded that Ashby's primary consideration in launching proceedings was political and not for redress of a wrong and as such an abuse of process.
To quote “I have reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby's predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists."

“I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.”

“Sexual harassment of anyone, including an employee such as Mr Ashby, is a violation of the person's human dignity and rights. The Court must always be available for the hearing and determination of bona fide proceedings to vindicate and protect those rights. But for the reasons I have given, Mr Ashby's pre-dominant purpose in bringing the proceedings was not a proper one.”

On Slipper's argument of a wider conspiracy which would have included a News Ltd journalist and Ashby’s legal team, Justice Rares did not find such a wide conspiracy existed. He did find collusion at the level of Ashby, Doane and Brough.

“Even though I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged in his points of claim, the evidence established that Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough. "

Justice Rares concluded: "Accordingly, I am satisfied that the exceptional situation that enlivens the Court's power to dismiss proceedings as an abuse has been proved to the heavy standard required. The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings with costs.”

Comment

This decision is on the one hand a victory for law over lynch mobs. On the other proof that even with a less interested in fact media the truth and justice find a way into the public domain. Serious questions now arise to be answered by he likes of Mal Brough, the people who mentored this in the Liberal National Party who mentored the claims and most of all the leader of the opposition in terms of what he knew of the collusion and what he will do with respect to Mal Brough now an endorsed Liberal candidate.

The 'Daily' Tablet Newspaper to Stop: Murdoch Pulls Plug

In a year that can not be called a winner for the Murdoch brand (don't mention the phone tapping) the Murdoch empire has announced that it will shut down its purpose built tablet app "The Daily". The reason being given is a lack of readers. ABC reports that "Murdoch's News Corporation has announced it will cease publication of its iPad app, The Daily, from December 15, due to a lack of readers." - the virtual newspaper was launched in February 2011.

On its launch The Daily was described by Murdoch as "exclusively designed for touchscreen tablets and costing 99 cents a week or $39.99 a year - a bold experiment.

On its demise Murdoch is quoted "Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long term."

At its peak The Daily was believed to have reached 100,000 paying subscribers contrasting with Murdoch's reported expectation when launching the digital paper that it would need to recruit 500,000 readers a week to break even. In July, he announced it would cut 29 per cent of its staff, or 50 employees.

One identified failing was that The Daily was initially designed to work on Apple's iPad tablet, and only later made available for some Android devices and smartphones. Many said that relying on the Apple platform turned out to be a mistake, limiting its appeal and market.

Another failing is to quote reports - "Research has since shown that tablet owners are 'digital omnivores' who consume media seamlessly across tablets, smartphones, PCs and print publications. To serve them news on only one platform is not satisfying."

Indeed it would seem to any observer that Murdoch has tried to meet the shifting tastes for news provided by the ability to obtain it from many sources with an old world model based on the print newspaper enhanced by technology and flashing lights. To this observer it seems little wonder that The Daily has failed.

Another issue is that we now live in an age of aggregation and "freemium" news and information which is quick and easy to obtain in many ways - for example, Google and in particular Google News, Twitter where I can follow like minded people who point and lead me to the stuff I want to read or even directly from the source of the news as in a government sites, associations site etc. It would seem the greatest threat to print media lies in the adherence to old business models and a failure to realize that people no longer pay in the traditional way (subscription for example) and further, even if there is a bill at the end, they want to get quite a good deal for free - at least enough to get so hooked that they will happily pay a small amount in ever increasing quantity to keep the supply (one reason Apps have become such a pervasive way of delivering software, ads and information).

It will be interesting to see what Murdoch does next with respect to print media but whatever it is it will require more innovation and entirely different business model.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Introduced to Parliament

The much awaited National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2012 the legislation which establishes the framework for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency was introduced into the Federal Parliament on the last sitting day of the year (Thursday 29 November 2012).

The main effect of the legislation is that it will enable the NDIS scheme to be launched and the Agency to operate that launch in five sites across Australia from July 2013.

The press has quoted the Prime Minister as saying that the legislation is “a once in a generation opportunity” to change the treatment of less able citizens in Australia. The scheme is expected to cost about $15 billion a year when it is fully implemented in either 2018 or 2019, an amount that has been criticised by the opposition and those against the scheme as being beyond the capacity of the Australian economy to fund.

The legislation sets out the process for a person becoming a participant in the scheme. It also details how participants can develop a personal, goal-based plan with the Agency and how reasonable and necessary supports will be assured to participants. People in the scheme will be able to decide for themselves how to manage their care and support and choose how they want to manage their supports.
Additionally participants will be able to access assistance from local coordinators should they require help.

The legislation also provides that the Agency will be responsible for the provision of support to people with disability, their families and carers. This could include providing funding to individuals and organisations to help people with disability participate more fully in economic and social life. An independent review of the new Act commencing after two years of operation will be legislated through this Bill.

The first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme will on the governments estimates cost the Commonwealth $1 billion over four years from 2012-13.

While this is only a first stage it is pleasing to see action and efforts beyond rhetoric to finally deliver a national scheme.

Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 passed awaiting assent

The Legislation amends the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 giving effect the government says to a 2010 election campaign commitment to support gender equality and improve workforce participation and workplace flexibility, through retaining and improving the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999.

For starters the amending law changes the name of the principal Act to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 and the reason given for the change is to emphasise that the focus of the Act is on gender equality and seeking to improve outcomes for both women and men in the workplace.

The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency will also undergo a name change to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. The title of the Director of the Agency will also change to the Director of Workplace Gender Equality, to reflect the new focus of the Act.

The principal objectives of the current law are amended to reflect the new focus of the Act being, to promote and improve gender equality in the workplace, with specific recognition of equal remuneration, family and caring responsibilities as issues central to the achievement of gender equality.

The passage of the legislation in the last week has been praised by commentators as “a significant improvement on its predecessor, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999’. Helen Conway, the director of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, is quoted as saying “it represents a more contemporary approach to the issue of discrimination, particularly in relation to family and caring responsibilities”.

Kate Galloway (a senior law lecturer at James Cook University and PhD candidate at Melbourne University) in article (first appearing in Women's Agenda republished by SmartCompany) writes:

“I am undecided in my views on this change.

On the one hand, I have long been suspicious of the default position linking childcare with women's child-rearing responsibilities. Affordable and accessible quality childcare is widely recognised as essential to women's full civic participation, including in the paid work force. …

What if we reframed the issue of childcare to focus on children, instead of women? Should we not be challenging the implicit assumption that women alone will take time off to care for infants and young children? And the assumption that women alone should arrange and pay for childcare? I think the new legislation heralds the potential to break this deep-seated assumption.”

Read the full article here

More about the legislation here

Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012 close to passing

Yet another piece of corporate regulation is ready to see the light of day as the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Bill 2012 has passed through all its parliamentary stages and is awaiting assent.

The legislation will enact measures that implement commitments made by the Australian Government and other G20 nations regarding the regulation of what are known as over-the-counter derivatives ('OTC?') for which there is a very substantial global market. for example at the end-2011 the Bank for International Settlements reported that total notional amount outstanding for OTC derivatives worldwide was $648 trillion. The global financial crisis highlighted structural deficiencies in the OTC derivatives market and the systemic risks that those deficiencies can pose for wider financial markets and the real economy.

In many countries, these structural deficiencies contributed to the build-up of large, insufficiently risk-managed, counterparty exposures between some market participants in advance of the global financial crisis; and a lack of transparency about those exposures for market participants and regulators. At the 2009 G20 summit, the Australian Government joined other nations in committing to substantial reforms to practices in the trading of the OTC derivatives market.

The three key G20 commitments the Government says this legislation addresses are the:

• reporting of OTC derivatives to trade repositories;


• clearing of standardised OTC derivatives through central counterparties; and


• execution of standardised OTC derivatives on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate.

The effect of acting the commitments are according to the Government the:

• increased transparency in the OTC derivatives market for regulators, market participants and the public; and


• a reduction in counterparty credit risks and operational risks associated with OTC derivatives.

The Bill proposes to amend various financial laws including the

• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998,


• Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001,


• the Corporations Act 2001,


• the Mutual Assistance in Business Regulation Act 1992, and the


• Reserve Bank Act 1959


• to establish a legislative framework to implement the regulation of OTC derivatives reforms.

Once the Bill is assented it is intended to take effect on the 28th day after the Act receives Royal Assent. It should however be noted that while the amendments commence 28 days after assent, ASIC’s derivative transaction rule making power will not be enlivened unless and until the has Minister prescribes a derivative class in respect of one or more of the trade reporting, clearing or execution mandates.

In the second reading speech the minister also indicates that while trade repository licensing applications may be lodged from the date of commencement, subject to prescription or approval of the relevant form, ASIC would be unable to satisfy itself of the criteria for granting a licence until derivative trade repository rules setting out the operational requirements of a licensee are finalised. Prohibitions on the other hand will apply from the date of commencement on a person holding themselves out to be a licensed or prescribed facility for the purpose of any of the three mandates, when they are not a licensed or prescribed facility. Prohibitions on operating an unlicensed trade repository will only come into effect once regulations are made providing that specified classes of trade repository must be licensed.

Uniform Anti-discrimination is not a Free Speech Issue

At last some attempt at the Federal level is to be made to create effective and cohesive anti-discrimination laws. Much discussed in the last two years, the Attorney General has this week released draft legislation consolidating the five separate pieces of Federal anti-discrimination legislation into a single Act to be called Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Act.

Although the law is yet to be introduced into Parliament, consultation closed earlier this year and the draft bill will cover issues and problems like:

1. Defining the levels of protections to the highest current standard, to resolve gaps and inconsistencies without diminishing protections.


2. Clearer and more efficient laws provide greater flexibility in their operation, with no substantial change in practical outcome.


3. Enhancing protections where the benefits outweigh any regulatory impact.


4. Voluntary measures that business can take to assist their understanding of obligations and reduce occurrences of discrimination.


5. A streamlined complaints process, to make it more efficient to resolve disputes that do arise.

This new legislation is aimed at a unified response to discrimination across Australia.

Already debate from some of the more predictable quarters has attacked the proposed law as an example of the Labor government attacking free speech. These glib critics refer to the Bolt Case and continue to argue that someone who attacks a persons race in forums where the people he attacks have no equal chance to respond or reply is exercising free speech. And they might be right if you equate "unfettered speech" and "free speech" but they are not the same. Free speech is a democratic right that comes with the responsibility not to have it abused unlike unfettered speech which has no rules and creates a jungle of abuse and innuendo without redress or defense.

Whose photo is it anyway? Privacy of subjects of photography subjects

“Australia must begin to seriously consider the law-reform question of how best to protect the private rights of photographed subjects.”

Or so says an article by Jessica Lake a doctoral student at Melbourne University in her thesis “Privacy and the Pictures”. The article after making interesting comments on the development of privacy law issues with respect to photographs. (particularly photos of women), looks at the use and misuse of pictures in Social Media like Facebook and at issues around images of women as they have developed in the US.

As Lake points out “One approach is to tackle ‘privacy’ law reform, but we could also look more closely at the operation of property law, particularly copyright, that automatically awards rights to an image to the photographer" rather "than the individual photographed"?

Indeed why shouldn't a ‘scantily clad’ woman be able to assert property rights for images of herself taken without permission. To quote Lake this anomaly "seem to remain so inexhaustibly fascinating?” Indeed even where the scantly clad woman is a future monarch of England caught without consent in a private moment.

The notion that people's photographic images can be used freely without little or no right to protest or prevent it seems a gross oversight by the legal system. Certainly property law in the form of copyright rather than pivacy law would seem to offer a better solution. Property being held by the subject of the photograph rather than the photographer is a solution to the problem of images being misused.

Guilt by Association Can Get You Sued: Google and Defamation

An Australian jury has found Google liable for damages following on a successful defamation action by a Melbourne man who argued that he had been defamed by the Search engine after it linked him wrongly to gangland crime. The man aged 62 claimed Google’s web and image search results had caused damage to his reputation such as to give rise to his action. The 62 year old  had already won a related case against Yahoo.

The facts giving rise to the case occurred in 2004, when the man was shot in the back by a man wearing a balaclava (a crime which was never solved). As a result of the attack a Google search for the man brings up images of other people who appeared in news reports and the man claims the pictures show murderers and a drug trafficker which could lead users to believe he was a criminal and could injure his reputation.

As a result of the suit Google was forced to cough up more than $200,000 in damages.

This case is certainly an interesting development and could open many other plausible assaults on the Google and other search engine providers, especially in these days when the first place people seek information about you is in a search engine like Google, Yahoo, Seek or even social media sites like Facebook and Linked Inn.

It becomes interesting to consider at what point in the context of the internet is the individual responsible for his fate and at what point does the Internet Service, Search Engine or Service become liable.

There is No Such Thing as a Private Remark

"What these continual eruptions are doing is they are putting people on notice that there is no such thing as a private remark anymore."

The above is a quote from a comment by Media Expert Jane Caro on the backlash that has recently been heaped on shock jock Alan Jones when he went too far even for him and the residents of Sydney or "Jones Town" reacted mostly through social media to let him know that his trashing of the female Prime Minister had gone to far.

The point is that people who make a public living out of public speaking need to realize that no matter how small the audience no matter how partisan the crowd it is no longer as easy or possible to brush off or play down what is or might have been said. Now by way of a smart phone all present at such speaking events have access to a camera and a recording device and the means to upload and make such supposedly "private comments" making them matters of publicly recorded fact in minutes,

In other words the days when the shock jock or the politician was the only one with access to the ability to publish are long gone. As Mitt Romney the US Republican Candidate recently discovered you may think you are talking to a room where you think none of the 47% you consider don't care for your views are not listening but you can be very certain they will hear about it these days.

People often talk about greater accountability for social media but in my view social media in a way is promoting greater accountability, It is requiring people in the public eye to exercise greater caution not through fear of inane industry regulation but through fear of public opinion and social retribution through posts to Twitter, Facebook and more and more places evolving on the web. It will be interesting to see how these trends develop.

The Smoke of War

"Blue is the Smoke of War,
White the Bones of Man”

…a haiku by Japanese 3rd century poet Pu Ui captures in a few words the desolation and the stench of war in few words and large images. It proves that throughout history there has never be a grand our purposeful battle, a war that could be viewed with favour.

Likewise Herotdous the Greek historian captured the cost of war when he writes …

"Peace is when sons bury fathers; War is when fathers bury sons..”

These are words of relevance these few days after five more Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. Again this conflict that was intended to be a quickly carried out mission to capture Bin Ladin has now drawn out 10 years and gone far past it's original purpose. A purpose completed last year in Pakistan (a completely different country) last year by US soldiers not involved in Afgahnistan. It seems fair to ask wh is his conflict continuing? Are we like the Russians before us deluding ourselves thinking Afgahnistan is a place that can be westernized and tamed into a Western style democracy. Will Australia linger with the Americans so long in Afgahnistan that it will see the same result for its efforts as was sen in Vietnam - a loss of face and embarrassing withdrawal having to admit defeat.

Time to end it!
This long and protracted war was never intended to continue for the ten long years. To some it may seem like some form of back down to say its time to leave but for many who recall prior and like encounters, for example: Korea and Vietnam it is exactly the kind of stubbornness that persists to the bitter end that cost even more in needless waste of life and loss of belief in democracy,

When the Tide Turns

There is a story about the English King who stood at the edge of the ocean and spoke to the rising tide ordering it to go back from where it came. This was done by the wise king because he wanted to show his subjects that some things are even beyond the power of kings to turn back,

Yet it seems the leadership of our nation believe that it is not only plausible to regulate the tide of humanity seeking lives better than those they escaped in their own lands. They believe that being less than humane and imprisoning people in detention centers will stem the tide of refugees. The reality is that it will not. Many will simply take the view that being in a detention centre simply puts them one step closer to their desired place of refuge and they will continue to come any way. They know that as it did before under the Howard Government detention on Nauru will simply result in the eventual granting of entry to Australia.

Onshore processing and quick open treatment of asylum seekers is the right and decent way to handle asylum seekers. It's what we agreed to under our international treaty obligations and we as our nation should honor our agreements.

The Lost Xmas Episode of the X Filles

I always loved the premise of the X Files most of all because the show took itself so seriously. This is a really funny send up of it which I have posted before but thought it was worth a rerun:

Mulder: We're too late. It's already been here.

Scully: Mulder, I hope you know what you are doing.

Mulder: Look, Scully, just like the other homes: Douglas fir, truncated, mounted, transformed into some sort of shrine; halls decked with boughs of holly; stockings hung by the chimney, with care.

Scully: You really think someone's been here?

Mulder: Someone or some thing.

Scully: Mulder, over here--it's fruitcake.

Mulder: Don't touch it! Those things can be lethal.

Scully: It's O. K. There's a note attached: "Gonna find out who's naughty and nice. "

Mulder: It's judging them, Scully. It's making a list.

Scully:Who? What are you talking about?

Mulder: Ancient mythology tells of an obese humanoid entity who could travel at great speed in a craft powered by antlered servants. Once each year, near the winter solstice, this creature is said to descend from the heavens to reward its followers and punish its disbelievers with jagged chunks of anthracite.

Scully: But that's legend, Mulder - a story told by parents to frighten children. Surely, you don't believe it?

Mulder: Something was here tonight, Scully. Check out the bite marks on this gingerbread man. Whatever tore through this plate of cookies was massive - and in a hurry.

Scully: It left crumbs everywhere. And look, Mulder, this milk glass has been completely drained.

Mulder: It gorged itself, Scully. It fed without remorse.

Scully: But why would they leave it milk and cookies?

Mulder: Appeasement. Tonight is the Eve, and nothing can stop its wilding.

Scully: But if this thing does exist, how did it get in? The doors and windows were locked. There's no sign of forced entry.

Mulder: Unless I miss my guess, it came through the fireplace.

Scully: Wait a minute, Mulder. If you are saying some huge creature landed on the roof and came down the chimney, you're crazy. The flue is barely six inches wide. Nothing could get through there.

Mulder: But what if it could alter its shape, move in all directions.

Scully: You mean, like a bowl full of jelly?

Mulder: Exactly. Scully, I've never told anyone this, but when I was a child my home was visited. I saw the creature. It had long white strips of fur surrounding its ruddy, misshapen head. Its bloated torso was red and white. I'll never forget the horror. I turned away, and when I looked back it had somehow taken on the facial features of my father.

Scully: Impossible.

Mulder: I know what I saw. And that night it read my mind. It brought me a Mr. Potato Head,

Scully: IT KNEW I WANTED A MR. POTATO HEAD.

Scully: I'm sorry, Mulder, but you're asking me to disregard the laws of physics. You want me to believe in some supernatural being who soars across the skies and brings gifts to good little girls and boys. Listen to what you are saying. Do you understand the repercussions? If this gets out, they'll close the X-files.

Mulder: Scully, listen to me: It knows when you are sleeping. It knows when you're awake.

Scully: But we have no proof.

Mulder: Last year, on this exact date, S. E. T. I. radio telescopes detected bogeys in the airspace over twenty-seven states. The White House ordered a Condition Red.

Scully: But that was a meteor shower.

Mulder: Officially. Two days ago, eight prized Scandinavian reindeer vanished from the National Zoo in Washington, D. C. Nobody - not even the zookeeper - was told about it. The government doesn't want people to know about Project Kringle. They fear that if this thing is proved to exist, then the public would stop spending half its annual income in a holiday shopping frenzy. Retail markets will collapse. Scully, they cannot let the world believe this creature lives. There's too much at stake. They'll do whatever it takes to insure another silent night.

Scully: Mulder, On the roof. It sounds like... a clatter.

Mulder: The truth is up there. Let's see what's the matter..."

Eurovision a Quick Primer

Having been invited to my first Eurovision Song Contest Party I thought I'd do some quick research.

Apparently it all started in the 1950s. As part of rebuilding war-torn Europe the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), based in Switzerland, set up an ad-hoc committee to search for ways of bringing together the countries of the EBU around a "light entertainment program". At a committee meeting held in Monaco in January 1955, director general of Swiss television and committee chairman Marcel Bezençon conceived the idea of an international song contest where countries would participate in one television programme, to be transmitted simultaneously to all countries of the union.

The competition was to be similar to the existing Sanremo Music Festival held in Italy. It was seen also as a technological experiment in live television. In those days it was a very ambitious project to join many countries together in a wide-area international network. 

The concept, then known as originally as the "Eurovision Grand Prix", was approved by the EBU General Assembly in at a meeting held in Rome on 19 October 1955.

The first contest took place in spring 1956 in Lugano, Switzerland.

The current name "Eurovision" was first used in relation to the EBU's network by British journalist George Campey in the London Evening Standard in 1951.

As to who has won it the most? Surprisingly Ireland holds the record for the highest number of wins, having won the contest seven times—including three times in a row in 1992, 1993 and 1994.

France, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom are joint second with five wins.

Now that give me a little insight.

One way all men are Created Equal

Hearing and seeing the events that transpired in Federal Parliament the other day as the Member for Dobell stood up to speak for his political existence it was interesting to be a fly on the wall watching from a comfy spot in front of a television. It was worrying to realise during the speech how flimsy and lightly held the key principles on which our free society is based are are and how poorly defended they are by those charged with the responsibility of rising above their own base ambitions for power and success.

Regardless of how much or how little you may agree or disagree with Mr Thomson's defence, allegations or reason given in his explanation, one basic point was made and made quite validly, in the opinion of this writer and that is, the point that neither Parliament or the Media are the place for anyone to be tried, convicted and indeed found guilty. 


As the quote from Harper Lee's book To Kill a Mockingbird used by Mr Thomson states ". . . there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal – there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. […] Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal". 


In the case of Mr Thomson there has been:

Book Cover To Kill a Mockingbird

• no court involved, 
• no testing of evidence to any acceptable legal standard, 
• no judgement before an untainted open minded jury of reasonable men. 

There has only been a Fair Work report which has been criticised by all  for the time it took to produce, its quality and the many ways it leaves more questions open then it resolves. There have been no charges laid by any police authority and no charges based on any civil law or legislation. What has in fact come to pass is an almost unanimous taint of guilt liberally smeared by an opposition's belief  that its their best chance of bringing down a minority government;  a view supported by an equally self interested media wanting an early election because it's good for business.


From this has flowed an almost constant leaking of information to all corners of the media, information that is as yet unproven, unauthenticated information, documents and allegations by interested parties to a point where a fair defence for Mr Thomson in a proper legal sense has been rendered almost impossible. 


From this comes my view that basic rights like "habeas corpus", "the presumption of innocence" "equality before the law"  are from the situation of Mr Thomson shown to be  fragile and poorly defended as key concepts on which or legal system and free society are based. Like the treatment dealt out to certain Australians like those held as terror suspects by the US it seems that - how much our legal system is allowed to work for you - is more to do with the political ends of certain political parties and the media who support them than the notion that such concepts are not negotiable if democracy is to function properly. To quote Harper Lee again - "I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system – that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality."

Why Mining Magnates Should not have Political Power

Black Orchids

An Australian Associated Press (AAP) report of 18 May 2012 reports that botanists say that a flora survey of the Bimblebox nature reserve near Alpha in Queensland is worthy of preservation. That is contrary to the view of mining magnate Clive Palmer who wants to develop the area for mining. In Mr Palmer's view the "former grazing property that's been degraded by cattle over 40 years [is] not worth preserving".

Bimblebox Tree

Mr Palmer, AAP reports, plans to develop his multi-billion dollar China First coal mine on the nature refuge, near Alpha in central Queensland. The National Parks Association of Queensland on the other hand says it has completed a flora survey of the refuge and that the opposite is true. The association, a non-government organisation that promotes the preservation and expansion of national parks, says the survey found more than 220 different types of plants in two days.

Bimblebox Forrest

It will be interesting to see if this will be another case of mining winning over conservation, of non-science over science. No doubt Mr Palmer will be calling to mind his large contributions and support he has already made to the ruling Government of Queensland?

Provocative Time Cover: Hugo is not Alone

Here I am thinking that the four year old Hugo as was portrayed in the television series The Slap was an unusually different concept designed to shock by the author of the novel upon which the program was based. Then I see the cover of Time Magazine featuring a three year old still feeding from mum and discover how wrong I am in what I have thought.

Picture of Time Cover

Reading further I discover that this is part of a 20 year old notion called "attached parenting" which in addition to prolonged mammary based feeding encourages parents to attach themselves to their children in all manner of ways, for example, with slings, carry packs and like apparatus all in the name of bringing children closer to their parents, making them more entwined with them. This it is said will encourage more peaceful and more tranquil children, kids that are unlikely to be bullies at school or in latter life. This if true has great merit and should be encouraged but I would worry about the down side of the equation which may be more docile and dependant children who may lack a little in the areas of passion and ambition. Lack some of the things that make us strong and able to deal with life.

To quote the ABC article on Times Cover those for attached parenting say:
"There is almost no tantrum that I have not been able to soothe and calm down by holding my child in my arms and by breastfeeding them." - OR - "That's what it looks like; it's loving and it's beautiful and there's nothing creepy or weird about it."

But other American mothers who are not convinced say:
"My approach to parenting is surviving. Making it through every day with nobody hurt and everybody fed; maybe bathed if we're lucky..."

Time says "the very debate is proof the cover did its job" and I agree. It would be interesting to do one of those documentaries where they revisit these children in latter years to see how these kids grew up and whether the claims made for attached parenting panned out. Perhaps a scary thought is that one day we may see experts trained to detach an attached generation of pucker lipped children?

Political Correctness and other Verbage

Sometimes I am amused how people think that turning a well understood term or phrase into a sentence aids communication. Nor is it clear why such a process is believed to make harsh words easier to take. The very notion of "Political Correctness" is a misconception implying for example that it is some how wrong to tell a blind person he is blind and can't see but ok to be inaccurate and call them "visually challenged". Fact is blind people can't see and their real challenge is that and not anything visual, just coping with the darkness of being unable to see.

It seems to me if we paid more attention to being correct and less to being "politically correct" there'd be better communication and understanding.

This prompted by the following humorous PC list of possible alternate terms -

He does not have a FAT BEER GUT but has developed a LIQUID GRAIN STORAGE FACILITY.

He is not a CRAP DANCER but he is RHYTHMICALLY UNDER RESOURCED

The Librarian did not GET LOST IN HER OWN LIBRARY ALL THE TIME but she INVESTIGATES ALTERNATIVE DESTINATIONS.

He does not SLEEP AROUND its just that he is HORIZONTALLY OVER-GENEROUS.

He is not BALDING just in a state of FOLLICLE REGRESSION.

She is not a CRADLE SNATCHER she just prefers GENERATIONALLY DIFFERENTIAL. RELATIONSHIPS.

He does not get FALLING-DOWN DRUNK but he becomes ACCIDENTALLY HORIZONTAL.

He is not a MALE CHAUVINIST PIG but he is a SWINE EMPATHIZING BIGOT.

He is not afraid of COMMITMENT but he is MONOGAMOUSLY CHALLENGED.

He does not STINK but he has HYGIENE AVERSION SYNDROME.

He was not a GROPING PERVERT but suffers from COMPULSIVE HAND MOVEMENT DISORDER.

He is not OBSESSED WITH TELEVISED SPORTS but has AN ATHLETIC TELEVISUAL ADDICTION.

She does not IGNORE YOU but has ATTENTION SPAN DEFICIT DISORDER.

They are not a LAZY, MESSY SLOB they just LACK HAND-VACUUM COORDINATION.

He does not tell ENDLESS, BORING, UNFUNNY JOKES - He is HUMORLY OVER-CONFIDENT.

Its not not that they act like a TOTAL ASS they just developed a case of RECTAL-CRANIAL INVERSION.

"Premier State" or "State of Fear"

Once upon a time NSW use to be called the "Premier State" but if Channel Seven Sydney's "Today Tonight" is to believed it should be restyled the "State of Fear".

My goodness their main story tonight (30/4/2012) was that there are green fluorescent germ things lingering on every train door handle, train seat etc.

A germ fest waiting to kill you - or - more likely is it just more rabid paranoia being promoted by News Ltd favorite TV network?

Why has keeping people informed become an excuse for keeping us all in a constant "State of fear". It is almost like the people programing for these television stations have taken their strategy from the novel 1984.

Writing Tips of the Fun Kind

The following is a humorous list of writing tips:
1. Avoid alliteration. Always.
2. Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
3. Employ the vernacular.
4. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
5. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
6. Remember to never split an infinitive.
7. Contractions aren't necessary.
8. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
9. One should never generalize.
10. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know. "
11. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
12. Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
13. Be more or less specific.
14. Understatement is always best.
15. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
16. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
17. The passive voice is to be avoided.
18. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
19. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
20. Who needs rhetorical questions?
21. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
22. Don't never use a double negation.
23. capitalize every sentence and remember always end it with point
24. Do not put statements in the negative form.
25. Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
26. Proofread carefully to see if you words out.
27. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
28. A writer must not shift your point of view.
29. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (Remember, too, a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence with.)
30. Don't overuse exclamation marks!!
31. Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to the irantecedents.
32. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
33. If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
34. Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
35. Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
36. Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
37. Always pick on the correct idiom.
38. The adverb always follows the verb.
39. Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; They're old hat; seek viable alternatives."