The widening gyre...

The Australian: Two-thirds believe terrorist hit more likely [March 23, 2004]

No fooling us aussies!

TWO-THIRDS of voters believe Australia's involvement in the Iraq war has increased the chances of a terror attack, in a rebuke to the Howard Government's national security credentials just months from an election.

*Cough* children overboard... *cough* .... weapons of mass destruction...

Read on: The Australian: Two-thirds believe terrorist hit more likely [March 23, 2004]

Dispatches from the 'state the bloody obvious' department

From the Age:

Australian interests overseas and foreign interests here were at increased risk of a terrorist attack because of the Iraq war, the nation's top spy said today.

Read on: Iraq raises terror risk: ASIO - National - www.theage.com.au

The Australian: Poll defeat will only encourage militants [March 16, 2004]

The Spain election is a terrifying inducement to extremists the world over - more than mere "terror", Spain proves that a well timed strike can have a major political impact. Even moving beyond the result, it seems that the newly elected Spanish government has indicated that it will scale back ties with the US. In doing so, they are providing terrorists with the incentive to attack again - and there are a lot of elections coming up in the not too distant future...

On this issue, Greg Sherindan writes in the Australian:

Assuming al-Qa'ida was behind the Madrid bombings, imagine the incentive effect of the election result inside Terror Zero, the cave where Osama bin Laden presumably sits with his remaining lieutenants..... Two other things. Osama bin Laden in an audio tape broadcast last October predicted there would be attacks on Australia as well as Spain. The other sobering reality is that Western intelligence had no inkling in advance of this attack at all.

Read on: The Australian: Poll defeat will only encourage militants [March 16, 2004]

The Australian: Brian Harradine: Redefine wedlock at children's peril [March 09, 2004]

The enlightened Brian Harradine weighs into the Gay Marriage debate....

"Agreeing to same-sex marriage would confirm the desire of adults to choose a family format to suit them as more important than children's needs to have a mother and a father. It would endorse a deliberately motherless or a fatherless family. It would mean our community has no interest in whether children have a mother and a father. .... Governments should not change marriage to meet the demands of lobby groups. They should instead be looking to strengthen marriage through better education, counselling and taxation relief. We all lose by erosion of the status of marriage, but the biggest losers are those who most need our protection - our children".

Some questions that need to be answered...
1. why does the gay marriage issue necessarily effect children?
2. what of childless married people then?
3. why does allowing some people to get married have any real impact on more "conventional" marriages?
4. why not allow Gay people to get married if it results in a more stable union for those people?

These key questions aren't really answered in Harradine's bundle of assertions. This is indicative of how little reasoning often goes into many people's attacks on gay marriage / gay adoption.

Thankfully Harradine is man enough to admit that he doesn't "agree with the lifestyle":

Now, I have a genuine concern for the wellbeing of people in a same-sex sexual relationship. I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I recognise that ultimately adults are able to make personal choices.

It seems that sentiments such as this are what really underpin many of the arguments on this issue. They really don't like homosexuality (even if begrudgingly accepting that adults have a right to choose), and they are scared that any legal recognition of same sex marriage would result in greater societal acceptance of gay people.

On another note, it is very interesting that Harradine regards homosexuality as a "personal choice", which again seems to highlight his lack of understanding on the issue.

As I have alluded to in previous posts, one wonders why the government would seek to limit people's personal choices in a situation where there is very little demonstrable harm from those choices. I do believe that stable families / relationships are something a government should encourage (to the limited extent that they can) - but for me that seems to be a reason to encourage gay marriages.

Read on: The Australian: Brian Harradine: Redefine wedlock at children's peril [March 09, 2004]

The Australian: Howard considers gay adoption ban [March 08, 2004]

An interesting announcement from "lets look after the kids" Howard:

THE Howard Government is considering deploying its little-used power over territories to ban homosexuals adopting children in the national capital.

If Howard was really interested in helping children, why not focus on the legions of deadbeat parents littering our nation? Why focus on a relatively small group of people, with no demonstrable evidence of potential for harm? This smacks of the usual appeals to prejudice that have helped Howard through difficult times throughout his government.

This is almost as absurd as Mr. Bush's recent attacks on gay marriage. He has gone as far as spending taxpayer's money on promotional campaigns to "defend the institution of marriage". What is he so scared about? How is his an Laura's union rendered less meaningful because some homosexuals want to cement their relationship with a public display of commitment and / or with a contract re: property assignment? Clearly there isn't much basis for that argument. Is the implicit argument that because gays are so promiscuous, that the monogomous principles of marriage would be undermined due to such promiscuous people being labelled "married"? Is it, partially, as Alan Anderson argues, an issue of proper use of language (the meaning of marriage is a union between a man and a woman)?

To both Howard and Bush - why waste energy on issues like this, which at worst cause minimal harm to society (I would have thought that effectively labelling gays as second class citizens not deserving of such rights was much much more harmful!), when pressing social concerns go unaddressed? On any level the issue doesn't seem to really warrant their attention, even if they really believe the drivel that they are selling.

Clearly both of their efforts are aimed at mining the base prejudice that they often call on from their less enlightened constituents. It saddens me immensely that it works time and time again.

Read on: The Australian: Howard considers gay adoption ban [March 08, 2004]

The Australian: National missile shield too expensive [March 08, 2004]

Is anyone really suprised with the above assessment? Even if we could afford it, technological developments could make the implemented technology obsolite before too long. This technology is unproven, and the US testing so far doesn't appear to be too promising - it seems a massive risk for Australia to take.

Read on: The Australian: National missile shield too expensive [March 08, 2004]

The Australian: Costello stirs up backlash [March 08, 2004]

This Howard / Costello issue can't help with the Liberals' current momentum issues. One has to feel just a bit sorry for ol' Pete' - it really does seem that he expected Howard to step aside, but the old man just wants to hang on! I am sure that there is a lot of pressure in the party for Howard to stay - many must question whether Costello will be marketable (he seems a bit too smirky for most) in the way that Howard has been.

Read on: The Australian: Costello stirs up backlash [March 08, 2004]

Plans to chop Radio National - National - www.theage.com.au

Noooooooooooo! Read on: Plans to chop Radio National - National - www.theage.com.au

Vital questions we never thought to ask - OpinionRossGittins - www.smh.com.au

Ross Gittins has an interesting article today in the Sydney Morning Herald, an extract below:

Unfortunately, there's no worse place for serious issues to be debated than in election campaigns. Matters are hugely oversimplified, laughably exaggerated claims are made, people and policies are ruthlessly demonised.

He discusses the differences between the coalition and Labor in relation to the sale of economic management skills and priorities. It focuses on Latham's "more than economics" stance and Howard's "dangerous complacency" statement about our current prosperity. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Read on: Vital questions we never thought to ask - OpinionRossGittins - www.smh.com.au

Nader to run for president as independent - Feb. 22, 2004

I cannot believe that Nader is doing this again!! It is a pretty strongly held belief among many democrats that Nader cost Gore the last election, a theory which doesn't seem too far off the mark. If Nader is really interested in achieving environmental outcomes, surely he wouldn't wish to take strategic steps that make it more likely that Bush will be returned. Nader argues that the major parties are all in the pockets of the corporations, which may be the case, but surely the dems are a lesser evil? Didn't they support Kyoto? Didn't they oppose drilling Alaska?

My view - Nader is a damn fool and has a hell of a lot to answer for. Hopefully those who would otherwise vote democrat will realise this and look past Nader and cast their vote in a manner that may achieve some environmental outcomes.

Read on: CNN.com - Nader to run for president as independent - Feb. 22, 2004