Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

David, You write: "beware of conspiracy theories" Who imagines that this atrocity in Bali was not committed by conspirators? Certainly, the official version of events, as it is evolving, is very much a "conspiracy theory". I say this not to be pedantic. Participating in this discussion is not a game for me. Like all of us, I imagine, I want these atrocities to stop. I'd like culprits arrested and tried - with due process - so justice is done and also seen to be done. In the vernacular of GWB, I actually want the WoT to be won. But to do that, we must find out who is responsible for the cavalcade of violence. I don’t mean who is morally responsible, in an abstract manner. I mean who actually executes these murderous crimes – and who facilitates the crimes and gives the orders. If you squib discussion about what happened in Bali, implying that only the authorities' official stated view merits serious mention, you choke off precisely the role which the media should fulfill: that is, the role of an independent watchdog, sifting and evaluating the veracity of different narratives. You continue: "If we abandon the predominantly Hindu people of Bali because of the acts of fanatics we will only hurt them more.". What does this mean David? Would you take a different view if Bali was 'predominantly' Muslim? Reading your short article, it seems to me you have already decided what happened in Bali and who's responsible - and are inviting us to join the discussion as long as we share your premises. Personally, I don't know what happened last Saturday in Bali, or who's responsible. It would be remarkable if a Web Diary participant did. But I prefer to say so – explicitly. Furthermore, I don’t agree with attempts to pre-empt well-argued comment of any kind, whether or not it's in harmony with the "official conspiracy theory" de jour. More generally, here’s an appeal to Web Diary management... Can you please discourage at least your main authors from using the term 'conspiracy theory' in such a sloppy and misleading way. (I know the mainstream media does it all the time, but that doesn't make it right). The term came into popular usage some 40 years ago, and was used to refer to those who didn't believe the 'Lone Nut' theory in the JFK assassination case. Anyone who doubted the story that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone was called a conspiracy theorist (correctly), because the clear alternative was that a group of assassins (and/or participants in a cover-up) were involved. Now, because everyone "knew" in the 60s and 70s that LHO acted alone, "conspiracy theory" was used, by extension, to mean a truly loopy, silly, vacuous and incorrect theory. David's usage carries that connotation also. Just two problems... First, ALL theories about the Bali bombings are conspiracy theories of various types - the alternative theory, that it was the work of one individual, is not likely in the least given several simultaneous bombs went off in different locations. Second. many credible authorities, from Bertrand Russell onwards, believe the 'Lone Nut' theory of the Kennedy assassination was a crock of sh**, believable only if one suspends belief in the laws of physics. In other words, even in the JFK case, whence the term originated, much-maligned "conspiracy theorists" were, in all likelihood, right all along. Ed David: I've published this post in full, (but with fair warning that no responses at all on the JFK issue will be published except in the unlikely event that we open a debate on it), because I do want to answer Sid's general point without making his comment incomprehensible. Sid, you earlier tried to construct a case (which we didn't publish) that these couldn't possibly be suicide bombs because of rumours reported in an early report in the London Times that turned out to be provably- indeed visibly, on tonight's most played piece of news video - inaccurate. The injunction in my original statement is not designed to say that only the official versions are to be listened to, but it does say beware of theories that a rumour reported 8,000km away is bound to be more accurate than the evidence. And no, I wouldn't take a different view of the innocent people based on their religion, but I had felt that it was worth making the point that the coverage of the last few days had failed to deal with the extent to which the culture of Bali is separate from the rest of Indonesia.

John Henry Calvinist, Jane Doe, Noelene Konstandinitis, thanks for the positive feed back. I have been trying to get a better understanding of just what has shaped Australian Politics over the last thirty years. Where are the so called “intellectuals” of the left and right, getting their ideas? It was only by delving into the origins and policies of the Neocons that it began to make sense. My earlier comment was based on information I gathered doing background research on the Neocons, I began to realise just how close the policies of Howard and Beazley are to that of Bush. It is a frightening picture; Australia is squandering the profits of the resources boom, not investing in the future through education, infrastructure and health. We ignore the major threats of global warming and diminishing resources because they may be a problem for corporate profits. We give tax cuts to keep economic growth high. Our lack of imagination and investment in these key areas is dooming the next generation to poverty. Other smaller countries are making the investments necessary for example Norway. See Norway’s policy here: I feel sad when experienced politicians such as Mark Latham are discouraging young Australians from taking part in the political battle. The only way to change, by peaceful means is to get political support, we need the support of a good media to get the ideas on the table and we need to fill our youth with the passion it takes to bring about change. We can show the narrow minded that there is a better way. We must make love dominate over fear and hate.

"Conspiracy theories live on..."; indeed they do Linda Stanhope, the problem being how do we actually identify the true conspiracy as opposed to the imaginary? I wonder in which area the great WMD fiasco or "children overboard" events fall into?

Another awful tragedy, seemingly senseless death, but is it? Having heard George Pape from Chicago University on Melbourne's 774 ABC today was sobering. He first took apart the "these senseless religious loonies who want to destroy our way of life" argument (a support for the "they hate us so what can we do but declare war on them" logic) and then the "poor, starving, downtrodden people seeking justice" line. Something most of us writing and contributing to Web diary, and with an interest in the causes of terror, should pretty much be able to do ourselves. More interestingly he then (being a good political analyst) advanced a view that sees the terror coming out of confluences of interest and ideology between various groups, and then justified differently both before and after events, and differently by the bombers themselves and those who use them. The underlying thrust - al Qaeda ideological and strategic imperatives are a major source of choices of targets in Indonesia as much as elsewhere. While I would have thought destabilisation of Indonesia via impoverishment of Bali was a reasonable supposition of the terrorists aims, Pape, and yesterday David Wright-Neville, argued convincingly that Westerners in Bali would not be primary targets if this was the case. Westerners (or rather American allies) are targets because the bombings are still about the primary al Qaeda objection, interference and occupation by America and its allies in the Middle East. I am not going to take up a simplistic position here of advocating the immediate withdrawal of Australians from Iraq (though there can now be no doubt this would reduce the likelihood of Australia being a target), we now owe the Iraqis big time, and what we do next is a grave moral, as well as political, question. However perhaps it is not to much to ask (though even as I pose the question I know it obviously is) for Mr Howard to stop being a coward, and to stop lying, and simply come out and say, "These deaths are awful, we deplore them, and we mourn them, but we have declared a war and causalities, while not excusable, were inevitable. The deaths of these Australians must be seen in the same terms as, say, the deaths of Londoners in the Blitz (that should suit his Winston fantasies). We are at war and innocent people will die. I chose this course and I accept the cost." I mean it will probably even help his cause, dead civilians traditionally stiffen resistance and increase blood-lust, something that should be noted re the ongoing carnage in Iraq. But of course he won't, that level of honesty just isn't in him. That's why in the leadership stakes he'll always be remembered as a rodent, not a Lion.

The "unpublished" update at 6000 (not including 179 comments not for publication, duplicates etc): Banned for persistent abuse: 6 Three categories invented especially for Marilyn: Copyright violation: 1 Reams of unformatted text: 1 Incomprehensible: 1 Conspiracy theories: 40 Content-free, abusive: 71 - I will go back over the whole 6000 when I have a spare hour and divide these into the predominantly abusive and the merely content-free ... No, or obscene, name: 34 Total unpublished intended for publication: 154/6000: 2.57% [Math corrected!]

How come when one or two bombs go off in Bali we panic like whining children and say we all have to stay home but bombs go off every day of the week in Iraq and we send more and more people. It's time to grow up about this. Do you know Robert Fisk said that this would happen without a shadow of a doubt just hours before it did. Howard's claim that it is an attack on Indonesia's democracy is the most inane thing he has said about the so-called war on terrorism. During last century over 100 million people were killed in wars yet 25 or 30 or 200 killed in a few bombs send the world today into an absolute frenzy. I have been reading posts all day that say we have to punish these suicide bombers more. Just how do we think we might do that do you think?

I certainly don't accept the reasons the Prime Minister is giving for this latest outrage but I have none to offer myself. I do think it's one reason our intelligence services need to be overhauled and boosted. Better secret intelligence gathering may not be able to prevent these attacks but it's certainly better then the window dressing Howard is offering. Why is the AFP so intent on helping Bali jail a handful of bumbling Australian kids when there are real monsters out there to be caught ?. I've never been to Bali and I decided I never would after the Schapelle Corby debacle but it is popular with Aussies and from all I hear, the Balinese people are wonderful so I feel they need to be supported as much as possible in times like this. They probably matter little to the terrorist's cause and yet will suffer badly.

Jane Doe| 03/10/2005 1:29:15 PM: “The welfare changes and the IR proposals are legislative initiatives designed to produce a pool of low wage, low skilled, vulnerable and disorganised workers at the bottom of the social heap. Opposition to these changes will be met by appeals to people in the workforce to be aggrieved by the 'unfairness' of the ways in which people dependent of welfare are treated compared to those in work. This has started already, in an article by Peter Saunders in the Australian today, drawing invidious comparisons between Centrelink's treatment of 'recalcitrant' and disobedient welfare recipients compared to the trusty and self reliant workforce, who know they will be sacked if they miss work. One could write volumes about this misleading and dishonest comparison, but we shouldn't be distracted by wedging on these issues.” Jane, you make some interesting points in your post but I suspect that there is already “a pool of low wage, low skilled, vulnerable and disorganized workers at the bottom of the social heap” – and that this almost seems an inevitable product of a market economy (although I hasten to add that doesn’t make it right). Peter Saunders is also incorrect in that he states sole parents can remain on welfare benefits until their child turns 15 – it is actually 16. He is correct however in stating that often by that time the parent is unemployable if they haven’t taken proactive steps to improve their skills and general employability. You indicate that one shouldn’t be distracted by wedging on these issues – thus allowing you to ignore constructively commenting on Saunders statements – whilst still providing you leeway to dismiss them. In my view however, he does make some valid comments that many people will consider require debating. For example, do you agree with him that lower expectations are being applied to sole parents on welfare than normally applies to those who are working? If an employee fails to attend work w/o legitimate reason they may not be paid and depending on specific circumstances may lose their employment – isn’t that merely a statement of the obvious from Saunders? On the face of it the government push to encourage sole parents to move toward part-time work (at least) upon a child starting school would be something many would support. The take-up rate of employment by sole parents in Australia at present is low compared to many European countries. Where is the difficulty in stating (years ahead of the requirement) to a person on a sole parent payment that once their child turns school age they are expected to obtain p/t work? At present sole parents are generally advised of pending changes to their allowance several months before their sole or last child turns 16yoa – Centrelink does try to give advance notice. Such allowances do not just disappear overnight – the recipient is given ample notice of changes – how many employees get the same notice when their employer goes bankrupt? You also state: “What is the link between the current tax debate, and the proposals to push all welfare recipients (poor ones of course, not the recipients of Family Tax Payment B), onto the Newstart allowance which is less than the current payments for single parents and the disabled?” I was unaware that there is a push to have “all” welfare recipients moved onto Newstart allowance – where did you hear about this? Yes – eligibility for the DSP (for example) is being tightened – but I would be surprised if nil applicants were granted the disability pension.

Noelene all I was suggesting was that association with a political party is not necessarily indicative of bias. Unless I have misunderstood your Kerry O'Brien comments this is not something you disagree with.

Paul Walter wrote "Now, in relation to comments from E Burrows accusing Latham of not 'confessing' his 'anti-Americanism' in the august presence of the likes of Bob McClelland beforehand. What IS this 'anti-americanism' bullsh-t?" Still, after all this time, no specified exact definition for this nebulous concept from those most addicted to its over (a)buse. This means that any conversation, let alone sensible and objective one, concerning the USA, is now beyond the pale? Have McClelland and the rest of the monolithic Labor Right too, become so closed-bloody-minded that America is not to be raised even in general non-specific conversation, even when sincerely and specifically related to fact and reality, regardless of context; under ANY circumstances? By the way, E Burrows, what is YOUR definition of "anti-Americanism"? Anything that is not fawning abasement or wilful refusal to investigate let alone question? eg, "Eyes wide shut"? Enough of this Macarthyite guff!" Cripes, what a tirade... Paul, I suggest you re-read my post for your efforts are misdirected - you see, I never used the term "anti-Americanism" so why are you asking me for an "exact definition for this nebulous concept"? I agree that it is a "nebulous concept" - it would mean different things to different people at different times.... On the other hand, my questions for Latham were not nebulous at all, they were actually quite specific: You see, Latham wrote in his diaries that he believed the US alliance was the 'last vestige of the White Australia policy', dragged us into unnecessary wars, and should be ditched in favour of a foreign policy similar to New Zealand's. Fair enough, he's entitled to that view. But... Why did he tell the Australian people and his caucus colleagues the exact opposite? What is his justification for lying? It's a simple, straight-forward question, Paul - who knows, Latham might even have a reasonable explanation! Alas, Margo didn't ask it. Oh well, c'est la vie.