Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I was, Terrance. Noelene, is a Devine fan and so I was trying to draw out some real-life observations for her benefit. I thought she might get a kick out of it, which makes it a kind thing to do, given that her recent outpourings of dissatisfaction with Webdiary. I'd not have done it, but for this fact and the fact that Malcolm brought out early in the piece that he had been the subject of journalism, which I took as invitation to share what I knew. I figured he and the rest of Webdiary would be tough enough to take a discussion on Miranda (a journalist, on a thread about journalism) on the chin but if not I'll desist. I posted the piece on New York because dear old Noelsy was once a New York Chicka and I was curious to know what she thought of this. If there is any particular group of "other Webdiarists" you wish me to gear my posts towards, tell me, and I'll decide if I am interested in talking to them. I didn't particularly enjoy criticising either Hamish or Craig for their editing, since I like them both, but I felt obliged to because I thought she was in the right. For the most part I've found myself walking on the "right side" of Webdiary, but I know from experience it becomes a miserable, petty little place if you stray on to the "wrong side". Keeping the nay-sayers here, especially a bright and constructive one like Noelene - who quite frankly I think I'm in love with, in a kind of boy-crush sort of way in so far as an undergraduate can really love a mature aged student - is important, for the overall health of Webdiary. But - but if y'all just want to sit and stew in your own juices, far be it from me to condescend to try and make a difference. I'll leave and you can resume the discussion of IQs and medians, that I had to suffer through. Terrence Ed. Sorrly Solomon, I didn't have a clue who you were referring to, or in what context. It seemed a private chat.

The posts here are interesting. Jane Doe makes an intelligent summation bringing together most of what the rest of us also interested in the subject have also pondered over, as per the Coleman article. The sole exception seems to be the usually-intelligent Sean Heffernan, who astoundingly can't make the link between pushing people onto Newstart off DSP and the simple linkage, in turn, with the tax "debate". Their most simple point to make is that kicking people off of DSP reduces the amount of money, already a pittance, that people receive, as well as therefore removing any sense of security as per the lives they lead. The money saved is then wasted on tax cuts for the rich. Simple! Of course, Sean may have been duped by the B-s-t turning up regularly as bogus propaganda on the news that "unemployment" is low. But I would have felt sure as a long term WD enthusiast Sean would have recalled that many previous threads exploded the myth of low unemployment. The UP figures are basically rigged, for ideological reasons which include the scapegoating of people on welfare to draw attention away from government unwillingness to take on neo-liberalism's doctrine of refusal of help for disabled older and unemployed and others against "market forces". The more accurate concept of "underemployment", with its swelling double-digit percentage of working poor soon to be deprived of even basic rights through IR "reform" parallels more closely the "old" unemployment figures, but mysteriously is ignored, both by government and media. When neo-lib zealots start braying about welfare to work, as if were just that easy, they are willingly obscuring a great truth. This is, that people of the sort that people like Dr Coleman work with are denied, precisely that "level playing field" that neo-libs boast of as the centre-piece of the voodoo economics they try to flog to the unwary. The truth of the matter is that most people on welfare are arguably victims of both government-encouraged prejudice, long term and the obscured realities of times that are much harder than the neo-libs and their media flacks would admit. Why should people on low working, or even lower welfare benefits, be forced to have subsistence incomes slashed even further to enable yet more tax cuts pandering to the mortgage-belt; let alone the rich?

Hello David, could you please define what a "fanatic" Muslim is? Or, to make it easier, what a religious fanatic is?

Dee Bayliss, Wa Alaykamu Salam Wa Rahmatallah Wa Barakatu. Some things are universal, and wishing peace upon one who is not of the same flock should be compulsory to all who believe in justice. Myra Heard, I was born in this country, and have lived here ALL my life. I am 20 years of age, studying in University and I am a devout Muslim. And if there is ANYTHING that the Koran has taught me in my 20 years of education, it’s that humanity is united by one concept, and that concept is that no individual likes to be lied to. Whether you live in the Amazon Rainforests, the dry deserts of Arabia, the jungles of Vietnam or the ice crowns of Greenland, no individual accepts being lied to. This concept is neither prejudice to any faith, race or custom. So what does this lead to? Well, for starters I appreciate your comment. I think it’s a representation of the majority of non-Muslim Australians. I like your honesty, and have concluded that you and many Australians do not want any individual who associates his/her customs with the Koran or the prophet Muhammad in this country. It is this honesty that I praise and welcome. I do not welcome politicians who on national television tell the Muslim community you are welcomed, yet putting laws and policies that alienate the Islamic community. Worse still, the government allows the disparaging of Islam in the media, television, radio and newspapers. If John Howard could publicly say that the Islamic community is not wanted any more. I would gladly shake Mr Howards hands and say thank you. I would honestly respect him like I respect a local Imam who devotes his entire life to world peace. I welcome honest racism than deceptive racism. A personal motto of mine is “Honesty that leads to death is better than deception that leads to life”. I realized that as a human, I should be rather agitated and filled with rage and anger for the continuous hate espoused in the Australian, media and bureaucratic communities. But, I am a Muslim, and because of this, I pity all these communities who are anti-Islamic. I pity them because they find it difficult to incorporate the basic qualities of love, tolerance and acceptance to those who look or act differently. What is the purpose of life if one cannot find it in their hearts to love and tolerate those of a different flock? I realised this studying Islam, and so, when hotheads like Myra Heard come along, I just feel quite sorry for that individual. As a final note, there is a theme that the Prophet Muhammed espoused to his followers, and warned them about. He warned the Muslims that hate will do more damage to the hater, then the hated. So, in light of this statement, I say, Asalamu Wa Alaykum (Peace be upon you) Myra Heard. To the Australian Community: If Myra Heard is the type to go out and have a drink and get laid, then that is your business. But please do not be stereotypical by alluding that this is the typical Australian. Australia is a diverse country, and not all Australians go out to a pub and get laid. I feel that it is my duty to at least stand up to the honor of those many Australians who do not aspire to get a drink and get laid.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I had a pretty hard time lately finding out about Webdiary. I think it was because of the divorce from Fairfax. They removed the Webdiary link from the SMH webpage and the link that I found was stagnant, with the last message being some drivel from Fairfax about unsolicited emails to companies. In short I'm really glad that I have found the new address for Webdiary, and I am telling my friends about it. It's a pity Fairfax did not see fit to place an obvious link to the new Webdiary site on the SHM opinion page. I guess it was an acrimonious divorce. Anyway, here's to Margo for a successful launch.

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!]