Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Noelene Konstandinitis, to begin with, let’s get the trivia out of the way. First, as indicated in my post, I was using “dog” and “bitch” purely in their canine context, where the former indicates the male, and the latter the female. Second, you have applied the term to yourself on several occasions. Third, if you don’t accept these arguments, you may prefer the possibility that it was a matter of tat for “tit” – yes, I did read your mid-morning post of 28/09/2005 on The future of fair dinkum journalism thread before it (your post, that is) mysteriously disappeared. To a point of greater substance, where in my post did I imply that I thought your post was anything other than a reasoned response to Dee Bayliss? On the contrary, I was both delighted and impressed to see a contribution which obviously contained some careful consideration of the issues, even if there are lacunae. Specifically, those lacunae include (1) a lack of awareness of the RBA’s dual role (see John Henry Calvinist post), and (2) a failure to take into account that it is at least plausible that many voters may decide on the basis of their own perceived best interests, rather than taking into account the position of others. (“I’m not Aboriginal, so it doesn’t affect me…” (my apologies, I’ve not had time to identify the Webdiarist whose work I have attempted to paraphrase) etc., etc.). Noelene, when you engage seriously with an issue you are always worth reading. While in general I tend not to agree with your position or conclusions, I do from time to time. Moreover, I have explicitly stated my agreement when appropriate. What would be even better for Webdiary as a vigorous debating forum would be if you responded explicitly to requests put to you, such as John Henry Calvinist's most recent one. In the meantime, all the best with the essay. It is a horrid time of the academic year. Fiona Reynolds

Hi again Phil. OK, you seem to have a funny idea about what science actually is. To quote: "I would hardly describe the encouragement of ID in schools as a breach of the constitution. We're talking about opening up the school science curriculum to non naturalistic scientific ideas - not church/state power plays". Ummm, how to put this. By definition, something that is "non-naturalistic" is not scientific. Science's original name (as has already been noted elsewhere in this thread) was Natural Philosophy - the study of phenomena with the goal to describe them without having recourse to the supernatural. We've changed the name, but the goal remains the same. This is not to say that theories such as Intelligent Design (and, as an aside I find it interesting, and very revealing that you seem to consider ID as being non-naturalistic - I can only hope the US courts agree with you), don't deserve to be studied, but not in the science classroom. In a philosophy classroom, or a religious studies classroom, sure, why not, but any theory that relies on a supernatural actor somewhere (with the possible exception of the very original creation of the universe, the so called Big Bang) just isn't science, by definition.

Bah and humbug! It wasn't rocket launchers, it wasn't even parts for Weapons Of Crass Deduction, but wait for it - the mob on Capital Hill and their latest ADF soiree into renewable energy. Potato Launchers powered by methane effusing from the Hill, initiated via vitriolic fuses. Ready ready, ready ready Nagasaki Now!!! Albie Manton in Darwin

Been busy for the past few weeks, so coming into this late. But let me just say what a pleasure it is to see that the standard of discussion has been so improved since the last time Israel/Palestine was debated at Webdiary. (One day, Arie, I’ll be able to supply as many quotes as you!) Will, I think the fundamental difference here between Jewish national self determination, as opposed to say, East Timorese self determination comes down to what actually comprises a nation. Most scholars in the area identify common language, cultural practice and geographical continuity as the corner stones of “nationhood”- what you could say makes the Kurds a nation, yet why say… nations like Rawanda are so fraught with ethnic divide- “nation” and “state” do not intersect. Nations are a fairly fluid thing- (see

Will Howard, "OK, Bob. No one's forcing you to engage in any debate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I or anyone else has written, or not engage at all." My re-entry into this thread was to remind Grant of his failure to comply with the practices of honest debate and WD ethics when he re-submitted a particular point. See previous post where I explained this. So, if you say I am free to engage or not, why have you and Geoff both, in turn, addressed me despite my much earlier explanation of reasons why I did not wish to engage? As to "makes discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly pertinent.", pro-Likud propaganda has absolutely nothing to do with why people choose to take the path of suicide bombing. Their perceptions and motivations are the relevant issues.

Is there any credibility in the pretence of debate on this subject when any writer who speaks the truth will be excluded from the discussion? One could pontificate in wordy diatribe pretending to engage the issues but really all the while dodging the potential landmines that tend to litter the landscape of this subject matter. I dare not even speak the words or hint at that which is, but never can it be spoken without the whip of Pavlovian discomfort lash me for my troubles. Alas, such is the state of truthfulness on matters that remain erased from my commentary that it is possible that in saying nothing with words not to be seen in print one voices his view without saying very much at all.

Tony Kevin. in support of your speculation about the helicopters flying over Canberra, you mention that you once lived in Elizabeth Bay in Sydney and the Navy, when it exercised, used to do it at sea. The Army you say didn't do it near you but on their bases. A non sequitur to beat all non sequiturs.

The same, Jane Doe, but I'd rather your vote than your congratulations. Where does your information come from? That is not a specific policy but the issue needs to be addressed. I really don't care where the money (responsibly) comes from to rebuild the State as long as it is done. My experience with the Cross-city Tunnel, however, makes me sceptical about PPPs. Further detail on this site awaits the whim of Kerri Browne who has the copy but hasn't posted it yet. You can email mbduncan@tpg.com.au for a copy of the Constitution. (08/10/05) ed Kerri: readers looking for Malcolm B Duncan's article and information, see A time to break down, and time to build up.

Am a little puzzled here. Marie Coleman reckons tax cuts whether for the wealthy or the poor are "affordable", on the basis of recent budget surpluses. Well, picking up on an issue that this writer unsuccessfully attempted to raise with a finance commentator recently, why not just redirect the surplus into social and general infrastructure spending. Tax cuts and the inefficient and subjective reallocation of capital redirection by the ignorant away from productive investment, to subjective consumerist wasting is avoided. Money remains directed to CSIRO, say, or improvements to health and education, rather than squandered pandering to a subjective mortgage-belt pathology of conspicuous consumption. "Economy of Plenty",(Bonfire of the Vanities) as was suggested once to this writer. One supposes the answer lies yet again in the peculiar pathology of the government and its hard-core supporters, also. They are susceptible to, and "high" on the (ab)use of power. It's their "drug”. It finds expression through the schoolyard-bully syndrome, with sado overtones equivalencing the terrorisation of victims, as to a cat tormenting a bird or mouse. Coleman's description of the infantile responses of Dutton and Andrews as demonstrated through their responses to concerns raised involving the policy and its implementation demonstrates the unresolved pathologies involved- sheer immaturity, lack of reflexivity and empathy in the make-up. There is rather a sense of the ritual slaughters of the Aztecs in the resultant performance re welfare in our culture. Irresolvable guilt is transferred from the internally- conflicted psyches of the "elect" through the performance of atonement through a medium of designated proxy "lapsed"/scapegoat, eg welfare recipients.(recall Jane Doe explicating on this somewhere).The real and pressing problems of the age are subservant to this strange apparition of the internal dysfunction of the ignorant and arrogant: the real is not tended to because of the jammed decision-making capabilities of those in power and a resultant "un-policy" and harm is done the innocent. Any way, the current thread concerning neo-con thinking relates the reality that much of their inspiration derives of the neo-con in feed to neolib, as derived from the "Laws" and "Republic" of Plato, where it is necessary and worthy for the self-ordained elite to deny the truth and lie as a matter of course. Such chilling, ugly thinking from a man who could conceive of "Symposium", a work of great beauty. By the way, loved the Dee Bayliss story concerning the general in charge of US military parapsychology research arranging for the murder of the goat by telepathy. Shouldn't laugh, should I?

Noelene, I'm surprised that you didn't respond to your least abusive respondent here - in any way. Personally, I always put such queries first... albeit I suspect you've been 'spoilt' by the furore you've raised via earlier - much less temperate - responses. Still looking forward to a reply.