Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

and so sayeth the abbott


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Legal positivism

Hamish, I've been meaning to avoid weighing in to philosophical arguments, especially surrounding the law, but here goes. Malcolm is a legal positivist. This is the belief that the law is something "posited", created or manufactured based on social norms and conventions, rather than derived from an innate sense of morality, as in the concept of "natural law".

I don't think law can be separated from morality. They are inter-dependent. Without morality, law has no purpose, except for brute social control. Yet our legal system aspires to something more than that - justice. It is true we all have different senses of morality but this is no reason to discount the moral basis of the law. Morality is a battle-ground and so is the law. We should aspire to a legal system based around morality, even if that means arguing over whose morality should be implemented.

Some laws are amoral, like road traffic. Most are not, though they may be contentious, like abortion.

A positivist will tell you need to know what the law is, instead of what it ought to be, but I believe every case is about what the law about to be. Rules may be just rules, but there can be just and unjust rules. Also, much of the work of the law involves undoing the damage that such "rules" create.

Malcolm's assertion that there is some difference between law and legislating in regards to morality is incomprehensible.

As for international law, it should soon be all the rage, if for no other reason that the laws of the world are in such a conflicting mess at the moment that they ought to be calibrated. The issue brought up by non-believers is always: how do you enforce it? Which is a tricky question: a country like Australia may sign up to the ICJ but Indonesia does not. You can't exercise jurisdiction unless the country has given its go ahead. Complying with the judgement is also a matter of good faith, or, if the world cared enough, of applying International diplomatic pressure on the infringing country. Rather than a "system" of law, International law is a movement, something that requires the positive effort of the peoples of the world.

And so Sayeth the Abbott.

May I address this thought to Phil Kendall, whose style I have always admired, especially for the way in which he makes us THINK.

And Hamish Alcorn, Malcolm Duncan, Trevor Kerr, Ian MacDougall and others, have really made this subject a matter of intelligent debate.

I am enthused by the passion in which these contributors present their views - I wish that the incumbent Government's Cabinet could wrestle with problems by exhibiting such enthusiasm.

The one disappointment I have is the perception that some are feeling the desire to disengage. I think that is sad and contrary to the spirit of Margo's “free speech Australia”.

I hope you people continue to contribute so that we can all consider your arguments put on the true bases of Health and Humanity.


Waaah! Not gunna talk to you!

Malcolm B Duncan : "I see no point in engaging with you."

Hamish Alcorn: "You're ... off my list of people I bother engaging with."


To each, his own, gentlemen.

Malcolm's problem (IMHO!) is that although he admits that one sheople killing another is murder (inside Australia, for instance), one sheople (in a flight-suit @ 10k metres high, say) killing another (an A-rab towel-head, say) is not murder when another sheople - this time from some 'ruling elite', aka the murderously thieving US or it's equally murderously thieving illegitimate sprog Israel, or perhaps UK or (our shame!) Australia - orders it. (BTW, it's the 'ruling elites' that do the murderous thieving, we just lurve all the innocent sheople, everywhere.)

(Admittedly, as Malcolm has explained, we have different jurisdictions, but really daaarlings, murder is murder anywhere it happens (yes?); if the 'ruling elite' wanna give themselves 'special dispensations,' just why should be let 'em? Especially when it comes to those wicked elites mass-murdering for spoil. Let 'em hang, I say.)

Malcolm's situation is not 'just' laughable, he's made himself a laughing-stock.

Hamish's problem (IMHO!) is that he wrote (as WD Editor!) "you have a race-based theory of domination" which was neither supported by what I wrote (the facts), nor in any other way fair. In actual fact, it exposed (just one of?) Hamish's own prejudice(s). Then he has the hide to call me a 'propagandist'!

Hamish's situation is not 'just' laughable, he's made himself a laughing-stock too.

Now both 'chuck a wettie' and refuse to 'engage'. Quite OK with me, gentlemen; nothing lost. See y's 'round (like an arrrr - Ooops! A rissole).

Absolute power vs absolute stupidity

Hamish, just what sort'a thoughts are you processing? I refer to your extraordinary 'Effective politics or identity politics?' spit.

a) On, "with us, or agin' us."

Hamish: "George Bush's line. It's bullshit". Please explain - the two are not necessarily connected, the one does not necessarily imply the other (aka the 'post hoc' fallacy, a trap for young naïfs); and in any case, one may choose to use "with us, or agin' us" for its own intrinsic worth. As I did. (Without my attributing it to Bush? Ooops! Didn't know it was exclusively his. Sorry, but not very sorry. Not sorry at all, really. Rank (faked) hypocrisy cloaked in vitriolic - if amateurish - black humour. But better than any (un-)normal "shtick" (spit, spit!))

b) Hamish: "You are not thinking like democrats." What? Prey-tell®, how should 'democrats' think, and (I said it before) what makes you think we have a democracy anyway? Just because up till now we've been allowed to say pretty-much what we want to, it doesn't mean that the wallopers aren't just waiting in the wings (sedition!) - and rubbing their hands in anticipatory glee, no doubt.

c) Hamish: "but like factional power brokers." What? What 'faction,' please? What bloody gibberish! Get this once and f'rever: I speak only for myself. Power? What power? Power corrupts, don'cha know? Avoid it like the plague, 'specially "absolute power."

d) Hamish: "If you are trying to effectually engage." What? From 'Bringing up Baby': "Nobody listens." What makes you think, Hamish, that I'm trying to 'reach out and touch' someone? What I'm doing 'in here' is outlining my thoughts on the absolute and utter immorality - as completely divorced, that is, from the (obvious!) illegality, say; but 'illegality' is only 'formally' available (i.e. by arbitrary 'definition') from MBD or his ilk - and then only 'at their leisure', the absolute and utter immorality of the murderous thefts underway by the US with 'side-kick' Israel, 2nd-poodle UK and arse-licker Aus. Heard about it/them? Gruesome mass-murder for spoil, anyone? 60+ years long?

e) Hamish: "marginalising the moderates." 'Scuse, pliz? What eff-ing moderates? I speak only of a) the criminal ruling elite and b) the powerless rest, aka we the sheople. Also, of those prepared to actively oppose war vs. all the rest - the do-nothings, the appeasers, the apologists and the outright criminals. Again, what moderates? And then, as if anyone had a votable choice? Don't make me larf®.

f) Hamish: "if the motive is to maintain your righteous identity." The mind boggles. I mean really, daaarlings. What are you on about, Hamish? (Suggestion: philosophically off with the faeries.)

I had a friend once, an American actually, but sadly now prematurely dead (liver cancer; may or may not have had anything to do with his work in tobacco-factories). He liked to say "Don't bullshit your friends," not because he thought for the smallest part of a pico-nano-sec that I was bullshitting (Oh, no!); more as an abstract indication (in a near-by beer-garden) of what a 'friend' relationship might entail. I take the liberty to extend his "Mahnung" to "Don't bullshit your WD contacts, from whatever side." BS is quickly exposed 'in here', Hamish.


Gotta hand it to Bob 'Quid Est Veritas' Carr, in Abbott imposing 'theological conceit':

FEDERAL Health Minister Tony Abbott is imposing his "tortured theological conceit" in the debate about expanding stem cell research, former NSW premier Bob Carr said.

Now, watch the Shanahans and Pearsons run away from Researchers claim 'ethical' stem cell breakthrough:

The scientists used a method already employed in fertility treatments to remove one cell from a human embryo without harming it. Then they grew stem cells from that single cell.

In other words, the remaining cells in the small clump do not miss the one that has been removed, while the single cell is pluripotential. That is, any one of the 8 or 10 cells may be capable of developing into a complete embryo. The article claims that the 8 cell stage is beyond twinning itself, but ... has the experiment been done to look at what happens to a single (removed) cell? Up to now, such a cell has been removed for one (official) purpose, to chomp it up for genetic analysis to aid those couples who have good reason to avoid a nasty genetic affliction in their progeny. Follow the dots ... to China, Korea, or ... Brazil.

Now, if Pere Abbott espouses this new finding, I expect a line of gobbledegook that's no less tortured than the arguments for transubstantiation.

what democratic covenant? attn: Malcolm B Duncan and all

G'day Malcolm, since it took you 97 days to respond (however poorly), and certainly not to properly answer for your "Might is right" phurphy®, I hope we don't have to hold our collective breath waiting for you this time:

a) If murder ain't murder unless some 'authority' (adjudicator) says so,

b) if politicians lie (and we know that they do, as does the corrupt MSM) and,

c) if we have no valid choice (you know it: Lib/Lab pug-ugly twins), and whomsoever we choose will dud us (ie. fail to represent our, ie. we the sheople's interests in any case),

then: it means that our democracy is completely f**ked, so exactly what covenant binds us to any law? Specifically:

a) means that any law may be toadally® arbitrary,

b) means politicians are completely untrustworthy and,

c) means that (following GW Bush & Co's "with us or agin' us" logic) all law based on (a) and (b) is more likely than not to be utterly disadvantageous to us, we the sheople - if not your actual ass.


In a word, why don't we all just 'move on' to some sort'a perfect anarchy?

F.—I.W. (‘Freedom - I won’t!’)

phil kendall

Since we differ on whether law and morality ought to meet and your continued diatribes are becoming more bizarre, I see no point in engaging with you. Law is nothing more than rules. Rules can change any time according to the rules: I don't accept yours; you don't accept mine. So?

I'm just telling you the way it is, you keep wanting to tell me how you think it should be. Frankly, not only do I think you are wrong but I don't give a stuff about your view of the world.

Will that do? 

Utopian? - How (the bloody Hell) else to progress?

Subtitle: We, the sheople vs tyranny; ie. the 'ruling elite', aka the murderously thieving kleptocracy - and all their myriads (Myriad is a classical Greek name for the number 10**4 = 10 000) of corrupt 'running-dogs'.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ..." - and that's all we need of that particular quote.

In 'Hero', I said: "... as in all other cases (with the previously noted narrow and extremely, even vanishingly rare exceptions), no wo/man has the right to take the life of any other person. Basta!"

That really ort'a be enough for all sane people to banish war, an' that f'rever.

But nooo, we've got @#$$%%#$@s who say "War? Well, that's the system."

And it is exactly those @#$$%%#$@s (aka 'running-dogs') who are a very large part of the problem - along with, of course, the murderously thieving kleptocracy themselves, that is.

I've said it before; it's always worth a repeat: there is no choice except these two: if you're not with us, you're agin' us; you are either a) actively pro-peace - and therefore on the 'side of Angels' or z) - even by doing nothing, for silent acquiescence can and will be taken as approval - you are then indistinguishable from a pro-war, pro-murder apologist/agitator.

What is is the problem; what should be is the target.

Peace now; stop the killing, NO WAR!

What will you do to stop war?

Gloomy Sunday (3Mb); recommended: R-click, Save Target As

Sunday is gloomy,
My hours are slumberless
Dearest the shadows
I live with are numberless
Little white flowers
Will never awaken you
Not where the black coach [of]
Sorrow has taken you
Angels have no thoughts
Of ever returning you
Would they be angry
If I thought of joining you?

Gloomy Sunday

Gloomy is sunday,
With shadows I spend it all
My heart and I
Have decided to end it all
Soon there'll be candles
And prayers that are said I know
But let them not weep
Let them know that I'm glad to go
Death is no dream
For in death I'm caressin' you
With the last breath of my soul
I'll be blessin' you

Gloomy Sunday

Dreaming, I was only dreaming
I wake and I find you asleep
In the deep of my heart here
Darling I hope
That my dream never haunted you
My heart is tellin' you
How much I wanted you

Gloomy Sunday

[musicsonglyrics/Billie Holiday]

Effective politics or identity politics?

Hi Phil. You say, "no choice except these two: if you're not with us, you're agin' us." On another thread today Angela Ryan says, "It now is are you with us or against us."

I hate to say this but this is George Bush's line. It's bullshit. As I said to Angela, grow a nuance or two. You are not thinking like democrats, but like factional power brokers (albeit without a hope in hell of getting the numbers you need).

If you are trying to effectually engage with your historical moment, marginalising the moderates ain't gonna help ya. Then again, if the motive is to maintain your righteous identity, you're on to the right strategy.

An email to a friend

G'day Xxx (not 'in here'), if I'm correctly understanding what you've said, you, a) fell in with a 'bad crowd' then, b) forwarded (without sufficient thought) some of their filthy propaganda, and now c) you realise you shouldn't have done (b) let alone (a).


I'm hoping that you understand me 100%, in that I view the US and Israel as the main problems in the world today, with the UK playing 2nd-poodle and Aus (more specifically, the local branch of the 'power-elite' crooks) licking arses as they gather what crumbs they can scavenge. In this last, Latham was correct with his 'Conga-line of suck-holes' - till he was elected AL-bloody-P leader, when he promptly joined the Conga-line himself, selling us, we the people (sheople®) down-the-river and out.

The upshot of the sell-out (as a last straw, it's been there at least since Whitlam was deposed; just few looked) is that we do not have a democracy at all. A made-in-Hollywood shamocracy® is what we've got, the US and Israel, as the UK and Aus, are run by and for murderously thieving criminals. We the sheople are just 'along for the ride' and up until first 'economic rationalisation' then more significantly globalisation began to bite us, we've had it relatively good. All going, if not gone.

With the coming of globalisation plus the looming greenhouse-climate-catastrophe (greedastrophe®), it looks like we the sheople are well and truly f**ked. Too bad, and the kleptocracy® a) couldn't care less, unless b) they're actively loving watching us squirm.

The background to this is long; I usually start my narrative with the hideously inhuman and toadally® illegal A-bombing, but the US has been being bad for a long time, pre-dating even that. Some say it openly (I'll dig it up if requested), but near the end of WW2 say, one said something like, "Right. We've got about half the world's resources; when this is appreciated we will get trouble. We'd better move to 'power-operations' first." - Which they were already doing, but now escalated. Then from the 'other side' (i.e. 'the goodies'), Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial Complex. Not heeded.

Now the US with about 5% of the world's population consumes about 25% of the world's resources which they mostly steal from the sovereign owners by various nefarious processes, some outlined by Perkins in Economic Hit Man, and some discussed by me under the heading 'resource-rent rip-offs.' Then we move to Israel; as I've said to you before, they moved in on the then-Palestinians, kicking them off without adequate recompense and the troubles have never ceased, nor should they until the Palestinians get a 'fair deal,' also in retrospect. That's gunna be difficult, since there is no recompense possible for all those murder-victims attributed to Israel down the now 60+ years. Not a 'good look.'


Your "Thugs and stupidity ... on both sides" needs some work. Whereas I do not 'support' any killing at all, there is some 'method in their madness' which must be recognised. In a nutshell, most if not all 'terrorism' arises in response to a previous wrong, most often illegal occupation. That was behind the IRA and the 'Tamil Tigers,' both of which have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Modern terrorism is said to have been invented by the Israelis (1946 July 22: Bombing of King David Hotel, the British Military HQ in Jerusalem, by the Zionist group Irgun, with 91 deaths - a mix of military and civilian) and the 'suicide-belt-bomb' by the Tamils. All this is discussed in Pape's, Dying to Win. Note that Irgun, etc are the exception (that proves the rule?), they employed terrorism to enable an illegal occupation.

The ME has been under attack from Anglos (in the modern age), starting at least around WW1 by the UK (i.e. when the UK changed from coal to oil for its warships), and continuing through to today by B, B & H - for (Ta-ra!) its oil - well, well, well - three holes in the (oily) ground. Whadda surprise? Hardly. So the Arabs and Muslims have been 'under the gun' since yonks, and may not have been able to develop because of this - among other factors, one of which might be their (backward, ignorant(?!) - even violent) religions, but basically, that's their freedom, isn't it?

Look around and what do you see? The US with military bases straddling the world (130+ countries!) - threatening who-ever, where-ever but mostly the entire world. And when the bombs fly, they are overwhelmingly "Made in the USA" and are extremely deadly, see Blum's "Killing Hope."

If you'd like to do any follow-up, you could start with last week's SMH/News Review/page 23: "Face of Iran" by McGeough. The destabilisation of Iran is well underway, 'led' by another crook in California (What a surprise? Hardly.) And guess how it's being done? (Ta-ra! Again.) TV. Sending made-in-Hollywood filth, and the response? Nose-jobs for the women. Yep. Abandoning their culture in droves, the now furtively self-liberated young women in Iran want a cosmetic change to their faces. Bewdy!

The problem is, no surprise, propaganda. We've been 'under the propaganda gun' largely without knowing it - but with "Shock and Awe" I stood up and opened my eyes.

Hope this helps and regards, Phil.

PS W/e coming up; dedicated mostly to family these days. Hope to see you on the field eventually. PK

PPS to Hamish: I see that you've joined "the bad-guys" ("the Left today ... guys, just fuck off". BTW, Hamish, true Dinky-dies just don't do 'guys'.) No surprise at all really, since you called me 'racist' for daring to suggest that there seemed to be an over-abundance of Jewish-type names in the current criminal US 'leadership' - since confirmed (in Spades) by M-W. Nailed your colours to the wrong mast, matey? Gone over-board on the extreme language, too: "fuck off." Oh - all only IMHO, of course.

The Communist Party of Australia was against its members signing up against Germany until after Operation Barbarossa (it was hence the best thing Hitler could have done for recruitment in Australia). In general the Left's support of the entire Stalinist era, some (still not all!) only becoming disillusioned after the invasion of Hungary in 1956, dismissing the torrent of accounts of brutality and mass-murder as "Western Propaganda" etc etc should be THE major lesson of the Left today. If that lesson ain't been learned guys, just fuck off from me because I am as appalled as I am in deep despair.

Just what (the bloody Hell) has the pre-WW2 CPA got to do with 'the Left today?' Or any other bloody thing? What we have 'here and now' is the world dominated by the filthy-swine criminal US Empire, with Israel along for the illegal ride and both mass-murdering for spoil (US for oil, Israel for land) and the greedastrophe arriving like the horses of the apocalypse And you worry about some 'old Left', perhaps Pahoff's 'Trots'? Q: just what is an old Trot, please? Is this 'old Left' stuff some battle you once lost, like VSU or something, and you're going after them like some berserk zero-intelligence-attack-Pug? What is it with you? Bah!

I take the opportunity for yet another repeat: there is no choice except these two: if you're not with us, you're agin' us; you are either a) actively pro-peace - and therefore on the 'side of Angels' or z) - even by doing nothing, for silent acquiescence can and will be taken as approval - you are then indistinguishable from a pro-war, pro-murder apologist/agitator.

PPPS to Hamish, Of course "with us or agin' us" is Bush's line. Ever heard of parody? But worse, the 'forces of evil' have been propagandising us, since at least the illegal A-bombings; see above. An essential part of propaganda is 'the corn of truth' amongst the lies. But here I'm serious: all hands to the anti-war pump, or it's curtains. As to 'Democrats,' see above on 'shamocracy.' As for 'moderates,' see above on 'sheople.' I think you're on the wrong track, Hamish; I think it's you who needs to examine what the objective is. If it's towards WW3, you're on it with your anti-Islam ("the Left delivered Islamic fundamentalism to Iran" etc. What utter BS; it couldn't have been as a direct result of unwarranted and with criminal-intent US interference, could it?). Oh - only IMHO, of course.

Bye Phil

"...You called me 'racist' for daring to suggest that there seemed to be an over-abundance of Jewish-type names in the current criminal US 'leadership'"

At first I just thought, "What are you on about?" and then I realised what you must have been referring to Phil. You said this:

"Most of the neoCon cabal are either actual Israelis (ie. Jewish, but we try not to use such words) or sympathisers."

And I replied:

"I'm looking carefully at the [above quoted] line ... You might be uncomfortable about it, but you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one that you can not possibly demonstrate no matter which sources you use."

Where have I called you a racist? Where did you say anything about, "an over-abundance of Jewish-type names?" No further commentary required. You're a propagandist, and off my list of people I bother engaging with.

International law

Hey Malcolm, I appreciate your frank informationalism regarding the law, and can see that you and Phil probably can't engage much further because he's trying to express more utopian (I use the term in its traditional positive sense Phil) values which you don't share. I'm guessing I probably do share a lot of thinking with Phil, but your perspective is crucial for us utopians to keep one eye on, if we want to have a constructive engagement with reality, a sensible grasp of our "from here to there."

I suspect though Malcolm that you do have a bit of "should be" thinking in there as well as "is" thinking. Otherwise you would not be running for office.

What do you think about international law? I know it barely exists in practice and where it does it has no executive teeth. But do you believe in its future? Do you think it's important in the long run for human society? Discuss?

Compartmentalising life

Hamish Alcorn, I am always prepared to engage in rational debate.

The point I make is that from a philosophical point of view, the law and morality ought to remain separate. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that one cannot legislate morality. If one could, as I have said before, there would have been no practising male homosexuals in NSW prior to 1985, there would be no murder and all corporate executives would behave morally. The murder rate is fairly constant in NSW and always has been at least since the war.

The more important question is: if one legislates morality, whose should it be? Fred Nile would have been perfectly happy for there to be no male homosexual activity at all I suspect and he might even like to curtail the activities of the sisterhood. No doubt the Greens see logging as a moral issue – so do loggers – they think they have a moral right to feed their families. etc etc.

What you are confusing is the law and legislating. The former ought not to be moral the latter can. Legislating, in its most refined form is suasion to consensus. Rhetoric which persuades others to one's point of view. To that extent we have too much law and too much law designed to impose control on human behaviour.

We don't need a law that says you shouldn't rape people (although we may find it acceptable to retain one which punishes people who do) we need to persuade people that raping people is unacceptable.

More importantly, I see the role of the legislature far more in designing systems which benefit people without imposing penalties on them - a workable water recycling regime, a reformed tax system to allow us to pay for it over time, restoring the health of our river systems without denuding the aquifer (probably getting rid of the currently fashionable free-market idea of tradable water licences at the same time), rebuilding the rail-freight network (very useful for rapid troop deployments, Phil Kendall), and rebuilding country roads for starters. Then we can start working on real solutions to education and health. We might even be able to attack poverty.

Now don't think that makes me idealistic or populist. I'm not. These systems have to be workable and, in the long run affordable. It makes a lot more sense to me to be working on that than worrying about getting everyone to like me. Governance is not a popularity contest; it is getting society to work. If we don't manage that, and quickly, the deterioration will increase rapidly, society will divide more and more into the haves and the have nots, the rich will increasingly pay to defend themselves against the ravages of the poor and one can only hope the pacifists are in the front line facing both groups counselling peace as they get mown down by both.

A content society is a functional society. You don't get it by passing a law which says "you shall be content" nor is it much use going around calling people doing their jobs (and no more ie. obeying LAWFUL commands) murderers.

International law again

Thanks Malcolm. I take your philosophical point on completely - the distinction between law and morality, and the idea that a large role the law has is suasion. To me it seems you're thinking pretty clearly.

But I'm still very keen on what you think about the role of international law. I'm not referring to any other debate when I ask this, or trying to bait. I'd like you to treat it as a question in its own right and the reason I'm trying to get you to discuss it is (apart from my interest, obviously enough) because of my impression of your clear thinking about law.

Here's something of my own view which you may wish to bounce off. I think (it's not a very original thought) that the development of common law was an important step in human civilisation. My view is that despite all its problems the law had and has a liberating, emancipating effect on society, as the alternatives are far more arbitrary (indeed with no law the morality of the strong will be much more likely to be enforced, but in an arbitrary way). Without the rule of law today our society would not be possible - it would be 'anarchy' if you like.

Assuming you roughly follow my thinking so far (and I'm very interested if you don't as well), do you think that there are now compelling reasons for human society to find an international version of this principle? An enforceable rule of law that applies to every nation regardless of how powerful they are. I'm speaking of Geneva Convention type stuff, say, environmental protocols, and restrictions on making extremely dangerous materials.

We're way off, of course, and perhaps it's not possible. If it's not possible, I'm not sure if a long-term is either. Before the last Federal election I went on a bit about this a bit, trying to get people to vote against Howard.

My apologies if I'm pressuring you to write about something you just aren't in to. You cop a lot of queries just because you are a lawyer with a philosophy of law, and of course you should feel no compulsion. I do respect your views, however, and it's why I am fishing for them.

my hero; who's yours?

One might'a thunk, that a man preparing to submit himself to the voters as a putative 'representative' might simultaneously be tuning his empathy.

In addition, as a possible 'representative' one might expect that the views of all constituents would 'be important to him': "I see no point in engaging with you" doesn't really 'cut it' as a tactic. (I admit he probably knows that I'm not in his (future?) electorate so he could think he can afford to offend.)

One also might'a thunk, that a lawyer - as a possible future candidate for judge, say - (or 'just' as a prototype judge, since judges are (usually?) 'promoted' lawyers) might have some 'decent' thoughts on justice, whether 'natural' (chezPhil's aim) or however (lawyerly, pettifoggingly) contrived.

In any case 'in here', one is supposed to show a few manners: "continued diatribes are becoming more bizarre" might be better phrased, as in starting with "in my opinion" etc. then using possibly less abusive terms. Perhaps - but I can take it, and whatever rubbish Malcolm wants to hurl.

diatribe: n. forceful verbal attack or criticism; invective. [Greek tribo rub] [POD]

bizarre adj. strange; eccentric; grotesque. [French] [ibid.]


From 'Bringing up Baby': "I'm only ... (trying to help, say.)"

In response to a dialogue with a mate not 'in here' (g'day Ron) I set out to formalise my own morality[1]. Although its 1st premise ("Do unto others...") is contained in something biblical (but not only), I assert it is 'a natural' to any thinking human, as is "Thou shalt not kill" etc - and although Howard claims "and according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country", my morality has nothing to with any 'deity-construct', the religious nuts having 'pinched' simple humanitarian ideas - then alienated them by such hideous obscenities as the 'just-war' construct. The 'upshot' here is that "the Church" has formed an alliance with the "ruling elite" - against us, we the sheople.


The 'why' (diatribe): Following the 1st hearing of the (again hideously obscene) "Shock and Awe" (aka Blitzkrieg), I was myself shocked and became incensed that any party - but of course not 'just' any party, the so-called 'leader of the free-world' - would propose to aggress against a country a) 1/10 their own size, b) already oppressed by 10 years of brutal, murderous sanctions and c) no threat to anybody (except possibly its own citizens; another story), the UN/Blix having said so - I became so incensed that I began writing, now 'in here'. I write because I'm angry; I write to try to exorcise my pain - and in the hope of someday seeing justice.


The 'how' (bizarre): From 'Bringing up Baby': "Nobody listens." I rant and I rave - and (almost) nobody listens. We have a so-called democracy; before the war the sheople cried, begged: "NO WAR!" - But Howard 'didn't listen;' called us 'a mob.' And so began my progression to shrill. I have previously admitted to polemic, you may include hyperbole, whatever. As I get little if any 'feedback', I invent new ways of screaming "Fair go, ya mug!"

BUT: My writings contain truth; however 'bizarrely' encapsulated, I cry out for justice - and you, Malcolm, come along and tell us that the US is not murdering, Oh no. See, now, why I'm not 'just' angry at B, B & H, not 'just' angry at 'the (shitty!) system' but also at a lawyer - for dog's sake! A LAWYER! - telling us that the US is 'just' killing for oil, ho-hum, but not murdering? See? GEDDIT YET?

The 'big question': Refer to "we differ on whether law and morality ought to meet..." OK, Malcolm (and all others); just whadda we here for? The religious fanatics say "To adulate their God", in which case "Thou shalt not kill" is toadally® binding. The alternative to any god-nonsense is the absolute sovereignty of the person; but in both of these as in all other cases (with the previously noted narrow and extremely, even vanishingly rare exceptions), no wo/man has the right to take the life of any other. Basta!

Do I care if you refuse to engage? (Cue Costello: "Haw, haw, haw! - Let us prey.")

Enjoy the cloyingly fawning obsequious adulation of your vast multitude of psychophants®, Malcolm; but you haven't impressed me - far from it.



[1] The chezPhil morality is entirely based on "Do unto others..."

One only has to ask: would you wish to be lied to, cheated, stolen from or murdered? Then for 'you' substitute 'yours', 'a neighbour', 'some person far away'?

Then, the chezPhil principle of proportionality is based on the mathematical idea of induction (if for the first; if for one and so the next, then so for the entire multitude); acceptable morality 'scales' from individuals to nations and thus to the world.

And to tie this off quite neatly, the chezPhil morality folds into the great Aussie "Fair go, ya mug!"

A corollary:

...be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just so long as you don't hurt anybody.

New addition (spelled out for the slower amongst us); the 'basic' crimes:

Lying, cheating, theft and/or murder.

Let's face it; it's not too hard but it is pretty-well all-encompassing. All we need to do is (fairly!) implement it; any enforcing would be minimised by correct and timely instruction (cf. 'Bringing up Baby').

Allegiance to a foreign impotentate

Malcolm B Duncan: But how many (cell) divisions has the Pope?

Ball tampering

Well, Bai Ren, by 'separation' I mean - whatever happened to the plan of a previous Governor-General to build a private prayer shrine at Yarralumla? (see Bills Digest No. 165  2000-01Governor-General Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, footnote 16). A wiser PM would have taken him aside, and said "Listen here, old chap. On your own property, with your own money and in your own time."

In the US, the fundamentalists didn't get integrated with the ruling party by overnight coup, it took years of incremental changes. They have drifted far from the ideals of Abraham Davenport:

... “The 19th of May, 1780, was a remarkably dark day. Candles were lighted in many houses; the birds were silent and disappeared; and the fowls retired to roost. The legislature of Connecticut was then in session at Hartford. A very general opinion prevailed that the Day of Judgment was at hand. The House of Representatives, being unable to transact their business, adjourned. A proposal to adjourn the Council [Senate or Upper House] was under consideration. When the opinion of Col. Davenport was asked, he answered, ‘I am against an adjournment. The Day of Judgment is either approaching, or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause for an adjournment; if it is, I choose to be found doing my duty. I wish therefore that candles may be brought.” ...

As for Whitlam caving in to the cardinals, to divert funding away from public schools, look at the mess now.

Belligerent atheists are obnoxious, too. I wish old commies would cease giving secular humanism a bad name - it's all we've got.

God help us

I do not recall the details of the candidates’ consciences being laid out for all in our electorate to peruse at the last federal election. The convention is for politicians to align with a party and its policy platform, so voters can know what each candidate on the ballot paper stands for. Conscience is treated as personal and private. But in future I will ask by email, and suggest that readers of this do likewise.

My federal ‘representative’ is John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister. I have never been given any clue as to how he might vote on embryonic stem cell cloning, but I consider it to be so important that I would quite happily direct my vote according to where he stood on this issue alone.

To date on TV I have seen Ron Boswell giving vent to his mental confusion on what the science is about, and Tony Abbott telling what he thinks motivates the scientists involved. Scientists putting human genes into animal cells in the first instance, and promoting their own careers in the second. Ignorance and prejudice are words far too mild.

According to the ABS Population Clock, we have 20.6 million people in Australia, who are ‘represented’ federally by 150 MHRs and 76 senators. These 226  ‘representatives’ include a fair selection of rorters, narcissists, lurk merchants, power seekers and control freaks, as well as a number of honest and sincere men and women. Each of the 20.6 million (including the politicians and their children) has a certain probability of contracting a degenerative disease like Parkinson’s, Alzheimers, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis… the list goes on. Embryonic stem cell research could potentially alleviate or cure a wide array of conditions, and in my view is our best hope. As it is about culturing new cells to replace lost ones, the potential is vast. It is hard to think of any disease which might not be within its scope and reach in some way.

If any should be in doubt that representative government has glaring deficiencies and limitations, this issue should settle it forever. I cannot think of a single decision that has greater potential impact on so many, and yet it is going to be made by the likes of Abbott, whose flimsy and delicate grasp of the science involved is in marked contrast to the grip Catholic theology in turn has on his brain. And ignoramuses like Boswell.

God help us.

Rather than let these clowns make such an important decision, the whole matter should be put to the people in a non-compulsory referendum. Murray Bookchin was right on that.

Separation of Church and State

It is a pity that separation of church and state is not taken more seriously.

We already have separation of Church and State in Australia. The state does not exercise state power in relation to religion.

There is no Established Church: there are no religious tests.

Think of  England in the 17th century when only communicating members of the Church of England could be members of parliament, or go to university, or have a commission in the armed forces.

In Ireland, at that time, only members of the [protestant] Church of Ireland as by law Established had any civil rights at all.

Then there is modern Lebanon. The President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker must be a Shi'a Muslim.

Or, do you mean by "separation" that politicians must be atheists?


Malcolm B Duncan:

Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull are Roman Catholics, therefore ...

Yair, but, some of the breed are self-assuredly "devout" for the cameras, kiss the ring and pose outside the confessional.

Then there are those who decline to advertise their allegiance, on the grounds that it is their own business.

It is a pity that separation of church and state is not taken more seriously. Legislators may consult their own freckles, for all I care, but when they make up their minds according to rules that do not apply to us all, they can't blame citizens, like Jack Thomas or David Hicks, for doing likewise.

Render unto the Pontiff

It's all terribly simple really. Roman Catholics bear allegience to a foreign power. The Holy See is a political entity with which we have diplomatic relations and an ambassador (unlike the Court of St James where we merely have an High Commissioner).

 Ergo, Roman Catholics are traitors.

Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull are Roman Catholics, therefore ...

Devastating logic

Malcolm, the devastating logic of this syllogism denotes reasoning and debating skills that can only have been learned by you as a pupil of the Jesuits.

Am I right, or am I right?

My background

Christened without my consent as a low Anglican, sent to a non-denominational private primary school where we attended the local High Church once a year but lived on Presbyterian premises, then sent to a Presbyterian borstal, I must admit that Charlie McDonald did make me an honorary old boy of Riverview for the purpose of using me as a shock troop against his young debaters for some years after I left school.

I received no religious education from the Jesuits but I learnt enough to know they are not Roman Catholics. 

You are entirely wrong.   My debating skills are completely unique - a natural one-off. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 4 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 2 days ago