Yes they live amongst us. Its a worry because its not always detectable and sometimes when it is, we tend to over come our eyes and almost choose not to see it. Everyone sneers at used car salesmen yet how is it there's still such an occupation? We know what some of them are like but we shelve it and our radar, buy the car & when we're let down, (which thankfully is not always) we see all the signs we conveniently chose to ignore.
The corporate psychopath has some parallels here. They can manipulate, they pounce on situations where emotions can be exploited, all the while being fairly dead to their own emotions. The can have a narcissistic streak looking for praise and highness or be more subtle and just collect higher office and reward but make no mistake, they will have worked their way to the top with hidden ruthless pursuit.
Does it happen in politics? Yes, yet to hear of a professional endeavour that is without it. Yes, they live among us. They're fairly intelligent, fairly ruthless not from overcoming emotions about doing others out of just reward not from overcoming feelings of guilt. No they generally have no feelings of remorse, regret or guilt whatsoever. But like autism, its has a spectrum and perhaps to an extent we all have a little corporate psychopath in us.
Mark Latham, probably not so much. Bold, brash, loud, unapologetic for sure. Subtle manipulator, using others emotions to help his own elevation? Perhaps but more so it looks like elbows out crash or crash through.
In one job I had I was going to be working with inmates of a high security prison. We did the day long orientation, toured the entire prison except the cells. Walked amongst the prisoners and yes sat through a training video. One of the biggest angles they pushed was grooming. Prisoners are 24/7 under constant watch, guards are on constant guard yet grooming happens and every now and then a guard is successfully groomed and talked into doing something they're trained to avoid. They manipulated and tricked into smuggling something in, providing favourable treatment and the list grows from there. Prisoners may or may not be natural born corporate psychopaths in a low job, but they soon learn the behaviour, learn the tricks and learn what rewards are available for them when successful. Even if its just a release from boredom.
If it can happen in a prison, if it can successfully work in a highly regulated environment with such close personal scrutiny then why can it not work anywhere. Why can't it work in the political system?
It can and hitting google you can find a number of sites that list the traits to look for.
Are they good or bad, well bad but properly contained they may actually be good. Sounds like a psychopath managing a psychopath but no, if there are tight fitting rules, people know them well and keep them then a person with a shade of psychopathy might be a key driver in getting things done but the trouble is, most garden variety psychopaths aren't out to chop people's heads off, but they are genuinely out to advance themselves at whatever cost to others. Cost to others is of no interest nor concern, the reward to the self is. When they seem emotionally empathetic, they're not. They're using a tool to open a door and gain access to that which they have not earned and that maybe reward or higher office.
I know of one journo/politician scenario where both have had a long history of grooming the other and its possible neither think they've been used. There's a lot more spotlight on the journo so if I was to point to one I think is the corporate psychopath, its probably the politician, or more so the politician.
Malcolm Turnbull is a very intelligent man. He may well be the smartest man in the room where ever he goes, but he's had some appalling judgement at times. Psychopathy though? Possible but I'm not 100% sure. Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Bishop...yeah they could make the short list of highly likelies.
In WA...well there's a couple of contenders & they're not at the top of their game nor necessiarly in the highest office yet. There's been a couple of spectacular implosions including Buswell, Johnson, Nalder but whilst they may have been stand outs at various times it may not by psychopathy. Least likely Buswell who when working was said to be on his game nearly all the time and all over his portfolios. It was his out of hours performance that couldn't be contained by him or others that led to his downfall, but he was a good parliamentary performer, a bright light in his ministries and had he kept a clean sheet after hours is probably THE one most likely to have been remembered as our greatest Premier ever. It wasn't to be.
There are some folk who say nothing and nowhere is more political than inside the party, any party, all parties. That's the hot bed where the corporate psychopath will be spotted. Its not easy and its easy sadly to dismiss the signs, in fact it may be the closer you are to them, the much harder it is to see.
If you're semi close to them, google the list, learn the traits to spot them. If you're a journalist, here's is your play ground for earth shattering scoop. Whilst narcissistic self love is not uncommon in Parliament, its not everywhere and shouldn't be mistaken for corporate psychopathy. When you find it though, you find all the things that lead to WA Inc.
Why its hardest for the journos to spot? They're close to it, its harder to spot and if they've been groomed they won't know and its pretty much invisible to them. When pointed out to them they'll probably instinctively deny it and make excuses for the psychopath.
They live among us, they're heading to the top and most of us don't realise we're stepping stones.
Friday 30 December 2016
The Duopoly Problem & Live Export
So I was asked where do each of the parties in the 2017 WA State Election stand on Live Export Trade? I had to ask the question, why now is that viewed as important to the State Election. I asked that because I though Live Export was off the radar, not current and it was ticking along with no problem.
Wrong.
Well no prizes for guessing where the Greens stand. They want Live Export Banned completely once and for all. WA Labor have a platform which actually has about 6 issues in it and one is Live Export. Their platform is to bring on more demand for Chilled Meat overseas and develop the Chilled Trade to slowly replace Live Export to lessen cruelty.
Now that's coded for, slow approach with careful narrative to hide "Ban Live Export NOW"
Federal Labor brought in the suspension of the Live Export Trade. It was a poor knee jerk reaction that had devastating results on producers and helped cause a massive Animal Welfare problem where stock could not be sold during a drought and there was nowhere to kill & process them all in Australia let alone sell them overseas. It was disgusting display of grub like parasitic popularist vote hunt. It failed on every level, failed producers, failed the overseas customers and failed the animals...and it failed to add popularity or votes to the Gillard government. They're at it again, chase the Green like inner city vote without letting on the real intent is to Ban the Live Trade.
Liberals? Not a lot better. Its rather confusing if you follow Colin Barnett's comments on Live Export over the last 3 or 4 years.
"I would hope that maybe over the next 10-15 years, we can progressively transition the industry from live exports to chilled meat or carcass exports,'' Mr Barnett told reporters in 2011
In October 2013, Premier Colin Barnett witnessed the signing of an MoU with WA's sister state Zhejiang province for new trade arrangements, including live cattle.
2014 he blasted Clive Palmer's comments for putting Live Export deal with China backwards.
In April 2014 Barnett stated "We support, done safely, both uranium mining and fracking,” he added. “And if we succeed in leasing out Fremantle Port, we will build at government expense, a purpose built live animal export facility.
“Not only (is that) important for the survival of that industry but also important for animal welfare standards.”
We're not sure where he stands on it now, it'll be like firearms regulations...they have a view, but don't want to share it. Still Labor is profoundly vague too. He went from saying it was a sunset industry in its death throws, to Clive Palmer is helping wreck it by calling the Chinese "mongrels" to saying the Liberals would lease out Fremantle Port and build "at government expense a purpose built live animal export facility" - Will it happen? Your guess is as good as mine, more so if you think its not going to happen on Barnett's watch or Harvey's watch when she takes the leadership soon after the election. So does is the industry in decline or does it need infrastructure expansion?
Colin...any clarity on offer? Ever?
NationalsWA and the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party both have clarity, both are pro Live Export. Rick Mazza attended a Ban Live Export rally in Fremantle to get people's views and see if they're coming from a credible base. Rick, its worth remembering instigated and chaired the Committee on the workings of the RSPCA in WA. Fortunately non of the protestors knew who Rick Mazza was so he got honest answers that he could assess without being hassled.
If we're to transition to Chilled in the next 10-15 years (its not) I'd like to know who exactly is changing from Live to Chilled, who's paying for all the WA slaughterhouses that will have to be built, all the processing plants that currently don't exist and can all the overseas markets not only transition but drive the demand.
Its a curly issue both halves of the duopoly don't want full focus on lest you ask serious questions.
One wants to help push the drive to chilled, with no plan, costing nor strategy...just enough sentiment to gather some Green hipster soy latte votes. The other says "it" will transition but doesn't say who's driving the change, customers or the exporters...or who's going to pay for all the infrastructure and skilled staff that would be needed. It doesn't add up & hence the duopoly are just throwing out a profoundly vague glib vote message and then themselves transitioning quickly onto the next issue.
Another reason why the duopoly have nothing to offer except false echoes of empty thought bubbles whilst NatsWA & SFFP are very clear. They support Live Export and the jobs it maintains.
The vague thought balloons on Live Export are one of the few things the Duopoly have mentioned and pushed to the side. Agriculture is an important primary industry, a vital exporter and employer. It should be a party of this country's National Security.
But the duopoly is decidedly silent on Agriculture. Its as if they're obliged to have an Agriculture ministry but its obligations stop at allowing it a place in cabinet and its almost as if its one of the lesser minor portfolios.
Vote for whoever you want. By all means if you want to vote for the Duopoly do so but consider only doing it in the lower house and in the Upper House vote for Nationals or SFFP. If you can vote for them in the Lower House all the better, but at least help install a circuit breaker to protect the state, at the very least vote Nats or SFFP in the Upper House.
Your vote is important, crucial and more important to future proofing this state than your realise.
Wrong.
Well no prizes for guessing where the Greens stand. They want Live Export Banned completely once and for all. WA Labor have a platform which actually has about 6 issues in it and one is Live Export. Their platform is to bring on more demand for Chilled Meat overseas and develop the Chilled Trade to slowly replace Live Export to lessen cruelty.
Now that's coded for, slow approach with careful narrative to hide "Ban Live Export NOW"
Federal Labor brought in the suspension of the Live Export Trade. It was a poor knee jerk reaction that had devastating results on producers and helped cause a massive Animal Welfare problem where stock could not be sold during a drought and there was nowhere to kill & process them all in Australia let alone sell them overseas. It was disgusting display of grub like parasitic popularist vote hunt. It failed on every level, failed producers, failed the overseas customers and failed the animals...and it failed to add popularity or votes to the Gillard government. They're at it again, chase the Green like inner city vote without letting on the real intent is to Ban the Live Trade.
Liberals? Not a lot better. Its rather confusing if you follow Colin Barnett's comments on Live Export over the last 3 or 4 years.
"I would hope that maybe over the next 10-15 years, we can progressively transition the industry from live exports to chilled meat or carcass exports,'' Mr Barnett told reporters in 2011
In October 2013, Premier Colin Barnett witnessed the signing of an MoU with WA's sister state Zhejiang province for new trade arrangements, including live cattle.
2014 he blasted Clive Palmer's comments for putting Live Export deal with China backwards.
In April 2014 Barnett stated "We support, done safely, both uranium mining and fracking,” he added. “And if we succeed in leasing out Fremantle Port, we will build at government expense, a purpose built live animal export facility.
“Not only (is that) important for the survival of that industry but also important for animal welfare standards.”
We're not sure where he stands on it now, it'll be like firearms regulations...they have a view, but don't want to share it. Still Labor is profoundly vague too. He went from saying it was a sunset industry in its death throws, to Clive Palmer is helping wreck it by calling the Chinese "mongrels" to saying the Liberals would lease out Fremantle Port and build "at government expense a purpose built live animal export facility" - Will it happen? Your guess is as good as mine, more so if you think its not going to happen on Barnett's watch or Harvey's watch when she takes the leadership soon after the election. So does is the industry in decline or does it need infrastructure expansion?
Colin...any clarity on offer? Ever?
NationalsWA and the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party both have clarity, both are pro Live Export. Rick Mazza attended a Ban Live Export rally in Fremantle to get people's views and see if they're coming from a credible base. Rick, its worth remembering instigated and chaired the Committee on the workings of the RSPCA in WA. Fortunately non of the protestors knew who Rick Mazza was so he got honest answers that he could assess without being hassled.
If we're to transition to Chilled in the next 10-15 years (its not) I'd like to know who exactly is changing from Live to Chilled, who's paying for all the WA slaughterhouses that will have to be built, all the processing plants that currently don't exist and can all the overseas markets not only transition but drive the demand.
Its a curly issue both halves of the duopoly don't want full focus on lest you ask serious questions.
One wants to help push the drive to chilled, with no plan, costing nor strategy...just enough sentiment to gather some Green hipster soy latte votes. The other says "it" will transition but doesn't say who's driving the change, customers or the exporters...or who's going to pay for all the infrastructure and skilled staff that would be needed. It doesn't add up & hence the duopoly are just throwing out a profoundly vague glib vote message and then themselves transitioning quickly onto the next issue.
Another reason why the duopoly have nothing to offer except false echoes of empty thought bubbles whilst NatsWA & SFFP are very clear. They support Live Export and the jobs it maintains.
The vague thought balloons on Live Export are one of the few things the Duopoly have mentioned and pushed to the side. Agriculture is an important primary industry, a vital exporter and employer. It should be a party of this country's National Security.
But the duopoly is decidedly silent on Agriculture. Its as if they're obliged to have an Agriculture ministry but its obligations stop at allowing it a place in cabinet and its almost as if its one of the lesser minor portfolios.
Vote for whoever you want. By all means if you want to vote for the Duopoly do so but consider only doing it in the lower house and in the Upper House vote for Nationals or SFFP. If you can vote for them in the Lower House all the better, but at least help install a circuit breaker to protect the state, at the very least vote Nats or SFFP in the Upper House.
Your vote is important, crucial and more important to future proofing this state than your realise.
Tuesday 27 December 2016
WA State Elections & the Unthinkable Positive Outcome
Fun yet likely or not? List all the current electoral seats held by the duopoly. Labor & Liberal seats. And list them with the safest at the top going down to marginal and highly in doubt.
You'd expect Colin Barnett's seat to be somewhere near the top of the Liberal's list and Mark McGowan somewhere near the top of Labor's list and it'd scale downwards. Much of the order or rankings would probably be guesswork unless you rank them on last election's prowess. Its lower down the list seats that interest me and those owned by the crossbenches/minor parties.
It means that for forming government, there's possibly 2 battlegrounds and to some extent the impact of the "Deplorable Vote" is going to have some sort of effect.
There's the 2nd Tier parties & then there's the 3rd Tier. Third tier being the Independents or the candidates from the very minor parties who rarely if ever win a seat but do hold small preferences. They're often so minor an influence that they aren't chased after for a preference deal. That may remain the case and they may not be chased for anything at all unless they win their seat because its possible the next WA Parliament could be a close call. One smart commentator said that even though the election is close, its 3 months out and it could be the longest 3 months prediction wise. He went onto say it could be a landslide or a hair splitting photo finish come March with his prediction now being a toss of the coin.
Perhaps the 3rd Tier candidates will have little effect at all and perhaps the big battlefield will be the "Deplorable Voters" who like Brexit, Trump, Australian Federal Election and the Orange By-election delivered results no one predicted. The "Deplorable" might tip out a small number of safe seats in the metro areas.
Second battlefield might be non metropolitan seats in both Lower & Upper Houses of WA's Parliament. The effect of the deplorables I think is sensed by more than a few groups and probably the driving motivation of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (PHON) to run as many candidates as possible in the WA election.
The PHON may have enough time to get over the damaging Rodney Culleton effect. PHON has one other problem though, its very eastern states run and managed. Pauline came over to oversee the pre-selection process and personally vet aspiring candidates. Does Pauline have a position on WA's unfair slice of the GST, on the timely Mining rental agreement update or the sale of Western Power. There's one she has commented on (and I'll have to look for the others) and that's the Mining Rental Fee. She opposes it but I think she's badly misread the majority sentiment in WA. Her eastern states bias may undo some of her desired vote. And where do their preferences go? At a guess, the safer bet would be the Liberal Party.
The Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party. Well, hot on the back of the Orange By-election the SFFP have quite rightly got new found confidence. They currently have 2 good MPs and at very very worst they could maintain that number. They're regionally focused, outdoors focused but do seem to have very Liberal Party leanings on some issues. Stab in the dark betting would see them probably put preferences to the Liberal Party. If the deplorables vote & Tier 2 party preferences are likely to have a big impact, then its worth remembering that SFFP are likely to be running both Lower & Upper House candidates.
In the eastern states the SFFP & the Nationals are cat n dog despite some areas of common ground. They may agree on some issues, including a responsible approach to firearms legislation but they're usually vying for the same seats and gloves are off. In the eastern states the SFFP want to replace the Nats not partner with them.
The NatsWA have a fight on their hands, yet they seem to be at every election and they tend to roll up their sleeves and dig in. Brendon Grylls has to some extent returned the Nats to the old "blood nose politics" angle which has been lost from their tool kit for a very long time. Thing is, if the Nationals aim is to effect good change they have to have a presence in cabinet, therefore they have to help form government in a coalition or partnership with the Liberals. More than a few times, the Liberals needed them. NatsWA will most likely preference the Liberals as well. In the seats where Liberals come 3rd place in the count, the Nationals should expect to be more positive and gain Liberal preferences. Where its close between Liberal & Nationals, the PHON & SFFP preferences could get Libs over the line. In fact wherever the Libs poll 1st or 2nd place, they could still win with preferences from any or all of the three 2nd tier parties.
Or the unthinkable might happen...
The NatsWA & the SFFP could shock everyone and form a partnership before any LNP coalition/partnership of a traditional sense is discussed. SFFP have the awkward position of knowing that both parties in the duopoly, Liberal & Labor are keen to see firearms legislation clamp down harder and harder. PHON are out to lunch yet NatsWA have candidates looking and assessing it. Whether the Nats get an actual firearms policy or not is debatable but both SFFP & Nats are rural, regional keen, both are firearms sensible (ones I've spoken with), both industry & agricultural focused, both jobs focused and strangely both might preference the Liberals. If they don't get a partnership agreement sorted they could cancel each other out at the next election and deliver one or two crucial seats to the Liberal party...along with the PHON preferences.
This returns us to the original guess...it'll be a landslide or close as a cut throat razor. Or somewhere in the middle, preferences might deliver seats to the major parties.
Now the best thing for rural WA, in my mind at least, would be to see a SFFP/NatsWA partnership agreement/preference deal. The likelihood?
Well...
Its always possible, but it would be a huge political shock because it would be very unexpected. If the eastern states influence is too great or the norm then the chances of a SFFP/NatsWA partnership will be roughly the same as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.
I'm hoping for some sort of SFFP/NatsWA alliance but suspect it might not happen. Irony being, their own respective zeal to beat each other might help deliver more seats to the Liberal Party.
I've had one Pollie Scratchy bet...against my better judgement. Not making another but I'm hoping that in a world of vast political differences the Nats & the SFFP in WA realise they can make a difference or they'll probably inadvertently deliver seats to the Liberals.
Then there's the other thing...that maybe the real winners at the next election will be those elected but who are in opposition. The real losers may well be all of us if we don't see some good strong policies and smart strategic statesman like vision.
You'd expect Colin Barnett's seat to be somewhere near the top of the Liberal's list and Mark McGowan somewhere near the top of Labor's list and it'd scale downwards. Much of the order or rankings would probably be guesswork unless you rank them on last election's prowess. Its lower down the list seats that interest me and those owned by the crossbenches/minor parties.
It means that for forming government, there's possibly 2 battlegrounds and to some extent the impact of the "Deplorable Vote" is going to have some sort of effect.
There's the 2nd Tier parties & then there's the 3rd Tier. Third tier being the Independents or the candidates from the very minor parties who rarely if ever win a seat but do hold small preferences. They're often so minor an influence that they aren't chased after for a preference deal. That may remain the case and they may not be chased for anything at all unless they win their seat because its possible the next WA Parliament could be a close call. One smart commentator said that even though the election is close, its 3 months out and it could be the longest 3 months prediction wise. He went onto say it could be a landslide or a hair splitting photo finish come March with his prediction now being a toss of the coin.
Perhaps the 3rd Tier candidates will have little effect at all and perhaps the big battlefield will be the "Deplorable Voters" who like Brexit, Trump, Australian Federal Election and the Orange By-election delivered results no one predicted. The "Deplorable" might tip out a small number of safe seats in the metro areas.
Second battlefield might be non metropolitan seats in both Lower & Upper Houses of WA's Parliament. The effect of the deplorables I think is sensed by more than a few groups and probably the driving motivation of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (PHON) to run as many candidates as possible in the WA election.
The PHON may have enough time to get over the damaging Rodney Culleton effect. PHON has one other problem though, its very eastern states run and managed. Pauline came over to oversee the pre-selection process and personally vet aspiring candidates. Does Pauline have a position on WA's unfair slice of the GST, on the timely Mining rental agreement update or the sale of Western Power. There's one she has commented on (and I'll have to look for the others) and that's the Mining Rental Fee. She opposes it but I think she's badly misread the majority sentiment in WA. Her eastern states bias may undo some of her desired vote. And where do their preferences go? At a guess, the safer bet would be the Liberal Party.
The Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party. Well, hot on the back of the Orange By-election the SFFP have quite rightly got new found confidence. They currently have 2 good MPs and at very very worst they could maintain that number. They're regionally focused, outdoors focused but do seem to have very Liberal Party leanings on some issues. Stab in the dark betting would see them probably put preferences to the Liberal Party. If the deplorables vote & Tier 2 party preferences are likely to have a big impact, then its worth remembering that SFFP are likely to be running both Lower & Upper House candidates.
In the eastern states the SFFP & the Nationals are cat n dog despite some areas of common ground. They may agree on some issues, including a responsible approach to firearms legislation but they're usually vying for the same seats and gloves are off. In the eastern states the SFFP want to replace the Nats not partner with them.
The NatsWA have a fight on their hands, yet they seem to be at every election and they tend to roll up their sleeves and dig in. Brendon Grylls has to some extent returned the Nats to the old "blood nose politics" angle which has been lost from their tool kit for a very long time. Thing is, if the Nationals aim is to effect good change they have to have a presence in cabinet, therefore they have to help form government in a coalition or partnership with the Liberals. More than a few times, the Liberals needed them. NatsWA will most likely preference the Liberals as well. In the seats where Liberals come 3rd place in the count, the Nationals should expect to be more positive and gain Liberal preferences. Where its close between Liberal & Nationals, the PHON & SFFP preferences could get Libs over the line. In fact wherever the Libs poll 1st or 2nd place, they could still win with preferences from any or all of the three 2nd tier parties.
Or the unthinkable might happen...
The NatsWA & the SFFP could shock everyone and form a partnership before any LNP coalition/partnership of a traditional sense is discussed. SFFP have the awkward position of knowing that both parties in the duopoly, Liberal & Labor are keen to see firearms legislation clamp down harder and harder. PHON are out to lunch yet NatsWA have candidates looking and assessing it. Whether the Nats get an actual firearms policy or not is debatable but both SFFP & Nats are rural, regional keen, both are firearms sensible (ones I've spoken with), both industry & agricultural focused, both jobs focused and strangely both might preference the Liberals. If they don't get a partnership agreement sorted they could cancel each other out at the next election and deliver one or two crucial seats to the Liberal party...along with the PHON preferences.
This returns us to the original guess...it'll be a landslide or close as a cut throat razor. Or somewhere in the middle, preferences might deliver seats to the major parties.
Now the best thing for rural WA, in my mind at least, would be to see a SFFP/NatsWA partnership agreement/preference deal. The likelihood?
Well...
Its always possible, but it would be a huge political shock because it would be very unexpected. If the eastern states influence is too great or the norm then the chances of a SFFP/NatsWA partnership will be roughly the same as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.
I'm hoping for some sort of SFFP/NatsWA alliance but suspect it might not happen. Irony being, their own respective zeal to beat each other might help deliver more seats to the Liberal Party.
I've had one Pollie Scratchy bet...against my better judgement. Not making another but I'm hoping that in a world of vast political differences the Nats & the SFFP in WA realise they can make a difference or they'll probably inadvertently deliver seats to the Liberals.
Then there's the other thing...that maybe the real winners at the next election will be those elected but who are in opposition. The real losers may well be all of us if we don't see some good strong policies and smart strategic statesman like vision.
Thursday 22 December 2016
When we come under attack, where will we stand?
Recently I was told that if World War 2 popped up now many young people would ask if their Play Station be affected as a priority question. Perhaps some folk, of any age, cannot be relied upon to be a part of the solution like most people did during WW2. I think the majority would. When threat looms large, usually as it gets closer people band together.
Melbourne has seen raids just before Christmas of a thwarted plan of an "Islamist Terrorist" attack upon Australian soil during Christmas. I commend Malcolm Turnbull for actually using the word "Islamist" in his press briefing because I was expecting a completely De-religioned press conference.
At some point though we may have to stop calling them terrorist attacks or at least define closely what a terrorist does and what terrorism is. If its purely to cause terror, there are plenty off criminal offences that fall into that category some of the not religious.
Point is, some of them are terror attacks as part on some people's RELIGIOUS WAR. Whilst there is in some places like Australia no set battlefield with set lines of defence nor No Man's Land between them, it is still a war with a battlefield.
When we finally accept this then yes we need to use all the weapons at our disposal such as security & intelligence groups, state & federal police and their task forces. These groups are in some ways front line, but they shouldn't be the only defensive weapon we use.
At some point, we're going to have to accept it is for some a religious war and engage with that enemy at the gate, or within our borders with the same rules of engagement they use. No not blowing them up with improvised bombs, no something far more devastating and effective.
Use the hardest weapon to defend against in a Religious War.
Proper in context exegesis of the Scriptures they're using to valid their murder. If a so called Christian group were planning to wear suicide vests and take hostages in an Australian city, you'd hope the security forces could prevent it and if not prevent halt it. But if it looked like young at risk men of military age are being recruited and fooled with an evil and murderous interpretation of the Bible then alongside all other reasonable actions there should be religious leaders coming together to cite chapter & verse of the Bible to show, using God's Word why it is not only evil but anti-Christ doctrine.
If Christianity's scholars, leaders and preacher did not then it might be time to ask why. If it isn't intellectually possible using those Scriptures then the religion is a false religion and possibly should be left out of Australian culture & society. It certainly should if Scripture demanded followers to kill, maim, terrorise, destroy in "God's Name".
Clerics need to use Scripture to fight the evil "done in God's name" or they are doing evil against mankind and God.
This then applies to all religions. If Buddhists self illuminated or killed atheists, humanists, agnostics, Muslims or Christians here then yes its a religious war. If a strange minor religious offshoot of any religion attacked, its a religious war. If one person on their own, with no input from others decided an attack needs to happen for their god then yes its a religious attack in a religious war and good in context exegesis must be played out loudly in public to deter others falling for the falsehood and following suit.
If the Melbourne attack is an offshoot of Islam then yes, we need Islamic Scholars & clerics to not come out and say "we don't support these actions" or "this is not what we're about". We need the scholars & clerics to come out and present chapter and verse exegesis to explain to followers why, by their scriptures, these actions are evil, are apostate and based on Apostate's Heresy. They want to kill in God's name, the clerics need to explain why its against God's word & why these actions are not going to produce 76 virgins but be a first class hell bound ticket.
Proper in context exegesis explaining these action are the work of apostates & heresy is the only real immunisation for religious war at the source point. Leaving it in a reactionary mode for security services to react with force might be needed but its not preventative.
Malcolm Turnbull hosted a banquet for a group of Muslims breaking their fast at the end of the religious feast. Instead of accommodating them & enabling them to remain out of the fight, he should be enlisting them to help end it.
If not, why.
Melbourne has seen raids just before Christmas of a thwarted plan of an "Islamist Terrorist" attack upon Australian soil during Christmas. I commend Malcolm Turnbull for actually using the word "Islamist" in his press briefing because I was expecting a completely De-religioned press conference.
At some point though we may have to stop calling them terrorist attacks or at least define closely what a terrorist does and what terrorism is. If its purely to cause terror, there are plenty off criminal offences that fall into that category some of the not religious.
Point is, some of them are terror attacks as part on some people's RELIGIOUS WAR. Whilst there is in some places like Australia no set battlefield with set lines of defence nor No Man's Land between them, it is still a war with a battlefield.
When we finally accept this then yes we need to use all the weapons at our disposal such as security & intelligence groups, state & federal police and their task forces. These groups are in some ways front line, but they shouldn't be the only defensive weapon we use.
At some point, we're going to have to accept it is for some a religious war and engage with that enemy at the gate, or within our borders with the same rules of engagement they use. No not blowing them up with improvised bombs, no something far more devastating and effective.
Use the hardest weapon to defend against in a Religious War.
Proper in context exegesis of the Scriptures they're using to valid their murder. If a so called Christian group were planning to wear suicide vests and take hostages in an Australian city, you'd hope the security forces could prevent it and if not prevent halt it. But if it looked like young at risk men of military age are being recruited and fooled with an evil and murderous interpretation of the Bible then alongside all other reasonable actions there should be religious leaders coming together to cite chapter & verse of the Bible to show, using God's Word why it is not only evil but anti-Christ doctrine.
If Christianity's scholars, leaders and preacher did not then it might be time to ask why. If it isn't intellectually possible using those Scriptures then the religion is a false religion and possibly should be left out of Australian culture & society. It certainly should if Scripture demanded followers to kill, maim, terrorise, destroy in "God's Name".
Clerics need to use Scripture to fight the evil "done in God's name" or they are doing evil against mankind and God.
This then applies to all religions. If Buddhists self illuminated or killed atheists, humanists, agnostics, Muslims or Christians here then yes its a religious war. If a strange minor religious offshoot of any religion attacked, its a religious war. If one person on their own, with no input from others decided an attack needs to happen for their god then yes its a religious attack in a religious war and good in context exegesis must be played out loudly in public to deter others falling for the falsehood and following suit.
If the Melbourne attack is an offshoot of Islam then yes, we need Islamic Scholars & clerics to not come out and say "we don't support these actions" or "this is not what we're about". We need the scholars & clerics to come out and present chapter and verse exegesis to explain to followers why, by their scriptures, these actions are evil, are apostate and based on Apostate's Heresy. They want to kill in God's name, the clerics need to explain why its against God's word & why these actions are not going to produce 76 virgins but be a first class hell bound ticket.
Proper in context exegesis explaining these action are the work of apostates & heresy is the only real immunisation for religious war at the source point. Leaving it in a reactionary mode for security services to react with force might be needed but its not preventative.
Malcolm Turnbull hosted a banquet for a group of Muslims breaking their fast at the end of the religious feast. Instead of accommodating them & enabling them to remain out of the fight, he should be enlisting them to help end it.
If not, why.
Sunday 11 December 2016
New to Guns? Adler 101
Before we even start...if a politician says to you "We don't support a watering down of gun regulations" or "We don't want a US Gun Culture here" or "You don't need 5 shots" or "7 shots aren't necessary" then you're talking with people who are arguing from a position of complete falsehood. Be wary of them.
We cannot have a US Gun Culture or US Gun Laws, its not constitutionally possible nor viable or even remotely possible, to suggest we're heading that ways highlights ignorance. A fine place to be arguing law changes from.
The Adler is 100% legal in this country as a Cat A whether its 5 shot or 7 shot. That's a fact and so is the fact no one is asking for that to be watered down. Arguing from falsehood again.
Another fact, if it goes to Cat D it is in WA the same category as the belt fed machine gun because all Cat Ds are prohibited in WA. If someone wants 7 shot in Cat D and 5 Shot in Cat B they should have the decency and intellectual fortitude to say why...exactly why.
What we're seeing is political Distraction, arguing from falsehood and ignorance.
Mistrust the ignorant one lying to you or arguing from falsehood or ignorance. "Not Necessary" isn't a reason...right now 7 shots is Cat A legal, it isn't a problem, hasn't seen any Lever Action in a siege, massacre, terror attack or any crime to date. "Watering down" red flag time signalling arguing from ignorance. Can't get that simple bit right, can't be assured of getting much else right.
Now with that, read on :-)
In essence there's nothing wrong with being pro or anti gun. Its what you do & say with that premise that's important and whether or not you go wider than the first premise and use facts, data and reason when going elsewhere it. Some on both sides are not so here's some background that might be useful for those forming or trying to form a view or stance
GK Chesterton is quoted as saying "Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask why it was put there in the first place."
This doesn't just apply to those seeking to water down legislation, it applies to all legislative changes, whether its strengthening, weakening or abolishing. Its very much, what is the status quo & why is it so? Its not to prevent a change, its to ensure the change is a useful improvement, a rightful change and not impetuous or heavily bias away from fact.
So how does the Adler issue rate? Very poorly as much of the push came from misdirection and lacked some understanding and fact.
The Adler is a Lever Action 12 Gauge Shotgun. It was initially put together by the wholesaler/importer Nioa to be a 7 shot Lever Action Shotgun that would be available under Cat A which is one of the less restricted firearms classes. Now despite the current fervour, that was 100% legal in all states of Australia, it was going to be good to go everywhere as Cat A. In fact, remember this if nothing else, a 5, 7 & even a 10 shot lever action shot gun has had a home in Cat A since the John Howard's revamp of laws in 1996. It probably stayed in its rightful place of Cat A back then because there'd been no siege, massacre, terrorist act or even a violent crime with one then nor since...well I'm still trying to find one but looks like I'm going to have to go back to before World War 2 but the records aren't good so best I can say is, its not the criminals choice and can't find where a crim has used one
But lets check to see why the fence was built that way in the first place.
Its actually very simple. The firearm is a "Single Shot Repeater" meaning it can only fire one shot at a time. Once fired you have manually unload the spent shell, you have to manually load the next live round & then manually pull the trigger to fire it.
One media commentator referred to it as a "DEFACTO SEMI AUTOMATIC"
This is baseless, false & misleading because if you look at it closely its actually a "FULLY MANUAL FIREARM ACTION". Semi automatic means part of the firing action is automatic & in the case of a Semi Automatic, you fire the trigger and it automatically ejects the spent round, loads the next live round ready for your next manual trigger pull. Part of the process is automatic hence the term SEMI automatic. You cannot call it defacto semi automatic unless you're trying to trick people who are unaware and when it comes to legislation don't allow anyone to use deception.
High Capacity? - Well no its not, many revolvers have 5. 6, 8 & even 10 rounds in the them for competition use. Most owners of rifles, which like Lever Action Shotguns, are fully manual single shot repeaters. Most have magazines that hold 10 rounds, some as high as 25 rounds. The capacity isn't really a banning issue.
Rapid Fire? - Well compared to what? And that is the problem, there's no fence checking here either. The fact is a double barrel shotgun is faster than a lever action shotgun when firing 2 rounds, because a double barrel can fire 2 rounds as once. This is universally jumped upon by some folk when they declare "That of course it is but if you fire your "high capacity" magazine off the firing rate is much higher with the lever action".
To be fair this is quite correct, but to be properly accurate, please be aware a double barrel is faster with 2 rounds, a lever action 5 round shotgun is faster when shooting 5 rounds but when you shoot 10 rounds a lever action is actually slower than a double barrel.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHEi3a08wE )
Deadliest & Highest Power 12 Gauge ever - Now these are the 2 main reasons that are put forward and also fall flat.
Its 12 gauge, only variance in power is between the different shell sizes you can buy, flat nothing to do with the firearm nor its action. None.
If you want to see a rapid fire shotgun click on the link below, Winchester SX which is not allowed in WA fired 12 shots in 1.44 seconds. Now compare that to the supposed Adlers 8 shots in 8 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCB7uEQ9W9A
So what you need to ask is not whether someone is pro or anti Adler or pro or anti Lever Action but ask this...
Q) The lever action shotguns with 5 and 7 shot magazines are currently completely legal in WA (and the rest of Australia) on Cat A licence, so what Category should the 5 shot be and what Category should the 7 shot be on...and why?
If you want to help them, explain no lever action shotgun has been used in a siege, massacre, terrorist act or mass killing. Currently its only accessible to people who've passed the vetting process, police clearances and firearms handling course...they have to be a fit & proper person which raises the question why can a fit & proper person get it now in 5 or 7 shot but shouldn't?
Why also should it be changed so a fit & proper person be allowed 5 shot but not a 7+ shot?
Why?
The onus is on legislators to explain why its been ok to have one for over a century, its been Cat A since John Howards law changes but suddenly just 2 extra shots for approved fit & proper persons are super deadly threats to citizens. It is not a question of why do shooters need it, its why do anti shooters think its a health & safety issue. The current status quo has been fine. We need a bit more than "you don't need it"
It is a debacle of an issue, where Sovereign Over Reach by the Feds has got this far because so many opposition MPs have virtually no understanding of the Import Ban, the current legislation or why just 2 extra shots afforded to a qualified & approved shooter under the regulations turns them from a fit & proper person into a serious threat to society.
Late Edit - Here's what you're up against. 'We have a stance, its profoundly vague and we're keeping it that way...and we're not giving you any hint of any detail nor the reasons why...just it is, but we're not saying exactly what "is" might be or why...never any why oh & vote for us because of the reasons we haven't given you
Sir Humphrey Applebee would be overcome with joy & pleasure.
We cannot have a US Gun Culture or US Gun Laws, its not constitutionally possible nor viable or even remotely possible, to suggest we're heading that ways highlights ignorance. A fine place to be arguing law changes from.
The Adler is 100% legal in this country as a Cat A whether its 5 shot or 7 shot. That's a fact and so is the fact no one is asking for that to be watered down. Arguing from falsehood again.
Another fact, if it goes to Cat D it is in WA the same category as the belt fed machine gun because all Cat Ds are prohibited in WA. If someone wants 7 shot in Cat D and 5 Shot in Cat B they should have the decency and intellectual fortitude to say why...exactly why.
What we're seeing is political Distraction, arguing from falsehood and ignorance.
Mistrust the ignorant one lying to you or arguing from falsehood or ignorance. "Not Necessary" isn't a reason...right now 7 shots is Cat A legal, it isn't a problem, hasn't seen any Lever Action in a siege, massacre, terror attack or any crime to date. "Watering down" red flag time signalling arguing from ignorance. Can't get that simple bit right, can't be assured of getting much else right.
Now with that, read on :-)
In essence there's nothing wrong with being pro or anti gun. Its what you do & say with that premise that's important and whether or not you go wider than the first premise and use facts, data and reason when going elsewhere it. Some on both sides are not so here's some background that might be useful for those forming or trying to form a view or stance
GK Chesterton is quoted as saying "Whenever you remove any fence, always pause long enough to ask why it was put there in the first place."
This doesn't just apply to those seeking to water down legislation, it applies to all legislative changes, whether its strengthening, weakening or abolishing. Its very much, what is the status quo & why is it so? Its not to prevent a change, its to ensure the change is a useful improvement, a rightful change and not impetuous or heavily bias away from fact.
So how does the Adler issue rate? Very poorly as much of the push came from misdirection and lacked some understanding and fact.
The Adler is a Lever Action 12 Gauge Shotgun. It was initially put together by the wholesaler/importer Nioa to be a 7 shot Lever Action Shotgun that would be available under Cat A which is one of the less restricted firearms classes. Now despite the current fervour, that was 100% legal in all states of Australia, it was going to be good to go everywhere as Cat A. In fact, remember this if nothing else, a 5, 7 & even a 10 shot lever action shot gun has had a home in Cat A since the John Howard's revamp of laws in 1996. It probably stayed in its rightful place of Cat A back then because there'd been no siege, massacre, terrorist act or even a violent crime with one then nor since...well I'm still trying to find one but looks like I'm going to have to go back to before World War 2 but the records aren't good so best I can say is, its not the criminals choice and can't find where a crim has used one
But lets check to see why the fence was built that way in the first place.
Its actually very simple. The firearm is a "Single Shot Repeater" meaning it can only fire one shot at a time. Once fired you have manually unload the spent shell, you have to manually load the next live round & then manually pull the trigger to fire it.
One media commentator referred to it as a "DEFACTO SEMI AUTOMATIC"
This is baseless, false & misleading because if you look at it closely its actually a "FULLY MANUAL FIREARM ACTION". Semi automatic means part of the firing action is automatic & in the case of a Semi Automatic, you fire the trigger and it automatically ejects the spent round, loads the next live round ready for your next manual trigger pull. Part of the process is automatic hence the term SEMI automatic. You cannot call it defacto semi automatic unless you're trying to trick people who are unaware and when it comes to legislation don't allow anyone to use deception.
High Capacity? - Well no its not, many revolvers have 5. 6, 8 & even 10 rounds in the them for competition use. Most owners of rifles, which like Lever Action Shotguns, are fully manual single shot repeaters. Most have magazines that hold 10 rounds, some as high as 25 rounds. The capacity isn't really a banning issue.
Rapid Fire? - Well compared to what? And that is the problem, there's no fence checking here either. The fact is a double barrel shotgun is faster than a lever action shotgun when firing 2 rounds, because a double barrel can fire 2 rounds as once. This is universally jumped upon by some folk when they declare "That of course it is but if you fire your "high capacity" magazine off the firing rate is much higher with the lever action".
To be fair this is quite correct, but to be properly accurate, please be aware a double barrel is faster with 2 rounds, a lever action 5 round shotgun is faster when shooting 5 rounds but when you shoot 10 rounds a lever action is actually slower than a double barrel.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHEi3a08wE )
Deadliest & Highest Power 12 Gauge ever - Now these are the 2 main reasons that are put forward and also fall flat.
Its 12 gauge, only variance in power is between the different shell sizes you can buy, flat nothing to do with the firearm nor its action. None.
If you want to see a rapid fire shotgun click on the link below, Winchester SX which is not allowed in WA fired 12 shots in 1.44 seconds. Now compare that to the supposed Adlers 8 shots in 8 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCB7uEQ9W9A
So what you need to ask is not whether someone is pro or anti Adler or pro or anti Lever Action but ask this...
Q) The lever action shotguns with 5 and 7 shot magazines are currently completely legal in WA (and the rest of Australia) on Cat A licence, so what Category should the 5 shot be and what Category should the 7 shot be on...and why?
If you want to help them, explain no lever action shotgun has been used in a siege, massacre, terrorist act or mass killing. Currently its only accessible to people who've passed the vetting process, police clearances and firearms handling course...they have to be a fit & proper person which raises the question why can a fit & proper person get it now in 5 or 7 shot but shouldn't?
Why also should it be changed so a fit & proper person be allowed 5 shot but not a 7+ shot?
Why?
The onus is on legislators to explain why its been ok to have one for over a century, its been Cat A since John Howards law changes but suddenly just 2 extra shots for approved fit & proper persons are super deadly threats to citizens. It is not a question of why do shooters need it, its why do anti shooters think its a health & safety issue. The current status quo has been fine. We need a bit more than "you don't need it"
It is a debacle of an issue, where Sovereign Over Reach by the Feds has got this far because so many opposition MPs have virtually no understanding of the Import Ban, the current legislation or why just 2 extra shots afforded to a qualified & approved shooter under the regulations turns them from a fit & proper person into a serious threat to society.
Late Edit - Here's what you're up against. 'We have a stance, its profoundly vague and we're keeping it that way...and we're not giving you any hint of any detail nor the reasons why...just it is, but we're not saying exactly what "is" might be or why...never any why oh & vote for us because of the reasons we haven't given you
Sir Humphrey Applebee would be overcome with joy & pleasure.
Don't believe me? Read on
Thursday 8 December 2016
Post Truth, Post Fact - How did we get here?
It is a strange planet we live on now. Truth is considered first casualty of war, but seems its a pretty massive casualty in in peace time too.
Donald Trump made all sorts of claims whilst campaigning that he's stepped away from since becoming President elect. Maybe no wall between USA & Mexico with Mexico paying for it. Hillary would be in jail. All puff n bluster he's stepped away from but all silly comments at best.
And he's not the first or the last to say things that clearly were false with little or no accountability, correction & worse still regret.
In 2012 the then PM Tony Abbott said “What you’ll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes,” and “no cuts to education, no cuts to health”. He won the election 2013 & what was his first budget move? He cut funding for schools and hospitals by $80 billion & introduced a new deficit tax, plus a $7 GP tax.
Non Core Promise I guess.
When Abbott was health minister in 2004 before the election Abbott gave “an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment” not to change the Medicare safety net then after the election raised.
His apology? Well close as it got was... “I am very sorry that that statement back in October has turned out not to be realised by events,”
John Howard was the creator of the "core" and "non core" promises. He also said no GST "NEVER EVER" and once elected promptly brought one in.
Bob Hawke - In 1987 prior to the election said “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty.” - Never happened, still waiting. Perhaps what he said was “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in politics.”
In 1993 Paul Keating promised & delivered two lots of income tax cuts, which he famously spruiked as being "L-A-W LAW". He then repealed the legislation so perhaps he meant "L-I-E LIE"
Gillard & Rudd share some dubious commonalities. Whilst both were PM's both knifed each other to get the position whilst the other was in the Prime Minister's office. He's notable for promising a carbon price and then dumping the idea, she's notable for opposing a carbon price & then introducing it.
It is a strange part of the human condition that more we expect people to lie, the less upset we are about it. If the Dalai Lama or a nun or an Australian of the Year sold you a low mileage car which turned out to be a high mileage lemon they turned the speedo back on, well you'd go nuts and so would anyone else. A used car dealer does it and yes you'd probably be peeved but there won't be any community outrage. It'd be half expected even if unfairly so.
We more than half expect a politician to lie. A statesman no, but a run of the mill pollie, well yes.
This is why when questioned politicians use tactics they've been soundly coached in. Up pops a questions, ask another question to deflect then turn head to another reporter before being held accountable. Don't give an answer, give a tactical reply, apportion blame to the opposing side of politics and attack their angle, be sure to find, create or infer an angle, deliver the blow, then turn the head at the door stop and take another question...or scurry away. There is always one reporter there who is sympathetic, who'll ask a less harrowing question, always one trying to get a door opening relationship going by not being to "investigative"
Strange twist is, we're currently enjoying a time when more journalists & reporters than ever (not all though) will tackle an MP head on without fear or favour. This is diminished somewhat by the fact many press gatherings are staged, managed and heavily pre-planned. The agenda is largely set by those aligned with the MP, only the sudden door stop allows proper sunlight to flood in but generally they're fast, quick matters and can be walked through by an MP under the pump.
MPs are more managed and indeed owned and operated by their party machine than they are by the electorate. More often the MPs represent the party in the electorate rather than represent the electorate in cabinet, the party room, the parliament. Stop and look see, if a candidate is really good then why does he or she need to wrap their name in tribal colours of a party?
Having said that, One Nation rose this time & last time due to the protest vote. Ricky Muir was elected to the senate from a protest vote, so too all the Palmer United members.
For now, the protest vote is here to stay. Liberal and Labor Duopoly have made sure of that as more people leave them they seek out an alternative.
Next state election Greens may rise in total votes a little, One Nation might get one MP up & running but think the big losers will be Libs & Labor. I think if Colin Barnett gets re-elected he won't do a full term as Premier. Think his plan is win power or if he loses government he'll retire from office sooner. I think the big winners, all things being equal and ignoring unforeseen things, will be Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party and ironically The Nationals (WA). Even though both are at odds with each other greatly in the eastern states. Here the SFFP maybe the same as over east, but the Nationals have unique differences with their eastern brethren.
Whilst the Nats were handed an absolute belting in the NSW seat of Orange by the SFFP it may not translate to big seat loses in WA. SFFP main man in WA is Rick Mazza who has a very good, very respectable parliamentary record after just one term. In his first 2 years in the Upper House he sat on 4 standing/sitting committees and the RSPCA one he instigated & chaired. Many MPs managed just one committee in the same period of time.
For country people, these will be the 2 main parties for traditional country voters but the Liberals & Labor both have very large and solid foundation in some non Perth seats.
I'm keeping tabs on a couple of notable MPs and seeing how they go in the "Post Truth/Post Fact" stakes.
Whilst time will tell a couple of things are well assured. We have tough economic times ahead. We're likely to see hung or near hung parliaments as a norm not an exception and the biggy...if you seek political how to vote advice, just remember this...
Now more than ever, your vote DOES count so think seriously for a lot more than a minute and cast it wisely. I'm leaning towards a larger number of voters leaving the Labor/Liberal duopoly and heading towards Nats WA & the SFFP and One Nation being the Wild Card full of unknowns. But your dart board is as good as mine and being a Post Truth era being completely incorrect doesn't make you the least bit wrong it seems ;-)
Funny old world
Donald Trump made all sorts of claims whilst campaigning that he's stepped away from since becoming President elect. Maybe no wall between USA & Mexico with Mexico paying for it. Hillary would be in jail. All puff n bluster he's stepped away from but all silly comments at best.
And he's not the first or the last to say things that clearly were false with little or no accountability, correction & worse still regret.
In 2012 the then PM Tony Abbott said “What you’ll get under us are tax cuts without new taxes,” and “no cuts to education, no cuts to health”. He won the election 2013 & what was his first budget move? He cut funding for schools and hospitals by $80 billion & introduced a new deficit tax, plus a $7 GP tax.
Non Core Promise I guess.
When Abbott was health minister in 2004 before the election Abbott gave “an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment” not to change the Medicare safety net then after the election raised.
His apology? Well close as it got was... “I am very sorry that that statement back in October has turned out not to be realised by events,”
John Howard was the creator of the "core" and "non core" promises. He also said no GST "NEVER EVER" and once elected promptly brought one in.
Bob Hawke - In 1987 prior to the election said “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty.” - Never happened, still waiting. Perhaps what he said was “By 1990 no Australian child will be living in politics.”
In 1993 Paul Keating promised & delivered two lots of income tax cuts, which he famously spruiked as being "L-A-W LAW". He then repealed the legislation so perhaps he meant "L-I-E LIE"
Gillard & Rudd share some dubious commonalities. Whilst both were PM's both knifed each other to get the position whilst the other was in the Prime Minister's office. He's notable for promising a carbon price and then dumping the idea, she's notable for opposing a carbon price & then introducing it.
It is a strange part of the human condition that more we expect people to lie, the less upset we are about it. If the Dalai Lama or a nun or an Australian of the Year sold you a low mileage car which turned out to be a high mileage lemon they turned the speedo back on, well you'd go nuts and so would anyone else. A used car dealer does it and yes you'd probably be peeved but there won't be any community outrage. It'd be half expected even if unfairly so.
We more than half expect a politician to lie. A statesman no, but a run of the mill pollie, well yes.
This is why when questioned politicians use tactics they've been soundly coached in. Up pops a questions, ask another question to deflect then turn head to another reporter before being held accountable. Don't give an answer, give a tactical reply, apportion blame to the opposing side of politics and attack their angle, be sure to find, create or infer an angle, deliver the blow, then turn the head at the door stop and take another question...or scurry away. There is always one reporter there who is sympathetic, who'll ask a less harrowing question, always one trying to get a door opening relationship going by not being to "investigative"
Strange twist is, we're currently enjoying a time when more journalists & reporters than ever (not all though) will tackle an MP head on without fear or favour. This is diminished somewhat by the fact many press gatherings are staged, managed and heavily pre-planned. The agenda is largely set by those aligned with the MP, only the sudden door stop allows proper sunlight to flood in but generally they're fast, quick matters and can be walked through by an MP under the pump.
MPs are more managed and indeed owned and operated by their party machine than they are by the electorate. More often the MPs represent the party in the electorate rather than represent the electorate in cabinet, the party room, the parliament. Stop and look see, if a candidate is really good then why does he or she need to wrap their name in tribal colours of a party?
Having said that, One Nation rose this time & last time due to the protest vote. Ricky Muir was elected to the senate from a protest vote, so too all the Palmer United members.
For now, the protest vote is here to stay. Liberal and Labor Duopoly have made sure of that as more people leave them they seek out an alternative.
Next state election Greens may rise in total votes a little, One Nation might get one MP up & running but think the big losers will be Libs & Labor. I think if Colin Barnett gets re-elected he won't do a full term as Premier. Think his plan is win power or if he loses government he'll retire from office sooner. I think the big winners, all things being equal and ignoring unforeseen things, will be Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party and ironically The Nationals (WA). Even though both are at odds with each other greatly in the eastern states. Here the SFFP maybe the same as over east, but the Nationals have unique differences with their eastern brethren.
Whilst the Nats were handed an absolute belting in the NSW seat of Orange by the SFFP it may not translate to big seat loses in WA. SFFP main man in WA is Rick Mazza who has a very good, very respectable parliamentary record after just one term. In his first 2 years in the Upper House he sat on 4 standing/sitting committees and the RSPCA one he instigated & chaired. Many MPs managed just one committee in the same period of time.
For country people, these will be the 2 main parties for traditional country voters but the Liberals & Labor both have very large and solid foundation in some non Perth seats.
I'm keeping tabs on a couple of notable MPs and seeing how they go in the "Post Truth/Post Fact" stakes.
Whilst time will tell a couple of things are well assured. We have tough economic times ahead. We're likely to see hung or near hung parliaments as a norm not an exception and the biggy...if you seek political how to vote advice, just remember this...
Now more than ever, your vote DOES count so think seriously for a lot more than a minute and cast it wisely. I'm leaning towards a larger number of voters leaving the Labor/Liberal duopoly and heading towards Nats WA & the SFFP and One Nation being the Wild Card full of unknowns. But your dart board is as good as mine and being a Post Truth era being completely incorrect doesn't make you the least bit wrong it seems ;-)
Funny old world
Monday 5 December 2016
Firearms, Politics, Parties, Issues and a Funny Old World
Its been a funny few weeks & several things all met at a cross roads that had me thinking sideways again.
A wealthy grazier I know, who I often talk politics with offered me a big chunk of money to start a political party. One that is centred on WA Seceding from the rest of Australia. I declined politely but took it on board. Days later mentioned it in passing to a well heeled businessman and he said he'd match it dollar for dollar, perhaps more. I went from thinking folly to curious thinking and in doing so mentioned to another farmer who is very much a political junky. He said he thought it was an idea of great merit and said he's pretty sure more dollar for dollar people would step up if I got serious.
Ok now it wasn't funny. I wasn't flattered, it wasn't about me its about the state of play in Australian politics that has caused the initial offer & talking about it to others clearly plugs into others with similar receptors. That or its a good idea, but its not about me, its the idea that has merit that needs checking.
Then today a person from a political party asked if I'd be interested in standing in the next State Election. OK now I'm beginning to wonder what is going on, but fact remains, its not me, not about me, its about the current turbulent state of play in WA & Federal politics. I don't think we've seen a more dysfunctional senate or at least never seen so many dud senators wielding such disproportionate levels of clout.
Issues, like the big issues aren't so dissimilar between parties. There's the big core issues. health, law & order, the budget, the debt, its serviceability, the economy, jobs, the future. Everyone wants improvement, everyone wants to capitalise on whatever opportunities they think are there. Difference is what they think the opportunities are & how improvements should be made.
Its the Tier 2 & 3 issues where I think protest votes will probably centre and where a small handful of seats may be tilted and possibly toppled. There's a swag of Tier 2 issues and fact is, for some folk these aren't Tier 2 or 3, they're major issues. Everyone has a view, some differ from mainstream but telecommunications, mobile coverage, internet line speed & cost, housing affordability, GM Crops, firearm regulations, same sex marriage, euthanasia, foreign ownership of farms/stations, selling of public assets...
There's these and a few others that are far more contentious issues. So much so I'm not likely to mention some are the ones that will fuel the protest vote. Those folk with the protest vote are those who are now looking, pointing fingers and uttering "bloody duopoly".
Its not just immigration that delivered seats to One Nation in the federal parliament. I'm not 100% sure what got Derryn Hinch elected exactly but generally it was a Trump like effort on his part to cash in on a protest vote pay out. And as for Senator Culleton, well I'm still wondering what the hell happened there and I guess Pauline Hanson is thinking and wondering what the hell she was thinking. I do know one Albany local who sought Pauline out in the main street when she visited here during the Federal campaign. He said his words to her were "Love your work but what's with picking Rodney Culleton? You seriously want to re-think it before its too late"
I'm thinking that could be ringing in her ears.
It appears it ain't over but its probably too late & it might hasten the One Nation implosion some commentators were predicting. I think it'll be Palmer United all over again, slow disintegration or maybe just one expulsion/resignation from One Nation and carry on as usual. The implosion may not be til the next ballot count.
One political chat today, firearms came up. I was asked how I felt about Port Arthur and immediately said "I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories if that's what you mean"
I was then challenged to research it further that it was all an evil government plot.
I pointed out that its irrelevant as the Howard Government solution was improper. Whether it be a false flag attack somehow or as I see it, exactly as the media suggested the response should not have been taking firearms away from law abiding firearms owners. The completely indisputable fact was it was portrayed as a mad gunman. My thought was, the mad gunman had no driver's licence, no firearms licence, bought illegal guns off the black market and had a mental condition that made it difficult for him to discern fact from fantasy. The Howard reaction should have been to target the black market gun trade, filthy gun smugglers and pour big buckets of cash into serious mental health. Fail, fail, fail. The response did not match the incident.
None of this was contested effectively hence it sailed through despite the angry reaction of firearms owners, there really was no proper cogent public debate or if so it was ignored. Policy came from a small set of the ruling class, facts could only be used if they aligned with the predetermined result and this has been a hallmark of policy making. Opportunity, political capital & ideology. The policy machine is built on those 3 cornerstones and facts & data have been dismissed from duty. The 2 main culprits in the decaying policy process, the Labor/Liberal Duopoly.
Whilst the Adler was clearly part of the protest vote in the Orange by-election, many other issues there also put the duopoly on the nose. Take into account the staggering size of the anti incumbent swing in that seat. SFFP may have only one by a paper thin margin, but the swing to get their is beyond Herculean. You'd think the 2 majors would be on notice, but alas, many are myopic and stuck on their own personal Tier 1 issues.
Another lady today spoke to me about firearms and referred to them as weapons. I corrected her by suggesting that its a firearm, not a weapon. A weapon only if used for killing or hurting people. Very very few firearms are used for that and only when they are, only then are they weapons. The term "weapon" is reliant on the intent. If you have firearms for shooting paper targets, you are not going armed in public, you are not brandishing a weapon. Simple things in the firearms debate that get lost, what hope do the real facts & stats have. Expect those affected most to vote a protest vote.
All in all, with a young family I'm not planning to enter politics now or in the foreseeable future.
Nor am I'm looking to start a new party to push for WA to secede from the Commonwealth...much as I half like that idea.
All in all, the suggestions and offers aren't about me, they're about the political state of play we're currently seeing. More divisive, non statesman like era, where deals are made because numbers are tight and we go from one nearly hung parliament to another.
I didn't make a prediction on Brexit, Trump or Orange, mainly because I couldn't. I did think they'd all be nearly-sorta-kinda-maybe-half close...but I didn't see those things going the way they did let alone as big as they did.
To be honest I wasn't even half close and whilst all delivered a result that out witted professional commentators, so far we only have the first result. We're yet to see the outcomes these protest votes might produce. Jury is out on our new senate too.
I can only make the simplest of predictions...
We haven't seen the last of the protest votes and most of them may not be centred on the big issues.
We haven't seen the first of the outcomes they might produce and good chance many will fall short of whatever promising hope they may have sparked in people's minds.
The duopoly is on the nose and the protest votes aren't always about the big things.
Sometimes they're just about the little people and what matters most to them.
That and some people in office forget they're also in the same family as the little people.
Chinese curse says "May you live in interesting times"
We are.
A wealthy grazier I know, who I often talk politics with offered me a big chunk of money to start a political party. One that is centred on WA Seceding from the rest of Australia. I declined politely but took it on board. Days later mentioned it in passing to a well heeled businessman and he said he'd match it dollar for dollar, perhaps more. I went from thinking folly to curious thinking and in doing so mentioned to another farmer who is very much a political junky. He said he thought it was an idea of great merit and said he's pretty sure more dollar for dollar people would step up if I got serious.
Ok now it wasn't funny. I wasn't flattered, it wasn't about me its about the state of play in Australian politics that has caused the initial offer & talking about it to others clearly plugs into others with similar receptors. That or its a good idea, but its not about me, its the idea that has merit that needs checking.
Then today a person from a political party asked if I'd be interested in standing in the next State Election. OK now I'm beginning to wonder what is going on, but fact remains, its not me, not about me, its about the current turbulent state of play in WA & Federal politics. I don't think we've seen a more dysfunctional senate or at least never seen so many dud senators wielding such disproportionate levels of clout.
Issues, like the big issues aren't so dissimilar between parties. There's the big core issues. health, law & order, the budget, the debt, its serviceability, the economy, jobs, the future. Everyone wants improvement, everyone wants to capitalise on whatever opportunities they think are there. Difference is what they think the opportunities are & how improvements should be made.
Its the Tier 2 & 3 issues where I think protest votes will probably centre and where a small handful of seats may be tilted and possibly toppled. There's a swag of Tier 2 issues and fact is, for some folk these aren't Tier 2 or 3, they're major issues. Everyone has a view, some differ from mainstream but telecommunications, mobile coverage, internet line speed & cost, housing affordability, GM Crops, firearm regulations, same sex marriage, euthanasia, foreign ownership of farms/stations, selling of public assets...
There's these and a few others that are far more contentious issues. So much so I'm not likely to mention some are the ones that will fuel the protest vote. Those folk with the protest vote are those who are now looking, pointing fingers and uttering "bloody duopoly".
Its not just immigration that delivered seats to One Nation in the federal parliament. I'm not 100% sure what got Derryn Hinch elected exactly but generally it was a Trump like effort on his part to cash in on a protest vote pay out. And as for Senator Culleton, well I'm still wondering what the hell happened there and I guess Pauline Hanson is thinking and wondering what the hell she was thinking. I do know one Albany local who sought Pauline out in the main street when she visited here during the Federal campaign. He said his words to her were "Love your work but what's with picking Rodney Culleton? You seriously want to re-think it before its too late"
I'm thinking that could be ringing in her ears.
It appears it ain't over but its probably too late & it might hasten the One Nation implosion some commentators were predicting. I think it'll be Palmer United all over again, slow disintegration or maybe just one expulsion/resignation from One Nation and carry on as usual. The implosion may not be til the next ballot count.
One political chat today, firearms came up. I was asked how I felt about Port Arthur and immediately said "I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories if that's what you mean"
I was then challenged to research it further that it was all an evil government plot.
I pointed out that its irrelevant as the Howard Government solution was improper. Whether it be a false flag attack somehow or as I see it, exactly as the media suggested the response should not have been taking firearms away from law abiding firearms owners. The completely indisputable fact was it was portrayed as a mad gunman. My thought was, the mad gunman had no driver's licence, no firearms licence, bought illegal guns off the black market and had a mental condition that made it difficult for him to discern fact from fantasy. The Howard reaction should have been to target the black market gun trade, filthy gun smugglers and pour big buckets of cash into serious mental health. Fail, fail, fail. The response did not match the incident.
None of this was contested effectively hence it sailed through despite the angry reaction of firearms owners, there really was no proper cogent public debate or if so it was ignored. Policy came from a small set of the ruling class, facts could only be used if they aligned with the predetermined result and this has been a hallmark of policy making. Opportunity, political capital & ideology. The policy machine is built on those 3 cornerstones and facts & data have been dismissed from duty. The 2 main culprits in the decaying policy process, the Labor/Liberal Duopoly.
Whilst the Adler was clearly part of the protest vote in the Orange by-election, many other issues there also put the duopoly on the nose. Take into account the staggering size of the anti incumbent swing in that seat. SFFP may have only one by a paper thin margin, but the swing to get their is beyond Herculean. You'd think the 2 majors would be on notice, but alas, many are myopic and stuck on their own personal Tier 1 issues.
Another lady today spoke to me about firearms and referred to them as weapons. I corrected her by suggesting that its a firearm, not a weapon. A weapon only if used for killing or hurting people. Very very few firearms are used for that and only when they are, only then are they weapons. The term "weapon" is reliant on the intent. If you have firearms for shooting paper targets, you are not going armed in public, you are not brandishing a weapon. Simple things in the firearms debate that get lost, what hope do the real facts & stats have. Expect those affected most to vote a protest vote.
All in all, with a young family I'm not planning to enter politics now or in the foreseeable future.
Nor am I'm looking to start a new party to push for WA to secede from the Commonwealth...much as I half like that idea.
All in all, the suggestions and offers aren't about me, they're about the political state of play we're currently seeing. More divisive, non statesman like era, where deals are made because numbers are tight and we go from one nearly hung parliament to another.
I didn't make a prediction on Brexit, Trump or Orange, mainly because I couldn't. I did think they'd all be nearly-sorta-kinda-maybe-half close...but I didn't see those things going the way they did let alone as big as they did.
To be honest I wasn't even half close and whilst all delivered a result that out witted professional commentators, so far we only have the first result. We're yet to see the outcomes these protest votes might produce. Jury is out on our new senate too.
I can only make the simplest of predictions...
We haven't seen the last of the protest votes and most of them may not be centred on the big issues.
We haven't seen the first of the outcomes they might produce and good chance many will fall short of whatever promising hope they may have sparked in people's minds.
The duopoly is on the nose and the protest votes aren't always about the big things.
Sometimes they're just about the little people and what matters most to them.
That and some people in office forget they're also in the same family as the little people.
Chinese curse says "May you live in interesting times"
We are.
Saturday 3 December 2016
The Adler...AGAIN
So its arrived, crunch time for the 5 shot Adler Shotgun. It's likely the 7 shot be completely banned in WA & the 5 shot possibly banned or up to Cat C. Right now? Well right now 7 shot is 100% legal.
Check below for the link to the story. In short the NSW State Government who couldn't agree at the COAG meeting now do so its going to Category D.
Many odd things remain. A lever action shotgun has never been used in a siege, massacre or crime, senate report was clear that the firearm of choice for criminals are handguns, sub machine guns & sawn off shotguns.
Should add, every cache of 9mm sub machine found & seized, nearly all were home made by criminal gunsmiths and a few were smuggled in. You can't make an Adler into a sawn off, well you can but it becomes a single shot.
Should add, its not rapid fire. If you fire only 2 shots a double barrel shotgun is quicker. If you fire 5 shots the lever action is quicker, if you fire 10 shots the double barrel is quicker or exactly the same. (Don't take my word for it, there's a firing comparison on Youtube)
All this happens AFTER the Orange by-election where the Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party won th unwinnable seat. In WA with a state election coming, "The Rod Culleton Effect" may see One Nation not get all the votes they hope and the SFFP may get more than many people expect. They're running a candidate in Brendon Grylls seat & I'm half expecting most rural seats in the Upper House and some Lower House seats to get SFFP Candidates.
It has been a total schamozzle this Adler thing. Its been smoke, mirrors, platitudes and skimming over of facts. Its run on emotion and very little else and the whole circus and threat of a full ban made it the high ground many shooters were going to stand firm on. It helped sell more Adlers than anything else oddly. Before Winchester and Chiappa made lever action shotguns. Readily available on Cat A. Now there's Emerald, Adler, Pardus, IAC and 4 other brands of lever action shotgun. The Adler itself sold over 8000. 2 years ago, well I'd never seen a lever action shotgun. They just weren't popular.
Check below for the link to the story. In short the NSW State Government who couldn't agree at the COAG meeting now do so its going to Category D.
Many odd things remain. A lever action shotgun has never been used in a siege, massacre or crime, senate report was clear that the firearm of choice for criminals are handguns, sub machine guns & sawn off shotguns.
Should add, every cache of 9mm sub machine found & seized, nearly all were home made by criminal gunsmiths and a few were smuggled in. You can't make an Adler into a sawn off, well you can but it becomes a single shot.
Should add, its not rapid fire. If you fire only 2 shots a double barrel shotgun is quicker. If you fire 5 shots the lever action is quicker, if you fire 10 shots the double barrel is quicker or exactly the same. (Don't take my word for it, there's a firing comparison on Youtube)
All this happens AFTER the Orange by-election where the Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party won th unwinnable seat. In WA with a state election coming, "The Rod Culleton Effect" may see One Nation not get all the votes they hope and the SFFP may get more than many people expect. They're running a candidate in Brendon Grylls seat & I'm half expecting most rural seats in the Upper House and some Lower House seats to get SFFP Candidates.
It has been a total schamozzle this Adler thing. Its been smoke, mirrors, platitudes and skimming over of facts. Its run on emotion and very little else and the whole circus and threat of a full ban made it the high ground many shooters were going to stand firm on. It helped sell more Adlers than anything else oddly. Before Winchester and Chiappa made lever action shotguns. Readily available on Cat A. Now there's Emerald, Adler, Pardus, IAC and 4 other brands of lever action shotgun. The Adler itself sold over 8000. 2 years ago, well I'd never seen a lever action shotgun. They just weren't popular.
So what's the wash out? Well political parties will have to have a clear and concise position on the firearm if they're to limit some of the minor wash off of votes going to the minor parties like SFFP & to a lesser extent One Nation. My main contention is not whether the firearm is banned or allowed but whether a decision is made based on facts or emotion...or ignorance & bluff.
- They're not rapid fire. firing 10 shots an Adler is not faster compared to a double barrel shot gun
- They're not high capacity. 5 shot & 7 shot is lower capacity than what you can get for all rifles with detachable magazines. They're all 10 shot. Competition shooters in pistol shooting all use 10 shot magazines. Heck a Smith & Wesson Model 617 is a 10 shot revolver. Yes Cat H, but lever action is not high capacity.
- No siege, massacre or crime has been committed with a lever action shotgun. Maybe there has but I've been searching for 12 months and can't find one. Most crimes are sawn off double barrel shotguns, hand guns or sub machine guns. Of them most are home made or smuggled into the country. The smallest portion are stolen. Less than 0.5%
- The Adler, if it goes onto Cat D will be effectively banned in WA like a machine gun. The line is only available to professional shooters, which maybe the case in other states but in WA Cat D is police & military only. Adlers here will be gone unless there's some change to Cat D.
- Currently some people, mostly primary producers can have a pump action shotgun, limited to 5 shots. Now if the Adler goes to Cat D, so too will pump actions. In other words, the only shotgun most people will be able to get is a single shot or double shotgun. The latter being able to fire as "rapidly" as a 5 shot lever action if you fire 2 shots or 10.
- Then there's the issue of the import ban. Gun laws are state laws & Tony Abbott's ill considered ban helped sell more lever action shotguns than any ad campaign. He couldn't stop 7 shot Adlers, but he could ban the import and tell the states it remains in place until you change your laws to suit the federal government.
THIS IS CALLED SOVEREIGN OVER REACH.
Remember this and only my opinion but I think no one should vote for any party that agrees or allows or fails to oppose SOVEREIGN OVER REACH. - Buy back...one is coming for illegal firearms. Or at least an hand back amnesty is and it will therefore include Adlers & all the other brands of lever action shotguns.
- This absurd issue will not affect the elections in a number of metro seats. It will be viewed closely by the 800,000+ firearms owners. I'd expect some effect in the Upper House seats and more effect in preference allocation. We're currently in the longest stretch we've seen with hung or near hung federal parliaments. I expect savage horse trading to become more normal and legislative process to become slower and more "deal oriented".
- Lastly, this could be the first step in real firearm wind back, indeed some are already hoping it is. On the potential endangered list will be 10 shot magazines in any calibre, pump actions on Cat C and possible any competitive pistol or revolver that's got 5 shot capacity or more.
- FWIW, Port Arthur firearms, all illegal firearms bought off the black market by a gunman who didn't have a gun licence or a car licence. Lindt Café, illegal pump action shotgun, smuggled into Australia, used by a gunman with no firearms licence or even a driver's licence. The Sydney police worker brutally gunned down outside a Sydney police station, gunman had no firearms licence and the pistol was never sold in Australia, it was smuggled into Australia.
Interesting times ahead and worst of all this could have the same affect as John Howard's clamp down in the 1990s. It saw a huge rise in the amount of PVC pipe & caps sold. Many firearms went "missing" and it effectively turned law abiding firearms owners into illegal gun owners. People who weren't likely to commit a crime, broke the law.
The absurdity rolls on. Hopefully there'll be some real leadership, political leadership on the matter very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)