Australian Democracy is not dead, But it is on Life support.

I don’t believe all Australians are ignorant and stupid, but as within all countries there is a significant minority who are. When a single person has controls media and has ability to mobilise this significant minority with lies, bullshit and prejudice to vote as a block democracy becomes severely distorted. It saves this minority from thinking and gives the election a significant bias before it even begins.

Rupert Murdoch has that ability to distort the election and has used that ability unmercifully for the last three years. If democracy in Australia is to be restored to health the ability to control the flow of truth and give an utterly distorted slant to the media must be taken out of the equation. Murdoch must go.

It is unreasonable to expect media to be unbiased. The media cannot be separated from the reporting. However, we need a full range of bias if we are to have the ability to sort truth from fiction. One person controlling seventy percent of the media does not allow for that full range of bias.

Not only must Murdoch go if democracy is to be nurtured back to health but there must also be limits placed on the amount of control one person can have over the media. Democracy is not a ‘free for all.’ Democracy must have checks and balances to ensure that a minority cannot distort the process.

No-matter what the outcome of today’s election it will not be democratic. The result will be a distortion of the truth by a minority block led by a person with nothing but self interest as motivation. It may be difficult but with the remaining scraps of democracy we have left we can bring about changes to the media ownership laws. If that happens the next election might be democratic.


Do we have the media we deserve?

Watching ‘insiders’ Sunday demonstrate how low even the ABC has sunk in its reporting of politics.I did not hear any discussion at all about polices. There was no discussion of any depth of any of the issues facing Australia. All there was commentary on who won which round by how many points.

All that was needed was to speed it up a little and it would have been ringside commentary of a boxing match. Abbott landed a low punch but the referee ignored it. Rudd landed a right to the face and Abbott countered with a knee to the testicles.

Is this the media we deserve? Has the Australia public sunk so low that policy means no more than three word slogans and who beat up whom? Are we all really that stupid? When the section came to the headlines in the Sunday papers the headlines where massive instructions to the readers to vote for Abbott. What was that about? Is this Journalism?

The only thing that I have learnt for the mainstream media in the last three years is not to trust it. There has been the complaint from the print media moving on line that if we want quality journalism we will have to pay for it. Show me quality journalism and I will pay for it, but not the rubbish that passes for journalism in Australia.

Then on Monday evening I saw Q and A with Kevin Rudd. The audience were asking questions that indicated that they have real questions to ask that could have been answered years ago if the Main Stream Media had been doing its job.

The audience was lively and inquisitive about basic policy and this gave me hope that not all Australians have descended into the hell of ignorance and stupidity.

Australians are not all Bogans who can only think only in terms of three word slogans and insults.

Does the Australian public deserve the media they have inherited from the dominance of foreign ownership? No, they do not.

It is no good complaining that the media should be fair and unbiased. It is never going to happen. But we can have a balance of bias by having a multitude of bias that collectively gives a balance view.

It is not the totally biased view of the Murdoch press that is the problem. It is that there is no diversity of biased opinion. That is the problem with dictatorships. Sooner or later the Murdoch Empire will fall, as all dictatorships must when the need for diversity will not go away.

I did not agree with all the questions asked on Q and A on Monday but it was exciting to see that, contrary to what seem to be the case that in the poll driven Mainstream Media free will, independent thought and diversity still exists in Australian. That is the stuff democracy thrives on.

Politicians, know your place.

There is an old Taoist saying that the along the lines that the better the government the less the people notice them. What does that say about Australia’s politicians?

The place of the politician is to legislate on what the people want, not on how it should be done. The first needs to be the will of the people, and the second, how it should be done, they have no idea.

An example of democracy working properly was the introduction of legislation to limit the pollution emitted from motor vehicles. In the 1972 Vehicle Emission Standards where introduced and progressively tightened since. (Department of Infrastructure).

The people through the parliament legislated that motor vehicle emissions would be subject to new standards and then the motor industry worked out how those standards could be met. That is democracy in action.

Neither side of the political divide in Australia has the slightest idea what to do about climate change. Nor should we expect them to. Solutions to technological problems need technological answers.

If we are to cut carbon emissions to acceptable levels the answers will come form scientists, engineers, architects and other technocrats working together. In order for technocrats to find solutions to the problem of climate change they need direction.

The way to give technocrats direction is to legislate standards. “By 2015 the maximum carbon emissions per gigawatt of power produced shall be …..”” By 2020 it shall be …… ” That is all the technocrats need to fix the problem. Given the standards that need to be met those with the expertise will find a way to meet them.

Politicians arguing about the price of carbon, or about planting more trees is totally pointless because I doubt if there is a single politician in the Australian Parliament who has the slightest understanding of the technological issues involved. Australian politicians are a bunch of Nero’s fiddling whilst the planet burns. Just pass the standards and let those who know what they are doing get on with it.

Another issue where the politicians need to step aside is the NBN. Malcolm Turnbull may have had a little to do with the internet when it was Web 1.0, a few simple text pages with no interactivity, but that was long ago. Now we have Web 2.0 with its social interaction and we are on the brink of Web 3.0.

3D printing linked to the Internet now makes it possible to download data from the other side of the world and ‘print’ (construct) the object locally. It may sound like science fiction but on-line shopping with the object we buy materialising in our homes without any physical delivery is now technically possible. What is technically possible now will be commonplace in a few years.

It will require a massive data transfer speeds for web 3.0 to work properly. Do any of our Pollies have the slightest idea how to deal with that one? Turnbull’s Web two and a half is not adequate to meet today’s needs and if the NBN is adequate when it is finished it will not be adequate for long. With the NBN it is a case of too much power is never enough.

What is need is for those who have the expertise to understand what is happening and make intelligent guesses about what form of internet we will need to be given the responsibility of telling our politicians what is really needed. If we mess this one up the results could be very expensive and potentially chaotic for Australia.

If the place of politicians in our live is examined we could well think that they are continually messing things up because they are constantly making insane statements and decisions about things they nothing about. They also prevent those who do know what they are doing getting on with it.

Our politicians know nothing about climate change. Our politicians know nothing about the Internet. They know very little about anything. But that does not prevent them from being good representatives of the people if they could remember what their position is supposed to be.

Politicians are not required to know the answers. Their job is to give direction, by way of legislation and according to the will of the people to those who do know what they are doing. Then it is the place of the politician to step aside and let it happen.

If politicians understood their place in a democracy and stop seeing politics as a stepping-stone to power we would all be much better off. We could also get things done.


Vehicle Emissions Standards. Australian Government. Department of Infrastructure and Transport. .pdf file retrieved from


Exploring Australian Democracy

Democracy is elusive because there is no definition to tell us what democracy is.

Democracy is not voting for a government each three years and leaving it to ‘them’ to rule us until the next election. That is just a series of time-limited dictatorships.

Doing whatever the majority of people vote for at any moment is not democracy. That is mob rule. And even mob rule is not the will of the majority.

We are all part of a minority. Mob rule is many minorities believing they have a common cause even though their rationale for thinking they support a common cause differs from the other minorities.

When thinking about democracy it is worth remembering that every one of us is in a minority. We are never in the majority. So if we are to have democracy it must be about minorities. If it is not it becomes a dictatorship suppressing minorities.

If we find a minority to blame for some perceived catastrophe we need to remember that next time it might be the minority we belong to blamed for things completely outside our control.

The strange thing here is that contrary to popular thinking a true democratic society is continually shifting groups of minorities working together for the greatest common good for any issue.

The biggest bar to a true democracy is that in order to make decisions the population has to be informed. That is a real problem. The last thing a politician needs is an informed population of minorities making considered choices for the common good.

Magee (1973, p.28) wrote;

Popper (Karl Popper) denies this. Any fool, he points out, can produce an indefinite number of predictions with a probability of 1 — propositions like “it will Rain” which practically bound to be true and can never be proved false—never, because however many millions of years go by without a drop of rain, it may still remain true that it will, one day rain. The probability of such statements is a maximum because the information content is nil, namely tautologies, which tells us nothing at all about the world because they are necessarily true regardless of the way things are.

The quote was about science but it is the principle on which our supposed democracy works. If information given to the people by politicians is sufficiently general it will always be true at some time. This is the perfect breeding ground for meaningless slogans that can never be proved untrue because they have the probability of 1 that sometime, somewhere, somehow they will be true.

What is missing in Australia’s version of democracy is content. Even with issues like climate change the content is zero in the public arena. Basically Australian democracy is a vacuum filled with predictions with no content but cannot be proved untrue.

It was part of Popper’s philosophy that the less content the harder it was to falsify. If we are to test content there has to be content.

The debate in Australia on climate change has no content. The debate the economy has no content. There is no content in the slogans about border security. Whenever there is any content provided by either major political party the other says ‘me too’ and there is no alternative to vote for. Without content democracy is an empty shell and that will lead to bad things.

When George Bush claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction the claims had no content, but that lack of content proved to be the reason it was impossible to prove Bush was mistaken and the US presentation to the UN was an example of using zero content masquerading as something in a way that could not be proved false.

The Australian election campaign is about nothing. Niether leader of the two major parties has any content to present to the Australian public. Who can be the cruelest to refugees is not about content it is about lack of content. If you have nothing to say or add find someone to blame. It saves the inconvenience of having to find real solutions to real issues.

Is there anyone out there who has the slightest idea what is happening with the economy? The pronouncements of Abbott and Rudd drown out anyone who might be able to add content to the debate,

According to those with the knowledge to add content human induced global warming is real. However the debate in Australia about global warming in Australia is not real because the politician’s slogans have no content and slogans is all the population hears.

The September election will be about slogans not content fought between two political parties that have nothing to offer and democracy in Australia will be dead because it will be devoid of content even if we continue to believe this is what democracy is about.


Magee, B. (1973) Karl Popper. Modern Masters. New York, USA: Viking.


Rudd and Abbott know all the answers, but what is the question?

Rudd and Abbot have all the answers to Australia’s multitude of problems, whether those problems are real or manufactured. Answers built on slogans and what looks and sounds good to an increasingly polarised populace.

Both have the answer to ‘stopping the boats’, to our supposed disastrous economic plight, to global warming (Abbott’s solution is to ignore it and it will go away), and a multitude of other ‘problems.’

A feature of Australian Politics is that whilst everyone has answers nobody knows what the question is. The question must come before the answer.

My question for the coming election is ‘What sort of country do we want to be?’

Do we want to be a caring and compassionate country or do we want to be the Fourth Reich? Do we want to treat our planet with care so it will last a very long time or do we want to rape it for immediate hedonistic gain? Does economic growth override all other factors such as the ‘mining boom’ that has bought riches for the few but misery for many?

Does the mad rush for more, more, more mean more than those who get trampled in the mad rush?

These are the sorts of questions I would like to see asked in an election. Unfortunately neither major political party has begun to ask those questions. Instead I am being offered the Fourth Reich or the Fourth Reich. Not even a glimpse of grey.

The best I can do at this stage is to contemplate if I will vote for Mickey Mouse or Pluto. I have to put something on the paper or I will be fined for not having anyone to vote for who understands the question.


Abbott dictates Labour policy.

Rudd to scrap the ‘Carbon Tax’ and bring forward the market based carbon trading scheme. What does that mean Mr Rudd and what will it cost?

Are you going to scrap carbon pricing and leave nothing, absolutely nothing to price carbon until carbon trading starts in July next year? Or does carbon pricing stay until carbon trading starts. The art of generalities sounding like policies but with no details was perfected by Abbott, but has now been adopted by Rudd.

And what is it going to cost? Where will the savings come from? Does this sound like the same questions we are asking Abbott?

Rudd sounds more like a smooth version of Abbott with every passing day. What a choice. We can have a used car salesman or a bogan as Prime Minister with the only difference the style of the delivery, not policy.


Abbott “Poor old Julia Gillard.”

How hypocritical can a man be? “Poor old Julia Gillard” from Tony Abbott at this morning press conference showed just how two-faced Abbott is.

It was an interesting press conference as Abbott wriggles and squirmed as he tried to distance himself from Malcolm Turnbull’s performance on Q and A last night.

Malcolm Turnbull looked very uncomfortable while he explained that he supported the opposition’s policy on climate change and other matters because it was opposition policy not because he agreed.

Abbott lied over and over in his press conference particularly in the way he tried to hi-jack President Obama’s speech on Climate change basically claiming that Obama agreed with Abbott’s policy. I saw that speech and to say that there was any similarity between what Obama said and Abbott’s sort of inspirational policy is a straight out lie. But that is what I have come to expect from Abbott.

I have real fears about what Australia will become if Abbott becomes Prime Minister.


Bogan Politics and the Australian Election

Bogan Politics.

In Australia it is possible that after the September we will have a Bogan government.

Boganism is nothing to do with money, position, economic groups. Bogans cannot be categorised by where they live, what they do for a living or their level of education.

Boganism is a state of mind that makes it impossible to hear anything that another person has to say.

Whorf’s linguistic comes in many forms but basically it says that a person’s perception of the world is governed by the language they have to think with. The de-facto Australian language is now Boganism and this is the language forms Australia’s view the world.

The Basic Bogan Language.

There are many dialects of Boganese but in its most basic form it has a vocabulary of seven words. Those seven words consist of four imperatives, two obscenity’s and a given.

The four imperatives are Food, Booze, Sex and Money, not necessarily in that order. These four words will give the Basic Bogan an extremely limited base to construct his/her view of the world, but it is usually just sufficient to enable them to stagger from birth to death with a little breeding on the way.

To save the Bogan’s from having the appearance of being totally Neanderthal in nature, communicating in only a series of grunts the Bogan’s needs the two obscenities.

The two obscenities are sprinkled liberally between the four imperatives to give the illusion of sentence construction. They do not add anything to the Bogan’s perception of the world but they are the closest there is to grammar that exists in this most basic of languages.

To complete the Bogan language it is the given that anyone whose perception of the world extends past Basic Bogan is a ‘W’. The word used by the Bogan’s beginning wiTh W (not as in George W) is the most destructive word ever invented.

The Place of W in the Boganese Language.

W’s are clearly an inferior form of life. By applying this word to anyone with an enhanced perception of the world that lies beyond the Bogan’s comprehension the Bogan can maintain his/her position as the ultimate form of life.

The result is a person who can communicate his/her most needs basic in an extremely limited way whilst establishing beyond doubt that they are the master race.

This has nothing to do with intelligence. There is nothing to suggest the adherents to the Boganese language are any more or less intelligent than the general population. It is just that they have nothing to be intelligence about. Intelligence cannot work in a vacuum, but unfortunate a vacumuum is exactly what Basic Boganese creates.

The word W also makes it impossible for the Bogan to learn. The word establishes bogans as the master race so how would it be possible for a clearly inferior life form teach them anything? They already know everything because food, booze, sex, money and W coupled liberally obscenities covers their known world.

Bogans know everything but understanding nothing, and will never understand anything until they stop using ‘W’ mentality to reinforce the master race illusion that they already know everything.

Bogan Dialects.

At the beginning I said that Boganism was not a socio-economic phenomena. It is a way of thinking. It is viewing the world with a very limited vocabulary.

The Accountant who sees the world only as a bottom line is thinking Bogan. If a lawyer sees the world as a legal argument is Bogan through and through.

Never has Boganism been more visible than on what is called ‘talk back radio.’

If you want to hear the Bogan language if full swing listen to what are commonly called ‘shock jocks’ on the radio. Four word presenters giving endless airtime to four-word listeners with the only theme for calling is that anyone who does not agree to their simplistic four-word solutions is one of those that conform to that oft mentioned word. Usually their solution is that such obviously inferior beings should be put in a chaff bag and dropped in the sea.

The Australian Election is being fought on a four-word basis. For Abbott those words are carbon-tax (a single word in Abbott’s vocabulary), Mining-Tax (also a single word), Debt (what debt?) and Liar. The last is very strange for Abbott to call anyone a liar, but since the concept of truth is not in the Bogan language I think he is using it as a substitute for W.

We have a major problem facing the future of the human race. It is called climate change. But that does not fit into any concept that can be reduced to four-words. It doesn’t fit into food, booze, sex or money so that anyone that believes it is happening must clearly be one of those inferior beings that need to be put into a chaff bag.

Abbott (and Murdoch) can reduce it to one of the four words. Money. The carbon-tax has been made a substitute for money. It will cost money so it must be wrong.

The concept of science is so far left field for Bogans that they have not the slightest idea what it means.

Lord Monkey has a four-word vocabulary and uses those four-words to sound like he understands science. That is good enough for Bogans. There is someone who speaks Boganese who sound like he knows about climate change so the Bogans can claim to understand climate change. This is reinforced because it fits in to Abbott’s position that doing something about climate change will cost money when it isn’t happening anyway since science is clearly outside his comprehension of reality.

In order to mobilise the Bogan element we have the four word press. The four-word press uses the same four word as Abbott. This is hardly surprising because the four-word press tells Abbott what four words to use so they can report what he said.

Abbott’s (Murdoch’s) four words will be reported on page one and if anyone is impolite enough so say something contrary to Murdoch if it has to be reported it will placed at the bottom of page 17, which is where W’s belong..

At the beginning I said that Boganism has nothing to do with intelligence, it is about what the Bogan has to be intelligence about. Murdoch is a case in point. He is intelligently exploiting the four-word vocabulary very effectively. Murdoch seems to have an abridge version consisting of Money, Power, Money and Power.

The election in September is going to be fought on Murdoch the Bogan’s four words Money, Power, Money and Power. Abbott will do as he is told and anyone who wishes to talk about policies will be assigned that word and placed in a chaff bag for disposal.


The Car Salesman’s Election. Have I got a deal for you?

Abbott and Rudd. Watching these two work today spruiking for the popular vote reminded me of old time car salesmen who used to have names like ‘Honest John.’

Abbott and Rudd have slightly different styles but still used car salesmen.

We have ‘Grog Monster’ Abbott all dressed up in his new suit but somehow he somehow still looks like the poor relation of the other Abbott and his funny friend Costello. Behind him is a yard full of broken down hacks all polished and disguised to look safe and reliable.

Mean while in the car yard next door we have ‘Everybody’s Friend’ smiley and polished Kev selling the same cars as the cars as the Grog Monster’s yard but with considerably more style. Kev is nothing if he isn’t smooth.

In a few weeks the trading will really kick in.

Kev. I will give you , free of charge white wall tires with every vote.

GM. Free white wall tires, plus at no extra cost, a pair of foam die to hang from the rear vision mirror of your new car. (purely aspiration of course).

Kev. Well Folks, I will give you all that PLUS a free tank of petrol and a dip stick so you can see when you are running low.

The problem is I have to buy from one of them or I get fined.