Abbott shows how gutless he is.

If any proof was needed that Abbott is totally gutless this week provided it. His decision to dump Gonski was wrong, but having made it for all the illogical and insane old reasoning I have come to expect of him at least he could have show he had the backbone to stick to his decision. Fortunately he has shown he has no backbone at all. And the poodle showed he really was a poodle. All show no substance.

If Abbott caves in to the mounting pressure over changes to the NBN and carbon pricing the way he capitulated over Gonski future looks rosier today than it did yesterday. Just keep up the pressure and we will soon be rid of this troublesome Abbott


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.

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.

Murdoch cancels global warming.

President Obama gave a speech a few days ago about global warming. In this speech he promised to make the issue of global warming a priority in his platform. The way Obama spoke of the problem left no doubt that he thought global warming to be the greatest challenge facing the human race.

When discussing the speech the PBS noted that it was unlikely to cause much interest in the USA because CNN and the media interests such as Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, had ignored it.

At least Murdoch is democratic in that he applies his non-reporting in a fair and even way across all nations. Australia might even be in privileged position. In America any news Murdoch does not like didn’t happen. At least here it is at the bottom of page 17.

Australian Politics. A Soap Opera Directed by Tarantino

That description came from an American PBS broadcast relayed on channel 24. The reporter described a political system of total brutality and infighting with no reference to policy. His description was absolutely correct.

What do you do when the climate is warming, the Earth is burning, the seas are dying and democracy is collapsing into mob rule? Do what the Romans did. Give the people the circus.

Give them a place where you can go to watch the lions eat the Christians. Where the people can watch fully armed gladiators slaughter the innocent. Where everything is ruled by brute force. Where a ‘Thumbs up’ or ‘Thumbs down’ determines political life of death.

Einstein said that the world will not be destroyed by bad people. It will be destroyed by those who watch. Australia is being destroyed by a political system that relies on ideas and policies but has become so corrupted that it is now only a blood sport.

As each brutal encounter comes to a close the people give a ‘Thumbs up’ or ‘Thumps down’ via the opinion poles and the victor progresses to the next round. Who rises and all falls is dependant on brute force and bloody murder not on ability or policy.

The people have their games and Australia burns.

Climate Change. Alternative to Carbon Pricing and Abbott ponzie.

In making climate change a political issue we have destroyed the understanding of the place of politicians in our society. We need consensus as to the need for action but to expect pollies to decide on the technicalities is ridiculous. They only polarise, delay and destroy real answers.

If we really do want to reduce carbon emissions why are we playing with Carbon Pricing or Abbott’s direct action ponzie?

Eventually the answers won’t come from pollies or economists. The practicable answers will come from scientists, engineers, architects and other technocrats. The thing that motivates technocrats in this country is an Australian Standard.

When the need to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles was recognised an Australian Standard was written and the catalyst converter was invented. No pollies were involved in inventing the catalyst converter other than to pass legislation that it required a reduction in carbon emissions from motor vehicles.

So why not just say that ‘by 2015 the maximum carbon emissions from creating electricity shall be…. and   by 2020 the maximum emissions shall be…’ From that point stand back and let those who know what they are doing get on with it.