I couldn’t help my self, here is a Christmas thought from the book I got for Christmas from my beautiful brother and sister, George Monbiot’s The Age of Consent:

Any change worth fighting for will be hard to achieve; indeed if the struggle in which you are engaged is not difficult, you may be confident that it is not worthwhile, for you can be assured by that measure that those from whom you need to wrest power are not threatened by your efforts. We will know that our approach is working only when it is violently opposed.

Merry Christmas.

I’m drawn over what to say for what is probably my last post for the year. I wanted to add a quote from the Victorian Shadow Minister for Police (I think) regarding drug testing that was just bizarre but I can’t find it anywhere. Oh well.

So anyway, I’m a closet fan of Christmas for a few reasons. Firstly it bares absolutely no religious significance for me at all which I consider to be a good thing. Secondly I think that ritual, say what you will about it, is a really good and powerful thing. I’m always reluctant to take part but grateful that I did. Thirdly, I’ve managed to not spend too much money and every present I’ve bought is reasonably useful/meaningful. It is also a time of eating and drinking and all that know me know I’m a big fan of both. And finally it is a time of family, which for me is extremely important. I get to see a whole lot of my extended family that I ordinarily wouldn’t and for this I am grateful as I do love so many of them.

I’m also a big fan of the whole New Years thing so can’t wait to dance my arse off at the Espy on NYD. Ever wanted to see a fat man move? The Gershwin Room during Andy C’s set is the place to be. Boooo Yaaaaahhhhh!!!!

Just to clarify.

I am guilty of supplying disinformation (I think). I may (or may not) have said on this blog before that under the US/Aust FTA Corporations would be able to sue governments for anti-competitive behaviour similar to the ‘Chapter 11′ provisions in the NAFTA.

This is not true. While the US government pushed for it, it was about the only thing the Australian government did reject and it was largely due to public pressure that this happened.

‘If ignorance is bliss then knock the smile off my face’ (Rage Against the Machine).

For well over a decade now “surplus budget” economics has dominated Australian politics. It seems to me (and I’m far from an economist) that this is a particular brand of economic rationalism and I am obviously quite critical of it. The world runs on debt, having debt is necessary and if invested correctly (particularly in health, education and innovation) will in the long run more than pay for itself.

That said with a budget surplus of $6.2 billion our nation’s debt will be just under $20 billion. In other words we are in ear shot of being a debt free nation (not sure how unique this is but I’d imagine quite unique). Does this then mean we can easily afford a “welfare” state of sorts, maybe even socialism? Perish the thought.

So in 3 or 4 years time when we are debt free, what are we going to do with the $6.2 billion left over? Our whole economic system seems to rally around the fact that we have a large debt. But we don’t now. Could this spell the end the Howard government as it looses it’s philosophical underpinning?

I watch with intrigue.

Congratulations to Greg Combet and all those involed in the James Hardie campaign. Obviously justice is finally being served and without the compromises that everyone thought would have to be made. I’d like to see industrial manslaughter laws introduced in Victoria as they have been in the ACT and perhaps this campaign will prove to have enough momentum to achieve this. That way senior management of these companise will not only have to come up with sums similar to the $4.5 billion that JH will have to come up with but also face gaol time. Moreover I’d like to see that extended to environmental damage.

But I digress. The significance of this campaign is that it is a major win for the Unions. Proof that they are still necessary and still relevant and still representing the rights of the workers. Certainly without the CFMEU and ACTU being involved this compensation would never have been achieved.

As an aside, the compensation payments made by JH are tax deductible. I can’t help but think of the hundreds of thousands of community groups in Australia are without tax deductibility status but a criminal company does.

What is most important is that this is an important boost for the unions and I hope it will be a way of showing that they are still relevant and have their memberships boosted.

Gunns (a Tasmanian tiber company) are sueing several envrironmental activists including Bob Brown for “alleged actions includ(ing) defamation, interference with contractual relations, trespass and property damage, all committed in the name of protest against the company and its practices.”

Greg Barns is adiment that “(t)he Gunns case concerns the limitations on freedom of speech and the balance between the exercise of that freedom and how it impinges on other rights. That freedom of speech, and this includes actions such as protests, is not absolute has been confirmed in 1997 by the High Court in a case involving veteran animal rights campaigner Laurie Levy.”

What seems to be missing from this picture is how Gunns’ actions impinged on the freedom or rights of others through its unethical practices.

Moreover Civil Disobedience is overlooked as a legitimate tacktic. Civil Disobedience is, by definition, illegal. I have no down that the protesters concerned were aware that they were breaking the law. More over Gunns are not sueing for issues of freedoms or liberty but to protect their financial interests. And of course the State is far more concerned with the rights of property or capital than freedom of speach or the rights of a forest.

So of course the environmental groups are crying foul. They have done what they feel they are morally obliged to do and are being sued for it. However anyone who has ever engaged in an act of civil disobedience has felt that they was an expession of their opinion but also known that it is illegal. They have actively tried to restrict the rights of those they are protesting against, or perhaps more accurately, they are trying to draw attention to the way the action of those being protested against are inpinging on the rights of others under the protection of the law.

There seems to be two key arguments against the Federal government gaining control of Australia’s universities: “Committee chief executive John Mullarvey said universities wanted and needed diversity, not uniformity.”

and

“The paper warned that universities risked losing $200 million in annual funding from the states, and stifling diversity within the sector.”

Surely both are flawed and week arguments. There is no direct connection between diversity and Federal government control. In fact, while I oppose it, the Federal government would probably give universities more control over their own finances (as a week compensation for loss of funding). Either way a diversity of models can be maintained despite a common funding base.

Secondly concerns about a loss of $200 million is neither here nor there. At any point either the States or the Federal government could decrease funding for universities. Moreover surely the federal government would acknowledge that more funding would be needed if the states were to relinquish their control. Surely the states would be able to put the money usually spent on universities into other programs anyway.

When dealing with constitutional issues it is important to look a little further into the future – to a time when the Coalition is no longer in power I hope.

Bloggers are net stars for 2004 – Technology – http://www.theage.com.au/technology/: “The American Merriam-Webster dictionary publishers dubbed ‘blog’ word of the year for 2004, to mark the rise in influence of the sometimes anonymous internet diarists who are simultaneously courted, ridiculed and feared.”

Got to love the blog!

The Democrats have a bit of a history of misguided political actions and I’m really not sure what to make of Andrew Bartlett‘s latest hunger strike (or fast as he calls it – funny how language affects things.) Seems a little out of place in Australia but then again I suppose our refugee situation is quite serious.

Either way good on him for making a stand. Can’t help but thinking back to young Natashia’s little Hijab wearing excercise which proved to be quite offencive to the communities she was trying to show her solidarity for.

The intention is there but I’m not sure if you achieve the appropriate ends. Moreover I can’t help but remember that the reason we have a GST is because of the Democrats, which, combined with a solidarity fast the message is quite confused but enough has been written on this topic without me giving my two cents.

Federation is a funny thing. If you overlook the current political dynamics of a Coalition government and Labor controlled states your reaction would be to place control of higher education into the hands of the States (as opposed to the current ‘shared responsibility’ arrangement between the states and the federal government.)

However if you take a step back and consider the best policy it seems clear to me that the Federal government should have control of the Universities. It avoids duplication as we have at the moment which means a waist of resources in terms of administration. A Federal based administration also means that there would be a uniformity of standards, more so than that there is now. And if you really want to get stuck into it, I’m a centralist not a federalist so my broader intention is to increase the power of the Federal government. As an aside I’d like to see an abolishment of the States and a massive and constitutionally assigned role for local governments.

Mark Latham has often accused the left of knee jerk reactions. I can’t help but feel that this is a case where the left is opposing complete Federal control of universities because they hate Howard. While I understand that, it is important to be a little more rational about these things.