eightyknots

Yes, that'll be the Russellites (these people now refer to themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses).

Only the atheists in this depiction used coarse language: why?

And comedians do their job for the very reason that some people such as Ron L Hubbard started a religion: for money. Absolutely. Comedians have been over-represented amongst the 'depressed' for many decades.

Dick Smith used to work for Westons, he was an ace sales person there. He left to form Dick Smith Electronics (a business now on its last legs and not likely to survive). He sold out in the early 1980s.

No matter how 'loud' the wall paper is, it tends to melt into the background. Too much hi-vis is overkill and tends to clutter the overall vista making it less safe for those people where hi-vis would have been a real safety asset. In summary, FT, people don't want to ban hi-vis. They just want it used sensibly and avoid hi-vis crowding in any given space.

Instead, secondary industry has shifted to countries where the hi-vis/over-the-top safety requirements are a bit more relaxed and where common sense is still allowed to prevail.

...and it won't increase arms sales. This is a big deciding factor. In my opinion, most modern conflicts from the Falklands to the present, are driven by two factors: an increase of arms sales and/or an increased hegemony of a power or belief system. This belief system may include imposing "democracy" on "undemocratic societies". There you are, I linked it back to the thread

To put you into the picture, I have attached the map that best illustrates the conflicting claim. Which ever way you look at it, the Chinese claim is very broad-brush, shall we say, because it is so extensive it comes really close to the coastlines of other countries. There are so many conflicting/overlapping claims that there is real potential for some hot conflict to spark. I had the hope for quite some time that some kind of negotiated, compromise arrangement between the conflicting claims of these nations could be sorted out: perhaps by a team of independent international arbitrators? However, with the Chinese islands being created by dredging, this now seems to be out of the question. This map is from the abc network: [ATTACH]47801._xfImport[/ATTACH]

As far as I can see, Australia has taken a true leadership role by enlisting worldwide support during the first decade of East Timor's independence. Australia is also the largest developmental assistance donor, at least it was last time I looked into this a couple of years ago. This is important to allow security and stability in the country flanked by a potentially hostile neighbour: Indonesia.

I understand that the islands being reclaimed are a long way from China but about 140 km from the Philippines, only about 5 or six minutes by a Chinese fighter jet. This makes the Filipinos feel very nervous.

There is no reason why we couldn't establish an APC (an Australian Privy Council), the final Tribunal of Appeal just like the London-based Privy Council. I believe that the APC should have six seven judges: one from each state and one from either the ACT or the NT to make up an odd number of judges. Their remit should be something similar to the Equity Court: cases should not be decided on precedent only but at least 50% based on Equity (fairness) promoting the rights of the Australian people. The APC would be far better than a Bill of Rights (BOR) because a BOR always needs judicial interpretation and this can lead to endless legal arguments which only the rich may afford, not people with moderate or little wealth. Just another matter, the APC should NOT be established in Canberra but some distance away from the seat of legislative power (Parliament) and executive power (the Ministries). It would be preferable if the APC did a circuit away from state capitals too, perhaps a circuit like Launceston, Ballarat Newcastle, Gladstone, Katherine, Esperance and Port Lincoln?

[ATTACH]48472._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Remember that Stalin said this: It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. It seems like the Republicans in the USA borrowed something from Stalin's maxim

Democracy may be pushed by the USA. But, how do you explain the military (or CIA-led) "regime changes" where democratically elected governments were overthrown by thugs, insurgents, radicals, opposition groups funded, trained and equipped by the United States? Here are some examples: 1893: Hawaii, an independent republic was overthrown by US sponsored revolutionaries and annexed by the United States. 1902: The Philippines republic was overthrown by the United States after a three years war. 1903: Panama, then controlled by Colombia, had to secede and this was backed by the USA. The canal was under construction already and the USA seized control. 1953: The democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown with CIA help (Operation TPAJAX). An authoritarian rule by the Shah of Iran was the result. 1954: The CIA arranged an overthrow of a democratically elected government of Guatemala and this led to a military government. The civil war that followed led to the loss of life of nearly 1/4 million people. 1964: The democratically elected Brazilian government was overthrown with US support. 1973: The democratically elected government was overthrown with Nixon's support. The result? A military dictatorship by General Pinochet. 1980: The military coup was supported by the United States both with the CIA and 3000 US troops. There are many more destabilising operations! About three dozen clear attempts to foment trouble in other countries to effect a Regime Change and at least a number of them was a change from democratic to dictatorial.

I took the trouble to look at this site but the factoid you wrote in post #296 is not listed on that site. I still say that this is speculation.

At least the voters elect their politicians after a "fair and free election" unlike the Soviet Union, and many other countries supported with Communist/one party governments. Stalin famously said this: It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Well, F-T, that factoid of yours sounds like pure speculation. Where are the proper facts to support your assertion? Is this yet another F-T-ism? As I recall, the last* massacre was carried out by someone who hated Christians and singled them out for bullets. *...or was that the second last one? ...there are so many.

[ATTACH]47781._xfImport[/ATTACH] Eightyknots has been given an Enzed flag by the Recreational Flying management based on current residence only, not nationality . This applies to other people too, such as Bex in China.

The problem is that the House of Review, our Senate, is not working the way our Constitution Fathers envisaged it. The Senate was meant to have equal representation from every state, whether Tasmania or New South Wales, which has many times Tassie's population. If, in the House of Representatives, Victoria and New South Wales 'ganged up' on less populous states with a law that would disadvantage them, the Senate could block this. What has spoiled this is the party system in the Senate. Back in the 1970s and 1980s (after Sir John Kerr, etc.), some people proposed that candidates for the Senate should not be permitted to have party affiliation and that they would be Senators for their home state only. After some talk of this, the idea fell away.

Me too, even the 264 candidates in the NSW Tablecloth Election of 1999!

I think that most voters should have no trouble choosing six, for the reasons you outlined. Back in 1999 there I voted in a massive New South Wales upper house ballot paper the size of a table cloth. This became known as the Tablecloth Election. It took me well over half an hour to rank all of the 264 candidates. If you get even one number wrong the whole ballot is declared informal. I would have hated to be one of the people counting the votes: what a boring job that would have been!

Too right. Democracy, while not perfect by any means, is still worth keeping because other alternatives are worse. It has been a hard-won freedom that should never be given away to Inquisitions, Sharia Courts, dictatorships or oligarchies. The Westminster style of democracy, as we have it in Australia, is pretty much the best version of democracy available because its basis is a constitutional monarchy. This is based on a two important foundations: 1. The head of state (the Queen, represented by the Governor General) is a-political ...this means non-political. He or she is called upon to be an impartial umpire should the need ever arise. Even if the need doesn't arise, just to have a neutral presence is very important. We should resist the clamour to have the head of state elected. 2. The Executive is part of the majority of the MPs that "form government" after an election. Parliament (all MPs) make up the Legislative arm of government of which a proportion make the Executive. This overlap system is vital for a well functioning system of democracy. It is important that it remains this way. In the USA the Executive (the President and all his/her APPOINTED people ...not elected) is separate from the elected MPs. This leads to the situation that the foreign minister ("secretary of state"), defence minister, etc, are simply appointed people, personally chosen by an "elected" (well, in a very roundabout way via the Electoral College system but that is another story) president. This is really very unsatisfactory as this kind of Executive reduces accountability towards the electorate ...and has a tendency towards dictatorship. We should always resist having an "elected head of state" for this this reason because, no matter what people say, an elected head of state actually reduces democratic accountability. It also unnecessarily politicises the office for no good reason. There is also the bicameral system that all jurisdictions in Australia have with the exception of Queensland. This also protects the voters to some degree.

The Romans gave us: Roman Numerals and Roman Catholics and Roman Blinds and Roman Coffees and Roman Sandals and Roman Polanski

The American presidential experience is the most extreme. But, make no mistake, here -Down Under- there are similar pressures but the number of dollars are different, that's all.

"It's moments like these you need ...."