wikileaks: the truth isn't always easy

(As I posted to a forum earlier today – slightly edited.
I could write several thousand words about the serial impacts of WikiLeaks but this is not the time.)
____________________________
Up to a point I understand why people are concerned about WikiLeaks' fairly indiscriminate dumping of information – but find it a real stretch that they are seen to be more a part of a problem than part of a solution.
The keys to a series of secret libraries are now, for the very first time, in our hands.
It might serve us well to remember that these data represent stuff that has happened already. Raw truth.
Not 'policy'. Not ideology. Not terrorism or sedition. Facts.
Information is power! In the case of WikiLeaks, information originally funded by the public purse – then concealed. We own it!
Don't shoot the messenger.

Since when have governments ever occupied the moral high ground?
Why are so many people now defending their non-existent 'right' to be protected from a higher level of scrutiny?
Have we become that compliant? That submissive?

"To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right nor the knowledge nor the virtue.
– Proudhon, Pierre Joseph

Society has adopted centralized, nationalistic government as a default. They get stuff right. They get stuff wrong. Rarely do they perform with brilliance. Rarely do they achieve efficiency.
Realworld justice remains largely a pipedream.
Selectively going to war, bombing villages and killing people is still considered a legitimate, mature course of action.
We bumble along, collectively unable to achieve a higher level of function.

However, just because we can't do any better doesn't mean our systems and our track-record should be protected from scrutiny.

Fiat lux!

fuck it

I was drafting a good post this morning; my first for a while.
Got around two-thirds through it (say 300 words done) … then lost all power at 9.40am.
Not uncommon in this part of the world, despite regular scheduled outages for 'maintenance'.
And I didn't worry too much, as blogspot annoyingly autosaves every few seconds.

Fine, you bastards!
Got me off my arse and out of the house, attacking a few gardening chores …

Anyhoo, with rain looming, I rebooted 15 minutes ago and now have real problems with the blog.
Safari repeatedly quits every time I try to edit anything.
I can no longer access my new post, nor (it appears) edit any others.
A proper cold reboot hasn't helped either.

Fingers crossed this one is OK. Let's see …

…
First test. The above loaded OK. Let's try access via the 'Edit Posts' page …
Second test. Hmmm. It appears the link to 'Edit' now only affects this morning's work: probably a corrupted file that hits Safari right in the digital solar plexus.
The Good News is that I was able to capture the text via a preview option, so I can get back onto it later. :)

Realpolitik: why I just might preference Labor last for once*

Some thoughts on a single issue: asylum-seekers.

Matter of fact, they don't 'scare' me. (rofl)
I don't give a stuff if they have paperwork or not.
I don't care if they were wealthy or poor in their former lives.

I've been marginally involved with a few refugees going back to 2004 and have found them to be, without exception, empathetic and intelligent people who would make solid citizens.
Due diligence will of course weed out the exceptions … IF they exist!
(Shove any ignorant-dumb-fuck-redneck stereotypes up ya clacker.)

Population pressures?
From a few thousand refugees? (again: rofl)
Let's apply some due diligence to Australian-born citizens.
There's plenty of privileged, whinging local scum we can tow out to sea … hopefully in leaky boats. :)

But (sigh) the chickens of Realpolitik have come home to roost on this issue and, if nothing else, I'm a realist.
Whoever wins the election, offshore 'processing' is going to happen.
So, this being the case, can someone explain to me why Labor is so opposed to using the existing facilities on Nauru?
1. I know it's extremely 'remote' from the mainland: but that would help placate Julia's beloved xenophobes!
2. Nauru wants it. And is willing to sign up to the UN Convention.

[President, Marcus] Stephen has said his country would be willing to sign the convention and expressed interest in reopening the centre, which was built by the Howard government as the centrepiece of its so-called Pacific Solution.

3. The multi-million-dollar infrastructure already exists, so why reinvent the wheel?
(a) rollout would only take a month or two, as opposed to years (need more capacity? provide more capacity!);
(b) it's about time Labor took an interest in saving a few million dollars here and there (rather than wasting our money on incompetence), particularly in light of their newly-discovered and wholeheartedly cynical adoption of the warm&fuzzy 'sustainability' mantra.
4. East Timor is a third-world nation with its own problems. Given recent (joint) history and their clear opposition to the plan – plus the facts outlined above – it's a seriously dumb option.
(Which doesn't surprise me a bit, 'cos it fits.)

_________________________
* even 'True Believers' can only be pushed so far.

the last refuge of the scoundrel?

According to the dictionary, I'm a patriot.
According to my heart, I'm a patriot.

Why, then, on the eve of Australia Day, do I feel so disconnected from so many fellow-travellers?
Why do 'Aussie patriots' almost invariably piss me off?
You know, the ones who 'protest their faith' so loudly, so colourfully, so trenchantly … so feverishly?
The ones who believe love of one's country can be expressed only in terms of hate?
The ones who express their national 'pride' by using a national symbol as fancy-dress while getting shit-faced drunk and declaiming 'love' for a nation which has never really existed?
Maaaaaaaaate!
Why would I happily ship these xenophobic oxygen thieves to a yet-to-be-invented Australian version of Gitmo Bay, never to return?
Coz, you know, FUCK OFF! WE'RE FULL.

I must admit, I've never really liked 'our flag' for aesthetic reasons.
Sorry, I don't think it's 'beautiful'. Despite a couple of redeeming features, it's ugly.
But I understand it. I acknowledge its history. I respect it as a symbol for many things, bad and good.
I've never seen it as a weapon (or a fashion statement) to be used for purposes of team-bonding, intimidation and exclusion.

Appended is an extract from recent article (posted up this morning) by Marieke Hardy on a 'newish' phenomenon (fad?) which I feel has really gained traction over the past 10 or 15 years - and, perhaps, is yet to peak.
To paraphrase, The Ugly (confrontational exclusionist) Australian is enjoying a new lease of popularity.

I have little doubt John Howard sowed the seeds - standing on the shoulders of an hysterical sacrificial lamb known as Pauline Hansen - but seriously, folks, Honest John's broader target market had every opportunity to turn away, ashamed at the divisive, supremacist agenda of a national leader.
This era of Fugly Nationalism may well prove to be his most pervasive legacy.
Yes, more recently, his successor Kevin Rudd has had ample opportunity to publically disown the fugliness devolving from the Howard model.
In not doing so, he's a collaborator.
Yet this really isn't the time for an argument over who to blame … it's time to grapple with the matter, to strive for a better quality of 'patriotism'.

Blue singlet patriotism gets a little off-colour

Walking down the main street of Tamworth the other morning - gamely dodging yodelling couples in his 'n' hers double denim begging for loose change - I passed a man wearing a rather fetching navy blue singlet. Written on the front were the following words: "THIS IS AUSTRALIA. WE EAT MEAT, DRINK BEER, AND SPEAK F-CKIN' ENGLISH!" My first thought - outside of "I wonder if he's single/looking?" - was that it must mean January 26th was just around the corner. Of course, I realised with a start: Australia Day is upon us. Time for those racist t-shirts to be dusted off and paraded about by small-dicked rednecks.

…

It may be frowned upon to burn the Australian flag, but wearing it as a cape whilst off one's face on Bundy and dry is fine, apparently. So is wrapping it around your head as a turban, pinning it around your tits as a boob tube, and writing "If You Don't Love It - Leave" underneath to deter pesky gatecrashers threatening your way of life (said product advertised as follows on a shopping website: "A fantastic way to publically (sic) show your pride in our great country ... with ATTITUDE!"). It's not racism, god forbid we call it that. No, it's patriotism, a thumb in the face of those fussy UnAustralianlt;sup>(TM) types, a way for true-blooded men and women to unite against a common enemy: fear.

And overall it's a great pity, as I am very fond of my country. I like the people in it, I like the frank, robust way they speak. I like the inimitable, flat, overcooked air of our childhood summers and the impetuous, heart-on-sleeve way in which neighbours rush to assist others in times of natural disaster. But the last thing I'm going to do on Australia Day is wave a flag or get some sort of idiotic boxing Kangaroo tattooed to my calf. Because the very idea of national pride has been soiled by the t-shirt wearers who disguise hate in the name of allegiance. And I don't know if we'll ever get it back.

Yes, I agree with Ms Hardy.
We're not alone. Many others have noticed this trend.

What are we going to do about it? What can we do?
Is this cultural shift, indeed, the shape of things to come?

let's get on with it: beyond the cargo cult

Cargo cult is the name given to a large number of intense and short-lived religious movements in the South Pacific islands. They are called cargo cults because they all speak of the arrival of large shipments of Western goods. In Pidgin English, a language that consists mainly of words from English and the island languages, the word kago refers to goods found in shops, as well as telephones, cars, jeeps, and airplanes. A cargo cult begins when a leader takes on the role of a prophet. The prophet preaches that a time will come when all the evil will be gone and ancestors or gods will return, bringing cargo with them in ships or airplanes to improve the well-being of all the living. Followers may build docks or runways to receive the cargo.
[World Book Multimedia Encyclopedia, V 9.0. Emphases are mine.]

The broad theme of my recent posts is action.
Personal action. Collective action. Direct action. Ownership-in-action.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. I've made my own choices. You can suit yourself.

The challenges facing us are real. They're complex. They're inter-connected.
We made them. We can rescue ourselves.
Prayer days won't fix them.
Meditation won't fix them.
Tokenism won't fix them.
Spamming people with navel-gazing gossip about 'Blue Moons' and 'Portents from the Mayan Calendar' and 'Celestial Alignments' definitely won't fix anything. lolz ;)

Gettin off our arses and making a difference? Now, there's an idea!

I've had enough of people who say, 'Someone should …' or 'They should …' or 'I should …'.
Worst of all: 'You should …'!
Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda.
Waiting for 'salvation'.
Cargo-cultists!
What is this atavistic defect in our character that compels us to seek validation … to seek blessings … authority to act … leaders?
Why can't each of us be a leader?
Proactively becoming informed?
Making our own decisions?
Acting with courage and confidence – and, yes, compassion and wisdom?

This is not the time for a spiel on social justice or 'jed's handy hints on saving the planet'.
This blog contains plenty of those.
The message is far simpler.
Don't wait for Big Brother to fix anything.
Don't wait for ponderous political 'solutions': the planet will end up a basket case.
Don't wait for funding.
Don't wait for a bloody permit.
Don't wait for peer approval.
Most of all, don't wait for someone else 'to improve the well-being of all the living.'

let's get on with it: steppin on the gas

Project outline.
To deliver natural gas infrastructure to Warburton* with a nett positive 'return on investment' across sustainability benchmarks.

What's so damn special about this project?
To this point in time, decision-makers and industry experts have applied linear thinking to extending the pipeline from Millgrove to Warburton. (That is, constrained to terms of delivering a brand new, dedicated service comprising single-use infrastructure, the nett benefit doesn't 'justify' the outlay - amounting to a $4.6 million project cost.)

My proposal is that, in building the infrastructure, we develop its capacity to share other services: both at the build stage and into the future - NOT ONLY including the long-awaited optic fibre rollout BUT mains electricity as well.

Pre-requisites.
Fresh thinking from all levels of government, business and other stakeholders.
Co-operation between all levels of government, business and other stakeholders investing in the project (including the possibility of partial ownership by locals).

Potted history.
Three or four years ago, Warburton Highway was plumbed with natural gas mains as far as Millgrove ('last town' before us).
Warburton missed out, mainly because the return on investment of extending the gas pipeline was considered too low by the State Government: we automatically failed the 'National Feasibility Test'.
(I do understand the bean-counters' logic, though it's never been convincing.)

To their credit various parties, including our State representative (Tammy Lobato) and a handful of locals have kept the pot simmering.

When the Federal Government announced the economic-stimulus-led-recovery early last year (including many billions invested in 'community-strengthening' projects) something clicked in my brain.
With the idea still taking shape - but also with an understandable sense of urgency - I emailed our excellent State MP Tammy Lobato on 10 June with my initial suggestion: of rolling out the gas pipe and the optic fibre pipe at the same time, into the same trench - achieving obvious gains in efficiency and splitting costs between different funding streams (in addition to inviting private investment).

Tammy wrote to the relevant State and Federal Ministers on my behalf.
Having waited 11 weeks for a response in the first instance and 19 weeks in the second, I found that my suggestion doesn't rate a single mention, even in passing.
Ironically, I'd been half-expecting a gentle Labor-style Realpolitik refutation of my technical naiveté.

So, a pretty piss-poor outcome you'd have to agree. 'Democracy' inaction [sic].

Turning to the positive, my original idea has evolved still further.
To quote from my followup email to Tammy (13 October):
"In the backwash from the Bushfires Royal Commission* it has also occurred to me that the same infrastructure rollout (gas pipe plus telco pipe installed in a single trench) could potentially include the 'backbone' mains electricity supply in fire-prone districts.
Provided it's technically feasible, this possibility value-adds the proposal immeasurably across the Triple Bottom Line.
Indeed, such a venture could provide a template for future rollouts across Australia and across the world."
*Six months after it started, the blame at the Bushfires Royal Commission has finally slipped focus from the failed warnings of the fire agencies and taken aim even further back in the chain, at the power companies.

In a sad postscript to the Commission's (unfinished) findings, the Toodyay fire in Western Australia this week - which destroyed 40 homes and 3000 Hectares - has been traced to a fallen powerline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/01/2783710.htm

Encouraging news.
In addition to emphasising his support of the benefits of natural gas, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson's response to Tammy's letter (see above) refers to legislation - the National Gas Law and the National Gas Rules - enacted by his government on 1 July 2008; their purpose "is to encourage investment in economically viable gas supply infrastructure without the need for an ongoing subsidy by the taxpayer."
In the light of a fresh discussion – a fresh set of parameters – Federal support may well translate into a little 'community-building' seed funding as well - particularly if we can roll out (at the bare minimum) dual services simultaneously.
Point of interest: guess who live in the most marginal Federal electorate in the country? ;)

Yes, I realise that such a combined and synchronised rollout would require unprecedented levels of flexibility and planning (and common sense?) from diverse – historically process-bound – public and private! bureaucracies.
Perhaps it's time we collectively dragged ourselves from our respective comfort zones and into the 21st century.
If governments can't do it alone, I'm sure we can help!

This project can and should transcend insular – dare I say 'obstructionist'? – number-crunching and finally address the S word – Sustainability – in reality.

Feedback welcome, as always: either here (add a Comment) or via email.

Further reading:
The Solutions We Need Now
Highly recommended. ;)

* Victoria, Australia; Latitude: -37.753530634370875 Longitude: 145.68950414657593