Author Archive for Administrator

Comments Policy

Beneath the fold is the monthly repost of the LP comments policy. All commenters are asked to read the comments policy before posting and abide by the policy during discussions.

Continue reading ‘Comments Policy’

LP comments policy

Beneath the fold is the monthly repost of the LP comments policy. All commenters are asked to read the comments policy before posting and abide by the policy during discussions.

Continue reading ‘LP comments policy’

LP comments policy

Beneath the fold is the monthly repost of the LP comments policy. All commenters are asked to read the comments policy before posting and abide by the policy during discussions.

Continue reading ‘LP comments policy’

LP Comments policy

Below is the monthly repost of the LP comments policy. All commenters are asked to read the comments policy before posting and abide by the policy during discussions.
——————————————————-
Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.

Moderation

Our blog, our discretion. No public correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions. If readers or commenters have queries about this policy, they may email the site or its contributors.

Guidelines

Certain commenting behaviours are considered unacceptable Continue reading ‘LP Comments policy’

Posts

Weathergirl has requested that we remove her posts, and we have done so.

LP’s role in an election year

In response to some recent debate here about the contribution of critical and non-partisan left wing blogs in elections, we’ve prepared a bit of a statement about how we see LP’s role in this, the federal election year.

You can read it here.

LP comments policy

(LP’s Comments Policy is regularly posted on the main page: please read it, if you haven’t done so already.)

* * * * *
Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.

Moderation

Our blog, our discretion. No public correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions. If readers or commenters have queries about this policy, they may email the site or its contributors.

Continue reading ‘LP comments policy’

LP Comments Policy

(LP’s Comments Policy is regularly posted on the main page: please read it, if you haven’t done so already.)

* * * * *
Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.

Moderation

Our blog, our discretion. No public correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions. If readers or commenters have queries about this policy, they may email the site or its contributors.

Continue reading ‘LP Comments Policy’

LP Comments Policy

(LP’s Comments Policy is regularly posted on the main page: please read it, if you haven’t done so already.)

* * * * *
Readers are most welcome to comment and debate. Rational disagreement and civil interchange is thoroughly encouraged. However, please keep discussion civilised.

Moderation

Our blog, our discretion. No public correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions. If readers or commenters have queries about this policy, they may email the site or its contributors.

Guidelines

Certain commenting behaviours are considered unacceptable (see below) and such comments are liable to be manually moderated (the automoderator, part of our spam defence, has a mind of its own).
Continue reading ‘LP Comments Policy’

Dealing with Family First

The Age reports that Labor could preference Family First, and Mr Lefty is concerned that this confirms that the ALP has embraced the right-wing.

Continue reading ‘Dealing with Family First’

Guantanamo Military Tribunals Illegal–US Supreme Court

[this post was authored by Peter Kemp, who has since left the LP collective]
At last some sense over the black hole known as Guantanamo Bay. The concept of “illegal combatants” designed to place prisoners outside the Geneva Conventions, has been held to be a legal nonsense. The US Supreme Court has finally confirmed what the rest of the world (minus some home-grown neo-cons) knew all along.

As reported in the SMH:

With Chief Justice John Roberts excusing himself from hearing the case because he had ruled in favour of the Administration’s position when he was in the Federal Court, the court ruled that the Bush Administration’s position that prisoners held at Guantanamo and elsewhere are illegal combatants and not covered by the Geneva Conventions is unconstitutional.

The decision threw the Administration into turmoil; it means it is back to square one in terms of setting up a system to try prisoners that complies with the conventions.

It means that at the very least, the Pentagon will have to set up standard courts martial for prisoners, with all the protections afforded them under US law.

This must be a big blow to the Bush administration with Howard, Ruddock and Dolly left with some egg on their faces as well in regard to David Hicks. The bad news for Hicks is that he is:

now faced with the prospect of…remaining in detention at Guantanamo with no prospect of a hearing for a year or even longer.

And of course under the Geneva Conventions “conspiracy to attack civilians” or “attempted murder of coalition forces” and “aiding the enemy” won’t cut the mustard at all, being outside any definition of crimes which can be committed by lawful combatants.

Time for Mr Howard to have Hicks sent home.
Continue reading ‘Guantanamo Military Tribunals Illegal–US Supreme Court’

desperate lies

If you are caught cheating on the spouse, don’t expect any sympathy from your fellow Australians. Adultery has emerged as the No. 1 social sin in a study of what we consider acceptable behaviour.

More than half of those surveyed told University of NSW researchers they would think less of a person who had strayed than someone who had dobbed their husband into police or conducted abortions.

But the disapproval figures are mild when compared with what we perceive as community attitudes. Indeed, the study shows we like to think of ourselves as far more tolerant than others when it comes to homosexuality, drugs and marital infidelity.

Michael Pelly writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in October last year about a study on community attitudes. 

The No. 1 taboo was adultery, with 54 per cent saying they personally would think less of someone dubbed a philanderer. Next was the drunken office flirt (44 per cent), followed by the promiscuous single woman (35 per cent), police informer (33 per cent) and the occasional marijuana smoker (31 per cent).

The lowest disapproval rating was for the young woman who had a single sexual relationship before she got married. At 12 per cent it was well under the 29 per cent average for the 10 categories.

However, when it came to guessing the attitudes of others, the disapproval average rose to 69 per cent. The figure for sex before marriage rose to 54 per cent, but the widest gap was for the HIV-positive man (14 per cent and 76 per cent).

The study was to be used to assess the efficacy of tests for defamation where juries are asked to put aside their own opinions and consider the opinions of others. The study’s findings indicated we generally overestimate the level of intolerance in society, thinking ourselves more tolerant than others. 

There was one exception:

For plaintiffs, the ideal jury would be comprised of practising Christians. They are more inclined to find certain behaviour unacceptable and to believe others think the same. "In fact, all those who said they belonged to a religion were significantly more likely to feel antipathy."

I am pleased to know that somebody loves people like me.

I didn’t look for further details about the study’s methodology and applications. I just want to say that I read the community attitudes on adultery this way:

Adultery happens, that’s OK, as long as it doesn’t happen to me. Because we don’t want to be seen as unhip, uptight or uncool by admitting that it’s wrong and that we hate it.

Continue reading ‘desperate lies’