On not being a dummy

Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, protests he is "no dummy" because he mispronounces 'fiscal' as 'physical'. (here) Indeed mispronounciation (sic) is no reason for dismissing of a senator, his ideas, or his policies.

His scepticism about climate change, his failure to appreciate the nuances of economic argument, and his difficulty understanding that there are many members of the electorate who have more complex understandings of social order than the narrow Christian rightist position. These may be some more significant reasons.

The Elementary History of Detention

Most of us who have read a smattering of Dickens, or done a little history of the 19th century and before will no doubt have wondered about the curious practice of making those who are jailed pay for their imprisonment!
Yes this was indeed the practice. It is of course a practice which victimises the poorest of the poor.
And it seems bizarre!
Bizarrer still when you realise that until today those in the detention centres of Australia have been required to reimburse the government. Even more bizarre when we appreciate that many 'ordinary' citizens seem to think that the practice of making refugees pay for the privilege of being in Baxter, or Villawood, and latterly Nauru (now closed) and Christmas Island; has been on our statute books.
Praise God that today the Senate has voted to remove it. (here)
I take my hat off to Senator Troeth, who voted against the majority of her (Liberal) party to do the right thing

PS In a small footnoote: Senator Fielding, wanting a bet both ways says these laws went too far but voted for them any way...and then wonders why people think he is......

Striking the balance

While by and large I am happy that the Senate is acting as a House of Review because no one party has an absolute majority, I can't help but feel that Senator Fielding of Family First has made a serious error of judgment with regard to the alcopops tax. 

(see one story here about the liquor industry allegedly not wanting tax already taken back!!! 

I'll believe that when I see it).

The issue about "alcopops" is not just and/or only about how alcohol products might be taxed, but also about whether we are the sort of society that wants to make the 'acquired taste' more readily and easily 'acquired' by those who presently have no stomach for it and who by and large are young, immature and at risk.

This is just bizarre. Why would you actually want to encourage those who don't like the taste of alcohol (basically because their palates are too immature) to start drinking by making it available in disguise.

Fielding is right on one level to say that the issue is bigger than alcopops but not taking this small step will not actually address that larger issue.