The ALP (Anti-Labor Party)

I do not blame anyone for being disillusioned by the political campaign we have seen over the last... well... year really. When the two major parties are not slinging pointless insults at each other like two five-year-olds in a school playground, they aren't even getting close to exploring the full array of issues that current and future Australians must face. If I was to rank issues as a factor of air time and page space during this campaign it would probably look something like this:

Interest Rates/Economy - 80%

Climate Change - 10%

Leaving 10% over for health, education, transport, foreign affairs etc.

Now no one is silly enough to deny that the economy is an important issue, and interest rates are causing massive headaches for those struggling to make ends meet as it is. My problem is that the current discourse is ridiculously disproportionate and not really inspiring any sort of deeper thought into some of the key issues such as climate change, foreign relations, human rights, health, education, refugees etc. I'd argue that young people are sick to death of it. Older generations are probably so used to it by now anyway.

What capped it off for me today was logging onto the Liberal Party website (something I really try not to do often and yes I did have a quick shower and scrubbed my computer monitor afterwards. I was curious about their preferences... I swear!) and noticing that hardly any space on their home page is dedicated to POLICY, something that is rather important wouldn't you think? Most of their space sets out reasons why Labor are a bad choice, with links, stats and silly graphics to boot. Have the Libs conceded defeat already? Are they finally admitting that they have no vision for this nation and have just decided that the only way they can be returned to government is to make people scared of Labor? I think so.

I guess the up side of this is that a lot of young people will probably realise just how cynical both of the majors are and might throw their vote to a minor party with a little more vision. Here's hoping.

Libs Lalor candidate: 'Homosexuality is a perversion'

I nearly choked on my toast Sunday morning when I read that the Liberal candidate for Lalor, a Pastor Peter Curtis, believes not only that homosexuality is a perversion, a position that has not been adopted in any psychological scientific sense for over 50 years, but also that Intelligent Design, the idea we were created by a higher being, namely God, should be taught alongside Darwinian Evolution in science class at high schools.

I don't really think I need to go into much detail as to why homosexuality is not a perversion, as a house plant could probably figure that one out, but I would like to explain why Pastor Curtis' views on science are a little off kilter. His argument rests in this idea that Evolution is 'a theory and not a science.' Alright, well if this was actually the case as he puts it then Intelligent Design is just a theory and not a science also, so why would either of them be taught seriously in anything other than religious studies? This however is not the real issue of his argument. He seems to think that a theory such as evolution, which is steeped in empirical scientific evidence, is on a par with ID, a theory with absolutely no empirical evidence, found only in a book written by some people anywhere between a few hundred to two thousand years ago.

Scientists use a number of methods to come to a theory. The methods used to come to the theory of evolution to explain our existence has empirical evidence attached to it. It is a theory that is not merely borne out of pure imagination, but one that best explains the phenomena using the available evidence. It also has unobservable evidence attached, such as notions of genes, theoretical entities explaining phenomena that we know to occur but cannot be seen with the naked eye or by instruments, and some philosophers of science would make the case that evidence that cannot be observed via sense experience is invalid, however many will agree that these explanations of our being in the world are true, or at the very least, adequate.

One cannot say the same for ID, which has no empirical or unobservable evidence backing it up. Let me make it clear that I am not on an anti-religious campaign, just that theories such as ID should not be placed in the same category as scientific theories. Once we start teaching ID in science class we might as well not bother with language or meaning, because science will be redundant as a term and as a field who's purpose is to get closer and closer to the truth about the world.

Take Competition out of Research and Education

This speech is by Dr. Jim Page, Democrats candidate for the seat of Ryan. Dr. Page touches on some very important points regarding the problems of the current direction of our higher education system, all of which are borne out of this obsession for competitiveness in areas of society that operate best on a collaborative and cooperative basis. Tertiary institutions exist because humanity has a thirst for knowledge, and this thirst is best quenched when administrative bodies, as well as researchers, are not concerned about aiming to be competitive to survive.

I was among a small group of students privileged to speak to Vice Chancellor Glyn Davis some months ago regarding Melbourne University's new Melbourne Model. Contrary to what the Socialist Alternative may tell you on campus, I gathered the impression that Glyn is someone who believes in the core principles of research and education, and is merely playing the game of competition because... well... he has to if his Uni is to flourish. I do not blame University administrations for the state of affairs. I do not blame Glyn Davis for the Arts faculty having to shed large amounts of subjects and staff to stay afloat. I do however blame the Howard government for its disinterest in funding tertiary institutes, not to mention a lack of a plan to tackle student poverty.