|
| Teal and red numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for the LNP and Labor. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
Leichhardt consists of the northernmost part of Queensland, including Cairns at its southern extremity along with Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait Islands. Naturally marginal Cairns provides it with about two-thirds of its voters, the remainder coming from conservative-leaning rural areas along the coast immediately to the north, and Labor-voting indigenous communities beyond. The electorate ranks sixth out of the nation’s 150 electorates for the highest proportion of indigenous persons, behind the two Northern Territory electorates, neighbouring Kennedy, Durack in northern Western Australia, and Parkes in interior New South Wales. Another distinguishing features is a large number of voters over 55, reflecting the popularity of Cairns as a retirement haven.
The electorate was created with the expansion of parliament in 1949, prior to which its area was mostly accommodated by Herbert until 1934 and Kennedy thereafter. Herbert and then Kennedy were in Labor hands from 1928 to 1949, but Leichhardt was narrowly won by the Country Party at its inaugural election, which saw the Menzies government come to power. However, Labor won the seat at the subsequent election in 1951, and it remained in the party fold until David Thomson gained it for the National Country Party amid Labor’s statewide debacle of 1975. Warren Entsch became the seat’s first Liberal member when he unseated Labor’s Peter Dodd with the defeat of the Keating government in 1996, polling 31.8% to the Nationals candidate’s 20.4%. Entsch suffered only a 0.5% swing at the 1998 election, compared with a statewide swing of 7.2%, and subsequently built his margin up to double figures with swings of 2.3% in 2001 and 3.6% in 2004.
Entsch’s local popularity was further illustrated when he bowed out temporarily at the 2007 election, Labor gaining the seat in his absence with a towering swing of 14.3%, the second biggest of that election after Forde in Brisbane’s outer south. The result also underscored the local eclipse of the Nationals, whose candidate polled only 4.0%. Incoming Labor member Jim Turnour managed only a single term before falling victim at the 2010 election to the combined impact of a statewide Labor rout, which cost them seven out of their existing 15 Queensland seats, and the return from retirement of Warren Entsch. Labor’s margin of 4.1% was easily accounted for by a swing of 8.6%, to which Entsch added a further 1.2% at the 2013 election.
Warren Entsch came to politics after serving in the Royal Australian Air Force from 1969 to 1978, then working as a maintenance fitter and welder, real estate agent, farmer and grazier and company director. After winning election in 1996 and re-election in 1998, he was promoted to parliamentary secretary but thereafter rose no higher, and went to the back bench upon announcing his retirement citing family reasons in 2006. During his subsequent three-year interregnum he was director of Cairns construction company CEC Group and the Australian Rainforest Foundation, but talk soon emerged of a political comeback, first in relation to the 2009 state election and then for his old seat. With this accomplished he served for a term as the Coalition’s chief whip, before relinquishing the position to Philip Ruddock after the 2013 election victory.
From memory the poster’s name was “Wal Kolla” or similar.
I can only assume he was moved on from this blog following that offensive outburst during the NDIS debate.
Everything
“cause and effect….”
Okay, but we’re purely biological systems with a definite expiry date. There is zero scientific evidence that ‘we’ come back in any sentient form after our death and certainly no evidence that once ‘we’ do our previous actions have an impact on what that reincarnation’s life will be like.
Karma is completely unscientific in every possible way. It’s an absurdity on top of an absurdity.
I am not trying to convince you absolutetwaddle, I am just answering your questions.
You asked me whether I believe in karma and I said yes.
Then you asked me whether karma was consistent with science and I said yes: cause and effect.
I am OK with you, and / or, everyone here laughing, quietly disagreeing, or scrolling on by. Each to their own. However, you should understand that the Buddha use almost the identical set of sentences to describe the operations of karma that Newton used to describe the operations of physics (i.e. cause and effect). It is completely consistent with a unified theory of how the Universe operates, but it cannot be proven as such, just observed.
[As an omniscient and omnipotent being God has no business being disappointed with what his artefacts do to each other. It’s not as if we can surprise him, for good or ill.]
Its worse than this. Being omniscient and omnipotent, all knowing and infinitely powerful, means he isn’t just watching the movie, he is the producer, director, scriptwriter and all else his handmade robots who can do nothing other than what is in his script.
This makes god the author of ‘sin’ (he provides the definition, the invention of the notion), makes his creatures follow his script to do the sin, whom he then inflicts suffering on, calling it punishment for the sin.
With god nothing can happen that wasn’t his ‘will’ to happen and so forth…. makes these religions a logical nonsense.
There is nothing wrong with believing in karma.
Bush and Howie are going to be in for a beauty 😀
[There’s nothing scientific about the notion of karma. It’s all about the individual belief.
That said, I’m enjoying that some of those who bitched the loudest at the Gillard govt (ie seniors) are copping a shit load of karma thanks to the Abbott govt, which many of them voted for.]
Oh yes, as I said, let them eat dog food!
With apologies to Marie Antoinette.
[Bushfire Bill
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 7:18 pm | PERMALINK
Jeez… I’ve just been trying to read up on the reason Sunni Muslims hate Shiites.
And I thought Catholics versus Protestants was stupid.
I guess it just boils down to parents telling their kids who to loathe.]
It’s pretty simple really. One of Mohammed’s wives, Aisha, allegedly carried on his divine legacy after his death. The Sunnis believe this, the Shiites don’t.
So lets bomb the crap out of each other to prove who is right.
The doubtful story about the Russians and anti-fracking groups was in regard to western Europe rather than the US.
Western Europe gets 30% of their gas from Russia.
I’ve just got to change channel before I do a Cahill on Kenny’s head and hurt my TV.
Centre
“There is nothing wrong with believing in karma.”
Aside from the very distinct likelihood it isn’t real you mean.
zoomster@494
😮 I never would have suspected you of that degree of susceptibility to crooks and charlatans.
sprocket
It confirms what I’ve always believed – that religion has done more harm than good in this world.
Everything
I asked why you believed in karma not because I wanted you to convince me, but because I was genuinely interested in why you choose to believe such superfluous faff. Of course your answer will be faith, so to that end I’m glad you didn’t bother.
Steve Karma has more to do with cause and effect than an individual score card.
Everything/ML – The idea that an individual continues to exist from one life to another (or even from one moment to another) isn’t really a part of Buddhism either tho is it? If anything its kind of a hang over of the Hindu version of reincarnation.
Have you heard of the concept of Anatta?
Re Fundies and CC
__________
When Fielding from FF Party was senatopr from Vic,he went on a free trip to the US sponsored by..”The Homeland Foundation”,where he swallowed up all the denialist crap
IT WAS REVEALED LATER THAT “HOMELAND ” IS FUNDED BY OIL/GAS/COAL COMPANIES …AND ALSO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.. AS IT PUTS OUT THE STORY THAT SMOKING IS OK FOR YOUR HEALTH
Twaddle
Personally, no I don’t believe in it but plenty do.
Darren L:
*grins*
Centre
“Personally, no I don’t believe in it but plenty do.”
I know. But they believe in it for stupid reasons (makes me feel good!) at best, and no reason (faith) at worst.
[The Buddhists, including some governments in Buddhist majority countries, have been just like all other human beings at times. Let them rise and fall on their own actions. If you have an issue with Buddhism, find me the section in the texts which is wrong, don’t tell me about some “Buddhist” who has done something wrong.]
Isn’t this line of argumentation sailing awfully close to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy? As the principle claim of religions is to provide an ethical and moral framework within which their followers can live their lives, it does not seem like an unfair criticism of a religion to point out ethical and moral failings of their adherents.
jules
Haha 🙂
Indeed I have…..I decided not to go into it given its such a subtle concept and I am not an arahant so I probably wouldn’t do it justice.
You are right. There is “nothing” that is reborn from one life to another, however, life continues as per the scientific concept of conservation of energy. Its a very subtle argument, the Buddha put forward, and quite elegant. Doesn’t mean it is true, but its completely consistent with the observable universe!
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 3m View translation
#Nielsen Poll 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 47 (+3) ALP 53 (-3) #auspol
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 3m View translation
#Nielsen Poll Primary Votes: L/NP 39 (+4) ALP 37 (-3) GRN 13 (-1) #auspol
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 5m
#Nielsen Poll 2 Party Preferred: L/NP 47 (+3) ALP 53 (-3) #auspol
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 3m
#Nielsen Poll Primary Votes: L/NP 39 (+4) ALP 37 (-3) GRN 13 (-1) #auspol
Neilsen out
GhostWhoVotes @GhostWhoVotes 3m View translation
#Nielsen Poll Primary Votes: L/NP 39 (+4) ALP 37 (-3) GRN 13 (-1) #auspol
[ Laura Jayes @ljayes · 1h
.@samanthamaiden writes @TonyAbbottMHR to hold formal talks with @CliveFPalmer for the 1st time on Thursday. Jeeze I hope there’s a pic fac]
I’d settle for a factual, non-spin write up of the discussion points and outcome of their meeting, but then again perhaps a visual is all we should hope for.
53/47
YUCK
So the spin from Neilsen will be Abbott gets a post overseas trip poll bounce, even though nobody can remember what he achieved (if anything) other than having his mug snapped in the company of Obama.
Ho hum.
It’s because ALP went soft after the high note of a speech.
caf
It should also be noted if you replace the word “Buddhist” with “Muslim” in Everything’s post it’s equally forceful. Which is to say, not at all.
[absolutetwaddle
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 9:03 pm | PERMALINK
Centre
“Personally, no I don’t believe in it but plenty do.”
I know. But they believe in it for stupid reasons (makes me feel good!) at best, and no reason (faith) at worst.]
Not true. Buddhism is the only religion which, if true, conveys ZERO benefit to its “believers”. Indeed, there is no membership because there is no point being a member or not being a member. It is a theory (in the scientific sense, not in the thought bubble sense). A set of arguments about how something works (in this case, the universe). It is internally consistent (which other religions are not), and is consistent with the observable universe.
It is not “Holy”, so I would dump it in a flash if a better theory comes along. I wouldn’t die for it, let alone kill someone else for it, just as I wouldn’t kill someone because they didn’t believe in calculus.
I am perfectly happy to concede that Buddhism could be wrong, and that karma may not exist. I am also perfectly happy to know that not a single Buddhist concept has proven to be wrong, and many of them (womens rights, gay rights, environmentalism, how to treat non-believers* etc etc) were well before their times!
* to my knowledge, Buddhism is the only religion that has no term for “non-believers”, there being no reason for one as we don’t condemn anyone for not believing Buddhism.
zoid:
What?
I take the view that all religions are equally silly and quite devoid of any worth or even worthy of consideration
We might as well debate how many angels can sit on the head of a pin,or the likelihood of there being a Tooth Fairy… all religions have a childish quality to them…might as well believe in Santa .. he more fun than Jesus or Buddha or any of them
Absolute twaddle, karma isn’t a thing to believe in like jeezus or even buddha, its a thing that happens, like gravity. Clearly you got your definition of karma from Oprah Winfrey or some such source.
If you’re using a chainsaw day in day out for a year or more but don’t wear kevlar chaps and then cut your leg open that is karma.
If you burn oil and coal non stop and chop down trees without replacing them then 300 years later when all your descendants are dead cos everything is 10 C hotter that is karma.
In effect it should be a concept thats used as a way of fusing personal responsibility with the idea of causality, the aim of this is to try and eliminate, or at least minimise human suffering. Simply by getting people to think about the future and the consequences of their actions.
Its the equivalent of telling your kids “Really – think things through and don’t be an arsehole.”
Everything on top of that is the usual religious attempts to socially control people.
Liberal senator Sue Boyce slams Abbott ‘sexism’
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-senator-sue-boyce-slams-abbott-sexism-20140621-3al85.html
Everything
How exactly would one go about proving karma wrong? It’s not falsifiable and therefore utterly worthless from a rational or scientific perspective.
[It’s pretty simple really. One of Mohammed’s wives, Aisha, allegedly carried on his divine legacy after his death. The Sunnis believe this, the Shiites don’t.]
And the schisms within christianity are more substantial or meaningful?
caf:
If the religion has an all powerful deity who claims to be in direct contact with His (its never “her”) followers, then, yes, its probably a fair criticism.
In the case of Buddhism, which many have noted is really not a religion, there is no all powerful God, and we are all alone and on our own. So, having access to the manual of operations, a very complex and hard to understand manual, doesn’t mean every single individual follower is going to instantly become perfect just from being able to access the manual of operations!
[As the principle claim of religions is to provide an ethical and moral framework within which their followers can live their lives]
What do you base this claim on?
[it does not seem like an unfair criticism of a religion to point out ethical and moral failings of their adherents.]
That just doesn’t make any sense at all unless the religion in question says something like ‘believe in X and you will never fail in any way ever again.’
I’m not sure there are too many religions that deal with the nature of man by promising it will instantly change on conversion.
And if you are not a believer in a religion why would you be judging it at all? You don’t believe in Goddess Y, so what right have you got to judge Her or Her believers?
confessions: From a political point of view, having his mug snapped with Obama is 90% of the point. Pictures like that are one of the reasons that being in Government tends to confer a certain amount of gravitas, deserved or not.
[There is nothing wrong with believing in karma.]
There is if decisions and actions are taken based on karma rather than the applicable science.
Buddhism might be one major religion that would have no major problems should evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life ever be discovered. Christianity and Islam would have issues.
Hi Confessions
Any tips on hotel accommodation in Albany?
Thanks
Or put another way, there’s a reason other than simple vanity that well-connected businessmen tend to conspiciously display photographs of themselves with the great and good – it’s because people take subconscious cues on trustworthiness and authority from seeing someone associating with a known authority figure.
jules
I’d say I’m more informed than most non-practitioners about the central tenets of both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. I’m aware that from the latter’s perspective that karma is supposedly an impersonal, impartial, non-vindictive universal law. The problem is, there’s no evidence it exists (unlike every other universal law). If Buddha had just said ‘don’t be an asshole’ that would be fine and dandy but instead he couched it in superfluous, mystical, unfalsifiable claptrap.
It was a good effort for his time though.
[It is a theory (in the scientific sense, not in the thought bubble sense).]
It’s not a theory in the scientific sense because it’s not falsifiable – it cannot be used to derive testable predictions about the natural world.
[ There’s nothing scientific about the notion of karma. It’s all about the individual belief.
That said, I’m enjoying that some of those who bitched the loudest at the Gillard govt (ie seniors) are copping a shit load of karma thanks to the Abbott govt, which many of them voted for.
Oh yes, as I said, let them eat dog food!
With apologies to Marie Antoinette.]
Why cite karma when the perfectly good scientific German schadenfreude will suffice?
[absolutetwaddle
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 9:13 pm | PERMALINK
Everything
How exactly would one go about proving karma wrong? ]
Very interesting question! I guess cause and effect is a scientific theory that could be found to be consistent or inconsistent with the observable universe (although if there was no cause and effect it is highly likely that nothing much sophisticated would exist in its chaotic-ness!). The specific cause and effect of karma can only be proven or disproven when you develop an awareness of birth and rebirth which most of us, including me, don’t have.
WeWantPaul
“And if you are not a believer in a religion why would you be judging it at all? You don’t believe in Goddess Y, so what right have you got to judge Her or Her believers?”
If Goddess Y’s adherents are crashing planes into our buildings or pushing for their chaplains in our schools, you’re damn right we’ve got a right to judge. What a stupid question.
From Observer on backlash on border security…interesting parallels…
[The federal border patrol, townsfolk claim, has become a police force operating outside legal authority, which subjects migrants to racial profiling and unlawful searches.
Flush with a $30bn boost in Washington-authorised spending, the agency is planning to double its number of agents to 39,000 – hypothetically enough to place one every 100 yards along the entire 1,900-mile US-Mexico border. “This is the face of militarisation,” says Peter Ragan of Arivaca group People Helping People, gesturing towards a checkpoint well inside US territory. “Searches are done to intimidate and harass. They can assert control at any time. There’s no accountability, no transparency and no oversight.”
Protesters say the agency, which gets more funding than the FBI, Secret Service, DEA and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives combined, is now an important customer for contractors previously focused on supplying drones and sensing equipment for use in foreign military deployments.]
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/21/arizona-border-patrol-anger-grows
[Steve777
Posted Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 9:17 pm | PERMALINK
Buddhism might be one major religion that would have no major problems should evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life ever be discovered. Christianity and Islam would have issues.]
Reinforced if anything! Buddhism has nothing to do with human beings, unlike every other religion which has us at their centres!
shellbell:
If you want to book for the ANZAC centennary commemorations then do it quick.