The Czech Republic >>> Heads Back to the Future >>>

Came across this news article the other week -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/10404238/Czech-elections-Communists-could-end-up-back-in-power.html

In some of the most deliciously ironic political news seen in years, it appears that the supposedly reviled communist party may soon be back in power in the Czech Republic. The country's legislative elections were held late last month. Due to the appearance of several new parties, the Communist's didn't win quite as big a portion of the vote as was predicted, but they did substantially increase it. The results of the election can be found here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_legislative_election,_2013

And further analysis of the result here -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/czech-republic-elections_b_4209431.html

In summary, their share of the vote increased from about 11% to 15%, putting them in third place. Given the sudden mishmash of political parties, with no fewer than seven winning at least a few percent of the vote, it is unclear which parties will be able to form a coalition government. At the very least however, the news that the communists are in with a shot has made headlines around the world. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s had many people assuming that communism as a movement was dead and buried.

The reality is much more complicated. Most European countries still have active communist parties, and many have been governed by only slightly less left-wing socialist parties in recent years. In Bulgaria for instance the most successful post-1991 political party has been the 'Bulgarian Socialist Party' which, it turns out, is the direct successor of the Cold War-era Bulgarian Communist Party. As of 2013 they're not currently in government, but won 26.6% of the vote in the most recent elections, placing them second. Similarly, Hungary's most successful post-1991 party is the 'Hungarian Socialist Party', again a partial successor to Hungary's Cold War-era government.

Even in Russia, the 'Communist Party of the Russian Federation' has won between 11 and 25% of the vote in every election since the fall of the Soviet Union, remaining one of Russia's largest parties. Countries such as Greece, Ukraine and Belarus all have prominent communist parties, by which I mean they consistently win parliamentary seats and significant portions of the vote. Moldova has actually had an elected communist government, which was in power from 2001 to 2009.

My point is, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc did not completely see the end of Communism as a political movement in Europe. The state of politics in most Eastern European countries post-Cold War has basically been a reflection of what's been happening in western Europe ever since the end of WW2. Governments have typically switched back and forth every few years between socialist parties, which are usually the strongest parties individually (France for instance is currently ruled by the Socialists) and a coalition of more right-wing parties. Rarely have the Communists actually been voted into office, but they've persistently lurked on the fringes of the electoral scene, refusing to be vanquished, and occasionally re-emerged to form part of a coalition government with other left-wing parties.

Why am I saying all this, you may ask? My point is simple, it is that we shouldn't be so shocked if one day we wake up and find the following scenario has indeed come back to life -

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=11391

Our past is still closer than we think. I wouldn't be shocked if in twenty or thirty years we find that much of Europe has again fallen under communist rule, though this time buoyed with the priceless legitimacy the democratic process brings. I make this prediction with mixed feelings. I'm a leftie, I believe that ultimately democratic socialism will prevail over dictatorship and unregulated capitalism, and given that government spending as a percentage of GDP in most western countries is now rising past 40% or more, it would seem that most of the developed world agrees. The fall of the Eastern Bloc saw the global trend towards socialism, prevalent in much of the 20th century, reversed in the region for a few decades. Now however, things seem to be getting back on track. I hope above all else however that politically the region does not revert to authoritarian rule, be it of the one-party-state kind found in the Soviet Union of its satellites, or the US-backed military junta kind seen in Greece and Turkey. Ultimately I suppose I believe in a big government over a small government, but only if its a democratic one. People should be allowed to determine their own future.

Do men and women both desire sex just as much?

Often lamented in our modern society is the ongoing collapse of the standard family unit. The notion of a father, mother and two, three, four or more kids living harmoniously under one roof, so essential to the '50s era America dream, is becoming just as elusive as its name suggests - a dream.

We don't have to rely on anecdotal evidence to prove this, just a quick look at the statistics will do. In 1900 the average Australian household contained 4.5 people. By 1960 that number had declined to 3.5, and is now down past 2.5 today, and still dropping.

There are two predominate causes of this, firstly, smaller family sizes. Australia's average fertility rate (the number of babies born per woman) has fallen from a high of 3.5 in 1960 to around 1.9 now. Even that figure has only crept up in recent years due to higher birth rates among newly arrived immigrants.

The second cause however, is how much the divorce rate has skyrocketed in recent years. 43% of marriages in Australia now end in divorce. As high as this figure is, in many countries the rate is even higher, including 53% in the US, 55% in France, 61% in Spain and, apparently, 71% in Belgium. Historically, the divorce rate was virtually zero up until the 1940s, then shot up from the '70s onwards. This had contributed to over 20% of households in Australia now being 'single-person' households, quite a waste given that figure comes out to over 2 million extra inhabited houses. That's two million extra fridges running all the time, two million extra dishwashers, washing machines and microwaves, probably well over two million TV's, and so on. All needlessly draining electricity from our power grid, not to mention the added costs of manufacturing and importing them all. The economic costs of such a spiraling divorce rate are no doubt enormous.

But anyway, why has this change occurred?

First off, we should acknowledge the nature of marriage as a historical institution. Up until well into the 20th century most marriages were, lets not sugarcoat it, tantamount to a form of slavery. Women served as the child-rearers and servants of their husbands. Women had few political rights, rarely were financially independent, and were expected to remain loyal to their husbands and cover up their bodies in public. European women in 1900 were in many ways similar to Middle Eastern women today.

Evidence backing up this comparison also comes in the form of divorce rates in many Islamic countries shooting up in recent years. The divorce rate is now 14% in Iran, and 17% in Egypt. Concurrently, women were finally granted the right to vote in Kuwait in 2006, and plans are now afoot to allow women to legally drive in Saudi Arabia from 2015 onward. Conservative attitudes to women are quickly dying out worldwide, although 'quickly' on the scale of the entire world still means this is happening over a period of several generations.

So what does this have to do with sexual desire? Well looking at British figures when it comes to the divorce rate -

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons

We can see that 65% of divorces are initiated by women rather than men. Of those, over 50% cite 'behavior' as the main reason.

When I first saw these figures a while ago, I was quite surprised. Surely men, given they are still most often the income-earners in any partnership, would be more likely to divorce their wives then the other way round? In the vast majority of divorce cases it is the women who receive custody of the children and require alimony payments from their former partners. Given that this isn't the case, then from these figures we can come to the conclusion that women are getting sick of being 'wives' much more often and more quickly than men are getting sick of being 'husbands'. Even given their financial disadvantage, far more women then men are willing to divorce their partners and once more contend with single-hood.

So why is this?

Well here we come to today's topic.

While it is a hotly debated one, liable to make tempers flare and maybe even provoke accusations of sexism, one has to end up confronting the question of what role sexual desire plays in relationships. The old stereotype is, of course, that men overwhelmingly desire sex more than women. Personally I think this is very likely true. In the vast majority of cases, I don't think its even close.

We shall return to this in a moment however, for even if it isn't true there are a number of other statistics we can look at to discern whether an imbalance in sexual desire is a key factor in destabilizing so many relationships.

First off, there's people's preference when it comes to how they best achieve sexual satisfaction, most commonly involving orgasms. You'd think sex would easily triumph over all other methods, but according to a recent survey, a whopping 41% of women say they actually prefer masturbation over sex -

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/female-masturbation-infographic

Despite spending quite a while searching online, I couldn't find a comparable figure for men. Since I'd be willing to bet it is nowhere near that high I'll submit a figure of 10%, and even that's probably being generous. If anybody gets ahold of any better figures I'd be happy to use them. In essence, this means that even if women desire sex just as much as men, far more often they are willing to go and take care of business at home, by themselves. This would obviously cause a corresponding lack of desire for actual, physical contact with other people.

A second factor to be taken into account, and in which there also seems to be a significant difference, is the frequency of homosexual behavior when it comes to men and women. Surveys differ, but according to this article -

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sax-sex/201004/why-are-so-many-girls-lesbian-or-bisexual

Around 15% of women now identify as lesbian or bisexual, compared to just 5% of men who identify as being gay. Many other surveys back up this reality. While I struggle to think of a scientific reason for this discrepancy, it very much seems to exist, and so is one we shouldn't just ignore.

A third figure we could throw into the mix is the uneven ratio of men to women in our society. In many third world countries this ratio is seriously skewed in favour of males due to the frequent use of sex-selective abortion. By mid-century China could have somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million more men than women, and India around 50 million. In Australia the overall gender ratio is slightly in favour of women, but this is largely due to women's longer life expectancy. While they may make up 54% of the population over 65, they make up only 49% of the population under 55.

So in determining how great a gender-based imbalance in sexual desire there may be in our society, before we even start talking about people's inherent desires, we get the following formula -

Portion of women who prefer sex to masturbation (59%) X portion who are heterosexual (85%) X portion of the population (under age 55 - 49%) = 0.246

We then divide this by the respective figures for men -

Portion of men who prefer sex to masturbation (90%) X portion who are heterosexual (95%) X portion of the population (under age 55 - 51%) = 0.436

0.246/0.436 = 0.56

So to summarize, even if we assumed that women are just as virile as men, their overall demand for heterosexual, physical contact comes out at just 56% that of men.

This is before we even get into the actual figures concerning sexual desire. In a 2007 national British survey, 95% of men and 71% of women reported masturbating at some point in their lives. Probably more useful however are the results as to who had masturbated within a recent time-frame, implying a greater frequency. 53% of men and just 18% of women reported masturbating in the four weeks before the survey. Another study carried out by the university of Chicago in the US found that 61% of men and just 38% of women admitted to masturbating in the past year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#Frequency.2C_age.2C_and_sex
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200903/how-common-is-masturbation-really

There are other surveys we could look at, but the overall trend is that men tend to masturbate at least twice as often as women. Even this estimate is probably conservative. If we plug such a result back into our earlier formula, we get this.

Women - 0.59X0.85X0.49X0.5 = 0.123
Men - 0.9X0.95X0.51X1 = 0.436

0.123X0.436 = 0.28

So ultimately, if we accept the accuracy of all these statistics, women's overall desire to be sexually intimate with men in our society is just 28% that of men's respective desire to be intimate with women. That's a ratio of nearly 4:1.

I've gotta say, this would seem to explain a lot. Is it any wonder then, that looking back at the above divorce statistics, women cited 'adultery' as a reason for breaking up with partner almost twice as often as men did? Is it any wonder that the vast majority, somewhere in the vicinity of 99%, of all prostitution is carried out with men as the clients? Is it any wonder that men's sexual desire is discussed and focused on in our society to a much greater extent than women's?

Since this is such a hot-button issue, I shall say no more on it. I urge people to make of this analysis what you will. If you can find better figures, then feel free to come to your own conclusions, or even send them to me and I might update this post.

Peace out

Why Rolling Stone's '500 Greatest Songs of All Time' list is a load of bullsh*t

In my usual, daily rummaging about on the internet, I recently came across a list with an ambitious title - 'Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time'.

 The 2010 version, which I looked at, can be found here -

http://www.last.fm/user/RadioKaKa/journal/2013/05/10/5tkd33_rolling_stone's_500_greatest_songs_of_all_time_(2010_edition)

Intrigued, I perused the list at length, even plugging a few of the more obscure songs into Youtube to have a listen. Within a short period of time however, I'd come to a firm conclusion.

Much of the list is just complete and utter bullsh*t.

I mean really, I struggle to find something on the list I have no issue with. So many great (not to mention wildly successful) bands are omitted that its just not funny. Even when it comes to the bands they have included, the list has a tendency to over-emphasize them, giving them even more spots then they deserve, and even those spots are often given to less popular and well, less-than-spectacular, songs.

The most common band on the list is, and I don't dispute this, the Beatles. But even here they seem to have gone a bit far. No fewer than 23 Beatles songs are on the list. Certainly songs like 'Hey Jude', 'Let It Be' and 'Come Together' deserve high spots, but about half the songs are not as well known. Not everything the Beatles did was so fantastic. I hadn't even heard of songs like 'Norwegian Wood' or 'I Saw Her Standing There', and after having a listen on Youtube, I'm not surprised, they're pretty ordinary, especially compared to some of the Beatles' later works.

Many tracks from less popular albums like 'A Hard Day's Night' and 'Help!' are included rather than songs from 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band', a much more popular and seminal album. Frustratingly, Sgt. Pepper's later topped Rolling Stone's list of the '500 Greatest Albums of All Time', which begs the question, well then why weren't more songs from it included? Where the hell is 'Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds'? Overall I'd have put maybe ten or twelve Beatles songs on the list rather than 23, and definitely changed and re-ordered some of the remaining ones.

The list focuses heavily on earlier acts. To some extent this is understandable. I appreciate Rolling Stone giving extra points for originality and innovation, which earlier bands are going to have in spades. Still, they might have overdone it a bit. Almost 40% of the songs are from the 1960s, and another 26% from the '70s. Bizarrely, the '50s somehow get more songs included than the '80s. Seriously, aside perhaps from playing a few nostalgic Elvis tracks, who stills listens to music from the '50s? Did anyone even listen at the time? Weren't we too busy witch-hunting Commies?

After the Beatles, the next most common acts are The Rolling Stones (who would have thought?), Bob Dylan and Elvis Presley. Now of course these giants of music are deserving of high praise (I don't disagree for instance with the choice of #1 song - 'Like A Rolling Stone' by Bob Dylan) but such older acts are way more prominent than they should be. Now I'd like to make it clear that I'm not some punk kid who only thinks music was invented after the year 2000, nor however, am I a golden oldie who still listens to music from the '50s. Hell the Beatles are just about the only act from the '60s I still listen to.

My point is, there is an overall way of judging how successful some of these older artists were. Elvis of course was the second biggest act in the history of music in terms of album sales, after the Beatles. Bob Dylan however wasn't even close. The Beatles and Elvis come first and second respectively, but Bob Dylan is far from third. In fact, he tops out at number #46.

Seriously, he's behind Taylor Swift and the Backstreet Boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

NOT of course, that I'm saying Taylor Swift is anywhere near as talented as Bob Dylan, but the truth of the matter is that even in his day Bob Dylan was not one of the world's biggest acts. He's beaten by a number of others. Aside from 'Like A Rolling Stone' and 'The Times They Are a-Changin' I'm not sure how many of his 13 current positions on the list he really deserves. They may have sounded good at the time, but many of them sound very dated now. Sure we can have a few sentimental shouts outs to these pioneers of modern music, but ultimately the list is of the 500 'greatest' songs of all time. If they sound dated, that has to detract from their value somewhat, as many songs from the '50s and '60s now do.

Wikipedia's list includes every music act to ever sell more than 75 million albums. 91 acts are listed in total. Going down the list, Michael Jackson and Madonna place 3rd and 4th. But looking at Rolling Stone's list they receive only two spots and one spot respectively, I think you'd have to give both of them a few more. Rounding out the Top Five is Led Zeppelin, who receive a reasonable six spots (Stairway to Heaven, Whole Lotta Love, Kashmir etc, though I wonder what happened to the 'Immigrant Song'?

Going down the list, my spirits are not lifted. Yes a few spots are given to bands like Elton John, AC/DC and Queen, but most of the bands are simply not very interesting. You can't even use the excuse that the bands were successful in terms of sheer album sales, as a great number were no more than moderately successful. Included are 'The Clash' a punk band from the '60s that doesn't even make Wikipedia's list, nor does 'The Ronettes', a '60s girls group, or 'Prince and the Revolution' an obscure '80s band that was only active for a few years.

Getting to the bottom of the list of 500 songs, what had previously been disappointing becomes truly cringe-worthy. Justin Timberlake even gets a song (seriously, Justin f*cking Timberlake!) along with acts such as Kelly Clarkson, Kanye West and The Pixies.

However, there is a flipside to all this bullsh*t. There are plenty of songs at the bottom I have no problems kicking off the list.

So, lets being shall we?

The single greatest flaw in the list, the most stupidly insulting part of this whole farce, and the first thing I checked when I came across it, and was horrified to discover, is the almost complete absence of progressive Rock. There's no Genesis, no Jethro Tull, no King Crimson or Emerson, Lake and Palmer, no Gentle Giant. The only saving grace is the inclusion of three songs by Pink Floyd, but this is such a pitiful number out of 500 that it simply has to be corrected.

First off, we need to add some Genesis.

In its own right, Genesis is one of the top 25 most successful music acts of all time (way ahead of our old friend Bob Dylan, and active only a few years later than him) selling an estimated 130 million albums. Including the albums sold by its constituent members when they later went off on their solo careers, this number more than doubles. Phil Collins, a former Genesis member, himself sold 150 million more albums (far more than Paul McCartney, by comparison, when he went off on his own solo career). Other members like Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett also had successful solo careers. If you combine these figures, and plug the total into the list of the most successful bands of all time (and I don't see why you shouldn't) Genesis and its individual members come out as at least the 6th most successful music group in history. It actually puts them ahead of Pink Floyd. To totally omit Genesis, or any of its constituent members, from a list of the 500 best songs of all time is just insulting.

So lets get cracking -

Land of Confusion (1986) by Geneis is a terrific song with an even more terrifying music video and, even more impressively, is actually about an interesting topic, in this case the Cold War -

I would then follow this up with 'Old Medley' (1993), a compilation of several of Genesis' earlier songs (its total length is over 19 minutes, but this isn't quite the longest on Rolling Stone's list. I do give them credit for including a number of longer songs, rather than sticking to the 3-4 minute tracks so common mostly because they can fit between radio add breaks) -

There are a number of other fantastic Genesis songs I'd like to insert into the list (pretty much the entirety of the album 'The Way We Walk: Volume Two' for instance) but lets not be greedy. 

Moving on to Phil Collins, who could forget this? - 

In The Air Tonight (1980)

Peter Gabriel too I would consider worthy of at least one song, and even that's being stingy. There are a number of possible options - 'Solsbury Hill', 'Red Rain', 'Come talk to Me', 'Here Comes the Flood', 'Kiss That Frog' or 'Big Time' just to name a few. In the end though I think this is the best choice - 

Sledgehammer (1986)

When it comes to Emerson, Lake and Palmer, its not hard to choose -

Fanfare For the Common Man (1977 - though based on a piece written in 1942)

Jethro Tull, again, has an obvious choice - 

Skating Away (on the Thin Ice of the New Day) (1974)

 

Steering away from the progressive rock genre, one should consider the works of Mike Oldfield, probably one of the most talented musicians of the 20th century. In his albums he typically plays every single instrument, recording them separately and then combining them all together into each track. There are a number of possible options, 'Sentinel' was a track made famous by its use in the film 'The Exorcist'. 'Far Above the Clouds' is another option. But in the end my preference would be 'The Bell' from the album 'Tubular Bells II' -

The Bell (1992)

Didn't recognize the voice of the 'Master of Ceremonies' from that track who introduces each instrument? Go look it up, I implore you.

Another grossly overlooked act in Rolling Stone's list is Billy Joel, an absolute legend of music and the 18th best selling music artist of all time. He receives only one song, 'Piano Man', which was his earliest hit. A number of other songs should be included. My first choice would be this - 

We Didn't Start the Fire (1989)

Other songs that could be included are 'Goodnight Saigon', 'Uptown Girl', 'River of Dreams', 'Leningrad' and 'Downeaster Alexa', among others. Billy Joel really is deserving of at least four or five spots on the list.

Anyway, those are just some of the more egregious problems I have with Rolling Stone's list. A number of other famous songs seem to be missing in action. What about 'Wonderwall' by Oasis? Or 'Summer of '69' by Bryan Adams? Bon Jovi is one of the top 40 acts of all time, and I think deserving of at least one song. 'Livin on a Prayer' or 'It's My Life' are both viable options. Several classic songs by '80s band 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood' could be included, such as 'Relax' or 'Two Tribes'. Honestly, if I was to bother doing a full review of Rolling Stone's list, I don't think more than half the songs on it would remain at the end. 

So to conclude, that is a brief summary of why Rolling Stone's list of the '500 Greatest Songs of All Time' is a load of bullsh*t.

How to fix Australia's electoral system

There are ultimately many different ways a democracy can function. In Australia we use a modification of the Westminster system, whereby the Executive Branch of government (headed by the Prime Minister and their Cabinet) is drawn directly from the legislature. This contrasts with the American system, where the Executive is headed by a completely separate President, and the Cabinet (composed of 'Secretaries' rather than 'Ministers') is appointed by the President, rather than being elected to and drawn from congress. The American President also fulfills both of the roles of 'Head of Government' and 'Head of State', roles filled in Australia by the Prime Minister and Governor-General respectively (although technically the reigning British monarch still remains Australia's Head of State, much to the chagrin of those of us with any common sense).

In short, there are many variations on what we can call a 'democracy'. Each has their own pros and cons. In the wake of the 2013 Australian Federal elections, where the results were at times startlingly strange (the election to the Senate of a candidate from the little-known 'Motoring Enthusiasts' Party from Victoria and the even more obscure 'Sports Enthusiasts' Party from WA being the most egregious examples) many have started to wonder whether the Australian electoral system is in need of some reforms. 

I think this is absolutely the case, here are my suggestions.

• Increase Senate candidacy fees

The current guidelines for forming a political party in Australia are pretty simple, and for the most part I have no desire to see them changed. To form one all you need is a $500 registration fee and the signatures of 500 people (who must of course be eligible voters listed on the electoral roll). These requirements are there as a modest barrier to prevent people forming any number of parties on a whim, or just for a joke (Britain for instance used to have a 'Monster Raving Loony' Party that was heavily inspired by Monty Python sketches).

In addition, if you want your party to actually run candidates than the fee for running for a seat in the Federal House of Representatives is currently $1000. This means that any party that wants to contest all 150 Australian lower house seats needs to scrounge $150,000 from somewhere. Typically only a handful of the larger minor parties, such as the Greens and Family First, can do this (it should also be noted that by winning more than 4% of the vote, on both lower house and Senate tickets, the candidate's party will then get its money back). This ensures that micro-parties only tend to be able to contest a limited number of seats. In the 2013 election over a thousand candidates ran nationwide, a record number, but the current system meant that no more than a dozen or so candidates ran in all but a handful of seats (the most was the division of Melbourne, containing Melbourne's CBD, which had 16 candidates). While increasing lower house candidacy fees might be necessary in future, at the moment the system is still workable.

The Senate however is a different matter, and the source of most of the problems that have many people complaining about the 'farce' Australia's electoral system has become. The fee to run as a candidate is double the lower house fee at $2000. For anyone out there who intends to reform Australia's democratic process this is the first area you probably want to look at. Since the Senate fee isn't all that much higher, and the corresponding ballot paper is distributed on a statewide basis rather than to individual electorates as is the case with the lower house, an impractically large number of candidates have been clogging up the ballot lately. This is particularly obvious in the larger states. In the 2013 election 97 different candidates were listed on the Victorian ballot and 110 on the New South Wales' ballot. The ballot was literally three-feet across. This is not practical, we simply can't have an electoral system where to go and vote properly you need to take the morning off.

The solution would seem to be simple, raise the fees. Instead of $2000, make it $5000, or even $10,000. Such fees may make it seem that the system is being unfair to minor parties, and to some extent this is true, but the case shouldn't really be that hard to argue. The argument should be framed as not trying to shut out minor parties, but just 'micro' parties. Remember of course that to run a candidate in every lower house seat nationwide requires fees totaling $150,000. If the fee for each Senate candidate is $10,000, then that translates into a nationwide cost of only $60,000, still considerably less than for the lower house overall.

Such extra fees could also serve as a small source of revenue. The 2007 and 2010 elections both cost about $160 million each to run. In 2013 there were over 500 Senate candidates nationwide. If they each paid $10,000 to run (though the idea of course is to decrease that number significantly) that would raise over $5 million, plus an extra $1 million and a bit from the lower house. Its not a very large number, but such fees do add up over time.

The result would be a more manageable political scene. The whole point of having a preferential voting system (and overall I think such a system is absolutely essential to any democracy) is to prevent the sort of monolithic, two-party duopoly that plagues many countries, notably the United States. The disadvantage the current system gives us is that instead of a two-party system, we have a hundred-party system.

A ten or fifteen-party system would be much more desirable, nor would it really reduce the diversity of our current political scene. Many micro parties seem basically redundant anyway. Do we really need a 'Rise Up Australia' Party and a 'Stable Population' Party alongside 'One Nation'? Couldn't we just arrange for all the bigots and xenophobes to gather in one party, rather than have multiple duplicates of them clogging up our Senate ballots? Do the 'Australian Christians' and 'Family First' really have to be separate parties? Why couldn't the 'Socialist Alliance', the 'Socialist Equality' Party and the 'Communist' Party all merge? Hell they might actually win upwards of one percent of the vote if they did. If the fee to run as a candidate was $10,000 or higher, then many such parties couldn't easily compete by themselves, and might be compelled to merge with similarly fringe political activists, simplifying the whole system. A greater degree of cooperation would be useful here.

• Voluntary preferential voting

This one should really be a no-brainer, and one wonders why on Earth it hasn't already been introduced by now. Currently, there are two ways of tackling the Senate ballot. You can either put a number ‘1’ in just one box ‘above the line’, or you can number every single box ‘below the line’. An above the line vote means that you’re not only voting for the party in question, but you’re allowing your vote to be passed down whatever preference route that party sees fit. i.e. if you voted for the Greens, eventually your vote will presumably end up with the Labor Party rather than the Liberals.

A ‘below the line’ vote means you’ve decided to order your preferences how you see fit. Given that in the 2013 election some States had ballots with around a hundred different candidates, only 2% of people now choose this option. This has led to the practice, undesirable to say the least, of minor parties swapping their preferences with other parties based not on their ideological similarities, but just on their size. i.e. minor left-wing parties will tend to preference minor far-right parties over the major parties. In this past election preferences from the Sex Party (a socially progressive party, basically the opposite of Family First) helped elect a candidate from the ‘Liberal Democrats’ in NSW. The Liberal Democrats are a far-right ‘libertarian’ party that is vehemently anti-taxation and anti-government. It is doubtful that most Sex Party voters, who would probably see themselves as overwhelmingly progressive, knew what they were getting themselves into.

So the solution is really quite simple, and wouldn't even require a change to the layout of the ballot. The ‘above the line’ option would remain unchanged, while as for the ‘below the line’ option voters should no longer have to fill out every box, but just as many as they see fit. You could write just one number, or five, or dutifully fill all of them out. So if you wanted to vote for the Sex Party, but also make sure your preferences didn't end up right-of-center, you could put Sex Party first, the Greens second, then Labor third, and that's it. Beyond that your vote would disappear off into the aether, rather than run the risk of it ending up with a party you didn't want to vote for in the first place. Simple yes?

• Make the Senate nationally proportionate

There are three main reasons why Australia has a second house of parliament. The first is for it to be a 'house of review'. Senators are elected to six year, rather than three/four year, terms. This serves the purpose of stabilizing our political system, meaning that even a large swing in the lower house against a sitting government may not translate into a new party also gaining control of the senate, and thus the entire parliament.

Secondly, it is the main arena in which minor parties can have a say. While minor parties and independents rarely hold the balance of power in the lower house, this is the norm in the Senate. It is also a way of combating gerrymandering, which can affect any parliament that is composed of representatives from individual electorates rather than through proportional representation. On many occasions a party can gain power with a slim majority of seats, and yet have received somewhat less than half the vote. Ideally this should not occur in the Senate.

This concern though, also ties into the third reason, which is that the Senate is also meant to be a 'state's house'. When the six Australian colonies federated in 1901 it was a necessary compromise that an equal number of senators were to represent each state. Herein lies a big problem. The Senate suffers from a distortion far greater than any caused by the electorate system of the lower house. Each of Australia's six States (not to mention it's territories) have different populations. New South Wales has over seven million people, while Tasmania has half a million. This means that a Tasmanian voter has roughly 15 times as much representation in the federal Senate as a NSW voter.

This system is unfair, obsolete, and ideally should be changed. Australia has been a unified country now for over a hundred years. There is no realistic prospect of its federation being dissolved (despite the hollow complaints of Western Australians whenever the Federal government tries to impose a new mining tax). Members of the Senate would instead be chosen based on a nationwide proportionate system.

This ultimately means that the voting system would not change a great deal. A quota would now be just over 1.3% of the national vote, rather than 14% or so of the vote in any of the six states (or in reality twice that at 2.6%, if Senators continued to serve 6 year terms). In the 2013 election the coalition was able to win 33 Senate Seats, Labor 25 and the Greens 10. Between them the three biggest parties were able to control 89% of the Senate with 76% of the vote.

By comparison, under a nationwide proportional voting system, the composition of the senate would be as follows, looking at the 2013 results counted out so far -

Liberal/National - 37.43% - 28.4 seats

Labor - 30.45% - 23.1 seats

Greens - 8.69% - 6.6 seats

Palmer United - 5.06% - 3.8 seats

Liberal Democrats - 3.77% - 2.9 seats

Xenophon Group - 2.11% - 1.6 seats

Australian Sex - 1.38% - 1.1 seats

Others - 10.7% - 8.1 seats

Approximately 58 out of 76 Senate seats would be held by the three major parties, or about 76%, which lines up properly with the portion of the vote that they won. A mix of the major and minor parties would control the remaining 18 seats (as there would be quite a lot of major party votes left over and, depending on how the preferences flowed, they could win a few more) again lining up appropriately. Since parties would have to compete on a national level, and combined with preferential voting being made voluntary, this should help prevent the ascension to the Senate of tiny, single-issue, Mickey Mouse parties like the Motoring Enthusiasts from Victoria or the Sports Party from WA. The latter has apparently been elected to the senate despite winning only 1900 votes, or a fifth of one percent of the WA electorate. Given that no party controls a majority in the Senate, it is perfectly possible that some bills will pass or fail in the next three years based on the whims of a candidate elected by such a tiny number of people. This is not democratic and steps should be implemented to prevent it from reoccurring.

While it would be ideal, there are two reasons why such a system will probably not come about any time soon. First of all, Senators from minor States would surely protest against it. Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Territories have 5.3 million people between them, only a quarter of Australia's population, yet together have a 40-36 majority in the Senate. Tangent to this is the likelihood that at least one of the major parties would be opposed to it because they happen to be stronger in those smaller states. Given that Labor tends to dominate in Tasmania, South Australia and the ACT, it would likely be them.

Secondly, there's a fair chance that both major parties would oppose it anyway, because it would erode their power compared to minor parties in general. Labor, the Coalition, and even the Greens are probably pretty happy with their current, privileged situation where they are able to control 9/10 of the Senate with 3/4 of the votes.

Also worth noting

• Stick with compulsory balloting

Amid these other arguments, one that is often brought up is whether Australia should end compulsory voting entirely. There are various arguments either way, but ultimately I am still in favor of the practice. Most of the arguments against it run something along the lines of - 'no one should be forced to cast a vote, as it infringes upon their civil liberties'. These arguments are neatly countered by the fact that voting is not technically compulsory, only balloting is. All any Australian citizen is required to do is register on the electoral roll, turn up at a polling station on election day (or a pre-poll station shortly beforehand or submit a postal vote), take a ballot, go into the voting booth, then come out and submit that ballot in a box. What a voter does in the voting booth is, to use an old cliche, between them and God. It is completely private, and there is no way someone can be prosecuted for not marking the ballot, or filling in out improperly. About 5% of ballots cast in Australian elections fall under this definition, being called 'informal ballots'. Nor is Australia unique in having such a system. 22 countries worldwide have compulsory voting systems, although only about ten of them regularly enforce it.

Wikipedia's article on Compulsory voting neatly sums up the arguments for and against it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

• I know its tired but...yes, the Republic

This is so long overdue it borders on the ridiculous. There have been plenty of other essays written on this topic over the years, so I imagine everything worth saying has already been said on this issue. I would just like to note here that I am absolutely in favor of Australian becoming a Republic. I would also favor the minimalist model, whereby things pretty much stay the way they are. All that really changes is that we take a marker to the constitution and wherever it says 'Governor-General' we cross it out and write 'President'. The President would continue to be appointed by the Prime Minister and remain a ceremonial position, and would completely replace the reigning British monarch of the time as Australia's official Head of State. This is another reform that should really be a no-brainer.

My obsessive-compulsive disorder

Any fans of the Big Bang Theory out there?

If you've ever seen the way Sheldon obsessively knocks on Penny's door (always in sets of three) you may have some idea what obsessive-compulsive disorder looks like (its one of the things I like most about the show, despite what you may think, the characters are surprisingly authentic at times). Or maybe you're even a sufferer yourself? Or know someone who is? Its hardly a rare mental disorder and, luckily, usually not debilitating.

I'm glad to say that it generally isn't in my case. I'm not the sort of person who simply has to turn the light switch on and off twenty times when they enter a room, but I do get compulsions along those lines all the time. I always have as far back as I can remember, ever since early primary school at least.

There's a complicated system of rules involved, and a long list of certain situations in which such compulsions tend to occur most frequently. I've only ever explained to a handful of people over the years just how my own little system works, but today dear internet, I would like to share this with you. To those who've suffered obsessive-compulsive symptoms, maybe you can sympathise. For those who haven't, well this might get a bit weird, and hard to follow.

Its all to do with even numbers, and more specifically doubling numbers. i.e. 2,4,8,16,etc. I differ from Sheldon in this. If my manner of door knocking was something strongly affected by my compulsions, I'd never knock three times. I'd knock twice, or four times, or eight times.

When I was little, before I knew that there was a medical term for what I was experiencing, I just described it as 'the even thing', since that's what it was all about. A very simple example of a compulsion, not really even worthy of being considered part of an actual disorder, is when you, for instance, brush a part of your body such as an elbow against something else (such as a wall or some furniture, or another person) and feel compelled to immediately brush your other elbow against something else as well. Or you might scratch your ear with one hand, and then feel compelled to scratch your other ear with your other hand as well.

This isn't uncommon. Its along the same lines as trying to avoid the cracks in a footpath when you're walking along it. Kids especially tend to do stuff like this. There are many typical little superstitions we have and games we play. Its only when such compulsions grow increasingly complicated and lengthy, perhaps to the point where they become debilitating, that you're got real obsessive compulsive disorder on your hands.

However its not just the number of times I do an action, its the order as well, there's a standard sequence. Things have got to even out. A common example I have is when clicking a mouse while using a computer.

Very often, when I click the mouse button on whatever it is that I'm doing (which would be the left button) I begin my little sequence to even things out. The first step is simply clicking the right mouse button as well. However this is usually not enough. I'll keep going for longer until I feel truly, ah, 'satisfied' that everything has been 'evened out'. So I'll probably repeat what I've already done, but in reverse. So instead of 'left-right', I'll now click 'right-left'. So the sequence you've ended up with 'left-right-right-left'.

In binary, you could right it as 1001.

If I don't yet feel satisfied, I'll keep going. I'll repeat the sequence of four I've done, but now in reverse. So now it'll be 'right-left-left-right' in addition to our earlier clicks, or 0110.

However, in addition to just 'doubling' the numbers, I'll probably be counting the number of times I've doubled them. Now I started with one click, then doubled it to two, then to four, and now to eight.

That's three doublings, and you know how much I don't like threes...

So I'll probably double it again, to get 16, which I've always considered my favorite number. Its usually enough to leave me 'satisfied'. So the end sequence, after my original mouse click, will go like this -

left-right-right-left
right-left-left-right
right-left-left-right
left-right-right-left

Or in binary

1001
0110
0110
1001

So, are we all clear on that? Any questions?

One way or another, I do this very often, if not quite all the time. My compulsions are at their strongest when my mind isn't  fully preoccupied, like when I'm bored or alone. Mouse-clicking is one example, but there are many others. When touching various objects such as doors, bench-tops, the steering wheel of a car (or even the pedals...when stopped of course). It could be simply tapping my fingers together in sequence, or my elbows or knees, or my feet, or it could happen when typing. I sometimes go well beyond 16, to 32 or 64 or even higher. It depends on my mood, the circumstances and how preoccupied my mind already is. It sometimes goes on to the point where it gets quite annoying.

On many occasions for instance, I've clicked on a YouTube video to play it, only to start off on a sequence like this. Since the video pauses whenever you click the screen, it will stop-start each time I click it. Especially annoying is that since I always click the mouse button an even number of times, the sequence will always end with the video paused again. The only way to start it again is to click the screen one more time, meaning that I'll break the sequence by clicking an odd number of times overall. Now sure, I can do it, but it does make me feel distinctly uneasy.

Often, to get around this problem, the first click will be to start the video, and then I'll complete the rest of the sequence on another part of the screen, usually in a corner somewhere, where my mouse clicks won't actually cause anything to happen. This doesn't always work though. On many occasions I've clicked on an advertisement or a link to another page by accident, and then will have to backtrack to the video (yeah, I warned you this might get a bit weird).

Also, I strongly suspect that these little numbers games I play in my head are linked with my useful skill, ever since I was little, of being good at multiplying numbers in my head. I'm not quite freakish at it. It would take a while for me to times together a pair of 3 or 4 digit numbers. But something like 37 X 412? Give me a few seconds and I'll have the answer.

Perhaps the most common situations in which I do this don't just concern numbers, but actually language and grammar as well. Very often when I'm reading a book, or listening to someone speak, I'll be sorting the words I see/hear by my own little system I've devised over the years. It's to do with making things even of course, but doesn't just involve the number of words. It will usually involve trying to balance out an even number of words with an even number of syllables within a sequence.

So lets just take that sentence - 'It will usually involve trying to balance out an even number of words with an even number of syllables.'

What I'll start doing is picking out groups of words that follow a particular set of rules. We aren't aiming to collect every word in the sentence, just to keep adding groups of them as we go along to form a nice, satisfying sequence. Each group has to include at least two words. Each of these groups must have an equal, or otherwise even, number of words and syllables within them. So for instance a group of two words that combined have two syllables would qualify, or two words that combined have four syllables, or eight, etc.

So 'it will' qualifies, there's our first group, and we've started a sequence that will probably result in a 1:1 ratio of words to syllables. The next groups would be 'out an' and 'of words with an'. Together these three groups would give us a sequence of 8 words that combine to have eight syllables. Nice and satisfying.

Again though, we can have different ratios. Rather than starting with 'it will' we could go straight to 'will usually involve trying'. That group has 4 words with 8 syllables, that's a 1:2 ratio. You could follow it up with 'even number' and then 'even number' again. That's two groups of 2 words with 4 syllables each. In total, we've now got ourselves a sequence of 8 words with 16 syllables.

So there we go, a nice even sequence, symmetrical from all angles!

A group like 'trying to' would not count, as it has 2 words and 3 syllables. Or 'trying to balance', which has 3 words and 5 syllables, or 'to balance out an', which has 4 words and 5 syllables. If they can't fit into our system, they're rejected and bypassed.

More than anywhere else, I usually catch myself doing this when watching a movie with subtitles.

There are a few more rules to this little numbers/words/syllables game I so often play. For instance, a word with an apostrophe in it, like 'don't' or 'can't', actually counts as two words in my system, but just one syllable. So a group of words like 'I don't believe' or 'he won't accept' would qualify to be parts of our sequence, as both have four words and four syllables. Groups have to consist of at least two words, but over time I've allowed my self the luxury (even if it still makes me feel a bit naughty) that groups can consist of an odd number of words, as long as it is still at least two. So a group of three single-syllable words and another group of five single-syllable words could form a sequence, since together they add up to have eight words and eight syllables. Clear on that? I'll admit I'm not always totally strict with myself playing these little mind games.

So what do I do once I've finished making a sequence? Well I could keep going a while longer. If I've got a sequence made up of eight words/syllables, I might expand it out until there's sixteen or thirty-two. I'll keep picking little groups of words out of whatever media I'm viewing, be it a video, a book I'm reading, or even someone speaking to me. But eventually I'll finish things up at one of those doubling numbers, and then move on to the next sequence. I might do this a few dozen times in the course of watching a film, or reading a chapter of a book.

As I said before, it tends to happen more when my mind isn't preoccupied. Its something my mind just automatically tends to do, when its stuck in neutral, to amuse itself. Weird huh? Sometimes I play the game using letters and words instead, so 'weird huh' would be a suitable group, since it has 2 words with 8 letters between them. Its nice and even!

If by now you're thoroughly flummoxed by just how weird and complicated this all is, perhaps this might help -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDwTQ57YyzI

 It's the opening of a film called 'Stranger than Fiction'. It stars Will Ferrell as a character who is severely obsessive-compulsive. If you want some insight into the mind of an obsessive-compulsive person, its a great film to watch. I'm nowhere near as extreme as the film's main character, but it will give you some idea. The general theme is that he's constantly counting things, and then acts in specific, repetitive ways. Every day of his life when he wakes up to brush his teeth for instance, he'll "brush each of his thirty-two teeth, seventy-six times, thirty-eight times back and forth, thirty-eight times up and down". He's the sort of person who'll walk up a flight of stairs and count them automatically out of sheer habit, etc. Another frequent symptom of OCD is a strong urge to neaten and clean things all the time, though that's not something I'm all that strongly affected by (much of my mother's chagrin).

Anyway, so that's a brief summary of what's been going on in my head, on and off when it comes to my actions and behavior but always lurking there in the background, for much of the past fifteen years. For those who know me, if you ever do happen to notice me tapping a table or some other object in a noticeable pattern at some point in future, then these are probably the rules by which I'm doing so. I don't know if I'll ever stop playing these obsessive little mind games. I've just always excepted them as a constant part of my life, and probably always will.

And finally, I also wonder, and would like to ask, has anyone else got any secret, weird little, obsessive-compulsive habits along these lines that they'd like to share? Honestly, I'm all ears. Its nice to learn once in a while that you're not the only one with an odd secret you've rarely, if ever, shared with anyone. I do wonder, is my specific system of doubling numbers and evening out groups of syllables and words actually unique? Have any of the seven billion other people here on planet Earth happened upon the exact same set of compulsions?

Maximum penalties for crimes in Victoria

Studying for my criminal law exam in a little over a week. There are various crimes listed in the Crimes Act we have to be aware of. While we don't really have to know the maximum penalties individual crimes can bring about, curiosity got the better of me. I couldn't help but wonder, how long can you go to jail for committing certain crimes here in Victoria today?

I couldn't find a complete list anywhere online of what the maximum penalties for certain crimes were, so I decided to write one up myself and post it here. Each entry has the number and name of the section of the crimes act concerned (though I have paraphrased a few and added the odd description). Also be careful not just to rely on this list. Its not an academic journal or anything, its a blog. Google the actual Crimes Act to look up specific crimes in case I've made any mistakes - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

Note also, that even this isn't an exhaustive list of absolutely everything you can go to jail for. There are numerous other acts concerning other areas of the law. Drink driving for instance is covered under the Road Safety Act, while drug crimes (some of which can merit you lengthy sentences, even life imprisonment) are covered by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act, etc.

Level 1 Imprisonment (Life)

(3) Murder

(9A) Treason

(321C) Conspiracy (for murder or treason)

(321I) Incitement (for murder or treason)

Level 2 (25 yrs)

(19A) Intentionally causing a very serious disease

(38) Rape

(38A) Compelling sexual penetration

(44) Incest (with an ancestor or descendant, or a step-child/descendant under 18 yrs of a de facto spouse)

(45) Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 12

(47A) Persistent sexual abuse of a child under the age of 16

(63A) Kidnapping

(75A) Armed Robbery

(77) Aggravated Burglary

(197A) Arson causing death

(247K) Sabotage (act intending to cause major disruption to government functions or public services, or a major economic loss)

(320) Attempt to pervert the course of justice

(320) Kidnapping

(320) Perverting the course of justice

Level 3 (20 yrs)

(5) Manslaughter

(5A) Child Homicide

(9AD) Defensive Homicide

(16) Causing serious injury intentionally

(49A) Facilitating sexual offences against children

(60AC) Aggravated sexual servitude (i.e. victim aged under 18 yrs)

(70A) Piracy with violence

(70B) Piratical acts

(194) Dealing with proceeds of crime (knowing, and intending to conceal, that it is proceeds of a crime)

(318) Culpable driving causing death

Level 4 (15 yrs)

(17) Causing serious injury recklessly

(25) Setting traps etc. to kill

(27) Extortion with threat to kill

(32) Offence to perform female genital mutilation

(33) Offence to take a person from the State with the intention of having prohibited female genital mutilation performed

(45) Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 (under the care, supervision or authority of the accused)

(54) Occupier etc. permitting unlawful sexual penetration (child under age of 13)

(60AB) Sexual servitude

(75) Robbery

(80) Unlawfully taking control of an aircraft

(87) Blackmail

(88) Handling stolen goods

(89) Advertising rewards for return of goods stolen or lost

(191) Fraudulently inducing persons to invest money

(194) Dealing with proceeds of crime (knowing that it is proceeds of a crime)

(195A) Dealing with property which subsequently becomes an instrument of crime (intentionally)

(197) Destroying or damaging property (with intention to endanger the life of another)

(197) Arson

(201A) Intentionally or recklessly causing a bushfire

(206) Rioters demolishing buildings (demolish or destroy)

(246A) Endangering safe operation of an aircraft

(246B) Setting fire etc. to aircraft

(247L) Threats to sabotage

(314) Perjury

(317) Offences connected with explosive substances (causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property)

(320) Conspiracy to cheat and defraud

(320) Conspiracy to defraud

(320) Embracery

(321C) Conspiracy (for an offence with no maximum term prescribed by law)

(321I) Incitement (for an offence with no maximum term prescribed by law)

Level 5 (10 yrs)

(6B) Survivor of suicide pact who kills deceased party

(18) Causing injury intentionally

(20) Threats to kill

(22) Conduct endangering life

(24) Negligently causing serious injury

(26) Setting traps etc. to cause serious injury

(28) Extortion with threat to destroy property etc.

(29) Using firearm to resist arrest etc.

(34B) Offence to interfere with corpse of a human being

(39) Indecent assault

(40) Assault with intent to rape

(45) Sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16

(47) Indecent act with a child under the age of 16

(48) Sexual penetration of 16 or 17 year old child (under the care, supervision or authority of the accused)

(51) Sexual offences against persons with a cognitive impairment by providers of medical or therapeutic services

(52) Sexual offences against persons with a cognitive impairment by workers

(53) Administration of drugs etc.

(54) Occupier etc. permitting unlawful sexual penetration (child under age of 18)

(55) Abduction or detention

(57) Procuring sexual penetration by threats or intimidation

(58) Procuring sexual penetration of a child (aged under 16, or under 18 if under the care, supervision or authority of the accused)

(60AE) Aggravated deceptive recruiting for commercial sexual services (i.e. victim aged under 18 yrs)

(65) Abortion performed by unqualified person

(68) Production of child pornography

(69) Procurement etc. of minor for child pornography

(70AC) Sexual performance involving a minor

(70C) Trading etc. with pirates

(74) Theft

(76) Burglary

(81) Obtaining property by deception

(82) Obtaining financial advantage by deception

(83) False accounting

(83A) Falsification of documents

(85) False statements by company directors etc.

(86) Suppression etc. of documents

(176) Receipt or solicitation of secret commission by an agent an indictable offence

(178) Giving or receiving false or misleading receipt or account an indictable offence

(179) Gift or receipt of secret commission in return for advice given

(180) Secret commission to trustee in return for substituted appointment

(181) Aiding and abetting offences within or outside Victoria

(182) Liability of directors etc. acting without authority

(194) Dealing with proceeds of crime (being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of a crime)

(195A) Dealing with property which subsequently becomes an instrument of crime (recklessly)

(197) Destroying or damaging property

(232) Placing things on railways to obstruct or overturn engine etc.

(244) Altering signals or exhibiting false ones (in a naval context)

(246C) Endangering safety of aircraft

(247C) Unauthorised modification of data to cause impairment (concerning computers)

(247D) Unauthorised impairment of electronic communication (concerning computers)

(249) Contaminating goods with intent to cause, or being reckless as to whether it would cause, public alarm or economic loss

(250) Threatening to contaminate goods with intent to cause, or being reckless as to whether it would cause, public alarm or economic loss

(251) Making false statements concerning contamination of goods with intent to cause, or being reckless as to whether it would cause, public alarm or economic loss

(316) Unlawful oaths to commit treason, murder etc. (specifically treason or murder)

(317) Offences connected with explosive substances (conspires to, intents to, or makes or possesses the means with intention to enable any other person to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property)

(319) Dangerous driving causing death or serious injury (death)

(319B) Failure to control dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dog that kills person

(320) Bribery of public official

(320) Criminal defamation

(320) False Imprisonment

(320) Misconduct in public office

(320) Riot

(479A) Rescuing of prisoner from lawful custody (or attempts to rescue)

Level 6 (5 yrs)

(6) Infanticide

(6B) Inciting, aiding or abetting someone else to commit suicide

(18) Causing injury recklessly

(19) Offence to administer certain substances

(21) Threats to inflict serious injury

(21A) Stalking

(23) Conduct endangering persons

(30) Threatening injury to prevent arrest

(31) Assault

(31A) Use of firearms in the commission of offences

(31B) Being armed with criminal intent

(44) Incest (with sibling or half-sibling)

(49) Indecent act with 16 or 17 year old child (under the care, supervision or authority of the accused)

(51) Sexual offences against persons with a cognitive impairment by providers of medical or therapeutic services (being in any way a party to the commission of)

(52) Sexual offences against persons with a cognitive impairment by workers (being in any way a party to the commission of)

(56) Abduction of child under the age of 16

(57) Procuring sexual penetration by fraud

(59) Bestiality

(60AD) Deceptive recruiting for commercial sexual services

(60B) Loitering near schools etc. (by serious sexual offender)

(63) Child Stealing (aged under 16 yrs)

(64) Bigamy

(70) Possession of child pornography

(70D) Being found on board piratical vessel and unable to prove non-complicity

(78) Removal of articles from places open to the public

(83A) Falsification of documents (having machines/implements, etc which can be used for the)

(192B) Making, using or supplying identification information

(194) Dealing with proceeds of crime (being negligent as to whether it is proceeds of a crime)

(195A) Dealing with property which subsequently becomes an instrument of crime (negligently)

(198) Threats to destroy or damage property

(199) Possessing anything with intent to destroy or damage property

(206) Rioters demolishing buildings (injure or damage)

(225) Conveying water into a mine

(228) Removing etc. piles of sea banks

(245) Removing buoy etc.

(246D) Dangerous goods on aircraft

(246E) Threats to safety of aircraft

(247) False statements (of a plan, etc to inflict violence, etc on any building, etc)

(247B) Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence (concerning computers)

(254) Destruction of evidence

(316) Unlawful oaths to commit treason, murder etc. (everything excluding treason or murder)

(317) Offences connected with explosive substances (makes or possesses the means to, without lawful excuse, cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property)

(317A) Bomb hoaxes

(319) Dangerous driving causing death or serious injury (serious injury)

(319C) Recklessness as to whether controlling dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dog may place another person in danger of death

(320) Affray

(320) Breach of prison

(320) Common assault

(320) Public nuisance

(320) Rout

(320) Unlawful assembly

(320) Wilful exposure

(479B) Aiding a prisoner in escaping

(479C) Escape and related offences (escaping from prison, failure to return to prison when required, otherwise escaping from custody)

3 yrs

(192C) Possession of identification information

(192D) Possession of equipment used to make etc. identification documentation

(247E) Possession of data with intent to commit serious computer offence

(247F) Producing, supplying or obtaining data with intent to commit serious computer offence

(319AA) Dangerous or negligent driving while pursued by police

Level 7 (2 yrs)

(60A) Sexual offence while armed with an offensive weapon

(60B) Loitering near schools etc. (by other than serious sexual offender)

(91) Going equipped for stealing etc.

(195) Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime

(233) Obstructing engine, carriage etc. on railway

(247G) Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data

(247H) Unauthorised impairment of data held in computer disk, credit card or other device

Level 8 (1 yrs)

(207) Forcible entry

Level 9 (6 months)

(67) Concealing birth of a child

Socialism and capitalism in the modern world

Let me begin by saying I wouldn't really describe myself as a 'socialist', its more complicated than that. I'd say I'm center-left, but given the economic and political realities of our time, its hard for any of us to avoid the 'socialist' label altogether. Lets face it, today just about all of us are at least social democrats, or in other words believers in 'democratic socialism' where large parts of the economy are run by the public sector under the watchful eyes of a democratically accountable government. Things have changed dramatically in the past century, or even the past twenty-five years since the end of the Cold War.

In 1989 political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote a famous essay titled 'The End of History'. His essay voiced the assertion, much debated since, that the collapse of the Soviet Union constituted the final victory of western-style capitalism and liberalism over all other ideologies. Monarchy, fascism and communism had all now fallen, leaving capitalist democracies as the world's dominant states. Fukuyama did not of course mean that humanity would suffer no more wars and revolutions, but that events now could only move inexorably in the direction of democratic capitalism.

Now in a sense, I agree with him wholeheartedly. The part of his essay referring to democracy I think is absolutely true. Democracy is by far the best political system (or the least-worst, as Winston Churchill would say) because of the way it makes governments accountable to their citizens, The government works for the people, not the other way round.

However, I would take issue with the other half of his essay that refers to which economic system will predominate. Is socialism really dead? Or is the competition between it and capitalism still well and lively? In one paragraph in his essay Fukuyama says -

'But the century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an "end of ideology" or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism.'

I disagree, vehemently. I think a 'convergence between capitalism and socialism' is exactly what's happening, at the very least. Allow me to explain why.

Now a lot of political debates over economic issues come down to disputes over what exactly constitutes 'capitalism' or 'socialism'. Is a strictly regulated marketplace still capitalist? Is a government program run for profit still socialist? Ultimately a decent measurement as to how 'socialist' or 'capitalist' a society is comes in the form of that country's government spending as a portion of GDP. What is the updated situation on government spending by country?

First though, before we get to that, here's an update on how the still-existing communist world looks politically today -

MARXISM TODAY - 2013

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_communist_states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-capitalist_and_communist_parties_with_national_parliamentary_representation

Red: Countries where Marxist political parties control a government majority
Dark Pink: Countries where Marxist parties make up part of the ruling coalition
Pink: Countries where Marxist parties have some parliamentary representation

While the fall of the Soviet Union was a major blow, there are quite a few communist countries still around, and the number has actually grown somewhat since 1991. There's the old brand born of revolutions back in the early to mid twentieth century (China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, Cuba) but there are also a few new ones where communist parties have come to power, and usually through democratic means. These include Nepal (where the communist party succeeded in overthrowing the country's monarchy in 2006 after a decade-long civil war and established a republic, it currently holds a democratic majority), Venezuela (where Hugo Chavez was in power since 1999, his successor now holds office), Nicaragua (where a communist insurgency overthrew the country's right-wing dictatorship in 1979) and Uruguay (where a coalition of socialist parties won a democratic majority in 2009).

Furthermore, there are thirty-two other countries where communist parties have parliamentary representation. These includes such third-world backwaters as...Germany (the party is called 'the Left' and won about 12% of the vote in 2009), France (where the communist party is the third-largest, the second-largest being the Socialist party, which currently holds office), Spain (7% of the vote, and again the third largest party after the socialist party which is second, and which held office until 2011), Japan (the communist party has won 7-10% of the vote in recent years), Brazil (the communist party won 7% of senate votes in 2010, and makes up part of the ruling coalition) and, interestingly, Russia, where the Communist party won 20% of the vote in 2011 (and has managed to win between 11% and 25% since the Soviet Union's collapse).

Its easy for people in the United States, or here in Australia where we don't have any declared socialist parties pulling in significant numbers of votes, to just dismiss communism as some old ideology as dead as monarchy. But in many countries this is simply not the case, and the clout of far-left parties has in some places increased since the collapse of the Soviet Union, though they still tend to be small minorities of course.

However far more important than this rather modest electoral comeback for Marxism as of late is the economic reality of the developed world today. At the start of the 20th century, when socialism was in its infancy, few countries devoted significant amounts of their national economy to public spending programs. Since then, public spending on everything from education to healthcare to unemployment benefits to social security has skyrocketed. For somebody who thinks socialism is dead, the net result is sobering -

Government Spending by country/Countries with Marxist governments

Red: Countries with government spending over 50% of GDP
Dark Pink: 40-50%
Pink: 30-40%
Light Pink: 20-30%
Yellow: under 20%
White: No data

Note: The nine countries from the first map with officially Marxist governments I have left shaded red, though as they are all developing countries their percentage of government spending is generally lower than 50%

Things have hardly 'turned full circle' have they? Few countries were even democracies in 1900, and much of the world was dominated by a handful of imperialist powers. Today practically all western countries have enormous public sectors making up anywhere from a third to over half of their economies. As for the rest of the world this hasn't come to pass so much by choice as by their lack of economic development so far. This has precluded the formation of organised public spending programs, or really stable, democratic government in general.

Even in the United States, supposedly the world's greatest crusader against socialism, government spending now composes around 40% of GDP. At the time of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 this figure was just under 10%, at the start of the Cold War around 20% and has continually increased since then as this figure shows -

The spikes in the 1910s and 1940s are concurrent with the World Wars, during which the United States spent an enormous amount of taxpayer money on its military. The amount of money a country spends on its military is of course something of a flaw in our above analysis of 'socialist' spending by country, but not a very large one. Military spending in the US used to dominate government budgets, though it only makes up around 20% of federal spending now. The key point is that public spending on education, healthcare, pensions, welfare and other clearly 'socialist' programs has ballooned across the developed world over the last century. This graph shows the recent growth in these areas in the United States - 

It is a trend that shows no sign of reversing. Large amounts of public sector spending seem to go hand in hand with industrialization  Even South Korea for instance, commonly cited by economic conservatives as a 'capitalist success story' especially compared to the basket-case that is North Korea, now spends over 30% of its GDP in the public sector. 10% of the economy consists of public spending on education and healthcare alone. This figure is bound to grow, partly due to the country's rapidly aging population, which is driving an enormous rise in public spending on pensions and healthcare.

Unlike in 1900, most countries have universal public education and healthcare systems, providing either all or at least a large chunk of services in these areas. Since the passage of 'Obamacare' in 2010, the United States has joined an ever growing number of countries, including virtually all the world's major economies, in providing universal healthcare coverage of some kind to its citizens.

Universal Healthcare by Country

So what exactly am I saying, you may ask? Well I'm not calling for the complete abolition of capitalism. I understand the benefits of having free markets, though generally some degree of regulation is needed. There's a logic to letting people have the freedom to compete with one another in pursuit of a profit motive. But just as there may be decent arguments in favor of large sectors of the economy being privatized, they need to be balanced with similarly compelling arguments in favor of government spending and regulations. The reason we have public schools for instance is to dissuade a system of hereditary rule, whereby the children of the rich get an education while the children of the poor don't. There's no sense to letting such a situation occur. What family you're born in shouldn't greatly affect the standard of education you get. There's just as much chance of the next Einstein or Bill Gates being born into a poor family as a rich one. The healthcare industry should also have public options where risk is shared communally by a society through taxpayer funds. The average person usually has no way of knowing if tomorrow they'll be hit by a car and become a paraplegic needing a wheelchair for life, or will suddenly suffer from cancer or a stroke or some other unpredictable ailment. Its impractical to leave the average person to fend for themselves against such debilitating, unpredictable risks. It creates a great deal of uncertainty in the economy which is anathema to economic growth.

For similar reasons pension schemes like superannuation and social security have been introduced worldwide. Nobody knows at what age they're going to die, thus nobody knows at what age they should ideally retire at.  You could optimistically expect to live until you're 90, and so not retire until you're 65, only to die of cancer at 68. Alternatively you could pessimistically retire at 50, not expecting to live beyond 70, only for you to still be alive well into your 80s. What will you do then? Return to work? If you're part of the 1% of the population rich enough not to have to worry about this then good for you, but before the introduction of social security in the United States half of all elderly people died in poverty because so many people inevitably misjudged it one way or the other.

Ever since Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 there have been two main schools of thought that have striven to implement his ideas. On the far-left you have what could be called the real, die-hard communist revolutionaries (generally distinguished today by labels such as Maoist, Marxist, Trotskyist, etc) while on the center left you've had the softer socialists. The latter group doesn't necessarily believe in a model of socialism any less stringent than the former, but has sought to achieve it through more peaceful means and more gradually, such as through the democratic process rather than violent revolution. While the former group has fallen into obscurity (if not infamy) in many countries, the latter today is well...lets face it, they're pretty much running the world.

Just look at Australia today. We've got a labor government in power for Christ's sake! Do you know when and where the first Labor government in history came into power? It was in Queensland in 1899. It probably wasn't until the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 that a more left-wing government would come into existence. All the old left-wing policies workers unions argued for in the 19th century, from the eight-hour work week to the minimum wage, have not been abandoned. Their legacy remains intact. We have numerous government agencies tasked with regulating everything from food labeling to environmental protection to unfair labor practices. Partly due to these safety nets that protect consumers and greatly diminish the number of avoidable deaths from events such as poisonings, drownings, workplace accidents, car crashes, etc, many western countries now have life expectancies above 80 years, compared to 50-60 years in 1900 (alongside better and more widespread technologies of course). 

In terms of social policy as well the western world is actually following the lead of the Soviet Union in many ways. The Soviet Union was one of the first countries to make abortions legal as far back as the 1920s, and this is now the reality across most of the world. Attitudes to homosexuality in communist countries have varied over time, but were often ahead of the christian west. Even no-fault divorce, only common in the west since the 1960s, was introduced back in the Soviet Union's early days. The country never had a state religion, having embraced secularism from the start. Women were encouraged to enter the workforce generations before such behavior was seen as normal here in the west. During the Second World War women served in all sorts of combat roles. There were even female Soviet air aces, a world first. Partly this was due to necessity, but even western countries faced with similarly dire military situations (France in 1940, Italy in 1943, Germany in 1945) did not call up women to fight to any great extent in frontline roles. Also of note is that the first women in space was not Sally Ride, who the Americans sent up in 1983. The first woman in space was called Valentina Tereshkova who the Soviets sent up in 1963, twenty years before the Americans even accepted women into their space program.

The Soviet Union of course had a deeply flawed political system, perhaps its greatest problem being that is wasn't democratic. The country had a particularly bloody history, with first the Tsar and later the Nazis causing the slaughter of millions of Russians in each of the world wars. Against such vehement opposition the communist revolutionaries in Russia resorted to extreme measures. Millions tragically died in the sudden (though ultimately quite successful) drive to industrialize the country in the 1930s. Political repression in the Soviet Union eased after Stalin's death, but was still overly harsh right up until it's collapse in the 1990s. Despite all this, it pioneered many social and economic policies that we've later adopted here in the west. 

If you're the sort of person who says 'I'm a conservative, though I do support public schools, hospitals and social security' then you're not really the sort of person I'm seeking to lecture here, we agree on a lot already. You may not recognize that half your political positions are inspired by Karl Marx, but at least you're not in total denial. You're accepting of certain social programs making economic sense in our modern world. The people I'm really talking to are the current crop of far-right, Fox News-watching conservatives (often calling themselves 'Libertarians' these days, though I struggle to see the difference between that label and 'anarchists') who think the government can never do anything right and that socialism is the worst thing since un-sliced bread. I've had debates with conservatives who insist there's no reason for government spending to be more than 10% of GDP and that taxation and regulations can only distort the economy in a negative sense.

It is to you people that I make the assertion, no, you are wrong. Your worldview is wrong, and the sort of society you envisage is actually becoming a thing of the past, and quite rapidly so. You assert that 'the bigger the government, the smaller the people', not even realizing that a properly democratic government is intended to act on behalf of its people. Its a dictatorship you're thinking of. Yes its possible for governments to become unaccountable dictatorships, and we should be aware that regimes with such concentrated political power are among the most dangerous things on Earth. But you have to remember two things. 

Firstly, the government is not the only thing capable of limiting your freedom. Enemy's foreign and domestic can do the same. If I were to mug you in the street, that would be infringing upon your rights, even though I am not a representative from the government. To curb such infringement, society has decided to allow the government to set up something called a police force. Yes the police limit your freedoms in many ways. You can't steal from, assault or murder your neighbor, or even drive 10 K's over the speed limit without risking their wrath. The idea is however, that your freedoms are ultimately infringed upon much less by setting up such a system. A democratically accountable state is the lesser of two evils compared to anarchy, even if anarchy would probably be preferable to a dictatorship.

The second thing, is that while the government is just one of several institutions that can infringe upon your rights, it is the only thing that truly enforces them. Think about it. Where do your rights come from? Your freedom of speech, of religion, even the right to bear arms (if you're an American). They ultimately come from the constitution, a document drawn up by the government at its foundation. Quite simply, without the government, you have no rights. This is something we should be under no illusions about. I would plead to conservatives, given that having a state is inevitable and potentially of great benefit, can we please stop arguing over whether it should be abolished or not, and instead just start deciding how to make it actually work best?

So as for Mr Fukuyama's assertion, I would maintain he wasn't quite right. The twentieth century did not see capitalism emerge victorious as the world's dominant economic system, we are indeed seeing a merger between socialism and capitalism. Every major economy in the world is now a mix of private-sector capitalism and public-sector democratic socialism. As for whether this constitutes merely an alternative 'end of history', I'm not sure. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is still increasing quite rapidly in most countries. It already averages around 40% in the developed world, and the developing world is rapidly catching up. Worldwide public spending is about 25% of the global economy, by mid-century this figure will probably be closer to 50% as the third world develops.

One of the core tenets of communism was its support for 'public ownership of the means of production'. While government spending already makes up a huge chunk of the economy, its mostly concentrated in a few key sectors like education and healthcare. Most other major industries, such as agriculture, mining, retail, automobile manufacturing, real estate, transportation, financial services and construction, are still dominated by private companies. As globalization has expanded, particularly in the cold war's aftermath, many countries have privatized formerly public sectors of their economies. Back in the 1980s Margaret Thatcher famously privatized many parts of the British economy that had been public since the 1940s or earlier. Public spending during her time in office decreased modestly from 44.6% to 39% of GDP. This decline has since been reversed however, with that figure back up to about 44% today, though this is still less than it's peak of nearly 50% back in the mid-70s.

Britain - Historical Government spending

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/historic-government-spending-area

In the first world cycles of privatization and nationalization tend to coincide with the election of right-wing and left-wing governments respectively. In the third world however, things often get a lot nastier. Revolutions and civil wars have erupted over both political and economic ideological differences (not that the first world hasn't fought more than its fair share of ideological conflicts, such as WW2 and the Cold War). Hugo Chavez rose to power in Venezuela in 1999 because of the shambles Venezuela's economy had become after the previous government adopted policies recommended (or rather demanded) by the world bank and the international community that were overly friendly to foreign corporations. Half a dozen Latin American countries have followed suit recently in what has become known in geopolitics as the 'Pink tide'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_tide. 

Aside from Venezuela, left-leaning (if not outright socialist) governments are currently in power in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and several other countries in the region. For much of the past ten years about three-quarters of South Americans have lived under such administrations. Of course the region's politics are complex, but 'pink tide' seems like an accurate if simple description for this trend. These governments aren't quite 'communist', but tend to be anti-globalization, anti-US and pro-social democracy. I'd maintain the main thing Hugo Chavez strove to achieve in Venezuela was the creation of a healthy public sector not unlike those already found in most developed countries. All those conservatives blaming 'socialist policies' for any flaws in Venezuela's economy today should be aware that public spending in Venezuela is still just 34% of GDP, about the same as in Australia and much less than the United States or most European countries.

Here in Australia recently, the Rudd-Gillard governments have struggled to gather the political support to merely tax big mining corporations, let alone nationalize them. We've been hesitant to get ourselves off fossil fuels and onto renewables. Nevertheless, I'd maintain the country is still creeping in a leftwards direction, though maybe not as fast as many other countries, especially in Europe. Recently Labor announced its new disability scheme, complete with a 0.5% rise in the Medicare levy. They also managed to introduce a carbon tax, though if the Coalition comes into office later this year they'll no doubt try to repeal it. Even the Liberals themselves however are hardly a party of devout libertarians. It was Howard who introduced the GST, and Tony Abbott seeks to introduce an even more generous paid-parental leave scheme then Labor. It's genuinely debatable which party is bigger on middle-class welfare.

Aside from the two main parties, Australia, because of its preferential voting system, has a large number of organised minor parties representing almost any political shade imaginable. Not including the Greens, 13% of the electorate voted for minor parties in the 2010 senate elections. Australia does have a libertarian party, the 'Liberal Democrats' who received 1.8% of the vote that year. If you include the results for the Shooters and Fishers party who are also quite vehemently anti-government, then 3.5% of the Australian electorate would prefer a far-right economic system over the centrist status quo currently pursued by the major parties. On the other end of the spectrum the 'Socialist Alliance', 'Socialist Equality Party' and 'Communist Alliance' won a combined 0.43% of the vote. Clearly then, the country is not on course for a dramatic political shift to the right or left in the near future.

In the US Barack Obama has had few legislative successes against a famously obstructive congress. The Democrats only had a super-majority in the Senate (60+ seats out of 100) for fourteen weeks earlier in his presidency during which they managed to slip through a greatly watered down universal healthcare bill. He also managed to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and expanded another federal healthcare program called 'CHIP' (Children's Health Insurance program) doubling the number of children it covers from 4 to 8 million. Government spending in the US has increased rapidly as of late, but most of this is not Obama's doing. The budget has been ballooning outwards since the financial crisis hit in 2007. Millions of people have dropped out of the workforce, shrinking the country's GDP while at the same time increasing the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. This has coincided with the retirement of the baby boomers, increasing the costs of Social Security and Medicare. 

Given the slow pace at which socialist programs have grown as of late, it looks like the 'end of history' is indeed a merger of capitalism and socialism, rather than a victory for either. But if I had to choose, I'd say its very unlikely the world will ever be dominated by the former again. Democracy and capitalism don't mix as well as many conservatives seem to think. Democracy and socialism however, demonstrably go hand in hand. Remember that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' Friedrich Engels talked about? He wasn't advocating Stalinism, or even talking about an actual dictatorship at all. He was referring to a system of government where the proletariat dominated rather than the bourgeoisie, i.e. a democracy. He said in 1892 -

"Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

So to conclude, welcome to the 21st century, and what is shaping up to be the century of democratic socialism.