Blog Archives

Does the future have to be uncertain?

There are at least 8 different approaches, for example to forecasting population number.

  1. Suck it and see: don’t anticipate outcomes; live in the moment.
  2. Predict using normative model: assumes causation by binary events, e.g heads or tails with 10 coins give a bell-shaped range of outcomes with a mid-range value e.g. 5 heads being most probable.
  3. Predict using Poisson distribution: assumes complex chain of natural events, e.g Per annum deaths by horse-kick in the Russian cavalry. Outcomes are snapper fish shaped: a blunt nil nose, a fatly probable mid-section and a long tailing off of multiple events.
  4. Predict using rectangular distribution: roulette-like equiprobability; caused by random luck.
  5. Deterministic model: calculates what outcome and when.
  6. Prescriptive forecast: plumps for an outcome to reduce speculation and acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Beware of governments bearing false forecasts.
  7. Intervention: someone controls occurrence of an outcome.
  8. Faith: relies on divine intervention.
    We are usually ready to believe in someone spruiking a good future.

My novel The Grass is Always Browner is political fiction thriller. It tells a story about Australia 250 years in the future.

www.martinknox.wordpress.com

Videos in legislatures: better or worse?

government-cloak-of-secrecy-open-government

Can government be completely transparent?
How can government be accountable if it is confidential?
Is the public good a matter for elite consideration?
My political crime thriller novel Presumed Dead has the solution.
https://amzn.to/2BRuAs0
https://wp.me/P1z4yo-n
Watch this 3-minute Youtube book trailer: https://youtu.be/wD4dKUA3hKQ

 

Does Australia’s Constitution have racism?

Picture1

 

Australia’s Constitution adopted on 1 January 1901 had 3 clauses explicitly concerned with race (see below).In 1901 it was commented that “It enables the Parliament to deal with the people of any alien race after they have entered the Commonwealth; to localise them within defined areas, to restrict their migration, to confine them to certain occupations, or to give them special protection and secure their return after a certain period to the country whence they came.”

DELETED ENTIRELY BY REFERENDUM IN 1967
‘In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted’.

STRUCK OUT BY REFERENDUM 1967
Section 51(xxvi) still provides that the Commonwealth Parliament can legislate with respect to ‘the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws’. This is the so-called, ‘races power’.

CURRENT PROVISION
Section 25 recognised that the States could disqualify people from voting in the elections on account of their race.

 

I am puzzled that Section 25 continues and wonder under what scenario Australian authorities would need this clause, over and above legislation that would apply to non-Indigenous people? Do the concerns above still apply and need the remaining provisions? Or do new concerns warrant their retention? Is it feared that the non-Indigenous population (3%) could passively resist, as did Hindus in India (80%) against the British occupiers in 1919-1930? Or that they could oppose the government, as did Black Africans (75%) in South Africa before 1986? Or perhaps some immigrant race’s misbehaviour could not be controlled by the laws that control the rest of Australians?

My fiction novel The Grass Is Always Browner tells a story of Australia’s ethnic development 250 years in the future. http://www.martinknox.wordpress.com

 

Is an independent party an oxymoron?

images-42

A true independent acts alone and only enters alliances temporarily. Voters may need to be persuaded not to expect their indie rep to cover all the bases — the job is too big. The novel Presumed Dead explores indiedom. See book trailer: https://youtu.be/wD4dKUA3hKQ

%d bloggers like this: