I think I know the song Adrian is referring to:

http://www.brookesnews.com/062108Krogerpuppetsonastring.html

However, as readers can check for themselves, that song was written by “Unknown Liberal Party Member”.

A few days ago whilst Googling my name I came across a blog which discusses some of words of Prodos music. The words (score, is it) about Julian Sheezel and Costello are a giggle. I do not like them either.

The Liberals neo-con fundamentalist right lead by Sheezel and the Kroger faction, after the next federal election, will have succeeded in getting every Liberal government in the country voted out of office. Some achievement. No wonder Julian is considered leaving the State Directors job – perhaps he may get a job in a US mortgage equity company.

In the mean time everyone put pressure on the government (s) over our looming water crisis as we may run out of it in 18 months at current usage rates. The government has to make some tough decisions NOW. This is why I stood as a candidate – nothing more.

Regards, Adrian Jackson

I didn’t mean it as a term of abuse, Prodos. You just seem a bit ideological is all. Since you object I won’t do it again.

Thanks for being gracious about it. No problem.

Yes I am “ideological”. I’m a hardcore Objectivist, a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivim. However, I focus on learning from others, not on preaching at them.

I don’t have a problem with what others believe. I don’t mind. To each, his own journey. I don’t expect others to share my views.

During the Albert Park by-election campaign, as Democrats candidate, Paul Kavanagh, I’m sure will confirm, I got along and had the friendliest of discussions with everyone from all the Parties, including those from the Greens (which I preferenced in the lowest position, #9).

My wife and I even handed out Democrats flyers on several occasions, when Paul had to dash off to do some other things. Not because we have much in common ideologically with the Democrats (although they have been excellent in opposing the Access Card, which I am also strongly opposed to) but simply because we respected Paul’s hard work and good character.

Hardly an act of dogmatic arrogane.

And when during the campaign I came across a Labor Party helper who was rude and arrogant to those from the other Parties – including to Paul – I reported him to the ALP electoral office in the strongest terms.

Anyway, it’s pretty hard to act too dogmatic or arrogant when you go around in tights, top hat, and hands packed with bling-bling. Not to mention carrying about a big 5′ X 3′ Aussie flag. Or when you write songs like “Billionaire Cha-Cha”
http://adventureandromance.com/billionairechacha.html

It’s not a person’s ideology or beliefs that necessarily make him dogmatic. It’s whether or not he respects and cares about – and ENJOYS – the way others think and approach the world.

I had a couple of enjoyable and instructive chats with Labour candidate, Martin Foley, and although we disagree on many fundamentals, I have a high regard and respect for his work, dedication, and ability.

I enjoy people and I enjoy their differing ideas. I certainly do put my own views across IF invited to do so and on my own forums – such as my radio show or blog or any forums I run. But I put them across as MY views, with explanations included. Not as “what you SHOULD believe”.

And I certainly consider myself an activist – which means sometimes expressing ideas in almost jingoistic/cartoon-like language, and at other times with greater, painstaking argument.

During the campaign whenever a voter or a community group asked my views on a particular issue I did my best to answer directly and without trying to appease them or make it look like I actually agreed with them, when in fact I didn’t.

For instance, one lady phoned me and asked what I thought of George Bush. She felt that was relevant to whether or not she would vote for me. I told her I thought he was fabulous and that I supported the War Against Terror, including the Iraq War. As it happened, she liked that answer.

I had a lifelong Liberal Party voter also phone me to ask what I thought about the Port Phillip Bay channel deepening. I told him I was opposed to it on free market grounds (because, as a heavily subsidised project, it rips off the taxpayer, etc.) He was disappointed with that answer and told me why he wouldn’t vote for me. I learnt a bit by listening to his reasoning and I respect his position.

I was asked to participate, along with other candidates at an environment forum. I told the audience, straight up that I thought the notion that anthropogenic global warming was a scientifically established to be total “bollocks”. That was a jaw-dropper for them.

When some of my campaign team suggested it would be advantageous to give the Greens a higher preference and go a bit easy on them, I argued with them for a week, telling them I’d rather burn in hell than do that.

So, is that dogmatism? Is it arrogance?

Perhaps there’s a little bit of it in there somewhere at times. But I prefer to think it’s about being moral, honest, principled, straightforward.

Although I think I did well in this by-election, I’m sure I could have gotten a bigger vote had I bent a little here and there. But I’m not in the business of selling my soul – even if it is a flawed soul. I’m not in this to win an election “no matter what”.

Maybe I’m wrong in some of what I believe or don’t believe. If so, I welcome debate and the opportunity to look at the evidence and to do my best to think through the issues.

In any case, I’ll live by the Truth as I see it, and will rejoice and delight in YOUR Truth, as you see it.

Talk to you later.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS
Ph: 9428 1234, 042 221 679

William Bowe wrote …

Prodos Marinakis. A former communist and dogmatic convert to the right, the highly unconventional Marinakis is involved in both community radio and the Celebrate CapitalismTM campaign ….

My online radio shows can be viewed @ http://prodos.com and @ http://prodos.solidvox.com

The Celebrate Capitalism ™ campaign website is @ http://CelebrateCapitalism.ORG

What’s with this “dogmatic convert to the right” crap?

Explain what you mean. Provide some evidence of this “dogmatism” – other than the fact that you might disagree with my views.

Besides all this, if you assume a member will give you an extra 2%, the Greens will get an extra 6%. Now I know you think this wont happen, but if you apply a higher visibility state to one, then you must to the other. Actually, that would be more for the Greens because Albert Park and Williamstown both elected a Green but not the DLP.

Some Liberal voters will probably choose to cut out the middle man (it being an all male field I’m not using sexist language there) and vote for whoever they prefer out of the ALP and Greens, but I think most won’t.

The two questions of real interest regarding the Liberal voters is whether they break to the right (Family First, Prodos, Adrian Jackson) or to the left (Democrats, Nigel Strauss, John Dobinson), and how inclined they will be to follow the relevant preference cards. I don’t think we have a lot of past evidence to guide us on this, and tomorrow night will be particularly interesting as a result.