Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

The choice you face on the 24th of November has become more intense and more urgent because of some of the stormclouds that are gathering on our economy both domestically and internationally. With the right leadership, the skill that people like Peter Costello have displayed over the last eleven-and-a-half years, we can continue to see it grow. We can reach that great goal of full employment. We can once again walk the shopping malls and the streets of this nation and meet enthusiastic young people bubbling with hope and pride and confidence about their future job prospects. But if we get it wrong, if we hand it over to inexperienced people, a government dominated by 70% of former trade union officials, if we have a nation for the first time in its history with a Labor Government at every level, coast to coast, wall to wall without lead or hindrance, isn’t that a huge risk – isn’t that taking too big a risk with the prosperity that we have worked so hard to build?  . . read more

First, we must define social inclusion and exclusion. The concept of social exclusion is now starting to make it into mainstream public debates, helped along by the forthright advocacy of organizations like the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the St Vincent de Paul Society and others. Second, we must find a new way of governing, a new approach to building partnerships to set goals and targets and meet them.

Third, we must ensure that core government programs improve social inclusion so that chronic health and low educational attainment doesn’t hold anyone back. Fourth we need to maximise employment for the socially excluded. And finally we must enter into accountable social inclusion partnerships with state and local governments, the private sector and the community sector. . . read more

They act like the wisdom of crowds - 'no one is smarter than all of us' - and compare favourably with opinion polls. HomepageDAILY plans to introduce prediction markets and will begin with Howard vs Rudd. Stay posted. . . read more

We aren’t being asked to choose between rival policies on our role in Iraq, where 887 people have been killed in October, only 13 of which were soldiers. Nor are the parties outlining which one will provide health and education policies which will better meet our future needs. We are being asked to choose as to which party will deliver the best tax cuts while water and alternative energy are crying out for new investments. And to judge as to which party can deliver economic growth and interest rate control – both matters whose destiny lies with influences that are outside our control.

‘Ask not what we can do for our country …!’ RIP, Australia.  . . read more

One unique contribution of the Net is to provide a stage which is not bounded by demography, geography, economy or spin. Get ready for the ride. And watch this space! . . read more

So the election’s been called.

In less than a month we’ve got a new prime minister and now we’re going to vote on a new government. But could this only be a promise to do nothing?

Such a rushed process could only help those who are relying on Australia to make a less than informed decision. Looking at the current situation, is the next month long enough for both parties to have an agenda?

Neither are stable, one was part of a coup and the other has had an identity crisis for three years. Neither is confident in its appeal. Neither has anything promising to sell and it remains to be seen who can engineer the most appetising plan on moving Australia forward.

Hopefully we won’t be left looking at Abott’s face, then Gillard’s face and choosing the one we want to see more of on TV.

In the end there will be a winner. Fingers crossed that it’s us.  . . read more