Posts (page 2)
Is it any wonder the US of A is verging on bankruptcy, when you read stories like this one.
Far from being a partisan issue, it appears this pork-barrelling of major military equipment providors spans the ideological gap, and then some. Doesn't such behaviour equate to the "too big to fail" moral hazard which has already backed the world's largest economy into a corner?
I came across Glenn Milne's article attempting to claim a division in the Australian Liberal Party, between true Liberals and the Conservative elements in the party.
Milne - described by the Prime Minister as the Liberal Party journalist of choice - attempts to make out that now that the Conservatives are in Opposition, the genuine Liberal elements will do their utmost to hammer them down as a part of the important reform that Liberalism in this country must undertake. He cites Senator George Brandis' Alfred Deakin Memorial Lecture at Melbourne University, a week ago today.
Brandis singles out his "friend and colleague" Tony Abbott for critique over the latter's book, 'Battlelines', in which Abbott extols the ideals and policies of his former leader, the now thankfully departed John Winston Howard. I've not read Abbott's book and have no desire to do so, but can imagine the tone of the tome. Abbott's apostolic reiterations of the Howardian ethos are often seen and heard in the media these days, as Abbott seems desperate to ensure the Howard legacy does not vanish in a landslide of Liberalism, as true Liberals now recognise that Howard's ideology lost them government.
Milne does his best to draw on Brandis' speech to make the case that a brawl within the party is brewing and won't soon go away unless addressed. I believe Milne is wrong. I believe the party is already awake to the reasons for their bollocking in November 2007. The party doesn't particularly like the lessons that election delivered, and are still struggling to come to terms with it, but the message is clear to them. John Howard's brand of bastardised Liberalism - which is neither Conservatism or Liberalism but an eclectic hybrid of the two which Howard used very cleverly to appeal to the often quoted 'broad church' of which he was the self-appointed high priest. Abbott sees himself as the apprentice, now ready for ascension to the alter in a bid to continue the Neo-Liberal religion. All in all, Abbott sees far too much, from the viewpoint of the zealous disciple. Tony Abbott is not a realist.
George Brandis is a realist, at least, a Liberal realist. I found his speech a fascinating read, as he drew heavily on John Stuart Mill, Alfred Deakin and Robert Menzies. Fascinatingly though, when one bones up on these exponents of the ultimate liberty of the individual over the needs of the society, one finds that each had a different view of what liberty, it's expression, political doctrine and ethical practice, mean. In my view, Brandis also glosses over the fact that each man lived in a different era. Mill in the 19th century, with a view which is rudimentary Liberalism, since refined by many challengers. Deakin's brand of Liberalism can safely be said to be of the small 'l' type we saw expounded by the now retired Members of the House of Representatives, Bruce Baird and Petro Georgiou. Even to his enshrining of rights in the workplace. Something Howard and his ilk did their level best to do away with. Deakin espoused Liberalism with a social conscience and an awareness of the society in which we all live and exercise our liberty.
Menzies was a different beast again, expounding upon "The Forgotten People" in a long series of addresses, all the while surrendering Australia's sense of individualism in an obsequious obeisance to England, King and Country.....the Mother Country, not the one he was Prime Minister of. Menzies legislated against the Communist Party, and instated conscription to meet the requirements of the United States in her misguided anti-communist tilt at Indo-China. Let's also not forget that Menzies sold iron to Japan, while Japan was at war with China, and shortly thereafter, with Australia following the fall of Singapore. All in strident opposition from the society of the day. Actions which all fly in the face of the Mill or Deakin brand of Liberalism. Something which George Brandis completely neglects in his address.
Liberalism in it's truest form is a sparkling ideal, just as Socialism and Conservatism in their truest forms are admirable ideals. What exponents of any one ideology fail to recognise is the evolution of the human collective, which in advanced democratic societies operates in accordance with the rule of law. Law which is created by society, for society, in order that the greatest good is derived for the greatest number. That is neither Socialism, nor Conservatism, nor Liberalism. The greatest good for the greatest number is the goal of every democratic society, and acknowledges the simple fact that pleasing all of the people, all of the time, is an impossibility. As much an unachievable dream as are the true forms of any single ideology. All have their merits, and all, their drawbacks. This is why developed cultures have elected representation appointed by a presumably informed majority. The greatest number. It's why elected representation is pluralistic, so that the elected minority might monitor and hold to task the decisions of the elected majority. Neither side is good or bad and neither side are perfect in their expression of their arguments. Both sides are necessary for responsible government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Ideologies as expressed by George Brandis and Tony Abbott are not the people's ideologies. They are the politician's ideologies and in crude terms, as removed from what the common people's realities are, as our modern society is from the hunter-gatherer tribe mentality. I can find agreement with all ideologies from certain perspectives in certain circumstances, but one size does not fit all. I recommend a read of Brandis's speech. It's well formed, informative and challenging. I have no favour for the man, but his delivery of his beliefs is compelling, if blinkered.
Another joyous day at the salt mine, where the high point was being abused by a broker who'd had a new arsehole ripped for him by his client, who took umbrage at being contacted directly - via his email address - in regard to a letter of offer we'd issued to him previously. The email was simply a marketing exercise, short & sweet, to discover whether he'd been able to secure funding elsewhere, after having spurned our offer as too expensive, or could we still be of assistance. We knew he'd not be able to get his deal set anywhere else, because of it's nature and the security available, but the email was sent in genuine interest to see if we could assist.
Broker advised his client was of the opinion that his email address - which clearly appeared on several emails the broker sent to us during the course of the initial assessment, and which was added to the database record as we do with all applications - was somehow sacrosanct. Name, address, telephone contact numbers and email addresses. It's standard fare. No-where is there any request, order, divine command or otherwise from either broker or his client stating that the email address was sacrosanct and not to be used by us to contact the client at any time. We contacted the client directly because we know that finance brokers will often not show the offer of funding to their client in the belief that the client will consider the offer too expensive, or security conditions too onerous. That's aside from the fact that the client is often paying the broker up front for a service they are clearly not getting. Would you appreciate a finance broker not keeping you informed of progress in seeking funding for a project, when you've coughed up good money as an 'up front' for the broker to do just that?
My standpoint is simple. Any and all information which is supplied by a finance broker on behalf of his/her client is ipso facto coming to us as a direct result of the client's instruction, unless otherwise stated. The Privacy Act 1988 permits Credit Providers under section 11b of the act, to collect and record all necessary data "reasonably necessary for purchasing, funding or managing, or processing an application for, a loan". A record for the purposes of the Act, is defined as "a document; a database (however kept) or a photograph or other pictorial representation of a person" but does not include "generally available publications" which are further defined as "a magazine, book, newspaper or other publication (however published) that is or will be generally available to members of the public."
I've previously 'Googled' this particular intending borrower, which is something I do with almost all our applications as a part of my due diligence process. It's remarkable what turns up. The client's email address is public domain information, freely accessible on the internet and known to Google. That makes him fair game in my book, and clearly negates his precious claim that his email address is sacrosanct and we had no right to use it to contact him. I don't give a fuck whether, as the broker attempted to claim, he's from the 'old school' where all contact came & went through the broker, with the funder never directly contacting the borrower. Times change, and they most certainly have over the past 20-odd years. I know my legislation back-to-front. It's part and parcel of my doing what I do successfully.
The upshot being that I informed the broker that should his client wish to take legal action against us, or merely make a complaint to the Ombudsman, then I openly invited him to do so. Apparently the client wants retribution. My response? 'Revenge is a dish best served cold, and you know what, Alan? I'm feeling decidedly cool right about now. Bring it on!'
Just to prove a point, here's a pic of the offending precious applicant. His hobbies include Bushwalking, Four-Wheel Driving and Photography. Amusingly enough, if you care to peruse this URL, dear reader, you'll even discover that he has an email address. Imagine that, eh?
This is the basic difference between those on the 'right', and those on the 'left'. It's called denial. Denial of the real, the obvious and the truth. Illegal immigrants are those who are attempting to immigrate to this county by other than the anticipated and allowable means. The word immigration implies a sense of permanence. The implications of granting asylum to bona fide refugees makes no such implication. Those who are arriving in leaky Indonesian fishing boats are seeking asylum in this country. They are asylum seekers. Refugees from lives filled with terror, distress and persecution on the basis of their culture, political beliefs or religion. Asylum seekers also come to this country by aircraft, in fact as Malcolm Farr pointed out earlier this year, 95% of all asylum seekers arriving in this country seeking refuge from persecution, arrive by air.
So why then are those on the 'right' attempting to re-classify 5% of all asylum seekers as something which they clearly are not? The answer is simple. It suits the conservative mindset to consider anything which isn't of the norm, which isn't performing according to their standards, which offends their tender sensibilities because a situation or set of circumstances may be beyond their ability to accept or understand, as something to feared, loathed and spurned.
To further reinforce the reality of the asylum seeker situation which faces ALL developed countries, not only Australia, every single human being on the face of this planet has the right - not privilege, but RIGHT - to seek to escape cultural, religious or political persecution by seeking asylum from any country where they will be secure from that persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees decrees that this is so.
There is a word for this unreasoning fear of one's fellow human beings who aren't of the same culture, skin colour, political or religious belief. Xenophobia. The definition bears a frightening relation to another word, Bigotry. Further, it's impossible to end a piece like this without referencing another piece of terminology, which sadly is uniquely Australian, but applies perfectly to the Op-Ed which spurred me to write. Dog-Whistle Politics. It's something the 'right' are so very adept at.
Here's one for Bob the Beak. Apparently, according to Bob, Martian polar ice caps mirror the ebb & flo of seasonality which terran polar ice caps go through. Staggering, don't you think, just to make that postulation, based on absolutely no supported scientific evidence, in order to present a comparison between two highly diverse planetary bodies as an argument against the phenomenon we know as Climate Change.
I've since given Bob the Beak a long list of relevant differences between Mars & Earth, not the least of which being the difference in orbital year, size, mass, atmospheric make-up and distance from the Sun, yet I see again today he's picked up his cudgel after being belted over the scone with it, and is coming back for more. My gob is smacked. My gast has been flabbered. My a has been stounded.
Stick around, folks. This should get really interesting.
There are no 'clean coal' power plants in the US. Ken seems to think there are, because some greenie website he linked to (Yes!! Ken provided another link!) extols the virtues of clean coal. As you do, if you're a greenie.
Ken also tells me that if he stands on his tippy-toes, he can see a clean coal power plant. He's surely not seeing one in the good ol' US of A. Steven Chu says so and being the US Energy Secretary, he should know.
I wonder what lies Ken is going to came back with now. Be still, my beating heart, I can hardly wait.
Oh, and thank you to David Horton for tolerating having his blog carpet pissed on. That's why I thought I'd drag Kenny over here. Clearly, he wasn't about to stop pissing on David's blog carpet as long as the 'debate' was going on there.
Here's a perfect example of the bile and hatred which poisons American politics not being in the least understood by those who remain immune or at least untainted by ideology.
If a nine year old boy can see what's going on, why can't adults who ought to know better?
I don't write much here anymore, because I don't write much in my 'real' blog anymore. I don't seem to have the time for anything more than passing commentary when I do write, and it's hard enough keeping up to date with things that matter, let alone things which don't. Like the body politick of the United States of Yankmania.
I've never taken a real deep interest in US politics because to me it's a convoluted and inherently corrupted system, but it seems to suit them, so why should I bother? However, the eight tumultuous years of the Bush administration changed my mind on a lot of issues within that body, and steadily, I've paid more and more attention. I'll never be an avid observer because I frankly don't see a lot of future in doing so, but an educated interest makes me more informed than not.
A part of keeping myself informed involves understanding issues such as the Obama Health Reform plan, amongst others. I read links a friend of mine in Texas puts up on his facebook page, which are always informative. One of them recently led me back to Rosemead Herald and a chap called Timothy. He's a polite enough Republican, but at the end of the day, he's as blindsided by his ideological beliefs as any other American conservative I've ever engaged with. They're always right, rarely, if ever, wrong and simply dismiss the opinions of those not of their ilk as being 'liberal'. That's a rampant insult to an Australian social democrat such as myself, but a Yank isn't to know that. I ask myself why this attitude among conservatives is all too often the case, especially so among American conservatives. Then today, I came across this article on Shem's FB page. I wouldn't know Paul Krugman from Yogi Bear, but what he writes rings true to me.
I've heard and read that the American political system has become a poisoned cesspool of hatred and bile, and fail to understand why politicians and political surrogates seem to lose sight of just who they represent and why they are involved in what they're involved in. Just as the conservative parties in this country seem intent on making themselves the issue, as opposed to focussing on policy and what's right for the country & citizenry, so too do the conservatives in America appear hell bent on the destruction of that country's first ever black President, simply because of his race and politics combined. There seems to be a vitriolic undercurrent to opposition to anything Obama is involved with, from Health Care to touting for the Olympics. The emotions seem to go far beyond simple sour grapes at the loss of a fair and equitable election held 11 months ago, even to the point where - under the cover of freedom of expression, of course - seditious claims of fools like John L. Perry are overtly supported by extreme right-wing media websites which exist as shareholder owned public entities. Sure, freedom of speech is important, but is encouragement to a military overthrow of a democratically elected government simply because a minority don't like the man's skin colour and politics justified? I seriously think not.
The right, in general, have much to learn about themselves. It's clear the ideology is flawed and is not suited to a modern, industrialised world. The GFC is proof positive of that. Best the right engage in a little navel gazing, I believe, before attempting to engage in discussion on matter of genuine import to the global community. As an ideology, it's too dangerous to have on public display.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how well do you sing?
The musical scale I was taught only went to 8. Doh Ray Me Far So La Te Doh. I'd probably rank 'Far', seeing as there's no 'Lo' to go with the 'So'.
If you get it, drop a comment.
What's your favourite memory from the summer of '09?
Which bit? January-February, or the December yet to come?
