Endeesea

Race Plays A Part, No Doubts

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:06:27 +1000

There was an interesting conversation on Australia Talks this evening, discussing what commentators and callers thought about Barack Obama's achievements in his first 10 months in office. The theme of the conversation was aimed at Obama's election anniversay, which, frankly, I found just a little misguided.

In the hour I listened, I only heard one opinion claiming anything even remotely derogatory, which came from a caller in Queensland who claimed that Bush scored a harder gig than Obama with 9/11, and that he is yet to honour most of his promises. In my view, 9/11 is an event which any good leader will take in their stride, and be prepared for, especially an American leader, given the angst that many in the world hold for the USofA. Obama knew what he was about to inherit and hasn't shrunk from the tasks. He has had nothing but political and ideological opposition from day one and let's be honest....ten months??! What did George Bush achieve in ten months that benefited the majority of Americans? More to the point.....what does any new incumbent, of any ideological persuasion anywhere in the world achieve in their first ten months??? By the end of the first year though, it's strongly mooted that he'll have achieved some elements of health care reform, and that will be a momentous achievement for any President, be they male, female, black, white or brindle. No President has succeeded in providing a reformation to the US health care system in 65 years. Something to look forward to, from the perspective of interested social democrats.

And where does a lot of the angst, the bile, the overt and bitter hatred of the man - not the political position, but the man - stem from? The guest commentators all agreed that race, the colour of Barack Obama's skin, plays a goodly part. Some Americans, and it seems some conservative, fundamental so-called christians, just can't stand to have a black man at the helm. Sad, but true. More power to the man that he ignores such types as aberrations in an otherwise responsible society.

My opinion? It's far to early to form any opinions of the Obama administration. The signs look good. An engaging, multi-lateral foreign policy, more regulatory financial system legislation, better social policy approaches. Torture outlawed, Guantanamo Bay to close as a place of human misery, one war closed down, another under serious consideration for direction. More and better approaches in ten months than the immediate past administration in eight years.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Lick o' Paint

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:40:22 +1000

Westpac CEO, Gail Kelly, on Radio National Breakfast this morning made a big deal of Westpac's perceived push to employ several hundred bank managers in branches. We've all seen the adds on TV, where a motley bunch of people tell us they're in charge, they're Westpac, etcetera. It's all spin and I can tell you from personal experience, bank managers are not employed off the street. They are created, trained and schooled in the arts of people management, financial analysis, relationship building and marketing from within banks themselves. What Gail Kelly is doing is nothing more than what ANZ did three to four years ago, in employing front line sales people. It didn't work for ANZ and I don't see it working for Westpac. New public faces of the bank at grass roots level, except that those faces won't know B from Bull's Foot about listening to small to medium business owners, farmers, mum's and dad's and your common-or-garden average Joe in the street. They'll know bugger all about lending to cane farmers or corner store holders. They'll know bugger all about responding to moments of truth, where the proper, live-and-die-by-it decision needs to be made to suit a given situation, right then and right there.

I was a bank manager. I was trained by the NAB, or as it was in my day, the NBA. Pre-CBC takeover days. I joined as a 15 year old batch clerk and exited as a branch manager. The decisions I had to make were mine and mine alone. Lending, staff, marketing, budgetry, community-based and the ever-present customer complaint, live-and-die, moment-of-truth decisions. All mine. Will Gail Kelly's new recruits have the nous, let alone the ability and freedom to be real-life bank managers? I don't think so. They'll be veneer-thin sales people, with sales targets to meet and no real power at the coal face. Just a friendly looking face at the door to the manager's office door. Which means Westpac will have to be spending money on renovating branches. There are no branch manager's offices any more in banks.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

In the Beholder's Eye

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:57:48 +1000

These pics appeared in my Inbox today, subject: Dead Fly Art. All I could think of was that some people have far too much time on their hands.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Could Do Better....Should Stick To Reporting, Not Creating

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:35:24 +1000

More from the 'Liberal Party journalist of choice' soothsaying doom and gloom for the Rudd government.

Essentially, Milne is correct in his postulation that Kevin Rudd is not of the left faction of the Labor Party. Kevin Rudd is of the right faction, that much is public knowledge. That Rudd is a control freak is also public knowledge. Predictions of dire consequences for the Rudd government, and for Kevin Rudd's personal popularity poll figures, should the government decide to end the stand-off between asylum seekers aboard the Customs vessel, 'Oceanic Viking' are nothing more than anti-Labor journalistic rhetoric.

Labor is not as predictable as a political animal under the Rudd government as Milne entreats that it was under Beazley. That's why Beazley was shown the door and a harder line, less predictable, more controlling leader in Rudd was chosen. What Kim Beazley said or didn't say six years ago is entirely irrelevant to the current circumstances surrounding asylum seekers. Six years ago, the civil war in Sri Lanka wasn't ended with thousands of Tamils being held in concentration camps. Six years ago, Kim Beazley wasn't Prime Minister. Three years ago, to fit with the Milne spin timeline, the Sri Lankan government and seperatist elements had declared a truce and the current 'push' factors being experienced either didn't exist, or came from a different direction.

If there is a mistake made by the Rudd government over the asylum seeker issue, it comes down to believing that an accomodation could be reached with Indonesia as a quick-and-dirty political fix by paying that country to play the part of stop gap. In my estimation, that decision was poorly thoughtout politically. Indonesia is not a signatory to UNHCR edicts, and is not obliged to provide asylum to refugees from a legal standpoint. Morally, well, that's an entirely different issue. For the Australian government to even consider involving a non-signatory to UNHCR requirements, expecting to play under the same rules is naive at best.

The only viable solution from both political and humanitarian standpoints is to end the stand-off in Indonesia, re-direct Australian tax-payer funds to where they can be better spent on the issue, and have the 'Oceanic Viking' take is human cargo to Christmas Island forthwith. There, the standard security and health checks can be undertaken, thereby ensuring that the campaign of fear-and-loathing being generated by conservative elements in Australia is effectively nullified. From every boatload of 'human misery', as Milne entreats, some will be accepted as genuine refugees, some will be returned to their country of origin. That is the rational way of things. As a signatory to UNHCR edicts, Australia has an obligation and responsibility to people seeking asylum. That much of this issue is factual and inescapable. The solution to the problem lies not with Indonesia, but with Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq indeed, any of the world's trouble spots. This feckless fawning to Indonesia has to stop.

As for Milne's rhetoric, he's about as disingenuous as any in the Coalition when he trots out statements such as:

It's an issue that has, for the first time in his prime ministership also seen Rudd overreach. His attack on Wilson Tuckey's statement that boats of illegal entrants could contain terrorists was a case in point. Tuckey's remarks were a statement of the bleeding obvious. Especially given Rudd's explanation for the spike in arrivals is "push" factors: desperate people fleeing violent wars.

No basis in fact, unsubstantiated scare-mongering pandering to the dog-whistlers in society, which are thankfully small in number these days. In Milne's case, in mind also.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Blogosphere Etiquette

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:32:43 +1000

i have used sites that i go to and ones you liberals like, neither one seems to be ''proof'' i've used wiki,the world health org. and the new england journal of medicine,and newsmax,all of them could be called out for false facts[except of course wiki]short of going door to door its the best your going to get.....

Geezus-Fucking-Kee-Reighst, Kenny.......use the shift key!!!!!

You've been told in categoric terms why the so-called proof you provide is anything but. Your link to Dr. Alice Teil, supposedly stating that French health care was bankrupt, in order to claim that the US system isn't, is a prime example. Not only DID'NT Dr Teil make such a claim, the statement she did make was made in an entirely different context to that which you attempted to use it. Context, Ken......context!

Now, why am I addressing another Voxer here, on my blog? Very simply because I have already thanked Paul Murphy for the use of his comment box and for his address of Ken's poor attempts at intellectual engagement. As I stated there, I've retired from that discussion. I'm hardly likely to do what trolls do and go back, and back, and back ad infinitum, simply because another troll does the same. I'm a little more respectful of other people's blogspace than that.

So this entry is addressed to 'Ken', a conservative and ill-informed American Voxer with a predilection for blind belief in anything written, spoken, screened or otherwise broadcast by right-wing punditry, where-ever it more originate. Those of us who oppose his viewpoints - and isn't that everyone? - quite enjoy his attempts at engagement, and we are making progress with him. He is now performing rudimentary research into his claims, unfortunately AFTER he makes them and only when challenged, but at least he's trying. It's the role of all good bloggers to help the under-privileged in the 'sphere. That's why I persist with 'Ken'.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

No Place in Oz for Tricky Treats

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:06:28 +1000

As an individual and member of the global community, I have no particular like or dislike for members of any other nation on the planet, but regard them all as fellow citizens. I do have a problem with the all-pervasive Americanisation which creeps insidiously into Australian culture year by year. Yesterday this aspect of the American culture spreading its tendrils across the English speaking world came home to me very sharply. Yesterday was 31 October. In the Wheel of the Year which I am an infinitesimally tiny cog, where I live the day can be said to mark the beginning of 'light' part of the annual cycle. We're moving into Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Warm days, long, languid daylight hours and to me, a period of brighter outlooks, positivity and dare I say it, joy.

You see, I am one of millions across the world who feel the effect of the seasons within ourselves. Seasonal Affective Disorder is what psychologists have called it, but what is a 'disorder'? What is 'normal'? I've heard 'normal' defined as what you are, and no-one else is. An accurate definition for the human psyche, I believe.

The Wheel forms an integral part of who I am. I revel in this part of the calendar year because I know that another year, which has often brought more misery than pleasure, is coming to an end. I revel in the seasonal period from September through to March because of the longer days, warmer days, brighter days. Spring, Summer and early Autumn are good times. The world feels better, looks better and so do I, inside and outside. For neopagans, which I guess I could be classified as, if one must apply a label, today is Beltane. The beginning of the season of re-birth. The worlds returns to life. Bugs breed, plants flower. Crops are planted and one's own personal deities, if one believes in such things, are thanked for permitting the continuance of corporeal tenure for another season.

In the northern hemisphere, yesterday through until today - the cusp of the two days - is contemporarily known as Halloween. In actuality for Pagans it is the time of the Sabbat festival, Samhain (pronounced sau-ween). By the very nature of seasonality on this planet, Samhain is the opposite of Beltane. A time of introspection, review, thanking of the Pagan Gods for a (presumably) bountiful season past and wishes for a safe journey through the darker months of the year as the Wheel turns into Winter. In the Northern Hemisphere in many countries, Winter is a difficult time. Cold, dark, and reclusive and the climate bitterly hostile as the Sun retreats. The Pagan belief system runs much deeper than simple seasonality and I'm not about to go into that here. Suffice to say, Halloween, or All Hallows Eve from which the former is derived, is a time for those who are thankful to the Gods to also recognise that as those Gods retreat from the world, they make way for less positive possibilities. Samhain is a time when the veil which separates the corporeal from the ethereal is at it's most permeable. Samhain is traditionally the time for remembering the dead, their deeds, their gifts to the living and being aware that over the festival, the dead will be very close to the living for a brief period.

So, my focus in writing this entry is to critique, and cast disdain upon this westernised, commercialisation perversion of what is in reality a pagan religious festival, or at the very least a pagan festival of commemoration of those who are no longer corporeal, but ethereal, and use this part of the Wheel to pass across into the corporeal for a brief time to either observe, or pass on messages to those they left behind. Samhain has nothing whatever to do with 'trick-or-treat', witches with ugly faces, broomsticks, warts, frogs, goblins or werewolves. Nor does the occasion have to do with parties, late night revelry and keeping your neighbours awake. Commercialising Samhain is the same as the Roman Catholic Church assigning December 25 as the birth of it's deity. It demeans the real Pagan meaning of Samhain to have children dressing as ghouls, running up & down the street bludging off the grudging tolerance of adults who should know the origin of the occasion, but clearly don't. A prime example being a sign I saw tacked to a lamp post advertising a Halloween Sale when the intent was a garage sale. To me, that's simple ignorance. For retailers to encourage the commercial aspects, in Australia, of the American perversion of All Hallow's Eve is not only weirdly anti-cultural, but downright greedy in my view.

I wonder how the Roman Catholic Church would react to the sacrament host being sold as the ultimate dipping tool for guacamole at Easter?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Economic Pork

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:02:56 +1000

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?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Self-Evident Truths, or Blinkered Beliefs?

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:05:42 +1000

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Why I Hate What I Do, And The Small Pleasures In Doing It

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:45 +1000

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?

Mr Precious McDon'tcontactme

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Whistling the Political Dog

nobody@vox.com(Endeesea) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:29:43 +1000

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend