“He played his cards in a perfect game,
He mixed their feelings and made them lame,
He tainted their souls and brought them shame,
He caused them pain but never took the blame.”
Andrew Aballa, Live by the Sword Die By It
If a lot of “experts” are to be believed, the world is edging towards Global Financial Crisis part deux. Given that governments are looking at ways of tinkering and meddling once more, and the fact that their previous interventions didn’t actually fix things, I’d say there’s a good chance it will happen. This time I hope they get things right, this time they need to let the banks crash and burn.
what about people’s savings & mortgages?
I’m pretty sure there are plans to bail out the banks yet again – instead of pumping billions more in to prop up these organisations, use any bail out cash to compensate savings account holders. Assuming there are very few surviving financial institutes capable of picking up the consumer credit, wipe it all clean and let them keep the houses, cars or whatever else people bought with the credit.
so people get off scott free?
You can look at it that way, or you could look at it as a massive reset and rebalance of the system, which has become increasingly biased towards large, multinational banking organisations. It’s actually a chance to start afresh without the toxic burden of massive consumer debt, which is spiralling out of control.
Let the banks die, wipe out consumer debt and try again. A massive financial reboot.
Followers of the pseudo-science of economics will no doubt have a gazillion reasons to refute this – ultimately though the only real losers are the bankers currently making personal fortunes at the expense of everyone else.
So no real loss at all and it might just teach them a much-needed lesson.
“I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting”
From Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”
I’ve recently noticed a disturbing tendency within myself; actually liking someone who, theoretically, is “right-of-centre” in political terms. I am of course talking about the American Republican, Ron Paul.
When I first heard his name, it was in the context of being the so-called “godfather” of the Tea Party, a movement that always seemed to me, to be populated with those who worship at the altar of disturbing characters like Sarah Palin.
Yet with his recent time in the spotlight I found myself reading more and more about the guy, and finding that I can find very little to fault. While I do not necessarily agree with ALL his ideas, I have no issue on the main points relating to foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the fact that government should keep its nose out of most things!
left? right? what?
Reading about Ron Paul led me inevitably to take a closer look at the notion of “Libertarianism” – an apparent oxymoron that I have come to associate with ultra-conservative “blue rinse” types. I’ll admit that I hadn’t previously delved into this topic at all, so I was quite surprised to find lots of linkages and cross-references to anarchism. Now it all started to fall into place a little – while many (myself included) will use the “easy” label of “lefty” to describe me, my opinions and beliefs actually tend to fall more into the realm of true “anarchy”. Even here we need to be careful because the word “anarchy” has become incredibly loaded, misused and abused.
anarchy in the uk, usa, australia…
My personal interpretation of anarchy is quite simple really; it is anti-”nanny state”, anti-”police state” and based on a belief that we ought to be able to live our lives pretty much as we want to (without sacrificing compassion and without adopting a dog-eat-dog attitude).
To many others, the word conjures up images of chaos, violence, revolutionary acts and, for those who have moved into the realms of middle age, the punk movement in the late 70′s.
Now I do like punk music – in the latter half of the 80s I was in a (terrible) punk band. However the punk movement does not accurately represent “anarchy” as a political idea.
actually, forget the labels
One of the difficulties I have had over the years is to accurately describe myself in terms of established labels. I’m not a fan of labels personally, however they can be useful if you’re trying to get a point across to another person.
What I have found interesting about my liking of Ron Paul is the “journey” (don’t you just hate that word?) it has taken me on – just to give you a quick idea, check out this Wikipedia page on Libertarianism, or this one on Anarchism. These simple words (and seemingly simple concepts) are divided, sub-divided and then divided even further!
The number of “splinter groups”, spin-offs and so on is mind-boggling. The same situation exists for ANY political branch or ideology. THAT is what is completely screwed about politics and economics in general. We’ve complicated things, we’ve wound up with a “neat” label for everyone by creating one label for every individual!
So forget the labels, forget the -isms, the -ologies. Forget the factions, and whether a particular grouping has identical views to your own (they won’t, it’s impossible). Instead we should all look to doing, voting for, being and acting out what is within ourselves.
If that means voting for a “Tory” because he’s pro-equality, pro-cannabis-legalisation, anti-bullshit-war and pro-liberty, then so be it!
Of course for me it doesn’t matter much – in Australia (as in the UK) we’re still stuck with the clowns to the left and jokers to the right.
Where is OUR Ron Paul?
Of those who know me, there are probably two main groups; the first will maybe think of me as a bit of a lefty, may even be aware of my participation in marches and demos as a student, and won’t be at all suprised that I’m supportive of OWS. Another group (and there’s probably some crossover here) may wonder how I can reconcile OWS with my personal ambitions of building a business, improving my financial status and generally doing what many people suggest OWS activists should do – i.e. taking some personal reponsibility.
I can hardly expect anyone to understand how these things can co-exist; it is only relatively recently that I started to make sense of them myself. However, in finding the balance between these apparently opposing forces, I like to think that I may have something to offer others caught in a similar personal tug-of-war.
personal and social conscience
Being able to consider the wider picture, being unwilling to accept social injustice, and wanting a better, more equitable world is no bad thing. In fact I would say that such a view is wholly consistent with the concept of “civilisation” – it ought to be the distinguishing feature of the human species in the 21st century. Collectively we show encouraging signs of this from time to time, especially in the darker moments when natural or man-made disasters strike. Millions of dollars are raised very quickly, from the pockets of ordinary men and women, to address the needs of those who suffer due to flood, bushfire, earthquake and war.
At other times though, we humans show a remarkable ability to sink back to primal instincts, territorial behaviours, distrust or even hatred of anything “different”. It is at those times that we see that humankind still has a good deal of growing up to do, that we are not yet fully “evolved”.
For those who embrace the ideals of social justice, and a belief that we should create a better world, there are dangers. It is all too easy to become ensnared by Utopian idealism – to construct “solutions” that may be fantastic on paper, and completely impractical with no realistic hope of coming to fruition.
I too have been guilty at times of dreaming a little too much, yet in dreams there IS hope. So don’t let the so-called “realists” kill ALL those dreams, just ensure they are balanced and tempered with a healthy dose of realism.
ambition, self-improvement and personal wealth
There is nothing wrong with wanting to acquire greater personal wealth. At a more fundamental level there is clearly nothing wrong with wanting to have enough money/food/resources to live (as opposed to just about suriving – or even not surviving). In the so-called “first world”, each and every one of us has the potential to improve our own situation, and should not feel guilty about making an effort to do so.
The more people who rise to their personal aspirations, the more people there are who can potentially contribute to a more vibrant and prosperous world. With more people having wealth at their disposal, it is perhaps obvious that there is potential for “knock-on” benefits for the economies and fortunes of nations and the world at large.
However, these ideas also have their own dangers. When the “self improvement” ideology is taken to extremes it starts to look very much like a “survival of the fittest” situation. When people start to view personal responsibility as the ONLY tool in the box, they start to head down the path of selfishness. This pathway leads to a world where we write others off as “lazy”, where misfortune is seen as a symptom of someone not having taken enough responsibility for their life.
It leads to the type of world where billionaires are lauded, especially if they “started with nothing”, and those struggling to survive are driven into the dirt.
balancing the equation
They say that money makes the world go around, and in many ways I believe there are some fundamental truths to that idea. Money appears to provide motivation, oil the wheels of industry, and fuel innovation and development. A world without money could theoretically work, yet somehow I can’t see that happening in our current state of development as a species. Factories could wind up empty, sewage systems unmanaged, shops devoid of shop assistants and checkout staff…
At the same time, why should those in “lowly” jobs wind up struggling through life, not able to fully embrace the joy of living? Why should those who make vast fortunes, largely off the back of efforts made by their employees, be the only ones who can enjoy life to its full potential?
I believe that with great wealth comes greater moral and social responsibility; what, even, is the point of wealth accumulated by a relatively small number of people? There surely is a level of wealth beyond which it all becomes rather meaningless – I think Bill Gates has come to realise this, giving away large chunks of his fortune.
So yes, allow and encourage people to improve their lot, allow and encourage people to accumulate personal wealth – however we should not accept that huge chunks of our global society have existences where merely surviving another day is somehow a triumph.
In the “first world” economies education and health care should by now be free – yet the trend is to move away from this model, while increasingly vast sums of money are spent on conducting war. There should also have been significant improvements in the third world countries, yet we still see famine appeals, “sponsor a child” charity initiatives and so on.
“occupy” every street
So this is how I am able to have personal ambition AND support the OWS movement. We need to see the end of the cult of pure greed and replace it with a more socially just, better balanced approach whereby wealth is not viewed as a “bad thing” and yet it is not also seen as the ONLY thing that matters.
It is a world where bankers, factory workers, politicians, millionaires, media moguls and everyone in stops hating one another, stops despising, sneering, being jealous and all that other nonsense. A world, in fact, where we start pulling in the same direction, making sure that EVERYONE benefits from the advancements made and not just a few.
If I had to pick a favourite poem, this would be it. Sad to think how relevant it is almost 100 years later…
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! — An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, —
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Wilfred Owen – 1917
I never knew what a WAHM or a WAHP was until late last year – actually, more correctly, I wan't familiar with those terms. Home-based businesses are a reality of the new 21st century economy, and offer many benefits for individuals and society as whole.
In many ways, home-based businesses are nothing new, they are the old notion of "cottage industry" with a modern twist. Indeed, with so many hobby-based businesses around, it is almost a literal renaissance for cottage industry as we now see hundreds of work-at-home Mums sewing, creating, making and mending. The difference with the 21st century version is the way people are able to sell their services as well as hand-made or imported/drop-shipped goods.
Services like writing, book-keeping, graphical design, web site creation, baby sitting, child sleep/behaviour consultancy, personal fitness programs… the list goes on.
Not only are services now a highly marketable commodity, each and every one of us can reach out to a potential audience of millions, through the magic of the Internet.
Not so long ago, any thought of making money "online" was restricted to things like network marketing schemes, affiliate marketing of ebooks and so on. The Internet has now moved into a new era that blows this whole thing open to literally anyone.
These days it is very easy to create an online presence for yourself, and to put whatever it is you do/make in front of unprecedented numbers of potential customers. Do you enjoy knitting pullovers for kids, maybe sell them down at a local market? You can now take photos of them, upload them to a web site and make international sales without leaving the comfort of your armchair!
Thanks to the Internet, and the availability of simple, low cost systems, It is now possible to make a living from the thing that you love doing, whatever that is. The benefits to the individual in all this are fairly obvious; job satisfaction by the bucket load, the elusive dream of "work-life balance", flexibility and freedom. The benefits to society are more subtle, and will more likely be seen in the medium term as children benefit from having one or both parents at home more, families are better able to provide for themselves financially (easing social security burdens) and people are, quite simply, happier.
In fact I would go so far as to say that governments should offer significant incentives and/or tax-breaks for home-based business owners. The "Work-at-Home" model will provide a strong economic backbone in the coming years, of that I have no doubt.
What depresses me most about the WikiLeaks "scandal" is the fact that so many people seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves. Yes, there are undoubtedly some who finding ways to use the leaked information to prop up their pet conspiracy theories, however at the other end of the scale there's a scarily large number of people defending the right for governments and corporations to act like weasels.
Without calling for the complete collapse of what we know as "society" what, in all seriousness, is so wrong about the notion of "telling it like it is"? What is so great about two-faced, double-dealing diplomacy, and whose interests does it serve other than those who wish to wield yet more power?
Start thinking for yourselves people, and allow yourself to admit that there is a lot wrong with the way the world works. A constant cycle of conflicts and wars, money wasted on the military machine that would do far more good invested in the development and future of our species, and our planet.
On the whole, I believe that the ordinary citizens of all nations are concerned mostly with living their lives, doing whatever is required to go through life, raising families, and perhaps figuring out their place in the world. The power games played out by international corporations and governments holds no relevance to the majority of people, so why is so much effort, money and time expended on them?
All WikiLeaks has done is to provide evidence of what we all knew/suspected anyway; politicians and diplomats are double-dealing liars who should not be trusted. The aim of the game for politicians has little relevance to our everyday lives, it is more about riding the gravy train for as long as possible.
The problem is, many people see the world in simple black and white terms; either we piss about around the edges in the name of "diplomacy", or we go to war. This kind of simplistic thinking I could understand from a 3 year old child, however I expect fully grown adults to be a little more sophisticated and world-wise than this. Why not have frank and open discussion on the various issues, and let the people see and hear that process?
So, the entire world seems hell-bent on shutting down Julian Assange, the man who created the WikiLeaks website.
Let's get a few things straight – people who call him a terrorist need to go and buy another brain cell to keep the first one company
Right-wing idiots like Sarah Palin are calling for him to be executed – if this kind of rabid display by utter morons doesn't make you realise that people are stupid, then nothing will. In fact, you're probably one of the morons.
What's the big deal? Assange is posting details that prove what we all knew anyway – politicians live in an entirely different world to ours, make deals that people probably wouldn't agree with, and anyone who thinks that they are living in a democracy with genuine freedom has got rocks in their head.
I've got a radical idea – instead of wasting all this time and effort trying to take the WikiLeaks web site down, pinning bullshit charges ("sex by surprise", a Swedish offence of having unprotected sex, not rape or molestation as some continue to report.) and whinging that the US should tighten up security to avoid a repeat… instead of all that, and instead of making a bigger effort to stop us finding out what cretins we really have running our nations, why not put in the same amount of effort to learn how to not be cretins, to learn to play together nicely, and to stop starting wars that nobody wants and does nobody any good in the long term anyway.
Political "leaders" are worse than primary school kids – the whole bloody lot should have their heads banged together.
Keep up the good work Mr Assange – I have no idea what sort of person you really are, however what you are doing is superb – I'm hoping you've got some really juicy morsels yet to come. Or maybe you will get arrested and the real shockwaves will come after the full archive gets unleashed and people around the world protest at your incarceration. Either way, I sense something major coming in the future, and I've got the popcorn ready…
This week I are been mostly playing with rednecks.
It's all quite sad really – the Aussie government's decision to support a parliamentary motion on the issue of same-sex marriage has dragged all kinds of fundamentalist nutter out from under various stones.
It's all a bit medieval really, and not in a good "medieval re-enactment fun and frolics" kind of way…
Here's the PerthNow discussion - 266 comments and counting
It was reported today that Australia's immigration detention centres are close to full, and a new detention centre needs to be built. Already on news site articles, the same old comments and arguments have appeared in their hundreds.
"Send them back", "they're all criminals" and "queue-jumping illegal immigrants" are three of the most common phrases you will find.
It's not just here in Australia; the UK and USA, for example, have had their fair share of refugees and migrants of a political or economic nature, and it happens in many other countries as well. Predictably perhaps, the "send them back" type responses seem to crop up in those instances too.
What ARE borders though, and why do they mean so much to us as a species? Why do we even do it, when putting up such borders (including borders like the Berlin Wall) can lead to misery, resentment, inequality or even death?
Is it really so hard to imagine a world without borders? When I moved to Australia I had to fill in forms, get checked out by police, satisfy various criteria, and even prove that my marriage was genuine! Why should that be? Why shouldn't anyone be free to live anywhere they like on this planet?
If you consider the arguments that will be made against this, it becomes clear (to me at least) that the issues arising can all be handled without resorting to a kind of siege mentality. Any country could continue to control the influx of animals, food, seeds and so on that would be harmful to the local eco-system, law enforcement agencies would continue to cooperate globally to track down criminals and so it goes on.
For those who fear the erosion of "national identity" just look to the way people identify with the regions or towns they are from (here in Perth, for example, there's the whole "north of the river" versus "south of the river" rivalry).
No, all of those things are just excuses to keep the "status quo".
In Europe, citizens of EU member states now enjoy freedom of movement and trade between those countries. In all honesty I can't think of a single argument why this shouldn't happen globally.
Yes there is potential for a sudden influx of refugees in one country or another, however that would be minimised if all borders were to open up simultaneously. This is small picture thinking however!
Let's look at the bigger picture:
It would become practically impossible for a tyrant, or tyrannical regime, to set up as an absolute power. People would quite literally vote with their feet.
Economic downturns and financial hardship would be less likely to occur as people would be free to go anywhere their skills are needed. A truly mobile workforce.
No country would spend billions on managing a "refugee problem" because there would be no refugees, just people moving from one part of the globe to another, just as they might move from one part of town to another.
Wars – let's be honest, there will be conflicts between different groups for as long as the human race exists. A world without borders would not stop that, you just need to look at TV programmes like "Neighbours from Hell" to understand that fact! However, it is likely that such conflicts would be more localised, and certainly less devastating. The potential for a "world war" would be significantly reduced, as would other major international conflicts that we've seen far too many of in the last 2000 years.
Now I'm not so naive that I don't realise there would be practical issues to be resolved in such a world, however if our existing governments and leaders aren't capable of resolving those then we're in serious trouble anyway.
Just to get people /really/ pissed off with my ideas – go have a read of this interesting article on the subject of a world without borders. OK I admit that it's loaded with political dogma, however it is at least a different perspective to the one we're usually presented with, and such food for thought is always good for the mind and soul.
In all seriousness, what purpose do borders really serve, and why do we bother with them?
So after what seemed like months, Australia finally gets a minority Labour government, thanks to support of a Green and 3 indies. The inevitable hand-wringing of the right has begun in earnest already, however this now has the /potential/ to be one of the most progressive, well-balanced governments in history. With a left-of-centre alliance, counter-balanced with the need to carry through the support of Independents (who have a regional focus) we are likely to see a forward-thinking government who are forced to consider the whole country and not just those who live in the cities. With the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate, I think this could be a very interesting period in Australian history.
In any case, thank f&!k we don't have the Mad Monk banging on about the boats…
“He played his cards in a perfect game,
